Re; Timed local calls
Wed, 26 Mar 1997 02:52:54 -0700 (MST)
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997, Stewart Fist wrote:
> The point is that the amendment (which called for an untimed option for
> both business and residential, voice and data) was not passed, so the bill
> passed as it stood, which provided for mandatory "timed business data
To reiterate a point of a few weeks back:
"business data calls" might be interpreted to apply to any
tramnsmission running through an ISP, and so apply to all data
transmissions, whether originating from a residential or business line.
> I doubt very much whether they will now move ahead on the Timed
> Receive-Only calls option. This would be political suicide for the
> government, and so they wouldn't allow Telstra to try this on.
> Stewart Fist
"Political suicide"? That rather depends on the electoral
made by party strategists: they may well decide that the financial
benefits to the treasury of a Telstra sale would outweigh an "inevitable"
move to timed calls, in the minds of the masses.
Up here, the government-owned telephone company was privatised after
a money-losing cellular telephone manufacturing enterprise was hived off
(with a loss of $500,000,000 Can), and the electorate did not remember it
come election time. It wasn't even an issue. The neo-conservative
strategists in power here and in Oz (and those formerly in power in N.Z.)
are in close contact, so I am sure that this sheep-like behaviour has not
gone unnoticed. Besides that, Australia is full of sheep, and many are
required by law to vote, I hear.
. . . daryl . . .
Lost in c'Space . . .