Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!ucsd!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: peterm@rwing.uucp (Peter Marshall)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs
Message-ID: <15757@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 1 Jan 91 00:32:46 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 29
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 4 of 12


Re: Ed Hopper's 12/31 post in V11,#1:

As seems unfortunately to be the case with a number of such posts, the
lack of relevant information doesn't exactly seem to facilitate the
purpose of such communications. Witness, for one other recent example,
posts re: GTE and Indiana BBSs.

In the current case, no case number or title is supplied; the issues
presented for hearing are not specifically identified. Nor is the
relevant tariff identified or the relevant tariff language cited.

On the other hand, as is frequently the case with such posts, claims
are nonetheless made about the significance of the case, etc.

Pat's comments do well in providing some other kinds of "corrective"
information here re: bus. rates for NPOs, but do not reach the broader
question of whether there's valid justification for some of the
alleged cost-based distinctions for bus-res rate differentials.

Suggest that if Ed et al are serious they do a second cut at this and
fill in some of the blanks noted, as simply stuffing a hearing room
with sysops and users doesn't seem particularly promising by itself.
To put it a little differently, if you have decided to play on the PUC
field, then play effectively; otherwise, it may be preferable not to
play at all.


Peter Marshall