Univ. charging $100/mo./person for mainframe access

[tivol at tethys.ph.albany.edu]

In article <3j56g3$oc6 at gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
mathog at seqaxp.bio.caltech.edu writes:
>In article <3j0qqc$8rc at news.doit.wisc.edu>,
>Michael Kloth <mtkloth at students.wisc.edu> writes:
>>gold at astro.ocis.temple.edu (Bert Gold) wrote:
>>>
>>> One of the universities where I work has decided to charge $ 100 per
>>> person per month for mainframe access.
>
>This is very misleading.  They may not bill for direct usage, but they most
>definitely are charging someone, somewhere, for this facility.  Most likely
>it is supported by a combination of University overhead charges against 
>research grants and charges against students' tuition.

Since this is probably true at all sites, it seems very restrictive to charge
the user $100/person/month in addition for access to a necessary resource.
>
>Academic computer facility users have an annoying habit of assuming that
>[snip] there are no significant costs involved in providing these services.

Not those of us who use our internal computer facilities as well as those
silicon things.
>
>So, here is a short list of what your local computer support people do for 
>you:

That's why we pay them the big money.
>
>1.  Purchase, install and maintain the hardware that makes up your
>    local networks. 

With our grant money, in many cases.

>7.  (some sites) Computer hardware/software sales and support at prices
>    lower than general market rates.

Well, they *did* turn me on to "Computer Shopper"

>
>8.  Purchase, install, and maintain shared hardware. (Generally
>    Unix or VMS machines, but also sometimes PCs and Macs.)

Again, with our grant money.

>I've left a bunch of stuff off and been overly general in others.  Note
>also that a lot of the PC/Mac freeware/shareware was developed by the
>people who run these sorts of facilities! 

Yes, and I, for one am grateful.
>
>The bottom line:  equipment and services cost real money. 
>
True, but is that any reason for anyone to be greedy?  A previous post suggest-
ed that internet access was available from commercial companies for less, and
these companies do not get indirect costs from our grants.  You have a real
point that the benefits some of us get may not be fully appreciated, but there
is no reason (except that universities everywhere are in desperate need of $)
to try to gouge internet users.
				Yours,
				Bill Tivol