Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!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 Sysops / SWB Reach Compromise
Message-ID: <16254@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 91 22:30:20 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 22
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 44, Message 1 of 11


> To me, it seems like a reasonable solution and should satisfy most
> sysops who -- as it has been pointed out here many times -- are
> basically trying to combine their hobby with public service to their
> community.

I hope not. That BBS you said in response to my last message sounded
like it should not be put under business rates does *not* qualify for
residential rates under the compromise simply because it is running
more than three lines. A criterion, by the way, that has nothing to do
with cost recovery (in fact the more lines the more income for the
phone company) or anything else you have been saying should qualify a
BBS as a business.

While this isn't something that has been "left unsaid" (I've said it
before), I think it needs to be brought up at this time. The only
reason for the multi-line restriction is to keep multi-line BBSes down
so that there is less competition for Southwestern Bell's favored
Videotel services.


peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com