judy@moray.UUCP (Judy Scheltema) (10/25/88)
The following is the text of an article that appeared in the Houston Post
editorial pages on October 22, 1988. The reporter who wrote this will be
attending the meeting scheduled for October 27, 1988 at the Grand Hotel
at noon to cover further developments. Approximately 150 sysops and users
have RSVP'ed as of this writing, so it should be a good turnout and just
perhaps get Ma Bell's attention. If anyone can make this meeting who has
not signed up, please contact Sandy at 713-961-7800 to confirm your presence.
We should have representatives from both newspapers and a couple of
tv stations there to spread the word on what the phone company is attempting
to do.
P. S. Sorry I had to change groups. I originally posted the first articles
with a distribution of us in comp.dcom.telecom, but discovered it was
moderated and wanted to get this information out on the net promptly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAN SOUTHWESTERN BELL TRULY JUSTIFY THIS RATE HIKE?
by
Thomas J.L. Bronsberg-Adas
Recently, Southwestern Bell began raising the telephone rates
of computer bulletin board systems (BBSs). The rates are being
raised from $13.35 (the residential rate) to $32.85 (the
commercial/business rate). This increase is an increase of over
240%! I feel (as do most computer users) that this increase in
not warranted, nor justified.
Before I go into those details, allow me to explain what a
BBS is...
A Bulletin Board System (BBS) is a program that runs on a
computer and allows people to leave messages and read messages
left by others. The use of this program involves the utilization
of a computer system, a modem (a device used for communication
between two computers over the phone lines) and a separate phone
line (so as to not tie up the family's line). The person that
owns the computer and operates the BBS is called a SYStem OPerator
(SYSOP).
In the Houston area, it is estimated there are upwards of
1,000 BBSs. The sysops of many of these boards are high school
and college students. The vast majority of them are just computer
hobbyists; working their regular jobs and coming home to enjoy a
hobby.
The cost of setting up one of these BBSs is not a small one.
The average cost of computer, hard disk drives, software programs
and modem can run into the thousands of dollars. To a student,
that may mean not getting a car, or even a stereo. To a working
sysop, it may mean that the family will not be taking a vacation
for a while.
Also, to the students (especially the high school students),
running a BBS is a learning experience. By running the BBS, the
student learns responsibility, communication skills and inter-
personal relationships (in the sociological sense). It also gives
the students a purpose to their life, rather than roaming the
streets and getting involved with drugs and/or
violence. Southwestern Bell's attempt to charge BBSs commercial
rates will just add another brick in the wall that sways teens to
drugs.
According to my dictionary, commercial means..."made, done,
or operating primarily for profit." Of all of the boards that I
frequent, not one has been operated for profit. In reality, they
are all running at a loss. After all, the sysops have paid for
all of their computer equipment and are also paying for two phone
lines into their homes (or their parents are). How can this be
construed as being a commercial venture?
Southwestern Bell charges churches, governments, charities
and other non-profit organizations commercial rates for their
phone service, but that is dictated by state regulations. These
ventures also receive monies from various sources, such as taxes,
donations, solicitations and grants. So, they can afford to pay
the commercial rates.
Computer BBSs are not and have never been mentioned in these
regulations. But, Southwestern Bell is not stopping at this.
They are also charging amateur "ham" radio operators the
commercial rate, if these 'hams' patch radio messages to the
telephone line.
Amateur radio operators are the ones that are usually the
only link with the world for areas suffering disasters, such as
earthquakes and hurricanes. They also help distant missionaries
in remote locations that do not have any phone services (such as
the South American jungles). The FCC regulations strictly forbids
any commercial traffic over the frequencies alloted amateur
operators. How can Southwestern Bell claim something is
commercial, when the federal government strictly bans such
activity? Is Southwestern Bell's power greater than the federal
government?
BBSs and amateur radio operators are not covered by the
regulations that apply to commercial rates. Also, even if they
were, Southwestern Bell did not allow the sysops and "hams" to
file comments with the PUC before putting this action into
effect.
If the Public Utilities Commission allows Southwestern Bell
to charge these unwarranted rates, they will be giving a free hand
to 'baby' Bell to change their rates anytime they want, for any
reason they want.
By strange coincidence, Nynex (another of the baby Bells) is
about to introduce a for-profit BBS. Could it be that this
unwarranted rate classification is an attempt to squash any
possible competition? After all, would you rather contact a free
BBS or one that charges you by the minute?
I believe that this may be the beginnings of a conspiracy by
the Bell systems around the country to destroy an established
nation-wide hobby, so that they may introduce their own commercial
venture into this field.
If they are not stopped now, they may next charge you the
commercial rate for having an answering machine in your home. Or
even charging you the commercial rate because you MAY call a
business from your house.
Copyright 1988 HEART ATTACK PRODUCTS
10901 Meadowglen 142
Houston, TX 77042
(713) 785-3487
--
Judy Scheltema | uunet!nuchat!moray!judy
Houston, Texas | bellcore!texbell!moray!judyruss@uokmax.UUCP (Russ "Random" Smith) (10/26/88)
[In <4252@moray.UUCP>, judy@moray.UUCP said:]
->The following is the text of an article that appeared in the Houston Post
->editorial pages on October 22, 1988. The reporter who wrote this will be
->attending the meeting scheduled for October 27, 1988 at the Grand Hotel
->at noon to cover further developments. Approximately 150 sysops and users
->have RSVP'ed as of this writing, so it should be a good turnout and just
->perhaps get Ma Bell's attention. If anyone can make this meeting who has
->not signed up, please contact Sandy at 713-961-7800 to confirm your presence.
->We should have representatives from both newspapers and a couple of
->tv stations there to spread the word on what the phone company is attempting
->to do.
->
->P. S. Sorry I had to change groups. I originally posted the first articles
->with a distribution of us in comp.dcom.telecom, but discovered it was
->moderated and wanted to get this information out on the net promptly.
->
->
->-------------------------------------------------------------------------
->
->
-> CAN SOUTHWESTERN BELL TRULY JUSTIFY THIS RATE HIKE?
-> by
-> Thomas J.L. Bronsberg-Adas
->
-> Recently, Southwestern Bell began raising the telephone rates
->of computer bulletin board systems (BBSs). The rates are being
->raised from $13.35 (the residential rate) to $32.85 (the
->commercial/business rate). This increase is an increase of over
->240%! I feel (as do most computer users) that this increase in
->not warranted, nor justified.
->
Something similar to this happened in either '82 or '83 in the Oklahoma
City area. A young (well, at the time) fellow named Robert Braver built up
a suit against Bell. Bell eventually gave up (hurrah for the good guys!)
Hope this one turns out the same way.
All my friends and I are crazy.
That's the only thing that keeps us
sane.
--
Russ "Random" Smith
!texsun!uokmax!russ ___________________________________ .------- .-----------
GEnie : R.SMITH101 |"If Reagan is the answer, it must| |-- `---.
Oklahoma University |have been a VERY silly question."| `---CLIPSE----'OFTWAREelg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (10/26/88)
in article <4252@moray.UUCP>, judy@moray.UUCP (Judy Scheltema) says:
$ The following is the text of an article that appeared in the Houston Post
$ editorial pages on October 22, 1988. The reporter who wrote this will be
$ attending the meeting scheduled for October 27, 1988 at the Grand Hotel
$ at noon to cover further developments. Approximately 150 sysops and users
$ have RSVP'ed as of this writing, so it should be a good turnout and just
$ perhaps get Ma Bell's attention. If anyone can make this meeting who has
$ not signed up, please contact Sandy at 713-961-7800 to confirm your presence.
$ We should have representatives from both newspapers and a couple of
$ tv stations there to spread the word on what the phone company is attempting
$ to do.
Unfortunately, I cannot make it out to Houston for the 27th (a
Thursday), and I doubt the Texas PUC would care what a Louisiana
citizen said. However, if the Houston sysops decide to pursue legal
action in this case, please post... let's see if we can get a legal
fund together from USENET and BBS systems. I suspect that we (the
sysops) may be able to get together quite a booty indeed... especially
if current "free" BBS's band together to ask a $5 one-time fee of
their users, for legal defense purposes.
$ Copyright 1988 HEART ATTACK PRODUCTS
$ 10901 Meadowglen 142
$ Houston, TX 77042
$ (713) 785-3487
Let us know more as it happens. I remember that the phone company in
Oklahoma tried the same thing and got shouted down by their public
utilities commission... and I live in constant terror that South
Central Bell will try the same thing in Louisiana, where there is no
large mass of sysops to raise bloody hell.
--
Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg
Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509
It's understandable that Mike Dukakis thinks he can walk on water.
He's used to walking on Boston harbor.halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE) (10/26/88)
In article <1933@uokmax.UUCP>, russ@uokmax.UUCP (Russ "Random" Smith) writes: > -> CAN SOUTHWESTERN BELL TRULY JUSTIFY THIS RATE HIKE? < -> by > -> Thomas J.L. Bronsberg-Adas < -> > -> Recently, Southwestern Bell began raising the telephone rates < ->of computer bulletin board systems (BBSs). The rates are being > ->raised from $13.35 (the residential rate) to $32.85 (the < ->commercial/business rate). This increase is an increase of over > ->240%! I feel (as do most computer users) that this increase in < ->not warranted, nor justified. > -> < Something similar to this happened in either '82 or '83 in the Oklahoma > City area. A young (well, at the time) fellow named Robert Braver built up < a suit against Bell. Bell eventually gave up (hurrah for the good guys!) > < Hope this one turns out the same way. And I hope it does not. SWBell is really only doing what it must. Why do you think they charge more for "commercial" lines than residential? Not because of ability to pay, but because those lines cost more to provide than residential lines. The cost of providing a line is significantly affected by the amount of use the line gets, both incoming and outgoing. Business line usage is typically several times more than residential lines (based on minutes of use during the peak hour, e.g.). Of course there are exceptions here and there, but by and large the business lines are much more costly to the phone company. As far as pattern of use, BBSs are much closer to business use than to residential use. Let me offer an alternative. How about if all lines are charged based on the amount of time the line is busy, i.e. you get billed during incoming and outgoing calls, but not when the phone is on hook. How would you feel then? Now residential rates will probably not be affected much, most business lines would stay the same or drop slightly, and BBS lines would skyrocket. Also, any lines used at home with a modem would probably go up. Is that really what you want? That's the way you should be charged for the lines. Of course you could let the BBSs be charged residential rates, but then ALL residential rates would have to be raised. (The phone company is not a government agency; it too has to make a profit. And it is not allowed to make a very big one.) What, don't raise residential rates? Then raise business rates. But then the businesses raise their prices, costing you more, and they find a cheaper way to have phone service by bypassing the phone company. Now the phone company has a smaller base, so all rates again go up, only now more so. I could go on, but I've made my point. I see nothing unfair about what the phone company is trying to do, and in fact they are giving the BBSs a break by not doing what they really ought to do if they were able. (Side issue. The reporter who wrote the original article cannot be called a reporter in any real sense of the word. He editorialized unmercifully, and made a number of unfounded and totally off-the-wall insinuations. Yellow journalism at its best.) J. C. Halle
steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia) (10/26/88)
From article <5898@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green): > sysops) may be able to get together quite a booty indeed... especially > if current "free" BBS's band together to ask a $5 one-time fee of > their users, for legal defense purposes. From what we've seen it would be a mistake for a free board to jeapordize its hobby status by asking for *anything*, and especially by accepting money, even for this purpose. It would not be inappropriate to suggest that sysops and users send donations (check, no cash) to COSUARD directly. As the following press release indicates, we *may* have won this battle, but there is a long war ahead. We have already expended money for room reservation, printing costs, and filing fees. We intend to organize on an ongoing basis to negotiate with carriers and lobby for the interests of data communications hobbiest. Donations are still needed and will be put to good use. We do not yet have a dedicated postal address, send it to COSUARD C/O Steve Nuchia POB 890952 Houston, Tx, 77289 Make the check payable to COSUARD, not me. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 26, 1988 From:COSUARD(Coalition of Sysops and Users Against Rate Discrimination) Contacts: Susan E. King, Sysop, Kingdom Productions BBS Voice 526-2331 BBS 630-0553 Reginald Hirsch, Attorney, Voice 961-7800 RE: Southwestern Bell and Re-interpretaion of Existing Tariff An informal letter was received by FAX yesterday at the office of Reginald Hirsch from Southwestern Bell. The letter from Spokesman Ken Brasel indicated a reversal of Southwestern Bell's re-classification policy of Houston area BBS's (Bulletin Board Systems). Mr. Brasel stated "Southwestern Bell as of this date has stopped converting customers who operate computer bulletin boards from the residential to the business rate. Further, any non-commercial bulletin board operators who have been converted to the business rate will be contacted by Southwestern Bell and changed back to the residential rate at no charge. We will make a contact with the Public Utility Commission staff in Austin to inform it of this change." As of 4:30 p.m. yesterday afternoon in a phone conversation with the PUC, no written comfirmation had yet been received. Notwithstanding, COSUARD through its legal representative, Reginald Hirsch, has filed a formal written complaint with the PUC. The Thursday meeting, October 27, 1988 at 12:00 Noon at the Grand Hotel,2525 W. Loop South will take place. Although Southwestern Bell has indicated a policy reversal at this time they do intend to apply business rates to certain BBS's. A formalized resolution must be submitted to the PUC and definitions such as "non-commercial" will need clarification. COSUARD will make a formal statement and policy direction at this meeting. At the request of Southwestern Bell a meeting has been set for Friday,October 29, 1988 at 3:00 p.m. The pressure that has been exerted on Southwestern Bell over the last several weeks on its "re-interpretation" of the current tariff has drawn widespread attention of the Sysop and User community throughout the country. This is only indicative of the interest for preservation of a hobby that has a profound network not only throughout this country but throughout the world. Other contacts for information: Merrilyn Vaughn - OPUS/FIDO Net 106 Coordinator 686-2730 Justin Marquez - OPUS/FIDO Region 19 Coordinator 987-3500 Ed Hopper - PCBOARD Sysop 968-5267 - -- Judy Scheltema | uunet!nuchat!moray!judy Houston, Texas | bellcore!texbell!moray!judy -- Steve Nuchia | [...] but the machine would probably be allowed no mercy. uunet!nuchat!steve | In other words then, if a machine is expected to be (713) 334 6720 | infallible, it cannot be intelligent. - Alan Turing, 1947
marty@homxc.UUCP (M.B.BRILLIANT) (10/26/88)
In article <3940@homxc.UUCP>, halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE) writes: > < -> .... > > -> Recently, Southwestern Bell began raising the telephone rates > < ->of computer bulletin board systems (BBSs).... > ... > ..... those lines cost more to provide than > residential lines. The cost of providing a line is significantly affected by > the amount of use the line gets, both incoming and outgoing... I disagree. The usage cost of a BBS line is borne by the callers, and the operator should not be charged for it. The cost of the line itself is the cost of materials, installation, and repairs. That cost is not affected by usage. All the cost of usage has traditionally been paid by the caller. On local calls, the local telephone company incurs all the costs and receives all the revenue. In part, commercial users are charged more because they are presumed to make more local calls within the local no-charge calling area. On interexchange calls, the long-distance carrier pays the local telephone companies at each end for access. BBS's probably receive a lot of local no-charge calls, but they should not pay commercial rates for that. The new wave of usage-sensitive pricing will ultimately make the callers pay even for those local calls, so if the BBS is charged for them the local company will be paid twice. And BBS's don't make a lot of local calls. Other than that, commercial lines might be charged more than residential lines based on presumed ability to pay. That might be arguable but should not be argued in this newsgroup. At any rate, no such presumption applies to a BBS run for fun. Marty M. B. Brilliant houdi!marty1, homxc!marty Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.
markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) (10/27/88)
In article <4252@moray.UUCP>, judy@moray.UUCP (Judy Scheltema) writes: | The following is the text of an article that appeared in the Houston Post | editorial pages on October 22, 1988. | ... | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | CAN SOUTHWESTERN BELL TRULY JUSTIFY THIS RATE HIKE? | by | Thomas J.L. Bronsberg-Adas | | Recently, Southwestern Bell began raising the telephone rates | of computer bulletin board systems (BBSs). The rates are being | raised from $13.35 (the residential rate) to $32.85 (the | commercial/business rate). This increase is an increase of over | 240%! I feel (as do most computer users) that this increase in | not warranted, nor justified. | | ... The phone system isn't designed so everyone can use the phone all the time. If someone uses 240% of the expected usage of a limited resource, they should pay 240% of the normal rate. | The cost of setting up one of these BBSs is not a small one. | The average cost of computer, hard disk drives, software programs | and modem can run into the thousands of dollars. To a student, | that may mean not getting a car, or even a stereo. To a working | sysop, it may mean that the family will not be taking a vacation | for a while. Thats their choice. But don't expect the rest of the rate payers to be happy that someone has decided that their hobby will be tieing up the phone lines and that they should be subsidized by everyone else. BBS owners should remember that just because they want to do it, it doesn't mean its fair to the rest of the population. To be cynical about The Phone Company, the next step will be measured billing. Mark Zenier uunet!pilchuck!ssc!markz "He did decide, though, that with more time and a great deal of mental effort, he could probably turn the activity into an acceptable perversion"-Mick Farren
russ@uokmax.UUCP (Russ "Random" Smith) (10/27/88)
[In <3940@homxc.UUCP>, halle@homxc.UUCP said:]
->In article <1933@uokmax.UUCP>, russ@uokmax.UUCP (Russ "Random" Smith) writes:
->> -> CAN SOUTHWESTERN BELL TRULY JUSTIFY THIS RATE HIKE?
->< -> by
->> -> Thomas J.L. Bronsberg-Adas
->< ->
->> -> Recently, Southwestern Bell began raising the telephone rates
->< ->of computer bulletin board systems (BBSs). The rates are being
->> ->raised from $13.35 (the residential rate) to $32.85 (the
->< ->commercial/business rate). This increase is an increase of over
->> ->240%! I feel (as do most computer users) that this increase in
->< ->not warranted, nor justified.
->> ->
->< Something similar to this happened in either '82 or '83 in the Oklahoma
->> City area. A young (well, at the time) fellow named Robert Braver built up
->< a suit against Bell. Bell eventually gave up (hurrah for the good guys!)
->>
->< Hope this one turns out the same way.
->
->And I hope it does not. SWBell is really only doing what it must. Why do you
->think they charge more for "commercial" lines than residential? Not because
->of ability to pay, but because those lines cost more to provide than
->residential lines. The cost of providing a line is significantly affected by
->the amount of use the line gets, both incoming and outgoing. Business line
->usage is typically several times more than residential lines (based on
->minutes of use during the peak hour, e.g.). Of course there are exceptions
->here and there, but by and large the business lines are much more costly to
->the phone company. As far as pattern of use, BBSs are much closer to business
->use than to residential use.
->
->Let me offer an alternative. How about if all lines are charged based on the
->amount of time the line is busy, i.e. you get billed during incoming and
->outgoing calls, but not when the phone is on hook. How would you feel then?
->Now residential rates will probably not be affected much, most business lines
->would stay the same or drop slightly, and BBS lines would skyrocket. Also,
->any lines used at home with a modem would probably go up. Is that really what
->you want? That's the way you should be charged for the lines.
->
->
->J. C. Halle
However, I think you should realize -- that's NOT how they claim to do it! A
business line is to charge people that make MONEY by using those phone lines.
I assure you, my BBS doesn't make a dime for me -- indeed, I lose the bucks
for the phone line.
Why charge it for a business when it's not? Okay, if they're going to change
the whole definition of a business line, that's one thing -- but that's only
a fantasy that you've given us. The truth us, they've defined BBS's as
obviously being businesses for profit using the phone lines -- and in most
cases, that's simply untrue.
Mind you, there are systems that are pay and make a profit. More power to
Bell where those are concerned -- they are business; they should have
business lines. But to tell me that *I* am a business? I'd say not.
I can't understand why a person will
take a year or two to write a novel
when he can easily buy one for a few
dollars. -- Fred Allen
Random J Nightfall
Avatar of Chaos
--
Russ 'Random' Smith
!texsun!uokmax!russ __________________________________ . . .-----------
GEnie : R.SMITH101 |If Reagan is the answer, it must| | | `---.
Oklahoma University |have been a VERY silly question.| `--'LTIMATUM----'OFTWAREnessus@nsc.nsc.com (Kchula-Rrit) (10/27/88)
In article <3940@homxc.UUCP> halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE) writes: *In article <1933@uokmax.UUCP>, russ@uokmax.UUCP (Russ "Random" Smith) writes: *> -> CAN SOUTHWESTERN BELL TRULY JUSTIFY THIS RATE HIKE? *< -> by *> -> Thomas J.L. Bronsberg-Adas *< -> *> -> Recently, Southwestern Bell began raising the telephone rates *< ->of computer bulletin board systems (BBSs). The rates are being *> ->raised from $13.35 (the residential rate) to $32.85 (the *< ->commercial/business rate). This increase is an increase of over *> ->240%! I feel (as do most computer users) that this increase in *< ->not warranted, nor justified. *> -> *< Something similar to this happened in either '82 or '83 in the Oklahoma *> City area. A young (well, at the time) fellow named Robert Braver built up *< a suit against Bell. Bell eventually gave up (hurrah for the good guys!) *< Hope this one turns out the same way. *And I hope it does not. SWBell is really only doing what it must. Why do you *think they charge more for "commercial" lines than residential? Not because *of ability to pay, but because those lines cost more to provide than *residential lines. The cost of providing a line is significantly affected by *the amount of use the line gets, both incoming and outgoing. Business line *usage is typically several times more than residential lines (based on *minutes of use during the peak hour, e.g.). That's because most businesses use their phones during the day, with very little to no use in the "off-peak" hours, when most residential lines are relatively idle. Most residential lines that I know of get more use in the "off-peak" times when business lines tend to be idle. I'm sure that "ability to pay" enters into the equation somewhere, as well. > Of course there are exceptions here and there, but by and large the busi- >ness lines are much more costly to the phone company. As far as pattern >of use, BBSs are much closer to business use than to residential use. My USENET feed operates ONLY during the night-rate period(11pm-7am); the primary reason I do this is co$t; I cannot afford to get an extra line just for the modem. It does not seem right to me that I should pay daytime rates so I can use my modem at night. My impression is that "business use" implies an intention to make a profit from a particular activity; non-profit organizations by their nature [in theory] have other reasons for their existence. I do not operate my USENET node to make a profit, it is one of my "windows on the world"; as such it is very valuable to me. *Let me offer an alternative. How about if all lines are charged based on the *amount of time the line is busy, i.e. you get billed during incoming and *outgoing calls, but not when the phone is on hook. How would you feel then? *Now residential rates will probably not be affected much, most business lines *would stay the same or drop slightly, and BBS lines would skyrocket. Also, *any lines used at home with a modem would probably go up. Is that really what *you want? That's the way you should be charged for the lines. I find it interesting that your "alternative" is already what I have implemented on my phone; it's called "measured-rate service"; I pay a connect-charge followed by a per-minute charge, modified by a multi- plication factor which takes into account the [roughly approximate] time of day. Fortunately, in my case, the connect is 4 cents followed by 1 cent per minute of connect time; if these amounts were multiplied by 2.4 (the business/residential differential mentioned above), I would have to get off the net altogether. *Of course you could let the BBSs be charged residential rates, but then *ALL residential rates would have to be raised. (The phone company is not *a government agency; it too has to make a profit. And it is not allowed *to make a very big one.) Gosh, I stopped believing this when I gave up Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny; pardon my cynicism but, in my observation, Ma Bell is non- monopolistic in name only. At least in [Northern] California, the Public Utilities Commission seems to be a rubber-stamp(Yes-man, if you prefer) to the utilities; it seems every month that some new rate-raise is "allowed" by them. Since they supply our power, water, and communications they seem to have us by "the short hairs"; as a captive audience, we can't just connect to a different electric utility for example. Sort of like "I don't like your rates, PG&E[power company], I'll connect my house to Sacramento Municipal Power; pay no mind to the fact that I'm 100 miles away, in the City of Livermore, and their are no wires strung. We cannot simply "vote with our feet" like we could with, say, a grocery store. And I do consider living in a cave, gathering wood for heat, an acceptable alternative. * ... *I could go on, but I've made my point. I trust I have made mine. *J. C. Halle -- Kchula-Rrit "In challenging a kzin, a scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap."
gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (10/28/88)
In article <3940@homxc.UUCP> halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE) writes: [ stuff deleted ] > >Of course you could let the BBSs be charged residential rates, but then ALL >residential rates would have to be raised. [...] by how much? 10 cents a month? 5? there are few bbses in this country... and they provide a nice means of information exchange. there has already been one governmental decision to discriminate in favor of computer communications for this reason... the FCC decision to not to charge access fees for X25 services and networks. why destroy/harm BBSing for the sake of MINIMAL economic concerns. years from now, when there are many more BBSes, your argument may be sound. but for now, i suspect that the rate difference can be ignored. ---------- Greg Lindahl internet: gl8f@virginia.edu University of Virginia Department of Astronomy bitnet: gl8f@virginia.bitnet "Doesn't Quayle know that the FBI handles domestic assassinations?"
mwwheatl@uokmax.UUCP (Mark W Wheatley) (10/28/88)
In article <1947@uokmax.UUCP> russ@uokmax.UUCP (Russ "Random" Smith) writes: >[In <3940@homxc.UUCP>, halle@homxc.UUCP said:] >-> SWBell is really only doing what it must. Why do you >->think they charge more for "commercial" lines than residential? Not because >->of ability to pay, but because those lines cost more to provide than >->residential lines. The cost of providing a line is significantly affected by >->the amount of use the line gets, both incoming and outgoing. > >However, I think you should realize -- that's NOT how they claim to do it! A >business line is to charge people that make MONEY by using those phone lines. >I assure you, my BBS doesn't make a dime for me -- indeed, I lose the bucks >for the phone line. I agree completely with Russ. The business line is charged more because it is used to make money. And as for a home phone not being used as much as a business phone - HA! Do not teenagers tie up the phone for hours? If you want to charge based on use (other than local measured service which charge all homes with residents ages 13 - 19 business rates because of the increased usage on the network from those locations. :-) The phone system could care less what I transmit through it be it 2400 baud ASCII or voice, or where I transmit it to. Like Russ said, I am NOT a business and WILL NOT pay more for a phone line just because a modem is connected to it. It is none of the phone company's business what I have hooked up to the lne unless it is causing problems with the network, in which case I'll disconnect it. Just my $ 0.02 worth. Mark Wheatley mwwheatl@uokmax.UUCP mwwheatl@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
res@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt) (10/28/88)
In article <3945@homxc.UUCP>, marty@homxc.UUCP (M.B.BRILLIANT) writes: > In article <3940@homxc.UUCP>, halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE) writes: > > < -> .... > > > -> Recently, Southwestern Bell began raising the telephone rates > > < ->of computer bulletin board systems (BBSs).... > > ... > > ..... those lines cost more to provide than > > residential lines. The cost of providing a line is significantly affected by > > the amount of use the line gets, both incoming and outgoing... > > I disagree. The usage cost of a BBS line is borne by the callers, and > the operator should not be charged for it. > > The cost of the line itself is the cost of materials, installation, and > repairs. That cost is not affected by usage. All the cost of usage > has traditionally been paid by the caller. Not quite. The customer premise cost (wire, installation, etc.) is really not that great (on an annualized basis) compared to the cost in the switching offices. What you say may be true for the per-line equipment, but is NOT true for the shared (common) equipment (such as ringing generators). The degree to which these expensive resources can be shared is greatly determined by how heavily they are used -- hence more of these resources are needed per 100 customers if they are heavily used than if they are lightly used. > On local calls, the local > telephone company incurs all the costs and receives all the revenue. Again, not quite. The long distance carriers incur the cost of providing access to their networks whether or not they are used. > In part, commercial users are charged more because they are presumed to > make more local calls within the local no-charge calling area. Another large component in the ratemaking exercise is the value of the service to the customer. Obviously, a telephone is worth much more to a business than to a residential customer, so the business will be willing to pay more for the service. The economists have a fancy phrase that describes this view. > BBS's probably receive a lot of local no-charge calls, but they should > not pay commercial rates for that. The new wave of usage-sensitive > pricing will ultimately make the callers pay even for those local > calls, so if the BBS is charged for them the local company will be paid > twice. And BBS's don't make a lot of local calls. The same sort of thing might be said of radio stations, particularly talk-show stations. Anyone know what such stations pay for the special switching offices they use? > Other than that, commercial lines might be charged more than > residential lines based on presumed ability to pay. That might be > arguable but should not be argued in this newsgroup. At any rate, no > such presumption applies to a BBS run for fun. Actually, what I am seeing in this discussion is a special interest group that has been getting a bargain in telephone rates screaming when they were asked to pay part of the REAL cost of their special grade of service. Rich Strebendt ihlpb!res
sandy@turnkey.TCC.COM (Sanford 'Sandy' Zelkovitz) (10/28/88)
In article <1514@ssc.UUCP>, markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) writes: > > Thats their choice. But don't expect the rest of the rate payers to be > happy that someone has decided that their hobby will be tieing up the phone > lines and that they should be subsidized by everyone else. > BBS systems do not tie up the phone lines but bring EXTRA revenue to the phone companies. This is a proven fact! A good example is my bbs, the majority of the callers are calling long distance. Not only are they long distance but MANY are calling from other countries. This certainly is NOT being subsidized by everyone else but by the callers themselves. Instead of increasing the rates, the telephone companies should decrease the rates! > > To be cynical about The Phone Company, the next step will be measured billing. > You are correct, we should not be cynical about the phone companies, we should be outright disgusted! > Mark Zenier uunet!pilchuck!ssc!markz Sanford <sandy> Zelkovitz XBBS 714-898-8634
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (10/28/88)
in article <3940@homxc.UUCP>, halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE) says: > In article <1933@uokmax.UUCP>, russ@uokmax.UUCP (Russ "Random" Smith) writes: >> -> Recently, Southwestern Bell began raising the telephone rates > < ->of computer bulletin board systems (BBSs). The rates are being >> ->raised from $13.35 (the residential rate) to $32.85 (the > < ->commercial/business rate). This increase is an increase of over > And I hope it does not. SWBell is really only doing what it must. Why do you > think they charge more for "commercial" lines than residential? Short answer: because they can. Long answer: there is intense grass-roots pressure for low-cost residential service. Such service is excused after the fact as a "life-line" service. Low-cost residential service is subsidised by commercial rates and by a hidden charge on each long distance call that you make. > of ability to pay, but because those lines cost more to provide than > residential lines. The cost of providing a line is significantly affected by > the amount of use the line gets, both incoming and outgoing. Business line Wrong. It costs the same amount of money to string a telephone line into a business, that it does to string that same phone line into a home. That is, the overhead for each telephone line is fixed regardless of usage. The overhead that DOES cost based upon usage is the cost of the switches. The phone company does have to put in some excess capacity to handle the extra phone calls that businesses make during the day. But at night, when BBS's flourish, this extra capacity is mostly unused. Paying for something that's currently unused seems sort of, uhm, ridiculous, to me. It's as if the city wanted to charge a fee to panhandlers getting aluminum cans and bottles out of the ditches... > Let me offer an alternative. How about if all lines are charged based on the > amount of time the line is busy, i.e. you get billed during incoming and > outgoing calls, but not when the phone is on hook. How would you > feel then? This has happened. It's been the rule in Chicago for a couple of years now. Consumer groups have been outraged by the results. The phone company promised that the average phone bill would drop. Instead, it has risen tremendously. It seems that the average person uses the phone much more than most thought. Didn't we just get finished with this issue when dealing with access fees for online services? -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 It's understandable that Mike Dukakis thinks he can walk on water. He's used to walking on Boston harbor.
gary@percival.UUCP (Gary Wells) (10/28/88)
just to set the record straight, there are several types of costs associated with telephone service, some of which are fixed and some of which do vary with useage. for instance: the cable from the co to your house is there whether the phone is on or off hook; a fixed cost. on the other hand, the internal connections in the switching machine are prbably in use by someone else if you aren't on-line. these connections do have an associasted cost: both in terms of initial cost to acquire and install, and in on-going maintenance. and they do wear out and need to be replaced. these are the variable costs. another variable cost is the number of these connections. as has been mentioned, _no_ exchage is built to provide simultanious access to all of its subscribers. the telco's are playing the odd's everytime someone picks up a phone. long duration calls, such as to bbs's, change the odds. and that means that the telcos have to install more internal connetions, which raises costs. this in itself is adequate justificat- ion to charge commerical rates to bbs's. don't get me wrong. i'm a firm supporter of bbs's, i have run a couple, and used a lot. but the telco's do have a solid position, which ranting and raving about can't change. there is an answer: _support_ the boards you use. i don't know anyone who couldn't afford $25.00 a year, and i don't know a sysop who would turn it down. to corrupte an old phrase, put your money where your hobby is, not your mouth. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still working on _natural_ intelligence. gary@percival (...!tektronix!percival!gary)
judy@moray.UUCP (Judy Scheltema) (10/28/88)
From uucp Thu Oct 27 20:40 CST 1988
>From dillo1!ehopper Thu Oct 27 20:40:15 1988 remote from hounix
Received: by moray.UUCP (smail2.5)
id AA09783; 27 Oct 88 20:40:15 CST (Thu)
To: hounix!moray!judy hounix!moray!nuchat!root ssbn!bill ssbn!petro!bruce
Subject: KTRK News story
Here is the transcript of the news story on KTRK-TV regarding our
meeting today:
KTRK-TV News 6:00 PM 10/27/88
Reporter Tom Koche:
"You might say there's been a showdown averted at the computer
corral tonight. Southwestern Bell had planned to charge business
rates to operators of computer bulletin boards in the Houston area.
But computer buffs raised such an outcry that Bell decided not to
raise it's rates at this time.
"But the computer enthusiasts want Bell's assurance that rates won't
be raised in the future because they consider bulletin boards hobbys
instead of businesses."
Reginald Hirsch (COSUARD President):
"Our gameplan is to meet with Southwestern Bell officials, at their
request, including some of their top management tommorrow -Friday-
and there to see if we can reach some form of agreement. If we can't
we are prepared to do whatever is necessary."
Koche:
"Bell says it believes some bulletin boards should be charged
business rates, it just hasn't identified yet which ones."
------------------END OF TRANSCRIPT-----------------------------------
NOTE:
While the story implies that all is settled, the rollback of rates
by Southwestern Bell is temporary. Some signals from them indicate
that they still hold the view that ALL bulletin boards should pay
business rates.
Ed Hopper
--
Judy Scheltema | uunet!nuchat!moray!judy
Houston, Texas | bellcore!texbell!moray!judyrandy@uokmax.UUCP (Longshot) (10/28/88)
I have discussed this somewhat with some local SysOps and users. The mess has started in Houston, and there's a reason for that. Many BBS's in the Houston area are sponsored by businesses. There is a local BBS around here that is sponsored by a (somewhat) large audio equipment store. These BBS's tend to promote the businesses somewhat, and there is where Bell has it's argument. The general attitude among those I have spoken with is, charge the business- sponsored groups business rates, and the non-profit groups residential rates. Then there is the question of subscription systems. Last I checked, the local node of Dial-Your-Match was charging $5/yr to users. Now, that system will average 45-60 users easily. DYM software is cheap, if not PD. He's running it on a C64. Whip out the archaic TI-55 III... let's say 100 users come and go on the average year (including modems as Christmas and birthday presents). That's $500 (so I don't need the TI after all :-). About $400 will be spent on a business line. That only leaves $100 for system maintenance. However, put 'em down to a residential line, and the line cost is ~$240, leaving $260, practically enough to REPLACE, let alone fix, what goes wrong on a CBM system. (Of course, with CBM, fix usually implies replace :-) ). But, if you are charging, there is no question; you are a business. The question is when you aren't charging. Randy
james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen) (10/28/88)
In <8992@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, res@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt) wrote: > The same sort of thing might be said of radio stations, particularly > talk-show stations. Anyone know what such stations pay for the special > switching offices they use? They will pay commercial rates in the state of Texas. Has everyone forgotten that rates are *not* set by the phone company deciding what constitutes a business, but instead by PUC rules stating what class a phone falls in. Whether or not the phone is "commercial" in our meaning of the word isn't an issue: the issue is whether it falls in a class defined in PUC tarriffs, known as "business". For example, churches might have to pay business rates depending on where the phone is located in the church, strictly according to PUC rules. The issue in question is whether SWBT is following the tarriff or not. The issue of whether the caller or answering should pay for the cost of the call is something to be taken up with the PUC. I dread to think of the results if any significant portion of cost were shifted from caller to called: sales/nuisance calls galore! -- James R. Van Artsdalen james@bigtex.cactus.org "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 338-8789 9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759
sandy@turnkey.TCC.COM (Sanford 'Sandy' Zelkovitz) (10/28/88)
In article <8992@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, res@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt) writes: > In article <3945@homxc.UUCP>, marty@homxc.UUCP (M.B.BRILLIANT) writes: > > In article <3940@homxc.UUCP>, halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE) writes: > > > < -> .... > > Not quite. The customer premise cost (wire, installation, etc.) is > really not that great (on an annualized basis) compared to the cost in > the switching offices. What you say may be true for the per-line > equipment, but is NOT true for the shared (common) equipment (such as > ringing generators). The degree to which these expensive resources can > be shared is greatly determined by how heavily they are used -- hence > more of these resources are needed per 100 customers if they are > heavily used than if they are lightly used. > Boy, this sure sounds like a sales pitch by AT&T. The first thing that you obviously forgot about is the excessive amount of revenue you are receiving from all the long distance phone calls that are being made. Not only do users of BBSs make these long distance calls on PRIME time but so do the SYSOPs of the different boards to gather data for their users. I will make a deal with you, if you want to charge business rates to "non-profit" bbs systems, how about giving these non profile systems a "cut" on the revenue that you take in because of the EXCESSIVE amount of revenue being made. I think a 50-50 split would be fair! Since this is money you would never had made in the first place!!!! I'm sure that you could buy MANY ring generators etc. with your excessive profits! > > BBS's probably receive a lot of local no-charge calls, but they should > > not pay commercial rates for that. The new wave of usage-sensitive > > pricing will ultimately make the callers pay even for those local > > calls, so if the BBS is charged for them the local company will be paid > > twice. And BBS's don't make a lot of local calls. > > The same sort of thing might be said of radio stations, particularly > talk-show stations. Anyone know what such stations pay for the special > switching offices they use? > As we all know, radio stations have paid commercials! We are talking about NON-COMMERCIAL operations. > > Other than that, commercial lines might be charged more than > > residential lines based on presumed ability to pay. That might be > > arguable but should not be argued in this newsgroup. At any rate, no > > such presumption applies to a BBS run for fun. > > Actually, what I am seeing in this discussion is a special interest > group that has been getting a bargain in telephone rates screaming when > they were asked to pay part of the REAL cost of their special grade of > service. > > Rich Strebendt > ihlpb!res The only real bargin that is being made is by AT&T! If BBSs were to be a "thing of the past", your income would decrease considerably. If you would like, I would LOVE to send you one of my daily logs. You will find that over 80% of my callers call long distance. Not only do they call long distance but a majority call during the prime time hours. Instead of charging even the "basic" home rate to BBS sysops, what you really should do is just give them the line for free! Just think, more lines, more long distance phone calls, more revenue! Sanford <sandy> Zelkovitz XBBS 714-898-8634 P.S. And I am proud to say that I am serviced not by Bell but General Telephone. I was having problems with a little noise and General IMMEDIATELY fixed it for me. At least they appreciate hobbiests like myself.
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (10/28/88)
From article <8992@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, by res@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt): " ... " Another large component in the ratemaking exercise is the value of the " service to the customer. " ... " group that has been getting a bargain in telephone rates screaming when " they were asked to pay part of the REAL cost of their special grade of " service. The value of the service to the customer is higher, therefore the REAL cost is higher. Isn't this reasoning a little twisted? Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
dorn@fabscal.UUCP (Alan Dorn Hetzel) (10/28/88)
In reference to the rebuttal from the goon at AT&T, which states that he
hope SWBell winds up winning, because they are really justified in charging
that much more for "business" lines due to increased costs associated with
increased usage:
1) charges for types of lines, such as residential and/or commercial
are not determined on a cost recovery basis. (At least not here
in Georgia, and not in several other states I know of) These
charges are determined by the local PSC (Public Service Commission)
and they are very political in nature, having little to do with
real costs.
2) Where AT&T is concerned, their cost to carry traffic *is* usage
sensitive, because when a long distance circuit isn't being used
by one customer, it can be used by another. This is *not* the
case for the local operating companies, whose *major* cost is
maintaining their physical plant (The miles and miles of copper
they have put in the ground and strung on poles). Every customer
phone, whether business or residential, uses a dedicated pair of
copper wires all the way back to the switch.
3) Now, yes, there are some additional costs related to switch bandwidth
which *are* traffic related, but they are truly insignificant when
judged in comparison to the fixed costs of maintaining and improving
the base wiring.
4) Here in Georgia, the PSC *highly* subsidizes residential (especially
rural residential) rates by inflating business rates substantially.
A while back (several years) some enterprising soul from the business
community suggested cost based billing. This would have based cost
of service to the customer on the cost of providing service. The
thing which killed this idea was that the typical rural residential
customer who was forty miles from his exchange would have had a
*huge* monthly bill, and the city customer would pay almost nothing.
You can guess this didn't fly with the PSC.
More later,
-d.halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE) (10/29/88)
In article <7360@nsc.nsc.com>, nessus@nsc.nsc.com (Kchula-Rrit) writes: > are relatively idle. Most residential lines that I know of get more use in > the "off-peak" times when business lines tend to be idle. I'm sure that > "ability to pay" enters into the equation somewhere, as well. The residential peak time is indeed different from the business peak, but the peak level of usage is still significantly smaller for residential. Ability to pay only enters into it in that the PUCs will not yet allow the telcos to charge residences what they ought to. They are still being subsidized by business users. > My USENET feed operates ONLY during the night-rate period(11pm-7am); > the primary reason I do this is co$t; I cannot afford to get an extra line > just for the modem. It does not seem right to me that I should pay daytime > rates so I can use my modem at night. If there were a tariff for nightime only business use, and if such activity could be monitored, then a reduced rate for such use would be in order. The monitoring is possible with most modern switches. Now get after your PUC to authorize such a tariff. This would be the best solution for all. > My impression is that "business use" > implies an intention to make a profit from a particular activity; non-profit > organizations by their nature [in theory] have other reasons for their > existence. I do not operate my USENET node to make a profit, it is one > of my "windows on the world"; as such it is very valuable to me. Not at all. "Business use" is non-residential. Period. Profit never enters the picture. > I find it interesting that your "alternative" is already what I have > implemented on my phone; it's called "measured-rate service"; I pay a > connect-charge followed by a per-minute charge, modified by a multi- > plication factor which takes into account the [roughly approximate] > time of day. Fortunately, in my case, the connect is 4 cents followed > by 1 cent per minute of connect time; if these amounts were multiplied > by 2.4 (the business/residential differential mentioned above), I would > have to get off the net altogether. Not quite. You pay only for calls you originate. But the line is in use even on calls you receive. If you receive substantially more calls than you originate, you don't pay your "fair share." (Granted those at the other end do if they are in the same LATA with the same rate structure.) Your billed usage is not indicative of your actual usage. > pardon my cynicism but, in my observation, Ma Bell is non- > monopolistic in name only. At least in [Northern] California, the Public It never was non-monopolistic for local service. That's why it's regulated. > Utilities Commission seems to be a rubber-stamp(Yes-man, if you prefer) > to the utilities; it seems every month that some new rate-raise is > "allowed" by them. Since they supply our power, water, and communications That may be true for the other utilities, but not for communications. The CA PUC is universally recognized as the toughest commission in the USA when it comes to phone service. Rates are not allowed to rise and other telco concessions are forced routinely. As proof, look at the ROR, the bond rating, and the stock performance of PacTel vs. the other six. PacTel is consistently on the bottom. (diatribe on utilities in general deleted as immaterial to the discussion)
marty@homxc.UUCP (M.B.BRILLIANT) (10/29/88)
In article <8992@ihlpb.ATT.COM> Rich Strebendt (ihlpb!res) makes some good points, but I don't totally agree: > ... > In article <3945@homxc.UUCP>, marty@homxc.UUCP (M.B.BRILLIANT) writes: >> ... The usage cost of a BBS line is borne by the callers, and >> the operator should not be charged for it. >> >> The cost of the line itself is the cost of materials, installation, and >> repairs. That cost is not affected by usage. All the cost of usage >> has traditionally been paid by the caller. > > Not quite. The customer premise cost (wire, installation, etc.) is > really not that great (on an annualized basis) compared to the cost in > the switching offices. What you say may be true for the per-line > equipment, but is NOT true for the shared (common) equipment ... Whoa. The line includes only the per-line equipment by definition. The shared equipment is not part of the line. It is paid for, when used, by the calling party. >> On local calls, the local >> telephone company incurs all the costs and receives all the revenue. > > Again, not quite. The long distance carriers incur the cost of > providing access to their networks whether or not they are used. That's not a cost of local calls. There is, of course, the bogus "usage charge" which is charged to all customers to pay part of that access cost, but it's a small part of the bill. Anyway, the long distance carriers provide only as many access channels as are justified by the usage. Similarly, the local carriers provide only as many local trunks as usage justifies. So charging the caller on a usage basis is perfectly proper. >> In part, commercial users are charged more because they are presumed to >> make more local calls within the local no-charge calling area. > > Another large component in the ratemaking exercise is the value of the > service to the customer. Obviously, a telephone is worth much more to > a business than to a residential customer, so the business will be > willing to pay more for the service. The economists have a fancy > phrase that describes this view. The value of a BBS accrues at least as much to the caller as to the sysop. The caller pays the communications charges and gets free services from the BBS. >> Other than that, commercial lines might be charged more than >> residential lines based on presumed ability to pay. That might be >> arguable but should not be argued in this newsgroup. At any rate, no >> such presumption applies to a BBS run for fun. > > Actually, what I am seeing in this discussion is a special interest > group that has been getting a bargain in telephone rates screaming when > they were asked to pay part of the REAL cost of their special grade of > service. As I see it, its not the BBS sysop that gets the bargain. If anybody does, it's the caller. If you want to avoid cross-subsidization, and I think we all do, the way to do that is move to usage-sensitive pricing, paid by the caller. The person who chooses whether or not to make the call is the one who should face the economic consequences. Marty M. B. Brilliant houdi!marty1, homxc!marty Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.
steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia) (10/30/88)
From article <2393@turnkey.TCC.COM>, by sandy@turnkey.TCC.COM (Sanford 'Sandy' Zelkovitz): > In article <8992@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, res@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt) writes: >> In article <3945@homxc.UUCP>, marty@homxc.UUCP (M.B.BRILLIANT) writes: >> > In article <3940@homxc.UUCP>, halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE) writes: > Boy, this sure sounds like a sales pitch by AT&T. The first thing that > > The only real bargin that is being made is by AT&T! If BBSs were to be We all have this problem, saying "AT&T" whenever we are talking about phones is as natural as asking for a Kleenex or a Coke. And just as wrong. This fight is with Southwestern Bell, a *former* AT&T subsidiary and now a very healthy independent monopoly with no official ties to momma. The rate interpretation in question has nothing whatsoever to do with AT&T. The long distance rates are identical for business and residential customers so AT&T is completely uninvolved. There a many issues here, and it takes some effort to keep them straight, but keeping them straight is our only hope. By the way, much has been made about the relative cost of BBS and other hobbiest lines versus "normal" residential lines in these discussions. It is interesting to note that cost is *not* the justification being offered by SWB -- their position seems to be based more on consistency. In other words, they are trying to apply business rates so that businesses won't have a selective enforcement case. A further refutation to the cost argument which may already have been aired is that the switch usage is typically greatest at night while overall switch usage is highest during business hours. The switch doesn't have to go home and sleep, so I can't see how we're costing them anything extra there. -- Steve Nuchia | [...] but the machine would probably be allowed no mercy. uunet!nuchat!steve | In other words then, if a machine is expected to be (713) 334 6720 | infallible, it cannot be intelligent. - Alan Turing, 1947
learn@igloo.UUCP (william vajk) (10/30/88)
In article <3940@homxc.UUCP>, halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE) writes:
< And I hope it does not. SWBell is really only doing what it must. Why do you
< think they charge more for "commercial" lines than residential? Not because
< of ability to pay, but because those lines cost more to provide than
< residential lines. The cost of providing a line is significantly affected by
< the amount of use the line gets, both incoming and outgoing.
When setting the rate structures for outgoing calls, it is alleged that the
cost of the entire call, from point of origin, through all the switches, and
on through the destination are borne by the originating caller.
When setting the rates for phone lines, it is alleged that the monthly basic
fees cover the costs of a line which is idle 100.00% of the time.
The incoming use is covered, the outgoing use is covered. These rates,
including "fair profit" are negotiated with the Public Utilities Commission
in every state.
< Let me offer an alternative. How about if all lines are charged based on the
< amount of time the line is busy, i.e. you get billed during incoming and
< outgoing calls, but not when the phone is on hook. How would you feel then?
The costs borne at this time by the originating caller would have to be
reduced in order to maintain the "fair profit" levels agreed to by the
operating companies. As matters stand, the "fair profit" levels for the
telephony monopolies are in keeping with the agreements made with the
various states.
< I could go on, but I've made my point. I see nothing unfair about what the
< phone company is trying to do, and in fact they are giving the BBSs a break
< by not doing what they really ought to do if they were able.
An opinion, yes. Realistic, no.
< (Side issue. The reporter who wrote the original article cannot be called a
< reporter in any real sense of the word. He editorialized unmercifully, and
< made a number of unfounded and totally off-the-wall insinuations. Yellow
< journalism at its best.)
< J. C. Halle
And I suppose we'll hear that you have absolutely no bias regarding phone
rates. Can you say "knee jerk ?" I knew you could.
Bill Vajk learn@igloopalowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (10/31/88)
> However, I think you should realize -- that's NOT how they claim to do it! A > business line is to charge people that make MONEY by using those phone lines. > I assure you, my BBS doesn't make a dime for me -- indeed, I lose the bucks > for the phone line. > I too run a bbs for non profit at a loss. But SW Bell is sucsessful and other local carriers adopt the structure it will give me the reason I need to write it off on the IRS. > Why charge it for a business when it's not? Okay, if they're going to change > the whole definition of a business line, that's one thing -- but that's only > a fantasy that you've given us. The truth us, they've defined BBS's as > obviously being businesses for profit using the phone lines -- and in most > cases, that's simply untrue. One of their points is that bbs are non-profit organizations, which they are charge commercial rates to these organizations. I don't think they have a leg to stand on from occured use, but there is other points (legal) to look at. > > Mind you, there are systems that are pay and make a profit. More power to > Bell where those are concerned -- they are business; they should have > business lines. But to tell me that *I* am a business? I'd say not. You are not a "business", you and your users are a non-profit organ. If you want to have fun start writeing your assembly-man and represenative to well define this. ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda Work: {sun,decwrl,pyramid}!megatest!palowoda Home: {sun,pryamid}aeras!grinch!legends!fiver!palowoda BBS: (415)656-9386 2400/1200 Voice:(415)656-9384
nessus@nsc.nsc.com (Kchula-Rrit) (11/01/88)
In article <3964@homxc.UUCP> halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE) writes: =>In article <7360@nsc.nsc.com>, nessus@nsc.nsc.com (Kchula-Rrit) writes: =>> are relatively idle. Most residential lines that I know of get more use in =>> the "off-peak" times when business lines tend to be idle. I'm sure that =>> "ability to pay" enters into the equation somewhere, as well. =>The residential peak time is indeed different from the business peak, but =>the peak level of usage is still significantly smaller for residential. =>Ability to pay only enters into it in that the PUCs will not yet allow the =>telcos to charge residences what they ought to. They are still being =>subsidized by business users. =>> My impression is that "business use" =>> implies an intention to make a profit from a particular activity; non-profit =>> organizations by their nature [in theory] have other reasons for their =>> existence. I do not operate my USENET node to make a profit, it is one =>> of my "windows on the world"; as such it is very valuable to me. =>Not at all. "Business use" is non-residential. Period. Profit never enters =>the picture. But I am not a business or, if you prefer, not "non-residential". My feed operates out of my house; therefore I see no reason I should not get the residential rate. If I operated a business out of my house, I would expect to pay the business rate. =>Not quite. You pay only for calls you originate. But the line is in use =>even on calls you receive. If you receive substantially more calls than you =>originate, you don't pay your "fair share." (Granted those at the other end =>do if they are in the same LATA with the same rate structure.) Your billed =>usage is not indicative of your actual usage. Actually, it is; I originate ALL of my calls, partly because I do not have my modem set up for dial-in access. I should have seen this whole thing for what it is, a religious discussion(sigh). -- Kchula-Rrit "In challenging a kzin, a scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap."
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (11/03/88)
In article <2642@nuchat.UUCP>, steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia) writes: > By the way, much has been made about the relative cost of BBS and other > hobbiest lines versus "normal" residential lines in these discussions. > It is interesting to note that cost is *not* the justification being > offered by SWB -- their position seems to be based more on consistency. > In other words, they are trying to apply business rates so that businesses > won't have a selective enforcement case. Keep in mind, also, one reason they're doing this. One multi-line cb sim (known as RoundTable) operator, Jim Penny (and his son, Bruce Scott) was paying business rates for 16+ lines (32 at one point). Several "D-Dial"s sprung up, with monthly rates 1/2 - 1/5 that of RoundTable. Soon, RT was pressed to stay in businesss. After some scouting around, the Pennys found out that the other cb sim operators were being charged residential rates for their for-profit systems. The Pennys sued SWB for unfair rate structuring. ie: We're (the for profit cb-sim system operators) all businesses, therefore we should all be charged the same rate. SWB proved their stupidity once again, confusing "business" with "bbs" -- an easy enough error, no? -- and decided to charge everybody too much money. -- "I'm doing a survey on this kind of mindless violence and its affect on the mindless..." -- Max Headroom (who else but?) J. Eric Townsend smail: 511 Parker #2, Houston, Tx, 77007 Inet: COSC3AF@george.uh.edu UUCP: uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict Bitnet: COSC3AF@UHVAX1.BITNET ..!bellcore!tness1!/
halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE) (11/05/88)
In article <1087@igloo.UUCP>, learn@igloo.UUCP (william vajk) writes: > When setting the rate structures for outgoing calls, it is alleged that the > cost of the entire call, from point of origin, through all the switches, and > on through the destination are borne by the originating caller. Not true. However the usage sensitive revenue recovery is from the originator. This is not semantics, but a subtlety. > When setting the rates for phone lines, it is alleged that the monthly basic > fees cover the costs of a line which is idle 100.00% of the time. Not true. The monthly basic fees include the equipment, copper, and all allocated pieces of embedded plant from the serving wire center to the network termination at the house. It also includes a portion of the switch on which the line terminates, as well as other costs associated with the office, such as maintenance, operations support, administration, ... > The incoming use is covered, the outgoing use is covered. These rates, > including "fair profit" are negotiated with the Public Utilities Commission > in every state. Incoming is only covered if the amount of usage is around what the expected norm is on which equipment was engineered and on which tariff requests were based. As for negotiating with the PUCs, some are fair and some are not. The "fair profit," actually rate of return on investment, is often a smokescreen which cuts both ways. A good accountant can make it whatever is desired. > < Let me offer an alternative. How about if all lines are charged based on the > < amount of time the line is busy, i.e. you get billed during incoming and > < outgoing calls, but not when the phone is on hook. How would you feel then? > The costs borne at this time by the originating caller would have to be > reduced in order to maintain the "fair profit" levels agreed to by the > operating companies. As matters stand, the "fair profit" levels for the > telephony monopolies are in keeping with the agreements made with the > various states. Not necessarily. It would depend on the traffic mix. Also, remember that residences are not paying their fair share. > < I could go on, but I've made my point. I see nothing unfair about what the > < phone company is trying to do, and in fact they are giving the BBSs a break > < by not doing what they really ought to do if they were able. > An opinion, yes. Realistic, no. Huh? > < (Side issue. The reporter who wrote the original article cannot be called a > < reporter in any real sense of the word. He editorialized unmercifully, and > < made a number of unfounded and totally off-the-wall insinuations. Yellow > < journalism at its best.) > And I suppose we'll hear that you have absolutely no bias regarding phone > rates. Can you say "knee jerk ?" I knew you could. That's right. I have no bias regarding the phone rates charged by the BOCs. Of course I'd prefer that NJ Bell charged me as little as possible, but I'd happily pay a little more now if it means not paying a lot more later. I was merely stating the facts. The only "knee jerk" reaction I had was that unfounded and patently false and ridiculous allegations have no business being disguised as reporting. If it's an editorial, tag it as such. J. C. Halle
learn@igloo.UUCP (william vajk) (11/08/88)
In article <4078@homxc.UUCP>, halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE) writes: > Not true. > Not true. > Incoming is only covered if the amount of usage is around what the expected > Not necessarily. > That's right. I have no bias regarding the phone rates charged by the BOCs. > Of course I'd prefer that NJ Bell charged me as little as possible, but I'd > happily pay a little more now if it means not paying a lot more later. I was > merely stating the facts. > The only "knee jerk" reaction I had was that unfounded and patently false > and ridiculous allegations have no business being disguised as reporting. > If it's an editorial, tag it as such. Rather than bore the participants of this newsgroup with all the nitty gritty details, I only note that EVERY item discussed is immediately negated by Mr. Hale, who has no bias where the phone company is concerned, but offers to us the view that the _poor ole phone company_ is really being taken advantage of in a big way by almost every customer. In the meantime, it is quite obvious to the rest of us that the BOC's and other operating companies are doing just fine in terms of profitability, because they, in conjunction with the Public Service Commissions in the various states, are quite willing to settle rate issues on a statistical basis. I will add that here in Illinois a use sensitive rate structure was imposed, and the net effect has been to increase the profitability of the BOC above the allowable limits. This excess profit has to some great extent been offset by "losses" due to the Hinsdale fire, a loss which, in my opinion, should hit the shareholders instead of the customers. Or isn't a monopoly a venture ? Bill Vajk learn@igloo