clear@cavebbs.gen.nz (01/16/91)
My experience of BBSs and business rates may be of interest to other c.d.telecom readers. I have followed the debate with keen interest and submit my scribblings for comparison. New Zealand Telecom is now a private corporation, the NZ Government holds a controlling share, NZ Telecom and a consortium (including Bell Atlantic and Ameritech) holding the rest. The telco is split into several regional operating companies (ROCs), despite a population of only three million. I have been running a BBS for over three years. In that time I've had no real cause for complaint. When I upgraded my BBS, I was asked why I needed three lines into my house. The clerk listened politely, and not only gave me my choice of numbers but found desirable ones in a hunting group. They were listed in the directory as The Cave BBS. In September I put a 3B2 system online to provide a public access Usenet feed and requested another four lines. I was asked the purpose, and again no trouble. The clerk asked her supervisor to call me. After verifying that I was not running a commercial system he allowed the residential classification to proceed. He asked if I intended changing to a commercial BBS structure in the future. I assured him that if I went commercial, or got a company to sponsor one or more lines, those numbers would be notified to Telecom and a reclassification to business rates would be in order. In October I was startled to receive a phone call from my boss. Someone purporting to be from Telecom Investigations Division had rung my workplace and demanded all sorts of confidential information. When none was forthcoming, they rang off and called back a co-worker. Did I work from home? What was my connection with the firm? Did I do business from my home address? Did they redirect callers to my home number? Shortly after, I was called at home by a person describing himself as the Manager of Directory Services. I had been "under investigation" for "some time" for illegally running a business from my home while maintaining residential phone rates. If I was found "guilty", this person assured me my "fraudulent" activities would not only result in business rates being applied and backdated to the time of line installation, I might be prosecuted. I explained the whole BBS scenario to this guy, who refused to believe a word of it. Nobody allowed Joe Public to access their computer for nothing. "I got a computer on my desk. I use databases. They cost a lot of money." I listed the differences between a BBS and a database. "Even so, you wouldn't have seven lines running into your house if you weren't running a business." Again, I detailed what a BBS was, including the analogy between CB radio and boards. They do it with radios; we do it with modems. "You still haven't convinced me. I'll give you fourteen days to get a written explanation to me or else I will reclassify all your lines as business." If I disputed his decision, who would I appeal to? "Nobody, I am the person in charge of deciding what is and isn't a business. I make the decision, and if you refuse to pay we'll charge you with fraud." Hell, I didn't need fourteen days. I waited for half an hour before I stopped shaking with anger, and phoned the area manager of my ROC. He was horrified at what had happened. He'd check it out and get back to me. I hookflashed and dialled my contact within Telecom Corporate (Hi Nelson!). He said he'd suss it out and get back to me. After two days, I got a call from the area manager apologising for this person's actions (far from being in charge, he was in fact at office supervisor level). I had come to his attention because the data entry clerk had queried four new listings with the same address being flagged residential. The lines would remain at residential rates, I had no need of a letter of explanation and would I please forget about the whole matter. That's where it would have ended, but in typical world-wide telco style the next bills arrived with my rating on all six lines changed to business ... so much for fourteen days to convince the Manager Directory Services! Four of them have since been changed back, but I'm still waiting for the other two to be reversed and still waiting for the credit for the overcharges. This has two important lessons for TELECOM Digest readers in the USA: 1 - A totally deregulated telecommunications environment is not desirable except in economics textbooks, as not only could I not have appealed the "business rates" decision (PUCs? Hell, this is DEregulation!) but there is no regulatory body stopping Telecom (or even my ROC) from introducing a special tariff for hobby BBS systems. 2 - Representatives of Bell Atlantic have told me in person that New Zealand is now very much the US "guinea pig" system as far as rating and tariffs are concerned. (Maybe our system was unneccessarily split into ROCs to better simulate the American telco model?) Any decisions with regard to business rate charging for BBSs in New Zealand are likely to have a flow-on effect to the RBOCs in the USA. If they can get away with it here, you can bet they'll try getting it past the PUCs on precedent. I'm just damn lucky I have a reasonable, responsible area manager. Mr. Townson, I respect your arguments for/against BBS business rate classification (do I get the impression you're enjoying playing devil's advocate? 8-). Nothing you have said convinces me that SWBell/GTE is anything but a clear case of discrimination based on the number of inbound calls. Business rates are designed to recover fair costs of a large number of bidirectional calls. Most business lines have some form of keyphone or PABX installed, reducing the number of trunks required compared to the number of handsets in use. Business rates recover that loss. No tariff I have seen allows a telco to arbitrarily change the classification of a line used for residential purposes merely on the basis of the number of calls received. If that was the case, every home with a teenaged daughter would be in for a nasty surprise when the next phone account arrives. Charlie "The Bear" Lear | clear@cavebbs.gen.nz | Kawasaki Z750GT DoD#0221 The Cave MegaBBS +64 4 643429 V32 PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand
herrickd@uunet.uu.net (daniel lance herrick) (01/18/91)
In article <16105@accuvax.nwu.edu>, clear@cavebbs.gen.nz writes: [detailed account of relations with phone company in New Zealand] > 1 - A totally deregulated telecommunications environment is not > desirable except in economics textbooks, as not only could I not have > appealed the "business rates" decision (PUCs? Hell, this is > DEregulation!) but there is no regulatory body stopping Telecom (or > even my ROC) from introducing a special tariff for hobby BBS systems. A totally deregulated telecommunications environment would allow you to call one of the other phone companies and tell them you don't like the service from your current company, "please switch my phones to your company". Then we would find out what communications costs. Seven lines is approaching the fringe at which you should explore the cost of T1 service. If you can buy the wire service from someone other than the phone company, get surplus T1 hardware, and only buy phone numbers from the local company (maybe even taking the T1 to the long distance company's Point of Presence) you could end up with lower communications cost and spread it around among more suppliers. (T1 is enough digital bandwidth for 24 voice lines on two twisted pairs. The breakeven point for installing it depends on how long those twisted pairs have to be.) Dan Herrick Aricol Communications POBox 1419 Mentor Ohio 44061 (216) 974-9637 herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) (01/22/91)
In article <16105@accuvax.nwu.edu>, clear@cavebbs.gen.nz writes: > This has two important lessons for TELECOM Digest readers in the USA: > 1 - A totally deregulated telecommunications environment is not > desirable except in economics textbooks, as not only could I not have > appealed the "business rates" decision (PUCs? Hell, this is > DEregulation!) but there is no regulatory body stopping Telecom (or > even my ROC) from introducing a special tariff for hobby BBS systems. Au contraire; in a *totally* deregulated telecommunications environment, you wouldn't be forced into the arms of a single telco. Complete deregulation would allow competition in both the long distance and local markets, and you'd be able to switch to a competing telco if not satisfied with your current one. The problem you're experiencing is a result of *unbalanced* deregulation. There is still a regulation giving the telco a legal monopoly, but some of the regulations protecting consumers from that monopoly have been removed. Regulation does have its place, and telcos that gain the privilege of monopoly must be prepared to surrender some of the normal privileges of the market as well. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) (01/24/91)
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: > In article <16105@accuvax.nwu.edu>, clear@cavebbs.gen.nz writes: > > 1 - A totally deregulated telecommunications environment is not > > desirable except in economics textbooks, ... > Au contraire; in a *totally* deregulated telecommunications > environment, you wouldn't be forced into the arms of a single telco. ... > The problem you're experiencing is a result of *unbalanced* > deregulation. There is still a regulation giving the telco a legal > monopoly, but some of the regulations protecting consumers from that > monopoly have been removed. Regulation does have its place, and > telcos that gain the privilege of monopoly must be prepared to > surrender some of the normal privileges of the market as well. Wrong. There is no legal barrier to anyone setting up another telco in New Zealand. The only problem is that this theoretical start-up (up-start?) would be fighting against one of the more powerful companies in New Zealand with a fully established network. One or two companies have tried but have got nowhere. People in New Zealand cannot shop elsewhere, there may be no legal problems with setting up another shop, it's just that no one can afford to! sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz Thomas.Farmer@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) (01/25/91)
In article <16362@accuvax.nwu.edu>, sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) writes: > > The problem you're experiencing is a result of *unbalanced* > > deregulation. There is still a regulation giving the telco a legal > > monopoly, but some of the regulations protecting consumers from that > > monopoly have been removed. > Wrong. > There is no legal barrier to anyone setting up another telco in New > Zealand. The only problem is that this theoretical start-up > (up-start?) would be fighting against one of the more powerful > companies in New Zealand with a fully established network. One or two > companies have tried but have got nowhere. When you say "there is no legal barrier to anyone setting up another telco in NZ", are you talking about *local* service as well as long distance? The original poster mentioned that NZ's new ROCs (regional operating companies) were analogous to the RBOCs that exist in the US. I therefore inferred that the ROCs (like the RBOCs) held legal monopolies for providing local service within their respective regions. (Note the distinction between local service, which even in the US is still a regulated monopoly, and competitive long-distance service). When I said "there is still a regulation giving the telco a legal monopoly", I was referring to local service. Is it indeed the case that NZ has opened even *local* telephone service to competition? If so, what measures exist to ensure fair dealings in setting up inter-connectivity between competing carriers, use of rights-of-way for land lines, telephone number assignment, etc? Or are you merely asserting that only long-distance service has been deregulated, but that no new competitor has yet been able to gain significant market share? In the US this was less of a problem, since new LD companies were already waiting in the wings when AT&T lost its monopoly on LD service. But in NZ it sounds like the problem is that the government deregulated the LD industry without bothering to break up the old monopoly. Bob Goudreau +1 919 248 6231 Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) (01/26/91)
A recent thread here discusses the practicality of competition arising
in New Zealand, to let market forces work on monopolistic practices
and prices of Telecom NZ.
One statement too broadly made and accepted without question is to
feel that, "competition is impractical." This is largely based on a
belief that any competitor would have to build parallel transmission
plant using the same technology or a similarly expensive technology as
the existing company.
I'd like to posit a few thoughts that counter such a view.
Here in the US, the FCC undertook to let technology erode the
rather shaky "natural monopoly" enjoyed by local Telcos. Thus, we
have seen the ownership of cellular radio by non-Telcos. One maker,
IMM of Philadelphia, has even fielded a cellular system suitable for
use in rural areas to fixed positions. An even earlier technology
from Farinon in the US and a Canadian firm used lower frequencies in
the 450 Mhz region to serve rural users. We had a non-directional
microwave technology called Digital Termination Service that was
premature for the marketplace, with so few people applying for it that
the FCC withdrew the frequency allocations.
In England, the government legislated local competition into
existence, with Cable and Wireless' Mercury Communications developing
means to provide local telephone channels via existing cable
television.
Most recently, we have seen a US proposition, backed by the FCC,
to let cable TV companies operate nodes of PCN telephones (akin to the
UK "Phonepoints") along their cable routes.
If the regulators or legislators in NZ will simply let
entrepreneurs loose to try their ideas, New Zealanders might have a
choice within a shorter time than Telecom New Zealand realizes!
That's not to say they would realize what is happening to them very
rapidly. Here is the US, most local Telcos are at present trying to
ignore the threat, and hoping the public won't find out there really
is no "dial tone monopoly;" that thay've all been living in Oz (and I
don't mean NZ's cousins a thousand miles or so to the west!)