Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: BBS Decision in Texas
Message-ID: <16066@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 14 Jan 91 22:38:00 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Lines: 35
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 38, Message 3 of 6


Let's compare this with our esteemed Moderator's conecpts of what
constitutes a "business":

> Systems ("BBS") that are located at residence locations that do not
> solicit, require, or receive monetary compensation

So far, so good. Pat has made this point in the past.

> and that use three or fewer local exchange access lines

Whoops. Oh well, 1 out of 2 ain't bad.

> at residential rates may publish their name, telephone number and
> technical information in a listing of BBSs by location or subject
> matter.

Oops, make that 1 out of 3.

> This has been a long fight.  The settlement is not what any of the
> parties would consider perfect.

Definitely. COSUARD caved in under pressure, it seems, rather than
stand up for reasonable restrictions. The rules that came out of this
are purely ad-hoc and while they cover the majority of current BBSes
they provide absolutely no basis for future developments simply
because they are grounded in expediency instead of logical resoning
from first principles.

In passing, and at the risk of being overly political, this is typical
of bureaucratic regulations passed at the urgings of special interest
groups, no matter how well-intended.


peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com