wnp@relay.eu.net (wolf paul) (01/12/90)
In TELECOM Digest Volume 10, Issue 16, John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> writes: > The question remains: Why should anyone have to pay more for telephone > service simply because they allow a modem to speak over the line? In the SWBT vs. COSUARD situation, that is not the question. SWBT argues that a BBS is a business not because it uses a modem, but because it advertises and offers a service. That the vast majority of BBSs are not making any profit, and are not charging for their service is immaterial -- after all, non-profit organizations like the Salvation Army also pay business rates. To illustrate their argument, they maintain that when a sysop imposes online time limits, but then gives time credit for uploads, that actually constitutes a business transaction. He accepts the upload as payment for increased online time. Needless to say, I don't share SWBT's opinion; however, even if business rates were imposed on BBS operators and users, telecommunications as a hobby would still be much more affordable in the US, and offer greater possibilities (even in GTE areas :-) than over here in Austria :-(. Wolf N. Paul, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe Phone: [43] (2236) 71521-465 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@cernvax.BITNET UUCP: uunet!tuvie!iiasa!wnp INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net
wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.fidonet.org (William Degnan) (01/13/90)
In an article of <12 Jan 90 08:56:12 GMT>, iiasa!wnp@relay.eu.net
(wolf paul) writes:
wp>To illustrate their argument, they maintain that when a sysop imposes
wp>online time limits, but then gives time credit for uploads, that
wp>actually constitutes a business transaction. He accepts the upload as
wp>payment for increased online time.
We have yet to test this principle. It has been suggested that we send
in floppies with shareware along with our Southwestern Bell bills --
marked "paid in full".
If SWB would accept this as full payment, they could charge whatever
they want and we would not complain. :)
Last I knew, they were willing to confine the definition to "requires
monitary compensation". Meaning you could take donations but you
couldn't require pay- for-play and still be classified as a residence
customer.
H o w e v e r ... they are still holding to the arbitrary one-line per
bbs/machine/whatever requirement. You apparently could have 99 machines as
long as they didn't share files with each other and if you couldn't do
interline chats.
One of the major objections to this is that SWB doesn't really
understand what they are trying to control and the only way they could
insure tariff compliance is to come "look". It could get bloody.
I feel that it is SWB's responsibilty to provide dial tone to the
network interface. They have no business looking around on the
customer side of it. They, considering their traditions, have a
somewhat different opinion.
Regards, Bill
Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock
William Degnan | wdegnan@mcimail.com !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
Communications Network Solutions | William.Degnan@telenet.com
P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766 | voice: 512 323-9383
UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan
ARPA: wdegnan@f39.n382.z1.FIDONET.ORG