Xref: utzoo comp.misc:3941 alt.bbs:163
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!pacbell!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!milano!bigtex!james
From: james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Houston bbs's vs SW Bell - more
Message-ID: <9951@bigtex.cactus.org>
Date: 28 Oct 88 03:43:25 GMT
References: <4252@moray.UUCP> <1933@uokmax.UUCP> <3940@homxc.UUCP> <3945@homxc.UUCP> <8992@ihlpb.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Institute of Applied Cosmology, Austin TX
Lines: 24

In <8992@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, res@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt) wrote:

> The same sort of thing might be said of radio stations, particularly
> talk-show stations.  Anyone know what such stations pay for the special
> switching offices they use?

They will pay commercial rates in the state of Texas.

Has everyone forgotten that rates are *not* set by the phone company
deciding what constitutes a business, but instead by PUC rules stating
what class a phone falls in.  Whether or not the phone is "commercial"
in our meaning of the word isn't an issue: the issue is whether it
falls in a class defined in PUC tarriffs, known as "business".  For
example, churches might have to pay business rates depending on where
the phone is located in the church, strictly according to PUC rules.
The issue in question is whether SWBT is following the tarriff or not.

The issue of whether the caller or answering should pay for the cost
of the call is something to be taken up with the PUC.  I dread to
think of the results if any significant portion of cost were shifted
from caller to called: sales/nuisance calls galore!
-- 
James R. Van Artsdalen      james@bigtex.cactus.org      "Live Free or Die"
Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 338-8789       9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759