Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!ucsd!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp!trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert Woodhead)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs
Message-ID: <15756@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 2 Jan 91 16:47:06 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.   Tokyo Japan
Lines: 11
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 4, Message 3 of 12


Seems to me like a Solomon-like "cut the baby in half" solution is in
order.  It is unreasonable for MB to demand deposits, as all of the
traffic on the modem lines is incoming (and they can be flagged for
local outgoing calls only, most likely).  At the same time, modem
lines attached to BBSes do consume significantly more resources than
the average residential line, thus the extra $50 a month (for sixteen
lines thats $3/line/month) is not unreasonable.


| Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   trebor@foretune.co.jp |