Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!yale!think!snorkelwacker!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!boulder!ccncsu!ncr-fc!chuckp From: chuckp@ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.com (Chuck Phillips) Newsgroups: alt.cosuard Subject: Re: THOUGHT Message-ID: Date: 19 Jan 90 15:12:34 GMT References: <10208.25B33297@urchin.fidonet.org> Sender: news@ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.COM Organization: NCR Microelectronics, Ft. Collins, CO Lines: 17 In-reply-to: JEFF.WOODS@p6.f889.n106.z1.fidonet.org's message of 14 Jan 90 17:56:00 GMT In article <10208.25B33297@urchin.fidonet.org> JEFF.WOODS@p6.f889.n106.z1.fidonet.org (JEFF WOODS) writes: ]]LMS, if done properly, is about the sanest way to charge for service. ]]The rates need to be much lower than rates currently in use in many ]]parts of the country. This makes phone lines essentially free to those ]]who use them sparsely, and reasonable for those of us who tie them up ]I work as a telemarketing manager, and I can imagine that MANY upset ]people would call the literally thousands of firms that telemarket, too. ]That would literally put us out of business. I don't particularly favor LMS. However, if it keeps telephone solicitors from calling me while I sleep, then there's _one_ good argument for it. :-) (Sometimes I work odd hours.) Just my own personal opinion, Chuck Phillips --