Xref: utzoo comp.misc:3962 alt.bbs:175
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!uunet!nuchat!steve
From: steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Houston bbs's vs SW Bell - more
Message-ID: <2642@nuchat.UUCP>
Date: 30 Oct 88 14:49:06 GMT
References: <2393@turnkey.TCC.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Public Access - Houston, Tx
Lines: 38

From article <2393@turnkey.TCC.COM>, by sandy@turnkey.TCC.COM (Sanford 'Sandy' Zelkovitz):
> In article <8992@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, res@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt) writes:
>> In article <3945@homxc.UUCP>, marty@homxc.UUCP (M.B.BRILLIANT) writes:
>> > In article <3940@homxc.UUCP>, halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE) writes:

> Boy, this sure sounds like a sales pitch by AT&T. The first thing that
> 
> The only real bargin that is being made is by AT&T! If BBSs were to be

We all have this problem, saying "AT&T" whenever we are talking about
phones is as natural as asking for a Kleenex or a Coke.  And just as wrong.

This fight is with Southwestern Bell, a *former* AT&T subsidiary and now
a very healthy independent monopoly with no official ties to momma.  The
rate interpretation in question has nothing whatsoever to do with AT&T.
The long distance rates are identical for business and residential customers
so AT&T is completely uninvolved.

There a many issues here, and it takes some effort to keep them straight,
but keeping them straight is our only hope.

By the way, much has been made about the relative cost of BBS and other
hobbiest lines versus "normal" residential lines in these discussions.
It is interesting to note that cost is *not* the justification being
offered by SWB -- their position seems to be based more on consistency.
In other words, they are trying to apply business rates so that businesses
won't have a selective enforcement case.

A further refutation to the cost argument which may already have been
aired is that the switch usage is typically greatest at night while
overall switch usage is highest during business hours.  The switch
doesn't have to go home and sleep, so I can't see how we're costing
them anything extra there.

-- 
Steve Nuchia	    | [...] but the machine would probably be allowed no mercy.
uunet!nuchat!steve  | In other words then, if a machine is expected to be
(713) 334 6720	    | infallible, it cannot be intelligent.  - Alan Turing, 1947