Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: wd4oqc@kd4nc.UUCP (John DeArmond) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Common Carriage (was Re: Why DA Costs etc.) Message-ID: Date: 13 Sep 89 10:18:03 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: KD4NC HAM Packet Radio Gateway Lines: 22 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 373, message 6 of 11 nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) writes: >A "business", yes. A *particular* business, no. The phone companies >could get away with charging businesses $5 a pop for DA and providing it >to residences free of charge -- but they couldn't get away with >providing it free of charge to anyone except this telemarketing company Actually, they could very easily charge telemarketers or any other phone abusers by simplying classifying the group appropriately. It's the same logic used in some areas to charge amateur radio phone patches commercial rates. They simply lump the ham club in with other small businesses. Another example is how 976- numbers are currently being treated. I personally hate to see 976- service as a class disparraged by a few low-rent operators but that's what's happened. Even if the courts were to overrule a classification based on current law or regulation, it would be easy enough to change the offending law given enough public will. John