ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) (01/14/91)
There has been a lot of discussion here in Telecom regarding BBS's and
the application of business rates. With the decision in Texas, I'd
like to pass on my views and speak to some of the issues raised
recently.
Before I begin, I believe it is important to make some distinctions.
1. Obviously, I do not believe, nor does anyone I know believe, that
residential rates should apply to a BBS located in a business location
or run by a business or corporation. Telephone company rules on the
provision of residence lines already speak to providing service in
such cases. I do not disagree with them. Unless otherwise specified,
all references to BBSs in this document refer to home based BBSs.
2. One must recognize that there are several categories of BBS
systems. To briefly recount them for the purposes of this discussion:
A. Free BBSs. These systems do not request donations of their
users. Some even refuse to accept unsolicited donations.
B. Donation BBSs. These systems request donations from their
users. Such donations might be project-specific (i.e., raising
money for a new hard drive) or may be solicited to defray ongoing
operating costs. No quid pro quo is offered for donations on these
systems.
C. Fee BBSs. These are systems who have published schedules of
fees. (i.e., $25 for a years access, etc). Some BBS's in this
category do play word games, calling their fees "donations". (For
the record, Ed Hopper's BBS *does* have a schedule of fees for
access to shareware downloads. All message functions are free to
all callers.)
Also, for the purposes of this discussion, only CASH BBS fees and
donations are considered. There has been some attempt to consider
uploads, messages, cans of Spam, etc. to be "consideration". In the
Texas case, only monetary compensation is included.
Now, with distinctions made, to deal with some of the issues:
Issue #1. - Who SHOULD pay business rates?
I feel that, in the present circumstances, Fee BBSs should pay
business rates. I do not feel business rates should apply to Free or
Donation BBSs. The Texas settlement only protects Free BBSs.
Donation BBSs must pay business rates.
Issue #2. - Why a three line limit?
A peculiarity of the Texas settlement is the "three line provision".
This holds that a BBS that, under all other criteria, qualifies for
residential rates must pay business rates if that BBS has four or more
lines. This is an area where COSUARD on the one hand and SWBT and the
PUC staff on the other, agreed to disagree. COSUARD accepted the
settlement based upon our assessment of the politics of the situation,
not because of our view that this is perfect.
Our disagreement is based upon the fact that this restriction is an
unprecedented restriction on consumers. It is certainly conceivable
for one to envision situations where residential customers would order
four or more telephone lines for non-computer uses. Individual lines
for three children, for example. Needless to say, if SWBT told a
residential customer that he could not have four residential lines for
non-bbs purposes, the Texas PUC would quickly act to remedy the
situation. I feel that this provision is discriminatory. Again, in
order to forge a settlement, COSUARD agreed not to oppose this in the
settlement of the case. The PUC and SWBT understand that COSUARD
and/or others may move to oppose this provision later in other forums.
In fact, one Houston sysop, Donald Saxman, testified against this
provision during hearings on the case.
Issue #3. - Three or more lines consume additional physical plant
resources (i.e., cables). Sysops should pay for that.
I do not disagree here. HOWEVER, sysops should only pay based upon
tariff provisions that apply equally to ALL customers. Most telcos,
including Southwestern Bell, have provisions to bill construction costs
to customers for situations where unusual expenses are incurred. In no
place, however, is the application of business rates vs residence rates
considered to be a remedy for such a problem. Further, the assessment
of such construction costs should not vary depending on the intended use
of such a line (i.e., BBS or voice).
Issue #4. - BBS lines are more busy than others and should pay
accordingly.
Here I must speak to the situation in Texas only. In Texas, flat rate
service is nearly universal. The normal residential and business
customer in Texas has flat rate service. Measured service is an
option, but flat rate service is the basis for policy decisions. The
tariffs do not say "Flat rate as long as you don't use TOO much", they
say FLAT RATE period. Public policy is that telephone customers in
Texas are entitled to service without charge for usage. (Measured
service is available as an *OPTION*)
If Southwestern Bell wishes to apply charges based upon usage, it
should be done via rate making procedures before the PUC. The PUC
should decide if a break with previous public policy in Texas is
justified. Such rates should be equitable so that the proverbial
talkative teenager also bears such a burden. The application of
business rates should not be used as a back door alternative to the
imposition of a mandatory measured service tariff in Texas.
Issue #5. - What about other non-profit organizations (Rape Crisis
centers, the United Way, etc.)? They pay business rates, why
shouldn't "non-profit" BBSs?
There are several important differences here.
First, virtually all such organizations operate from business
premises, most sysops do not contest the assessment of business rates
on otherwise residential BBS systems located in a business location.
Additionally, corporations cannot normally subscribe to residential
rates. Most non-profit organizations are non-profit corporations.
Second, a non-profit organization is typically far more sophisticated
than a BBS. They do have sources of income, paid employees, etc. A BBS
is an individual undertaking paid for out of the wallet of an
individual. Additionally, with the exception of certain
communications oriented undertakings like suicide-prevention hotlines,
communications costs are an incidental portion of the total operating
budget of a non-profit organization. With a BBS, such charges can make
the difference between life and death.
Third, while it is generally true that non-profit organizations pay
business rates, this is not always the case.
For example:
-- Alcoholics Anonymous encourages it's members to call another
member if they are tempted to drink. Should AA members pay business
rates?
-- Many ministers and other unpaid persons engage in over the
telephone counseling from home (for that matter, so do many PAID
counselors).
-- Some hotlines subscribe to one business number which is then
call-forwarded to various volunteers homes on a nightly rotation.
Should those volunteers pay business rates?
Issue #6 - "What makes sysops so special?"
I have heard this in several venues (including negotiations with
SWBT). Here's my answer. A BBS is something unique. It is one of
the few ways for an individual to inexpensively give voice to his
views. If I want to post my views on the mideast, AT&T/NCR or the
Houston Astros, I have a venue to do so. I also provide a method for
other individuals to do so as well. If they don't like my little
popstand, they can set up their own. No it's not CBS, the {New York
Times} or even the Podunk Weekly Bugle, but it's mine and no one has a
say in what I "publish" there but me (and the libel/slander laws). I
think this IS unique. I think public policy should be to nurture such
free expression. That nurturing should take the form of recognition
that BBSs fall in a grey area and should, for the aforementioned
public policy reasons, be given the benefit of the doubt in the
assessment of residential rates.
Issue #7 - Why should a BBS be allowed to accept donations?
The BBS hobby is unique in my view. A BBS serves no purpose if there
are no callers. There is little reason for callers to join in the
hobby if there are no BBSs (yes, they can call Compuserve. That isn't
a hobby, that's a business transaction). This is a shared hobby. It
takes two to tango. I do not believe that it is improper for a caller
to assist in the expenses associated with the provision of the BBS.
In fact, I believe it is almost a moral imperative for BBS callers to
support some BBS somewhere.
It has been my experience and also the experience of many other sysops
that such fund raising only brings in a few dollars every year.
Normally, the total funds raised do not equal the difference between a
business and a residential line in Texas (Approx $250 per year).
COSUARD voted to accept a settlement that we feel is imperfect. It is
the best deal we feel we could get. It gave the BBS operator some
legitimacy and some basic security. The alternative presented to us
by the PUC staff and Southwestern Bell was to see ALL BBS systems
assessed business rates. This would be a disaster in our view. In
order to protect as many as possible, the settlement was accepted.
Ed Hopper
BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com
[Moderator's Note: Ed, my sincere thanks for rushing this report into
the Digest as soon as possible. I'm moving it to the top of the queue
for the same reason you sent it in: It is an important issue. PAT]barmar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Barry Margolin) (01/16/91)
In article <72205@bu.edu.bu.edu> ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) writes: >Issue #4. - BBS lines are more busy than others and should pay >accordingly. >If Southwestern Bell wishes to apply charges based upon usage, it >should be done via rate making procedures before the PUC. The PUC >should decide if a break with previous public policy in Texas is >justified. Such rates should be equitable so that the proverbial >talkative teenager also bears such a burden. The application of >business rates should not be used as a back door alternative to the >imposition of a mandatory measured service tariff in Texas. Even a family full of talkative teenagers would have a hard time tying up a line as much as a popular BBS. Phone companies can only offer unlimited service at a reasonable rate so long as users don't abuse it. And if calling a BBS forced a measured service tariff, BBS users would be discouraged from using them (it would be trivial to run up hundreds of dollars of charges calling a BBS on measured service), and the sysops would complain about the charge driving them out of hobby. It sounds to me like a reasonable compromise was reached; limiting a BBS to three lines limits the amount of load that BBS can put on the network, but still permits the service to be free. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
gardner@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mike Gardner) (01/21/91)
>And if calling a BBS forced a measured service tariff, BBS users would >be discouraged from using them (it would be trivial to run up hundreds >of dollars of charges calling a BBS on measured service), and the >sysops would complain about the charge driving them out of hobby. It >sounds to me like a reasonable compromise was reached; limiting a BBS >to three lines limits the amount of load that BBS can put on the >network, but still permits the service to be free. I've slogged through a lot of this topic and I don't seem to recall anyone providing real information about how BBS's impact the switch traffic in a reasonably sized city(say 150,000) people. How many BBS's(and lines) exit per 100,000 people. What percentage of the total traffic in the local switch can be attributed to local BBS lines? 1%, 10% .005%? Local switching systems are designed with some "typical" or "average" use in mind. Surely this average varies with the size of city, "type" of city (industrial vs college town) etc. The local operating company must then design the local switch to accommodate the local usage patterns. Why should bbs use be considered as anything other than part of the "local usage pattern"? I'm not sure of the exact details of the process but I'm fairly confident that if a local switch needed expansion because of local usage patterns that that cost would be easily reflected in the rate base. Of course it can be said that if you charge the "excessive" users either through measured service or business rates(back door) that you don't have to raise everyone's rates. Well that's ok, EXCEPT there you go again, making comparisons against this "average and acceptable use". This "standard" is not defined in the tariffs nor anywhere else in the public domain. Why is putting four lines on a BBS any worse than building a twenty unit apartment building? Are we talking about an inability to design the system to meet local needs, or the unwillingness to admit that when you get a phone line you are only entitled to use (or be called) up to some arbitrary amount before the phone company must invent extra charging methods that are not defined in the tarrifs? University of Illinois, Computing Services Office 1304 W Springfield, Urbana, Il 61801 Michael G. Gardner, Assistant Director, 1122 DCL (217)244-0914 gardner@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu FAX (217)244-0916
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (01/22/91)
In article <72205@bu.edu.bu.edu>, ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) writes: > Issue #6 - "What makes sysops so special?" If you have to answer this question you have already lost. The position you are arguing is that sysops are not special, and should not have to pay a higher rate than other residential customers. Any other response to this is weak and (as the moderator has so ably demonstrated) can be easily dismissed simply by bringing in other worthy causes. On the point of BBSs that solicit donations, I believe SWBell's point is valid. I report to the IRS and pay taxes on my shareware income, even though it is voluntary donations and comes nowhere near covering my costs. You don't ask for payments to support a hobby. Unsolicited donations, however, are another matter. Business don't run on spontaneous gifts. peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com