Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Michigan Bell vs BBSs
Message-ID: <15872@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 7 Jan 91 03:53:49 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575
Lines: 33
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 14, Message 6 of 7


peterm@rwing.uucp (Peter Marshall) writes:

> 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.
    ...
> 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.

Please note that I was forwarding a message from Bruce Wilson.  *I*
did *NOT* compose the message (with the exception of my personal
comments at the end).  I agree that there is a fairly common
chicken-little phenomenom in these cases.  Amateur lawyering abounds
and lapses in logic are common.

The docket in Texas is 8387.  We expect a final hearing and settlement
in a few days at which time I will post a summary of the activity.
That post will also more clearly discuss the issues that I briefly
touched upon in the testimony I gave in the PUC hearing.


Ed Hopper

 BBS: 713-997-7575  ehopper@attmail.com  ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com