mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (10/20/83)
Does the OK tariff also apply in Texas? Can anyone tell how the tariff defines "modem"? Is it in terms of the protocol, the functionality, the frequencies transmitted, or left undefined? I can picture a computer emulating 212 protocol not being considered a "modem" because it's a "computer". I think it's pretty clear that there is a big demand for an unlimited class of service, and we modem users are one of the groups who make up that demand. Until TPC offers us a reasonable alternative (e.g. direct digital service) I don't think they have any moral right to try to force us to give up our modems.
andree@uokvax.UUCP (10/25/83)
#R:cbosgd:-45500:uokvax:2000002:000:820 uokvax!andree Oct 22 16:47:00 1983 First, and most importantly, the OK tarriff is now off. The person who raised most of the fuss (Robert Braver) wasn't being charged for `modem use' when the FBI came and took his computer away. According to him, SWB told him and several national magazines that they weren't going to be charging special rates to home modem users in the future. This is probably due to them getting metered rates in the last tarriff. For mark's information, the tarriff didn't actually say anything about `modems' per se. It reffered to things with `computing' capability, or `store and forward' capability. Since the people involved were all using pc's to talk to their modem, and having a direct-connect modem was part of the deal, it naturally got translated to the `Oklahoma Modem Users Group' when we organized to fight it. <mike