Ken Levitt <levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org> (01/01/90)
The following article is being reposted from the FidoNet Law echo. I did not
write it, please don't respond to me about it.
============================================================================
Date: 12-18-89 (18:19)
To: ALL
From: ED HOPPER
Subj: PROGRESS REPORT
Progress report on status of negotiations:
On December 8th, the period in which the Texas BBS case (Texas PUC
#8387) was held in abeyance for the purpose of negotiation expired.
Shortly thereafter, conversations between the petitioner group and
Southwestern Bell resumed. We (the COSUARD board) have been advised
that an agreement on the issue of compensation may be possible.
Southwestern Bell has indicated a willingness to agree that residence
rates apply to BBS systems that do not *REQUIRE MONETARY
COMPENSATION*. (Please note those three critical words).
Southwestern Bell continues to insist that BBS operations be limited
to one line. (I should state that there is confusion and inconsistency
on the question of whether or not "separate" BBSs could be co-located
in the same home. Southwestern Bell's responses on that issue in the
past have been poorly phrased and difficult to relate to real world
BBS operations).
Last Thursday (December 14), the COSUARD board met to consider the
latest statements from Southwestern Bell. While we were encouraged and
pleased to see the new position regarding compensation, we continue to
be troubled by the complete insistence on one line. A single line was
not one of the considerations first raised by Southwestern Bell when
this issue was first raised in October 1988. Since it first surfaced,
in the spring of 1989, Southwestern Bell has never provided a
justification for this position other than statements that BBSs using
over one telephone line "seem like a business".
Southwestern Bell will not force other residential customers to
business rates based upon the number of telephone lines installed in
the home. In fact, Southwestern Bell is currently engaged in a
marketing effort to sell additional phone lines to residential
customers. This is supported by television and radio advertising.
As president of COSUARD, I am greatly concerned about the inequity of
the basic "one-line per BBS" proposition put forth by Southwestern
Bell. I am also very much aware that certain types of BBS systems
("Chat" boards and UNIX based systems, among others) virtually require
more than one phone line to operate properly. These systems are a part
of our BBS nation and are deserving of the solidarity and support of
all.
All of the officers of COSUARD seek your input on this issue. Should
we continue to stand firm on the one line issue? Should we accept some
other limitation or should we insist on treatment that is equal to
that received by other residential customers?
Member and non-member, in Texas or the rest of the world, we want to
hear your views.
Sincerely, Ed Hopper, President
COSUARD-The Coalition of Sysops and Users Against Rate Discrimination
RNet 1.02R: COSUARDNet:Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Tx - 713-782-5454
Origin: Ed Hopper's BBS (PCBoard 1:106/889.6)
============================ End of FidoNet Message =======================
Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu