Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!texbell!vector!attctc!pattye!sean
From: sean@pattye.lonestar.org (Sean McCollister)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Fcc Regs/Data Comm.
Summary: What AT&T "Affiliates"?
Keywords: Troubles in Texas
Message-ID: <347@pattye.lonestar.org>
Date: 6 Jan 90 11:15:55 GMT
References: <2417@ttardis.UUCP>
Organization: Home, Garland, TX
Lines: 20

In article <2417@ttardis.UUCP>, lfm@ttardis.UUCP (The Master -- ttardis SuperUser) writes:
 
> In late 1988 and early 1989, Texas AT&T affiliates attempted some "strong-arm"
> tactics with the local BBS's.  As a followup to the current "troubles", I
> am posting a shar file of the postings which concern AT&T attempts for
> interested users.

Pardon me?  "AT&T affiliates"?  "AT&T attempts"?  "Strong-arm tactics"?

In case you haven't noticed, Southwestern Bell (or any other Bell Operating
Company, for that matter) has not been an "AT&T affiliate" since 1/1/84.
AT&T has made no attempt to charge anyone a higher rate for their BBS
lines because AT&T is no longer in the business of providing anyone's
dial-tone.

Please check your facts before making such accusations in public.

-- 
Sean					Internet:  sean@pattye.lonestar.org
McCollister				UUCP:  {texbell,attctc}!pattye!sean