Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sco!davidbe
From: davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Cut off AT&T? (Was: The death of USENET)
Message-ID: <651@scovert.sco.COM>
Date: 17 Jun 88 15:49:25 GMT
References: <10373@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <27.UUL1.3#935@aocgl.UUCP>
Reply-To: davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.  (Scovert Operations)
Lines: 26

[Lots of things said in the referenced articles, and others about forcing    ]
[AT&T to pay individual sites for mail.  What they say exactly, really isn't ]
[important, so why waste the bandwith?					     ]

The problem with cutting Bell Labs off or forcing them to pay for the 
privilege to connect with your site probably isn't an issue for those people
suggesting it.  However, for those who do legitimate business with people
at Bell Labs, there's a problem in antagonizing "the powers that be" in that
it could potentially cause problems in communication, and a lack of 
productivity.  

If attmail is every bit as good as Bell Labs says it is (which I doubt, but
that's just because I'm cynical about advertising) then it's well worth the
extra cost.  AND, if attmail is as well connected as ihnp4 or uunet in terms
of uucp sites, then it might be worth it to be able to send telex's and 
normal mail in the same manner (anyone who's used EasyLink will confirm that
it's not).

Or, to put it mildly, quitcher whining, and go out into the real world.  :-)
-- 
David Bedno (aka The Cat in the Hat) Now appearing at: davidbe@sco.COM -OR-
...!{uunet,decvax!microsoft,ucbvax!ucscc}!sco!davidbe -OR- 
At home: 408-425-5266 At work: 408-425-7222 x5123 (I'm probably here...)
Disclaimer:  Not SCO's opinions.  At least not that they've told me.

"...think of thermonuclear fusion, our mighty but mischevious friend."