USERGS8C@mts.rpi.edu (01/05/91)
It is riduculous to compare a BBS run out of a person's den to a non-profit organization. A non-profit is allowed to have a substantial budget, a staff, and can fund-raise, as long as they do not make a profit. Now, how can a BBS be considered a non-profit organization? Most of the sysops I know do not have an operating budget, do not have a paid staff, and pay out of their own pocked the expense of having an extra phone line and a second computer. Occasionally sysops will ask for a donation [like I did when the hard drive blew up, but most users are cheap :)], but most don't bother. For most sysops, it is an expensive HOBBY, like radio-controlled airplanes or model railroading. Wouldn't it make more sense for the phone company to WELCOME a sysop, because of the extra line that is normally installed? For the extra income? And for the increased long-distance charges incurred when the sysop has to call the support BBS for his/her particular software, which is usually on the opposite coast from his/her location? I received some good advice a year ago when COSUARD was still slugging it out with SWB. If the phone company calls you, the sysop, asking about your BBS, tell them you are a HOBBYIST BBS, and not a NON-PROFIT. Non-profit means to them that you do have a large budget to pay inflated business rates. Another thing, GTE Michigan decided to go after Variety-N-Spice for two reasons: it's the biggest BBS in the state, and it is an ADULT BBS. Set the legal guns on the biggest adult board in the state. When it falls, so will all the rest. Enough on the soapbox. The precedent set by Michigan will no doubt be taken up by NYTel; they tried it before; they'll try it again. The precident will have a very bad effect on hobbyist BBSs, that serve a vital purpose to telecomputerists that are not fortunate enough to have an account to Internet or Bitnet, or are too broke to call Compu$erve. Discussion on this topic is necessary, since who knows how many phone company-types read this Digest? Maybe they'll think about what they do to modemers. Aimee Tweedie usergs8c@mts.rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY [Moderator's Note: Two issues are involved here: (1) should 'business' phones pay higher rates than 'residence' phones; (2) who should define what is a 'business' and what is not. If someone attaches a computer to a phone line and charges money to access it and gain informtion from it, why is he different than Compuserve, which attaches computers to phone lines and charges money to access their system and gain information from them? The one has a 'staff and a budget' you say? Should telco be in the business of defining what is a business and what is not? There are many, many one-person businesses in the USA. Lots of people work from home with no staff and litle budget. PAT]
floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) (01/06/91)
In article <15807@accuvax.nwu.edu> USERGS8C@mts.rpi.edu writes: >It is ridiculous to compare a BBS run out of a person's den to a >non-profit organization. A non-profit is allowed to have a >substantial budget, a staff, and can fund-raise, as long as they do >not make a profit. >Now, how can a BBS be considered a non-profit organization? Most of >the sysops I know do not have an operating budget, do not have a paid >staff, and pay out of their own pocked the expense of having an extra >phone line and a second computer. Occasionally sysops will ask for a >donation [like I did when the hard drive blew up, but most users are >[Moderator's Note: Two issues are involved here: (1) should 'business' >phones pay higher rates than 'residence' phones; (2) who should define >what is a 'business' and what is not. >Should telco be in the business of defining what is a business and 1) is a big subject that I'll not debate... 2) Seems simple enough. Anyone required to have a business license is a business. The telephone industry is not in the business of regulating, defining, or otherwise limiting other commerce or business. One other note: I often see references to the idea that BBS's use or require more resources than "normal" residential phones. That just is not so. Business use does in fact impact the network in a rather dramatic way (busy hours at 11AM and 1PM) which very much affects network design (and cost), but BBS operations don't cause a single digit worth of impact on any operational measurement applied to any network that I know of. If every BBS on any given switch shut down for one day there would be no management meeting to decide what happened and why the switch reports were off-normal. Compare that to, say, if no teenagers were allowed to use the phone for a single day, or if no ladies were allowed to call their mother on a given day! BBS's on the other hand generate revenue. Long distance calls. Just the same as teenagers and calls to mom. Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ims.alaska.edu Salcha, AK 99714 paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc. When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry. [Moderator's Note: But in reference to your point 2 above, there have been a couple instances where communities have made, or attempted to make people with modems and terminals at home get 'business licenses'. Then what would you do? Their thinking was people with these instruments at home were apparently working out of their home in a business-related activity. PAT]
ceb@csli.stanford.edu (Charles Buckley) (01/07/91)
<much worthy commentary deleted> > Discussion on this topic is necessary, since who knows > how many phone company-types read this Digest? Maybe they'll think > about what they do to modemers. > Aimee Tweedie usergs8c@mts.rpi.edu > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY > [Moderator's Note: Two issues are involved here: (1) should 'business' > phones pay higher rates than 'residence' phones; (2) who should define > what is a 'business' and what is not. . . . No it's even simpler: Michigan Bell is trying to collect marginal costs for high usage using a rate structrure which is blind to it. This has nothing to do with the BBS line, but instead the lines which call it. These are also often flat-rate residential lines in the local calling area whose subscribers derive enormous economic benefit, since they make heavy use of a line tarriffed for only intermittent calling. I think Michigan Bell probably has a case, but they only look like bullies when they try to solve their money problems by shaking down the lonely sysop. They should try instead for the introduction of universal measured rate service. This has been extremely unpopular in the past, because the rates proposed each time it's been tried have been quite high. The concept itself is a good one. I wouldn't mind paying, $.30-$.40/hour for a non-stop local call, especially if my subscription were only $3.00/month. I don't believe this will work - unmeasured service is a sacred cow in too many places. Failing that, making special class of 976 number available to the BBS sysops, perhaps on a pro bono basis, which charged callers, say, $.40/hour plus any toll, would permit closing this hole in the rate structure without substantially revising it, give the LEC their due, and not unduly burden callers (it's certainly cheaper than Compu$urcharge). It would also take the phone company and BBS sysops out of their current adversarial relationship, and make them "partners in fostering computer literacy" (the final selection of the warm fuzzy corp-speak phrase I leave to the minions). In fact, I bet it's even possible to get 976 numbers at these per-call rates now, and the only thing keeping sysops from doing this (apart from lack of knowledge that they can) is a high subscription (fixed) charge, which means that if no-one calls the BBS some month, the sysop has to pay lots (the price of unpopularity!). Anyone who deals in `sin numbers' want to comment if and under what conditions a subscriber can break even at such rates? For sure, there are going to be sysops who rightly fear for the damage to their reputation when *hundreds* jump to the typical conclusion that it's just *got* to be a porno BBS (and be usuriously expensive to call) since it has a 976 number ;'>. And, maybe the sysops only wanted to raise hell anyway ... [Moderator's Note: Well I can tell you that when unlimited local service was eliminated here in Chicago a few years ago, it was in part because of the tremendous hogs modem users were making of themselves. We had a variety of umlimited calling plans here for set monthly rates. Understandably telco wanted to make some money on the deal. Some modem users were going through more than ten thousand 'message units' per month on unlimited calling residential service plans, paying $20-30 per month! The local Diversi-dial boards were linking up with each other all over northern Illinois and staying connected for the entire weekend, etc. Telco finally said enough already ... the abusers ruined unlimited local calling for everyone. When the local area 'free calling plans' were eliminated here and people started paying only for they actually used, almost everyone priased the new plan. And who raised the biggest stink about the new plan? Why, the modem users and BBS sysops, of course! They'd have to actually start paying for those several hours at a time on line to the chat systems where they had previously stayed logged in while they went out to eat, etc. What previously cost $20-30 per month started costing $150 per month! PAT]
davep@u.washington.edu (David Ptasnik) (01/08/91)
floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: >2) Seems simple enough. Anyone required to have a business license > is a business. >The telephone industry is not in the business of regulating, defining, >or otherwise limiting other commerce or business. I don't think it's quite that simple. We have a licensed and incorporated day care in our home. We have two hunting lines. We do not pay business rates, nor do I think we should. The two lines are more a convenience for our evening modem use. We do not want to advertise in the business section of the white pages, or in the yellow pages. The volume of calls generated by the business is trivial. The standard I have most often heard is the standard of zoning. Commercial zoning, business rates. Residential zoning, res rates. If you have a business in your home, and want to advertise in the phone books, business rates. Even this last is becoming more muddy with the advent of non-telco yellow pages. They will generally accept an ad from anyone old enought to write a check, and don't really care what kind of lines you have. >One other note: I often see references to the idea that BBS's use or >require more resources than "normal" residential phones. That just is >not so. Business use does in fact impact the network in a rather >dramatic way (busy hours at 11AM and 1PM) which very much affects >network design (and cost), but BBS operations don't cause a single >digit worth of impact on any operational measurement applied to any >network that I know of. In an residential neighborhood, usage patterns are quite a bit different. I agree that most board usage is probably evening/night usage. A cluster of boards in a residential neighborhood could well have an impact on the way a CO switch is designed, and the hardware it requires. It is certainly a usage intensive service, using much more of the CO's availability than a standard res customer. When I asked telqi representatives why they charge business more, and why they used to charge PBX users more than Key System users, they always said it was a question of system usage. The more you use a line, the more you pay for it. A 16 line BBS probably does more traffic in an evening than 150 residential customers. Don't get me wrong, I like BBS's and hope that they continue to get low rates. Most CO's are mixed commercial and residential, and the occasional BBS probably doesn't have an impact. I just think that the telqi have a justifiable position. davep@u.washington.edu
USERGS8C@mts.rpi.edu (01/08/91)
In my post made 1/4/91, Pat replies: > If someone attaches a computer to a phone line and charges money to > access it and gain information from it, why is he different than > Compuserve, which attaches computers to phone lines and charges money > to access their system and gain information from them? People who run a BBS as a hobby don't charge a fee for the service. As I stated before, some sysops ask for small donations. These donations are not mandatory, but you get some extra goodie if you do [like access to the game room, or extended prime-time access]. But I fail to see how this would indicate a business. However, a BBS that charges a mandatory fee for access in another creature entirely, and should be treated as such [and I won't discuss that particular can of worms here :) ] I think that hobbyist BBSs are special. They're a place to talk about different subjects, participate in friendly chats, argue about contro- versial issues, down/upload files, and meet people in an atmosphere where what you say, not who you are, is important. It doesn't matter who you are, if you are handicapped, a minority, or whatever. Most people do not have access to the Internet/Bitnet/Usenet, and Compu$erve and GEnie are only good for some things, therefore many people rely on the local BBS. To quote Mike Riddle's paper, BBSs are now the local equivalent of the political pamphlet of the 1700s and are just as important. A BBS is not a business; it is a hobby that involves a great deal of dedication, both financial and personal. So why should sysops have to take it on the chin for providing a free forum for other people to communicate with each other and express their own opinions at the sysop's expense? If a BBS had to be classified as a business, who would run one? We'd end up with the lowest common denominator, just like television and even more boring. Aimee Tweedie usergs8c@mts.rpi.edu Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York [Moderator's Note: What about people who run *other kinds* of not-for-profit phone lines, i.e. rape crisis, domestic violence, suicide talk lines, dial-a-prayer, dial-a-conspiracy theory (312-731-1100) and similar? These are most often one or two person operations, run by people who enjoy what they are doing and who are trying to serve the community out of goodwill. They pay business rates for their service, and it comes from their own pocket and/or whatever trivial donations people send them. What rates would you have them pay? Why are BBS sysops so special and so different when it comes to trying to serve the community through a sense of charity and goodwill? What about the TTY-to-voice translators serving deaf people? PAT]
cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt) (01/09/91)
floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes: [about whether a BBS qualifies as a business, and who makes the determination...] >2) Seems simple enough. Anyone required to have a business license > is a business. >The telephone industry is not in the business of regulating, defining, >or otherwise limiting other commerce or business. There is a government agency who is: the IRS. If you wanted to deduct the costs of your BBS as a business expense, you would have to meet some pretty stringent tests. You would need, for example, a computer, modem, phone line, and room in your house devoted *exclusively* to the BBS, and you would need extensive documentation of your expenses and labor. Further, there is a nasty thing called the "three years out of five" test that home businesses are subjected to. Just charging for access isn't enough; you have to demonstrate that you have turned a profit at least three out of the last five years, or the IRS will declare your business to be a hobby, and disallow all deductions resulting from it. What's the point? The point is that there is no way that any home- operated BBS would ever meet the IRS tests for a legitimate businees (for-profit or not). So, in a rational world, there is no way that a BBS could ever be charged business rates. Whether such an argument would cut any ice with a PUC or not, I don't know. Has anyone ever tried such an argument? >[Moderator's Note: But in reference to your point 2 above, there have >been a couple instances where communities have made, or attempted to >make people with modems and terminals at home get 'business licenses'. >Then what would you do? Their thinking was people with these >instruments at home were apparently working out of their home in a >business-related activity. PAT] Having an office at home is not the same thing as running a business, according to the IRS. It is damn near impossible to deduct a home office, no matter how legitimately it may be related to your job. Again, whether this would mean anything to a PUC, I can't say. David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL (205) 461-6457 (cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov; some insane route applies) "The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary." [Moderator's Note: But again, neither would the dial-prayer / phone counselors / recorded annnouncement givers of the world qualify under the 'three out of five' rule. They pay business rates. Either there should be a not-for-profit rate with telco *or* the BBS operators should bite the bullet and pay the same as others of their kind. PAT]
cowan@uunet.uu.net (John Cowan) (01/11/91)
[much stuff about measured vs. unmeasured service deleted] Here in New York City, we have universal measured service. There are no flat-rate lines available at any price. However, modem users don't seem to suffer that much. Why? There are two main classes of service available. One is called "timed service" and is the classic type of measured service. This one costs a few bucks a month in overhead, and you then pay for all intra-LATA calls in a time- and distance-sensitive way. You are charged more for the first minute of each call. However, this option is used only by people who don't make many calls and don't have many $$$. The far more common option is "untimed service". With this service, calls within one's local calling area (there are seven such within the LATA) are counted but not timed. You pay a per-call charge of about $0.10 (less the usual kinds of evening and night discounts), no matter how long the call lasts. For New York City, the local calling area is the whole city; the other calling areas in the LATA are eastern and western Long Island and various upstate counties. Untimed service is available only to residential customers. BBSes are (implicitly) treated as residential by New York Telephone; at least, I have not heard of any problems for NYC sysops. The difference in the base monthly rate between timed and untimed service is only a few dollars; both include a calling allowance of $4. Is this compromise in use elsewhere? Should it be? [Moderator's Note: Good question. Is there any single method of charging for phone service and use which everyone would be happy with? I'd personally like to see an intermediate category of rates applied to lines used in a non-residence/not-really-business environment. The really poor (financially) public services could use a break also. When you note that The Catholic Charities of Chicago has a phone bill of several *thousand* dollars per month, and that having that trimmed by even a couple thousand dollars per month through a special rate would mean a dozen more homeless people could stay off the street at night ... It seems obvious that we need new definitions for the types of service used these days. Maybe 'residence' and 'business' are no longer adequate rate categories. PAT]
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (01/11/91)
Pat, I run a BBS from my bedroom. It's a Usenet node, and I'm dialled into it right now posting this article. It's not a 16-line chat system, or a for pay BBS, or anything. It's just a system I've set up to let my friends get access to Usenet. That phone line is in use a small fraction of the day ... mostly for my comp.dcom.telecom feed. Why should I pay business rates? If BBSes are such a heavy load on the system why was Southwestern Bell running the biggest BBS in Houston, SourceLine, until they decided that you couldn't run a BBS for profit? (and, I might add, it's apparent to most observors that SWBell decided to crack down on BBSes to get rid of competition in advance before putting SourceLine up ... I wonder what these other phone campanies have waiting in the wings?) As for measured rates, the marginal cost of a phone call is tiny. Why should that marginal cost become the dominant part of cost recovery? Particularly when SWBell's own advertisements and actions encourage more calls? What do you get in the envelope with *your* bill? I got a note saying they'd been overcharging and a credit on my bill. (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) [Moderator's Note: I don't think you should pay business rates, and unless you go to telco on your knees and beg, it is doubtful you ever will pay business rates, provided your operation is what you say it is. I assume your operation -- for friends only! -- is not advertised. You do not encourage strangers to call. You do not run sixteen lines and you do not have total strangers (to you) linked in chat with other strangers. PAT]
jimmy@icjapan.info.com (Jim Gottlieb) (01/11/91)
In article <15867@accuvax.nwu.edu> ceb@csli.stanford.edu (Charles Buckley) writes: >charged callers, say, $.40/hour plus any toll, would permit closing >this hole in the rate structure >In fact, I bet it's even possible to get 976 numbers at these per-call >rates now, and the only thing keeping sysops from doing this (apart >from lack of knowledge that they can) is a high subscription (fixed) >charge, No. Unfortunately, a 976 number with that type of rate structure is not currently possible. I wish it were. It would make a whole range of 976 data numbers possible. But under the current rate structure, using 900 or 976 results in charges much higher than the existing services that provide their services over the packet networks. The charge to the owner of a (900) number is in the range of thirty to forty cents a minute. So even if the owner provided the service at cost (as UUNET does), the charge to the consumer is still about $24 an hour and this is much too high. The charge for telco 900 and 976 numbers is usually less, but again the telco's cut means that the rate to the consumer can not be in the afforable range and compete with the likes of Compu$erve. Jim Gottlieb Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan E-Mail: <jimmy@denwa.info.com> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy> Fax: +81 3 3237 5867 Voice Mail: +81 3 3222 8429
Jim.Redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu (Jim Redelfs) (01/12/91)
> If every BBS on any given switch shut down for one day there would be > no management meeting to decide what happened and why the switch > reports were off-normal. > Compare that to, say, if no teenagers were allowed to use the phone > for a single day, or if no ladies were allowed to call their mother on > a given day! Amen to that! I can always tell when the kids have gotten home from school. Our "clattering antique" (Western Electric 2B ESS) just percolates! Pretty quite, otherwise. JR Copernicus V1.02 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (01/12/91)
In article <15944@accuvax.nwu.edu>, TELECOM Moderator, in responding to Mike Godwin writes: > fantasy sex over the phone switch to residential rates. After all, > they have the same old callers day after day, as do the non-sexual > chat lines. Those tend to be virtual communities also. I suspect that the chat lines qualify as "virtual communities", but not the dial-a-porn. How can you call it a community if none of the "members" know each other? I think this is a specious argument, but you are going a bit overboard here. In article <15946@accuvax.nwu.edu>, TELECOM Moderator responds to peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva): > [Moderator's Note: I don't think you should pay business rates... > I assume your operation -- for friends only! -- is not advertised. > You do not encourage strangers to call. You do not run sixteen lines > and you do not have total strangers (to you) linked in chat with other > strangers. Good, we've established a base at which a BBS is not a business. Now, let's go on from there ... a friend of mine is running an eight-line system, but he doesn't advertise. Five of the lines have modems that are compatible with Teletext services, so U.S. Videotel customers (and old Sourceline customers) can call. Most of the users are people he knows from U.S.Videotel, or from other BBSes, but he doesn't validate. This system is not to my knowledge (or his) advertised anywhere, but it does have chat and games and the lines are in use a considerable portion of the time. Very few (if any) of the users are total strangers to him, though we don't all know each other. This person is by nature fairly solitary, so the BBS is a large part of his social life. Is it a business? (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) [Moderator's Note: Probably it should not be treated as a business since there is at least some connection between himself and the callers. As you pointed out, 'few if any are total strangers'. He does not really solicit the public, or invite electronic strangers to call and make use of his facilities. I never said some of these situations would not be close calls, and this one is certainly such a case. My feeling would be that in cases where things are *so gray* that no real decision can be made, the benefit of the doubt should go to the subscriber. PAT]
mnemonic@world.std.com (Mike Godwin) (01/12/91)
The Moderator writes: >[Moderator's Note: Well then, if the development of a virtual >community is what you find important, it should be okay, and >encouraged to have all the 900/976 ladies and gentlemen selling >fantasy sex over the phone switch to residential rates. After all, >they have the same old callers day after day, as do the non-sexual >chat lines. Those tend to be virtual communities also. This is an untenable reach on your part, Pat. BBSs are not like 900/976 chatlines. If you think they are, then you must have been calling a very different sort of BBS from the ones I've experienced over the last decade. Apparently, I need to explain the word "community." It does not denote two people talking out each other's fantasies. Nor does it denote rape-crisis hotlines, which are also, generally, two-person interactions. Virtual communities give rise to colloquies, not merely dialogs, Pat. More than two people can talk with each other at once, and the relationship is not structured the way 976 lines and rape-crisis lines are, with one person invariably seeking some particular kind of service or information from the other, and often paying for it. If 976 lines are what come to your mind when I use the word "community," then I've learned quite a bit more about how you think than I knew before, Pat. :-) Our Moderator asks why Compuserve shouldn't get residential rates since Compuserve is a virtual community. The answer, of course , is that Compuserve is a commercial service, Pat. Most BBSs are not. I'm not advocating residential rates for all virtual communities. I'd just like to see them for the very small-scale virtual communities that arise on hobbyist BBSs. Your passion for seeing that these BBSs pay residential rates will wipe a great number of them out, Pat. This is a loss that should be avoided. John Higdon's elegant solution has yet to be fully addressed here, by the way. Higdon suggests that residential rates be the rates that are charged to *residences*. What a concept. Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 mnemonic@eff.org Electronic Frontier Foundation [Moderator's Note: I'll have a colloquy of my own in response to all this in the next issue of the Digest or the one following. PAT]
scott@blueeyes.kines.uiuc.edu (scott) (01/12/91)
I wrote: >Why do you think BBS sysops are so special that they should be singled >out among all other hobbyists for higher phone rates? Why can't we pay >the same phone rates as everyone else who has a hobby? >Tell me, do you feel that people who dial out using modems should be >charged business rates? After all, they're doing the exact same thing the >sysop is doing Pat responds: >[Moderator's Note: I do not think that *any* telephone user should be >charged business rates based on the media used. Voice, fax or computer >should all be treated alike *for casual, non-committed* use of the >phone. If 'business' rates are to be charged, they should be charged >to users who indicate the service is for business use, i.e. directory >listings using a 'business-like' name or phrase ** and to users who >specifically solicit the public to call them **. Ah, so your entire argument comes down to this: phone rates should not be proportional to actual use of telco resources, but rather to some arbitrary definition of what a "business" is. Specifically, your definition includes an explicit "solicitation for the public to call [the BBS] telephone." Thus, a BBS-addict who installs a second line for use specifically to make outgoing calls to BBSi should not pay business rates, despite the fact that a) it makes heavy use of telco resources and b) is a *non-casual, committed* use of that phone line. You believe this to be fair? >To answer your question 'why should BBS sysops be singled out for >higher rates instead of paying what other people pay for their >hobbies', the answer is that your hobby by definition involves heavy >use of the telephone, and the solicitation of the public to call your >telephone. There are other hobbies which make heavy use of the telephone (BBSing and running a point system as described earlier). Some BBSers spend more time on the phone than many BBSs, yet you do not think they should pay business rates because they don't "solicit the public to call" them. What is so magical about this "solicit the public to call" idea that it alone should double someone's phone rates? Scott Coleman tmkk@uiuc.edu [Moderator's Note: If there are going to be two sets of rates, one for 'residential' and the other for 'business' users, then there has to be some starting point to decide what falls in which category. I thought the 'do you solicit the public' question was one way of deciding who should go where. It was not intended as the last word or final test. To answer your question about how much use is made of the service, I do not think a personal/business use distinction should be made based on the amount of time a line is engaged. Certainly the one who uses more of the service should pay more *per use*, but I don't think they should have an overall higher monthly rate merely because they use it more. The BBS-addict you described is placing a call on his telephone just like a person calling voice is using the phone. He should pay for what he uses, but his is residential use, because it is a casual call, placed at his discretion, lasting whatever time he wishes to be connected. Short of shutting down the board, the sysop does not make these choices: He responds when the phone rings, provides the information or service demmanded of him by the caller and in fact encourages others to call and utilize his service through his advertising. There is a difference between specifically prompting others to call you and providing them some service -- even chat -- when they call and the person who casually uses his phone at his convenience to place such calls. PAT]
crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Brian Crawford) (01/13/91)
In article <15941@accuvax.nwu.edu>, johnp@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: > Throw out the small-minded city council, that's what! (I'll resist > flaming about the morality of forcing licenses *at all* upon people > who are engaged in entirely voluntary association.) When (assuming if) the U.S. government policy and telephone utilities catch up with their own direct-dial, universally accessed and used E-Mail network, it can be certain that highly restrictive telephone tarriffs as well as legislation will be used to stamp out the various BBS networks in lieu of a costly system provided by Telcos. Enjoy them while you can. Brian Crawford INTERNET: crawford@stjhmc.fidonet.org PO Box 804 FidoNet: 1:114/15.12 Tempe, Arizona 85280 Amateur: KL7JDQ USA [Moderator's Note: Well, I dunno ... AT&T, Sprint and MCI all have commercial email services at this time, and the government has the Internet, yet you don't see them hassling the BBS guys all that much except for the current controversy over what rates to be charged. All of the big three email providers -- or four if you count Compuserve were more than eager to interconnect with the 'free' Internet once the technical bugs were worked out. They don't seem that eager to squash the others in my opinion. PAT]
telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) (01/13/91)
Mike Godwin <eff.org!mnemonic@world.std.com> responds in issue 30 to my comments in earlier issues: My original comments: >> His reply: > >>[Moderator's Note: Well then, if the development of a virtual >>community is what you find important, it should be okay, and >>encouraged to have all the 900/976 ladies and gentlemen selling >>fantasy sex over the phone switch to residential rates. After all, >>they have the same old callers day after day, as do the non-sexual >>chat lines. Those tend to be virtual communities also. >This is an untenable reach on your part, Pat. BBSs are not like >900/976 chatlines. If you think they are, then you must have been >calling a very different sort of BBS from the ones I've experienced >over the last decade. Perhaps then you are not all that familiar with the range and scope of BBSs in America today ... or the 900/976 chat line scene. There are plenty of nice BBSs around, and more than a few 'naughty' ones as well. In both instances, by voice communication in one and by data communication in the other, people call to relate to one another, to chat by modem or speak with others, alone or in a group, friends (I use that word loosely!) or total strangers. Both the sixteen line TBBS sites with their own version of 'CB Simulator' and the six/seven line Diversi-Dial boards run on Apple ][ computers exclusively for chat purposes have a wide range of devotees. >Apparently, I need to explain the word "community." It does not denote >two people talking out each other's fantasies. Nor does it denote >rape-crisis hotlines, which are also, generally, two-person >interactions. Rape-crisis is probably not a good example here, although my inclination would be to give them a break on their phone costs if possible through the creation of a third, intermediate rate for non-residential/non-business service. You are correct this is one on one. But if two people -- sysop and BBS'er -- can sit in chat and discuss matters of interest at residential rates, why can't two people sit and chat voice discussing 'other things' also get residential rates? Or conversely, why do sysops get residential rates while voice-style information services pay business rates? >Virtual communities give rise to colloquies, not merely dialogs, Pat. >More than two people can talk with each other at once, and the >relationship is not structured the way 976 lines and rape-crisis lines >are, with one person invariably seeking some particular kind of >service or information from the other, and often paying for it. There are lots of 900/976 numbers where several people chat voice at one time in a common 'tank'. Likewise there are plenty of BBSs where only two people can talk at once, i.e. the sysop and the caller. And sometime you should ask a few old veteran sysops how many times per day they are called into chat by a new (and heretofore unknown to them) user who invariably asks "what downloads/games do you have here? How old are you? What kind of computer is this?". So some lonely nerd of a sixth-grade child phreaks his way around the country calling BBSs and pestering one sysop after another ... while another chap sits at home and calls a different 900 number daily looking for some person who will talk to him ... what is really the difference ??? >If 976 lines are what come to your mind when I use the word >"community," then I've learned quite a bit more about how you think >than I knew before, Pat. :-) 900/976 devotees (of the community chat lines) are every bit as much a community as are the devotees of some particular BBS. Admittedly the one-on-one 900 callers tend to stay anonymous, but the community chat lines are indeed, quite frequently the same old voices on the other end. Yes there are newcomers daily -- just like on a BBS. Yes, there are people who have been around for awhile and call daily ... just like on a BBS. What is really the difference ??? One chooses to speak, while the other chooses to type. Both choose to call because the person or organization on the other end **has solicited calls from the public** -- invited the public to share in hospitality with them. But you say one is a virtual community .. the other isn't. Maybe it is a matter of your subjective taste and attitudes in how one person should socialize with others. >Our Moderator asks why Compuserve shouldn't get residential rates >since Compuserve is a virtual community. The answer, of course , is >that Compuserve is a commercial service, Pat. Most BBSs are not. So do you want an auditor from telco to examine your books and see if you made money or not last year? Back in 1979-80 Compuserve was not making money. I know your answer to that is that well, their *intent* was always to make money ... and the BBS sysop does not *intend* to make money. Therefore, virtual community or not, since the sysop is only doing it out of the goodness of his heart and Compuserve is doing it for the money they make, the sysop gets off the hook while CIS pays. But if it is the 'profit motive' which is to be used to decide whether or not a virtual community ought to pay business rates on the phone, then we are back to the dial-prayers and other itinerant information providers who offer voice recordings of one kind or another out of, I might add, the goodness of their heart or their desire to serve the community. You see Mike, sysops do not have a monopoly on goodness of heart or desire to serve the community. A lady in Chicago runs a recorded message each day giving soap opera updates '... for the folks who work all day and cannot watch daytime television as I do ... '. Any number of folks have an extra phone line set up to give inspirational talks, book reviews, their view of current events or whatever. All are little one person operators who, like the sysop, believe in sharing their skills and knowledge with others freely. >I'm not advocating residential rates for all virtual communities. I'd >just like to see them for the very small-scale virtual communities >that arise on hobbyist BBSs. Your passion for seeing that these BBSs >pay residential rates will wipe a great number of them out, Pat. This >is a loss that should be avoided. I think you meant to say 'your passion for seeing them pay *BUSINESS* rates will wipe them out.' I will proceed from here on the assumption that is what you meant. I have no such passion. Did I not early on in this thread say I thought there should be a third rate step, an intermediate rate for phones not used as typical residence phones but certainly not as business phones either? If there are only to be two rates, one business and one personal, the BBSs should be treated no differently than anyone else in the 'business of' providing information, indiscriminate chatting and other services to the public out of goodwill. At present, that means pay business rates. The fact that it is regarded as a 'hobby' rather than a 'business' has no bearing on the matter since a good many dial-prayer, soap-opera review, conspiracy-theory VOICE services are regarded by their proprietors as hobbies also. They pay business rates at present. You want to 'avoid the loss of BBSs'. All well and good. Others want to keep their public-service hobbies alive also. It isn't the virtual community that matters; many of them have their little community of regular participants. It isn't the profitability that counts; none of the folks using the phone as a hobby would claim they get any sizeable amount of contributions sent to their post office boxes. It isn't how few there are around that counts; if anything there are more BBSs in any large city than churches, charities and telephone public service announcement-givers put together. At last count in metro Chicago we had over 400 BBS programs operating, per a recent BBS directory. It isn't that BBS sysops are so special and so different; they aren't. They have chosen a media and a method to express themselves and serve others. None of this would have come to pass had it not been for the multi-line chat systems like Diversi-Dial and TBBS sixteen line boards whose (apparently) wealthy owners unflinchingly spent plenty of money to set up such systems, charged a few dollars to let everyone on, and then went stiff when it was time to pay telco their due for the month. I have no doubt telco would have never touched the *really* little guys who visit electronically with a few friends at night had it not been for the real abusers in the modem world. And now, everyone gets to pay. Tell the Judge you think there should be a special rate step for the hobbyists and non-profits who use the phone in any capacity -- whatever their thing. That should be a compromise almost everyone could live with.
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) (01/13/91)
>[Moderator's Note: What about people who run *other kinds* of >not-for-profit phone lines, i.e. rape crisis, domestic violence, >suicide talk lines, dial-a-prayer, dial-a-conspiracy theory >(312-731-1100) and similar? They also regularly solicit business publically thru adverstisements. I've yet to see a BBS post a TV ad. If the IRS recognizes it as a business, then let it be a business. Otherwise, let it be a hobby. Michael P. Deignan Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd Telebit: +1 401 455 0347
hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Anvin) (01/13/91)
I propose a very simple solution to this problem, which the telcos will fight until doomsday to avoid: let all IRS certified non-profit organizations qualify for residential rates, unless they order special business services like 800 numbers and Centrex. That is the way it works in Sweden, which a few years ago started having separate business and residental rates. If the American and Swedish telenets are anything similar, the "heavy use of telco resources" is a bogus argument; the more a certain user uses the phone the more profitable a line is. The monthly line fee does not cover the telco's expenses for maintaining the local loop, so people who use their lines a lot are subsidizing the ones who rarely use their phones. Well, you may say, the telco doesn't get money for incoming calls (and for example BBS lines are almost exclusively inbound), but the caller is paying the telco anyway; as I have understood it even when the call is long distance (which BBS calls typically aren't). Also regarding the flat fee calling being eliminated for a per-call charge because of BBS's being online for hours or days at a time: doesn't this sound like a contradiction? If there is a per-call charge, wouldn't you ought to be *more* reluctant to hang up and call back later, than if you have a flat fee? Just a thought! Just my $0.02 worth... H. Peter Anvin +++ A Strange Stranger +++ N9ITP/SM4TKN +++ INTERNET: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu FIDONET: 1:115/989.4 BITNET: HPA@NUACC RBBSNET: 8:970/101.4
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (01/13/91)
In article <72156@bu.edu.bu.edu>, crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Brian Crawford) writes: > When (assuming if) the U.S. government policy and telephone utilities > catch up with their own direct-dial, universally accessed and used > E-Mail network, it can be certain that highly restrictive telephone > tarriffs as well as legislation will be used to stamp out the various > BBS networks in lieu of a costly system provided by Telcos. The Moderator demurs, based on AT&T Mail and the Internet. Sorry, Pat, but it's happening already. The crackdown on BBSes here in Houston occurred just before SWBell came out with their own "Sourceline" system. I find that, like Thoreau's trout, convincing circumstantial evidence. AT&T Mail, etc, are not in direct competition with BBS systems. The Internet is not intended as a public-access system of *any* kind. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop in Michigan. Just wait... they'll be coming out with their own Teletext type system, sure as God evolved little apples. (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com)
yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) (01/14/91)
>[Moderator's Note: Good question. Is there any single method of >charging for phone service and use which everyone would be happy with? >I'd personally like to see an intermediate category of rates applied >to lines used in a non-residence/not-really-business environment. It seems to me that there are two ways of dealing with this. One is to continue the endless proliferation of rules, special cases, and additional considerations. The other is to charge by cost. This would mean removing the distinction between residence and business listings. For local calls, I presume that it would mean both a per-call fee and a (low) fee depending on connection time. For long distance it would mean junking the flat-rate FCC access charge, and charging both local rates (paid to the LOC) and long distance rates (paid to the IXC). (I make no claims to omniscence regarding the above scheme; if it is not a decent stab at reflecting costs, correct me.) Then, if politicians/do-gooders wanted to subsidize the phone bills of poor people, or charities, or electronic communities, or whatever, they could spend tax money (they already add tax to phone bills) and do it directly, rather than doing it in the current underhand manner. We just had a session of griping about how complex the world is becoming. In the telecommunications world, this is largely a function of the complexity of the policies and regulations governing it. Those who gripe about complexity would do well to attack this obvious target. Norman Yarvin yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu
PCOEN@drew.bitnet (Paul Coen) (01/14/91)
I just had to respond to the people who were claiming that
BBSs were no different than 900 numbers. Remember -- the people who
are operating 900 numbers are usually at least breaking even on their
costs, due to the per-minute charge on the 900 number. 976 numbers
also generate revenue, I believe. The "hobby BBS" does not.
The comment about amount of usage is a semi-valid one. Think
about it -- even if you pay-per-use, that isn't going to affect
incoming calls. Since the call is being made by the other party, not
the BBS, there really isn't any easy way to apply measured service to
BBS lines.
As far as home-run, local, non-revenue-generating dial a
prayer or other lines are concerned, why should they pay extra either?
Is the purpose of the business rate to charge for more use, or is it
so the phone company gets a cut of any profit you make via your use of
the telephone? If you're not making money, or operating as a loss, I
really can't see the justification.
The fact that when you get a residential line, last time I had
NJ Bell service anyway, you don't get anything telling you how much
you can use your phone should mean that you can stay on the line 24
hours a day talking to your friends in the local calling area. Why
should it be any different when you hook a computer up to it? The
average BBS probably doesn't use any more phone time (and maybe less)
than a family with several teen-agers.
The average BBS isn't costing the local phone company extra
money, really. As long as all the local circuits aren't busy, who
cares what the rest of the lines are doing? That's like computer
center managers that say that running games on a minicomputer late at
night (when the computer would be otherwise idle) is COSTING them
money. There's a difference between "cost" and "non-revenue-
generating," I think. The only cost I can potentially see is that the
phone companies are actually having to maintain line quality, rather
than letting it degrade to the point where data communications are
difficult.
Just so you know where I stand, I'm a co-sysop on a BBS owned
by Drew University. The Drew Underground has six NJ Bell lines, which
we pay business rates on because they're located in University-owned
buildings. (Of course, getting NJ Bell to repair problems is like
trying to squeeze oil out of a piece of rock, but that's another
story). Fortunatly, the $$ comes from a University budget, not us.
The preceeding may not even be my opinions, never mind Drew U.'s
Paul Coen Academic Computer Center Drew University0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) (01/14/91)
This thread is meandering off into all sorts of nice paths that would
be quite interesting if ... and that's a big IF ... there was policy
being made.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Rather, existing policy is being
interpreted. Here are some thoughts to consider:
1.) Telcos are *not* enacting any "new policy" or "new tariffs" in
these cases. Rather, they are acting under existing tariffs and
simply saying BBSs fall under those tariffs. Thus, all our nice
discussions about "communities of interest" have no bearing. What
does have bearing is what Telcos have been able to get into
long-standing tariffs about what constitutes a "business" for
rate-charging purposes.
2.) That definition of a "business" has nothing to do with profit or
tax status, and it has very little to do with electronic "communities
of interest." Altough the words may vary from Telco to Telco, they
esenti- ally state that a "place" open for public entry is a
"business" in the meaning of the tariff. Under such tariff wording,
it has become rather common for churches (that once enjoyed a
residential rate as a courtesy) to have had to pay business line rates
for a couple of decades. Similarly, even private clubs and fraternal
organizations that have but limited access to small segments of the
public have paid business rates. The Indiana case was squashed very
quickly on that one.
It's certain the Michigan case has to be addressed in the same light,
for that's the sort of argument the Telco will raise.
3.) The stories about "burdening the plant" are old, too, based on the
way business loaded the switched telephone network from 9 to 5, Monday
through Friday, years ago. Such claims oare shibboleths taught to all
Telco people at their grandpa's knee.
The real fact is that the load on the switched telephone network
has changed dramatically, and in highly local ways. Nobody knows for
sure what the peak is, and it can't be stated in aything but a local
sense for ay known case. Telcos do take "snapshots" of a week or so,
in places where it seems to be needed. A really good example occurred
in recent years at New Port Richey, FL, where there was ahigh level of
complaint that nobody in GTE addressed ... until they did get a new
traffic manager who did have an open mind. He was stonewalled with
the old "9-5, M-F" stories INSIDE the Telco; told the plant was fully
ade- quate for that peak, and it hed been measured and proved in New
Port Richey several times. It simply could NOT be inadequate
switching plant. He asked if it ever got checked at other days and
hours and was told they hadn't done that for 25 years. Why? Because
the "AT&T book" (another one of those common Telco references that
nobody can ever lay their hands on or name) said the peaks were M-F,
9:30 AM and 4:30 PM ... when, like "everbody knows," business loads
the plant. Well, he had the budget and control, so he ordered nights
and weekends measured.
Surprise! They found the largest peak of the whole week was 10 AM
Saturday, when all the retirees got on the phone with their children
up north!
Not "business lines," not "teenagers," not "faxes and computers,"
but senior citizens!
My point in all this is that any discussion about relative usage is
just a red harring, anyway. Nobody is particularly measuring bbs
usage to prove it requires extra plant. Their whole issue is the
right of the Telco to determine if a line exists for general public
usage. Like it or not, they have a rate for usage defined in that
sense, and the right to charge for it.
Perhaps the best anyone might claim here, then, is that they run a
"hobby," and try to claim other "hobbies" are exempted on a per-case
basis.
4.) About the only thing one might try to counter any of this is to
demand the Yellow Pages listing under the *new* heading "Computer
Bulletin Boards" and file Utility Commission complaints until such
time as the Telco complies. Even there, if they have a heading for
"Computer Services," one's argument can get quashed. However,
sufficiently querulous <sp?> Sysops might make some use of this,
quibbling about what heading should be started up or such. But,
people who take money probably should have such a listing, anyway.
For-pay boards would probably want it, when you think about it.
Anyhow, for the instant, what has to be addressed is interpreting
the Telco's right to charge for places the non-family, unrelated
public is invited to call.wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) (01/16/91)
I've just caught up with the Digests covering this topic, and hope to get my comments in before the cutoff; I broke my wrist a while back so am typing everything one-fingered, which slows down my response/contribution capability... :-) I can understand the telco's point of view about charging BBS lines more in flat-rate localities (I may not agree, but I can understand it...). But, in *measured service* localities, let me take an extreme opposing view: BBS dial-in lines (and Dial-A-Joke, Time&Temp, etc. lines, too) should be FREE. After all, in measured service, the telco makes its money off the calls other people make TO these lines. It is in the telco's interest that there be as many of these dial-in-only lines as possible, because their existence will generate revenue from the people calling them. The operators of these services (BBSs, Dial-A-Whatever, etc.) have expenses in operating and maintaining the equipment; the telco should do its part by giving them free incoming-only lines. (It would be fine if the lines were set up so that outgoing calls were impossible; perhaps a certain level or number of incoming calls should be required to be maintained so that the telco continues to get adequate income off the lines to justify providing them, too.) Note that the whole business <-> residential distinction becomes moot in this case. Any incoming-only line that generates sufficient income to the telco from the measured service of the calls coming into it should be free to the operator of the service at that number. It doesn't matter if this is the perpetually-busy consumer-assistance- and-info line at the Better Business Bureau, incoming lines to Kinky's Adult BBS, the help desk at Sleazoid Software, Inc., or whatever; all of them create telco income in a measured-service world. Myself, I like flat rate unmeasured service, having a wife at home who is perpetually on the phone, so I don't particularly desire this scenario to come into being here and now. For those of you who are already in measured-service areas (and who don't have the "untimed" measured service described by one contributor), this sounds like something to be lobbied for. Right now, your telcos not only get the income from the measured service, but they also charge the people who operate the facilities that create the calls which generate that income! They're grabbing from both sides. It would seem more reasonable for them to get income from one side only. Y'know, one of the problems in these legal proceedings, like PUC hearings about a telco increasing the line charges for BBSs, is that one side wants a change (the telco) while the other side just wants to keep the status quo (the BBSers). That means one side is attacking while the other is just defending. Since the best defense is a good attack, that puts the latter group at a disadvantage. Any compromise means they *have* to lose something. Why not respond to the attack with a counterstrike, taking the above viewpoint? In response to their wanting to *raise* your rates, don't just ask that they remain unchanged, but instead demand they be eliminated entirely! That way, the status quo could be a settlement out of court... Just some orthogonal thinking ... Will
jrc@brainiac.mn.org (Jeffrey Comstock) (01/16/91)
>>[Moderator's Note: Two issues are involved here: (1) should 'business' >>phones pay higher rates than 'residence' phones; (2) who should define >>what is a 'business' and what is not. The answer to (2) is the IRS. Tell the phone company to produce tax records indicating you made a profit from the BBS. If they can't do it, it's settled. This hits a sore spot with me, because I don't charge anyone money for access to my system, yet the phone company wants to charge me business rates. When I make a profit on this, then I will consider paying them their (outrageous) rates for a business line. jeff [Moderator's Note: 'Making a profit' is NOT the deciding factor. Which major airline was it that filed bankruptcy last year? They obviously did not 'make a profit', and their corporate tax return will plainly indicate this to be the case. Maybe you are saying 'well, they intended to make a profit', and that is true. But tell me, if you thought you could survive financially from your BBS by charging user fees, wouldn't you like to give it a try also? :) PAT]
wright@ais.org (Carl Wright) (01/21/91)
In the article, (Norman Yarvin) writes: >It seems to me that there are two ways of dealing with this. One is >to continue the endless proliferation of rules, special cases, and >additional considerations. The other is to charge by cost ... [good stuff removed] >We just had a session of griping about how complex the world is >becoming. In the telecommunications world, this is largely a function >of the complexity of the policies and regulations governing it. Those >who gripe about complexity would do well to attack this obvious >target. IMHO this problem will not be solved quickly, but that an unexpected path may lead us to a solution. In computer systems, there is a "law" that computer systems grow in comlexity until they are abandoned or rewritten. [Gilb's Fourth Law] The easiest way to simplify the system may be to make it so complex that its users reject it and abandon or rewrite. I'd bet on this route before I'd try to convince the carriers and regulatory commisions to rewrite the way they do their "business". They are already susceptible to the "incrementalism" practiced in the creation of law where a law is proposed and accepted to apply only to an extreme portion of the population, then is extended gradually to more and more of the population,i.e. the Federal Income tax or the current inch-by-inch battling you witness over abortions. We can propose that nonprofit organizations, since they serve the public good, should be provided lower telephone rates. Then during a period of public sympathy for the nonprofits we urge the further reduction of their rates, maybe to zero. Since they have so much lower rates there should also be consideration given to less public agents that serve the public through BBS, recorded message services, and others. Mind you not as much as the real nonprofits, but they should not have to pay as much as big corporations which are only interested in their own profits. Really the corporations should be paying a greater portion of the costs of communications since they benefit so greatly from the telephone system. I think you probably have gotten the idea by now. Carl Wright | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc. Internet: wright@ais.org | 2350 Green Rd., #160 Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST | Ann Arbor, MI 48105