Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: SWB vrs. BBS Operators: An Update Message-ID: Date: 16 Mar 89 23:55:11 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Reply-To: scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman) Organization: Digital Transmission Systems (a subsidiary of DCA), Duluth, GA Lines: 22 Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 98, message 5 of 6 In article judy@moray.uucp (Judy Scheltema) writes: > . . . explanation of the war with SouthWest Bell and Oklahoma City BBS > users deleted... >The latest news I heard from one of the leaders of this new user group was >that some major big-wig of SWB and AT&T just flew into OKC in an uproar >about the actions taken by SWB here so far. Apparently, they do not like >what the local executives are doing. More to be seen on this soon. >In addition, he told me that the lawyers who have agreed to help us are >investigating an incident out in California about this. Right now, that >is all I know. I am just curious in one point (I do support the BBS users/sysops/etc. even though I do not call/use/run them): How can AT&T get involved? Since the breakup I assume SWB is on its own (governed by Public Service Commissions and their Regional Bell Operating Co.) and I do not understand where AT&T fits in? -- scott barman {gatech, emory}!dtscp1!scott