cmcurtin@bluemoon.uucp (Matthew Curtin) (01/30/91)
Greetings! I've been hearing roumors about the FCC charging us EXTRA for using modems (as opposed to just using voice). How could the FCC regulate this, as it seems to me that the phone companies alone would be responsible for this. If this is true, this is certainly just a scheme by some beaurocrat to make an extra buck and hinder us from communicating with each other in this manner. What could be done to stop it? ______________________________________________________________________________ | C. Matthew Curtin ! "This is a strange game. The only way to | | P.O. Box 27081 ! win is not to play." -Joshua | | Columbus, OH 43227-0081 !---------------------------------------------| | cmcurtin@bluemoon.uucp _______!______________Apple_II_Forever!______________|
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) (01/31/91)
In article <7X9kw3w163w@bluemoon.uucp> cmcurtin@bluemoon.uucp (Matthew Curtin) writes: >I've been hearing roumors about the FCC charging us EXTRA for using modems This rumor keeps making the rounds. It is completely false, based on a proposal made and dropped about five years ago to treat packet switched data carriers such as Tymnet more like long distance phone companies. The FCC has on more than one occasion stated in writing that they have no intention of changing the way things are now. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {ima|spdcc|world}!iecc!johnl " #(ps,#(rs))' " - L. P. Deutsch and C. N. Mooers
gtoal@tharr.UUCP (Graham Toal) (02/05/91)
In article <299.security.eff@pro-angmar> m.tiernan@pro-angmar.UUCP (Michael Tiernan) writes: (the old story about tax/surchange for modem use) >My information is old and sketchy, we need up to date info so if anyone is out >there who's got a finger on the pulse of this one, please let's hear about it. Argh! Not again. It's an URBAN LEGEND. It is debunked every year regular as clockwork but people still keep trotting it out. Next phase is a letter- writing campaign to Congress... G -- (* Posted from tharr.uucp - Public Access Unix - +44 (234) 261804 *)
acminfo@zeus.unomaha.edu (Dan Kenny) (02/10/91)
In article <1726@tharr.UUCP>, gtoal@tharr.UUCP (Graham Toal) writes: > In article <299.security.eff@pro-angmar> m.tiernan@pro-angmar.UUCP (Michael Tiernan) writes: > > (the old story about tax/surchange for modem use) > >>My information is old and sketchy, we need up to date info so if anyone is out >>there who's got a finger on the pulse of this one, please let's hear about it. > > Argh! Not again. It's an URBAN LEGEND. It is debunked every year regular > as clockwork but people still keep trotting it out. Next phase is a letter- > writing campaign to Congress... > It may be the old "urban legend", but I would much rather be informed of a potential threat to my pursuit of happiness than have it sneaked in on me by the phone company lobbyists and a short-term-mentality Congress. I do not buy the argument that just because rumors crop up each year, everyone can relax and there will never be another attempt to strangle the modem user. For example, just how many people out in the net.space.time.continuum were aware of THIS little tidbit of legislation? ----------- From The Omaha World Herald Sun Feb 3: Fr. The Washington Post "Computer Professionals to Lose Eligibilty for Overtime Payments" Washington - Hundreds of thousands of computer analysts, programmers and software engineers no longer will be eligible to receive overtime payments under regulations to be issued this month by the Labor Department. The exemption that excludes these workers from receiving overtime was approved by Congress last year and represents the first time in the 52-year history of federal wage-hour law that anyone has become exempt from overtime payment simply by the level of earnings in a specific occupation. Under the new law, a computer systems analyst, programmer, software engineer and "other similarly skilled professional workers" paid on an hourly basis can be denied overtime payments if they earn 6 1/2 times the federal minimum wage. The minimum wage will rise to $4.25 an hour on April 1. This means anyone earning $27.62 an hour in the covered occupations would not be eligible for overtime. The most immediate impact will be in the computer consulting industry, where hourly wages for programmers and analysts range from $25 to $100 an hour, said Harvey Shulman, general consel for the National Association of Computer Consultant Businesses. -------- I find it interesting to note that while Congress is quite alarmed about the declining interest in science and computer fields from our youth, they sure are trying to do their best to stifle movement into the electronic frontier... The article should also serve as a reminder not to let one's guard down for a minute. I know -I- wasn't aware of this legislation until after the fact. ============================================================================ Dan Kenny, SIG Director acminfo@zeus.unomaha.edu UNO-ACM Information Applications "Feed your brain" ============================================================================
wouk@alumni.colorado.edu (Arthur Wouk) (03/02/91)
In article <7X9kw3w163w@bluemoon.uucp> cmcurtin@bluemoon.uucp (Matthew Curtin) writes: >Greetings! > >I've been hearing roumors about the FCC charging us EXTRA for using modems >(as opposed to just using voice). How could the FCC regulate this, as it >seems to me that the phone companies alone would be responsible for this. > >If this is true, this is certainly just a scheme by some beaurocrat to >make an extra buck and hinder us from communicating with each other in >this manner. What could be done to stop it? > i would like to comment on this matter based on my knowledge gained from being in a company that was bought out by a telephone company (GTE) over 30 years ago. (i didn't stay around toolong after thast.) the principle on which telephone service works is that of 'concentration'. it is too expensive to run a single line from each terminal point ((telephone, ...) to the switching center and hence pn th the network. instead, local concentrators exist to serve a given number of phones (say 10) on the basis that not more than one of them will need service at any one time. actually this is an obvious oversimplification, but it makes the point. these concentrators again may be concentrated one or more times before reaching the switching station. at the switching station you enter the world of trunk lines with much capacity, but again based on a predicted usage level. the point of this is, the physical plant is based on a specific predicted utilization level, based on a well established pattern of utilization by different types of users: home, business, etc. since business use is very heavy, it is harder to reduce the number of lines used to provide a given level of service, so more physical lines need to be run from the terminus on in through the concentraters. this is very expensive, and busnesses pay more for phone use for that reason. home use is much lighter, and the degree of concentration possible is greater. so the introcution of a modem into residential areas provides a very different type of load to the system than a person to person phone call. i for instance, tend to log in for from 10 minutes to two hours at a time. this degrades the service offered to others on my concentrator, since i tie up one its outgoing lines very significantly. in a sense this is the sort of phenomenon which makes family people tend to have a dedicated line for their computers. the same queing problems for a single line lead to immense dissatisfaction in the household, because of the degraded service to the non-modem user! anyway, as you can see, if you introduce this perturbation to the service demand, the phone company will have to make more capital investment to provide the same level of service to the other users on your concentrator. now, the FCC enters because it has jurisdiction of rate setting in certain case, while the state utilities commission has similar duties in other cases. the point is that we modem users are free loading on a system designed for the usual distribution of personal phone calls. i would not be surprised if some ruling from some government agency doesn't eventually force us to pay extra for the extra demands which we make. in order for that to be done a rather complicated analysis of the distibution of modem based uses had to be mnade. for instance, if we use uucp from 2am to 3am for regular downloads, we don't really pose an extra system load. if we try to run for several hours on mother's day, for instance, we make things very difficult. so it is hard to judge what the extra cost really is. now: this all could change if a fiber optic line was used for service all the way down to the household level, or even say to the first concentrator level. the huge capacity of such lines would make the whole discussion above irrelevant. but the cost of running fiber optics so far down the tree of the system might make ALL phone service too expensive for most people. i really can't guess about that. so don't blame the phone companies so much, and think about what we do as partially freeloading on others. since i happen to be retired, most of my usage occurs at a time when my neighbors are all away at work, so i don't believe that i downgrade their service significantly. can you say the same? -- arthur wouk internet: wouk@cs.colorado.edu
minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (03/03/91)
by wouk@alumni.colorado.edu (Arthur Wouk): : : | the point of this is, the physical plant is based on a specific | predicted utilization level, based on a well established pattern of | utilization by different types of users: home, business, etc. | | since business use is very heavy, it is harder to reduce the number of | lines used to provide a given level of service, so more physical lines | need to be run from the terminus on in through the concentrators. this | is very expensive, and busnesses pay more for phone use for that | reason. | | home use is much lighter, and the degree of concentration possible is | greater. so the introcution of a modem into residential areas | provides a very different type of load to the system than a person to | person phone call. i for instance, tend to log in for from 10 minutes | to two hours at a time. this degrades the service offered to others on | my concentrator, since i tie up one its outgoing lines very | significantly. : : | -- | arthur wouk | internet: wouk@cs.colorado.edu I would like to publicly ponder whether Arthur has witnessed the phenomena of the teenage female with regard to phone usage. Should phone companies charge more for households with children, much like insurance companies do for auto insurance? This is just my light-hearted thought for the day. Robert Minich minich@d.cs.okstate.edu -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| "I'm not discouraging others from using |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | their power of the pen, but mine will | U | - "Ackphtth" | continue to do the crossword." M. Ho
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) (03/03/91)
In article <7X9kw3w163w@bluemoon.uucp> cmcurtin@bluemoon.uucp (Matthew Curtin) writes: >I've been hearing roumors about the FCC charging us EXTRA for using modems >(as opposed to just using voice). This is a persistent false rumor that appears to get restarted every few months when people come across old files on BBSes. It is true that several years ago, the FCC proposed to change the way that packet switched networks such as Sprintnet and Tymnet were regulated. In effect, the networks would be treated as long-distance carriers rather than as end users. These changes would have had the effect of charging the networks and presumably their users several cents per minute for dial-in and dial-out connect time. This proposal was completely abandoned due to objections from the networks, their users, and many congress members. The FCC has in recent years stated in writing that they have no intention of changing the treatment of packet networks. If someone has evidence of an actual FCC proposal to change the treatment of modem users, including an FCC docket number that would allow us to get copies of it and comment on it, we'd all be very interested to hear about it. I do not believe that there is any such proposal, and would appreciate it if people would be more careful about spreading false alarming rumors. There are enough true alarming rumors around that we don't need any false ones. A continuing situation of concern to modem users is that in some states, local phone companies are trying to charge the owners of hobby BBS systems business rather than residential phone rates. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the FCC, which only regulates interstate telephony. The newsgroup alt.cosuard contains considerable material on this topic. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {ima|spdcc|world}!iecc!johnl Cheap oil is an oxymoron.
floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) (03/03/91)
In article <1991Mar3.045031.25491@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu> minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: >by wouk@alumni.colorado.edu (Arthur Wouk): >: >: >| the point of this is, the physical plant is based on a specific >| predicted utilization level, based on a well established pattern of >| utilization by different types of users: home, business, etc. >| >| since business use is very heavy, it is harder to reduce the number of >| lines used to provide a given level of service, so more physical lines >| need to be run from the terminus on in through the concentrators. this >| is very expensive, and busnesses pay more for phone use for that >| reason. >| >| home use is much lighter, and the degree of concentration possible is >| greater. so the introcution of a modem into residential areas >| provides a very different type of load to the system than a person to >| person phone call. i for instance, tend to log in for from 10 minutes >| to two hours at a time. this degrades the service offered to others on >| my concentrator, since i tie up one its outgoing lines very >| significantly. > > I would like to publicly ponder whether Arthur has witnessed the >phenomena of the teenage female with regard to phone usage. Should phone >companies charge more for households with children, much like insurance >companies do for auto insurance? This is just my light-hearted thought >for the day. Actually it isn't just children, or at least young children. The normal pattern for business use is many relatively short calls. The calls peak at the beginning of the business day (8-9), at about 11 AM, and from 1-2 PM, with each peak being larger than the earlier one. At 5PM the number of calls drops dramatically. And the length of those fewer calls goes up just as dramatically. And it is not just kids calling each other either. The long distance calls are almost all kids calling Mom and Dad, and the kids are any age young enough to have parents alive to call! As far as I know modem calls are exactly a reflection of voice calls. Business calls are short and many, residential calls are fewer and lengthy. I also suspect that modem users make more long distance calls than non-modem users. I like that, it pays my wages. Floyd -- Floyd L. Davidson | floyd@ims.alaska.edu | Alascom, Inc. pays me Salcha, AK 99714 | Univ. of Alaska | but not for opinions.
hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar2.023716.13851@csn.org> wouk@alumni.colorado.edu (Arthur Wouk) writes: > ... >i would like to comment on this matter based on my knowledge gained >from being in a company that was bought out by a telephone company >(GTE) over 30 years ago. (i didn't stay around toolong after thast.) > >the principle on which telephone service works is that of >'concentration'. it is too expensive to run a single line from each ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Except that this is what is very often done in urban and suburban areas. While this is just a single part of the telephone system, the point is important - and is at the root of my disagreement with this argument. >terminal point ((telephone, ...) to the switching center and hence pn >th the network. instead, local concentrators exist to serve a given >number of phones (say 10) on the basis that not more than one of them >will need service at any one time. actually this is an obvious >oversimplification, but it makes the point. these concentrators again >may be concentrated one or more times before reaching the switching >station. at the switching station you enter the world of trunk lines >with much capacity, but again based on a predicted usage level. > >the point of this is, the physical plant is based on a specific >predicted utilization level, based on a well established pattern of >utilization by different types of users: home, business, etc. > ... However, this is only part of the story and it is a major distortion to consider it as the whole story. Some parts of my telephone service are dedicated to my phone alone. My local loop (which in my case goes to my central office) is used only by me and sits there vacant when I don't use it. Similarly such services as monthly billing and listing services are constant cost regardless of my phone usage. The telephone switch in my central office may or may not be cost sensitive to my use. (If it is non-blocking then costs don't depend on how much I use my phone. If it is blocking, then there may have to be a *very* small equipment increment if I use my phone very much.) The trunks from my central office to others in my local calling area do have their size dependant on how much I use them, but for long distance trunks I am already paying dependant on how much I use them. Therefore I claim that major portions of the cost of rendering me phone service do not change because of my usage pattern, and that other portions increase very slowly with my increased usage. If I am correct, then much of the "we consider you a business and therefore you must pay much higher rates" stuff is simply a way for the phone co. to collect extra money (and to provide a public relations rationale so that the general public will swallow this rationale.) If there really was an increased cost, wouldn't the phone companies talk about it? --henry schaffer n c state univ
randolph@cognito.Eng.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) (03/05/91)
If pricing actually followed usage, you would actually pay a very high monthly flat rate, and a very small usage charge; most of the cost of the network is in the "last mile" of wire and the local office equipment. As tariffs (rate schedules) were set before ATT broke up, long distance was charged much higher than cost, and local service lower. Since, at that time, the majority of long-distance service was business-related, national and international business users were carrying the costs of the network. As tariffs are currently set, I would guess that, at this point, it is local business users who actually carry most of the cost of the network. The local access charge is a reflection of the lost long-distance subsidy; if the local telcos had their way it would be much higher. nd t ou ui R Press T __Randolph Fritz sun!cognito.eng!randolph || randolph@eng.sun.com ou ui Mountain View, California, North America, Earth nd t
dgelbart@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Dave Gelbart) (03/05/91)
minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: > I would like to publicly ponder whether Arthur has witnessed the > phenomena of the teenage female with regard to phone usage. Should phone > companies charge more for households with children, much like insurance > companies do for auto insurance? This is just my light-hearted thought > for the day. > > Robert Minich > minich@d.cs.okstate.edu That completely misses the point. It's impractical for the phone company to start charging households according to usage level, teenage girl quotient, etc. *Very* impractical. On the other hand, it's pretty easy for them to start charging BBSs -- which *consistently* have greater than average phone use -- as they do not have to rearrange or scrap existing regulations. Besides, it's doubtful there will be a public outcry if all telcos started charging BBSs higher rates. Incidentally, I believe several telephone companies have standing policy, which they have never bothered to enforce, that BBSs pay business rates. I know BC Tel, my local telco, does. Dave Gelbart <dgelbart@questor.wimsey.bc.ca> Post: #12 4255 Sophia St./Vancouver, BC/V5V 3V6/CANADA
todd@toolz.uucp (Todd Merriman) (03/05/91)
wouk@alumni.colorado.edu (Arthur Wouk) writes: >so don't blame the phone companies so much, and think about what we do >as partially freeloading on others. I am not "freeloading," as you put it, when I use my private phone line 15 hours/day continuously (as I often do). I am paying for 24-hour service, and I am not concerned about the requirements to the phone company of delivering the level of service I am paying for. You are free to insult yourself by calling yourself a "freeloader," but how dare you lay your lack of self-respect on me? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Todd Merriman - Software Toolz, Inc. * Maintainer of the * * 8030 Pooles Mill Dr., Ball Ground, GA 30107-9610 * Software * * ...emory.edu!toolz.uucp!todd * Entrepreneur's * * V-mail (800) 869-3878, (404) 889-8264 * mailing list * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ggw%wolves@cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) (03/05/91)
In article <aocBy2w164w@questor.wimsey.bc.ca> dgelbart@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Dave Gelbart) writes: >minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: > >> I would like to publicly ponder whether Arthur has witnessed the >> phenomena of the teenage female with regard to phone usage. Should phone >> companies charge more for households with children, much like insurance >> companies do for auto insurance? This is just my light-hearted thought >> for the day. > >That completely misses the point. It's impractical for the phone company to >start charging households according to usage level, teenage girl quotient, >etc. *Very* impractical. You don't seem to realize that in many places, the telcos DO charge by effective usage level. Unmetered service (flat rate/free local calls/etc.) is mostly a smaller town situation. In the large metropolitan areas most service (business or residential) is measured and all call are paid for on a time used basis. Even here in Durham NC where I have unmeasured local calls, the extended calling area (which allows lower than LD rate calling to Chapel Hill and Raleigh) is simply a measured service rate. LD has always been a measured service. The local telcos are also going to have a damn good idea of the service utilization patterns in their COs. They may not know exactly how much service a particular line uses currently, but they ARE collecting the usage statistics and aggregating them for their planning use. If they want to track individual line usage, it is simply a matter of programming in most modern switches. > On the other hand, it's pretty easy for them to >start charging BBSs -- which *consistently* have greater than average phone >use -- as they do not have to rearrange or scrap existing regulations. Now, this is the real crux of the matter - existing regulations. In most places, it would NOT really be too hard for the telcos to introduce tarriffs that provided more than two tiers of service. The distinction between residential and business is one carefully maintained by the telcos. In reality they have several levels of service tarriffed in most places. For example, there is usually a "lifeline" service tarriffed that provides measured local calls, no LD access and a very low rate which is available for locations or users that only need telephone access for emergency or minimal use. This tarriff was introduced in most places at the insistence of the PUC or equivalent. But you will almost never hear the telco mention this particular service option. On the other end of the spectrum, the largest users seldom buy telco service line-by-line. They get a PBX and a "trunk" interface that in essense makes them a micro-telco on their premises. The buy large chunks of service at a time and may often get a lower aggregate rate than a residence. It is the vast middle class of telco users - the residences and small businesses - that get shafted with high rates and strange regulations. The telcos try to shuffle most folks into the "standard residence" or "standard business" tarriffs so that the telco will get maximal return on investment. >Besides, it's doubtful there will be a public outcry if all telcos >started charging BBSs higher rates. Well, there may not be much PUBLIC outcry, but there sure is a lot of outcry and complaints and testimony before the regulators when they do try it. >Incidentally, I believe several telephone companies have standing policy, >which they have never bothered to enforce, that BBSs pay business rates. >I know BC Tel, my local telco, does. Well, in this GTE satrapy, BBSs get charged business rates if they operate as a business. If they charge for access, advertise strongly or are operated as part of a business, they get charged business rates. On the other hand, if they do not require contributions and don't draw too much attention, they can operate on residential lines. -- Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply>
learn@ddsw1.MCS.COM (William Vajk) (03/06/91)
In article <1991Mar2.023716.13851@csn.org> Arthur Wouk writes: >the principle on which telephone service works is that of >'concentration'. it is too expensive to run a single line from each >terminal point ((telephone, ...) to the switching center and hence pn >th the network. instead, local concentrators exist to serve a given >number of phones (say 10) on the basis that not more than one of them >will need service at any one time. May be some places. But you can chase the wires from my house right to the local exchange. >now: this all could change if a fiber optic line was used for service >all the way down to the household level, or even say to the first >concentrator level. the huge capacity of such lines would make the >whole discussion above irrelevant. but the cost of running fiber >optics so far down the tree of the system might make ALL phone service >too expensive for most people. i really can't guess about that. May be in some places. But they've been running fiber all over town here for the last year or so. What/where they do/will connect I don't know. I'm still wire all the way here. >so don't blame the phone companies so much, and think about what we do >as partially freeloading on others. Don't you dare talk to me about "freeloading." Here in Illinois we recently began paying an extra 15 cents per month per line to help pay the cost of phone service to the certifiably poor. Beyond that we have 100% metered service only. Calls within 8 miles cost a nickel regardless of duration. From 8 miles outward we are billed by the minute. That's for BELL. The rules are different for folks serviced by CENTEL. In spite of the "fairness" promised by the telephone company here, their profits rose and I have been able to find no one whose monthly bill was actually reduced as opposed to the old "callpack" system we used to enjoy. >since i happen to be retired, most >of my usage occurs at a time when my neighbors are all away at work, >so i don't believe that i downgrade their service significantly. can >you say the same? And isn't it interesting that while you don't downgrade the service significantly, you are also using the phone during the hours the phone companies consider to be "prime", the very same hours during they impose the highest charges ? I'm not in the least concerned about the loading I present to the local phone system. I pay for it quite dearly. I support enough that they can afford to upgrade the service. In my neighborhood (not swanky by any means) more homes have multiple phone lines than one. There are 5 phone drops to my house from the pole. Bill Vajk
shiva@pro-smof.cts.com (System Smof) (03/06/91)
In-Reply-To: message from dgelbart@questor.wimsey.bc.ca I've always wondered about the "BBSs have greater than average phone use" justification for higher rates, since prime time for BBSs is typically during evening hours, which does not conflict with business use of the system during the day. ____________________________________________________________________ / | | \ |SMOF-BBS 512-467-7317 PCP=TXAUS |UUCP: crash!pro-smof!shiva | __|__ | |Proline: shiva@pro-smof |"The World's First Online | \_|_/ | |Internet: shiva@pro-smof.cts.com| Science Fiction Convention"| | | \________________________________|____________________________|______/
alien@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Tom von Alten) (03/07/91)
In comp.org.eff.talk, todd@toolz.uucp (Todd Merriman) writes: > I am not "freeloading," as you put it, when I use my private phone line > 15 hours/day continuously (as I often do). I am paying for 24-hour > service, and I am not concerned about the requirements to the phone > company of delivering the level of service I am paying for. > You are free to insult yourself by calling yourself a "freeloader," > but how dare you lay your lack of self-respect on me? Ayup. And when enough of their customers get to using their phones 15 hours/day, somebody will have to pay for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. There is no such thing as a free lunch. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) (03/09/91)
hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes: > Therefore I claim that major portions of the cost of rendering me > phone service do not change because of my usage pattern, and that other > portions increase very slowly with my increased usage. If I am > correct, then much of the "we consider you a business and therefore > you must pay much higher rates" stuff is simply a way for the phone co. > to collect extra money (and to provide a public relations rationale so > that the general public will swallow this rationale.) Apparently local residential calling is not as heavily subsidised in the US as it is in Canada (Canada has some of the, if not the, cheapest local phone rates in the world) but I belive that the situation is similar. Residental users are given a heavy subsidy to keep the cost of having a phone low. Currently, residential users in B.C. pay about $14 per month for a phone and business users pay about $70 per month (or about $30 per month for a restricted outgoing line). B.C. Tel claims that the true cost of a residental phone line, were it not subsidized by business and long-distance charges, would be about $30-$35 per month. The CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telephone Commission, which regulates the phone monopoly) deems that this subsidy is a good thing. cjs curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | "Sometimes it's like a party you go to where curt@cynic.uucp | there are no lights and everyone is doing {uunet|ubc-cs}!van-bc!cynic!curt | animal impressions." -Phillip Evans on usenet
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) (03/09/91)
dgelbart@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Dave Gelbart) writes: > Incidentally, I believe several telephone companies have standing policy, > which they have never bothered to enforce, that BBSs pay business rates. > I know BC Tel, my local telco, does. Wrong. This issue came to a head last year when BC Tel decided to charge Doppler/Deep Cove BBS business rates. Up until that point BC Tel had *never* charged a non-commercial BBS anything but a residential rate. DCDBBS was a 16-line BBS that gave free access to anyone. However, it was sponsored by Doppler Computers (a computer store) and carried advertising for that store. Thus, BC Tel deemed it a commercial operation. After several months of discussion with the local BBS community, BC Tel put forth the following policy on rates charged to BBSs: (3) Mon 17 Sep 90 13:04 Rcvd: Mon 17 Sep 15:13 By: Ellen Mark, BCT BBS (153/908) To: Curt Sampson Re: B.C. Tel's Position St: Pvt Crash Rcvd ------------------------------------------------------------------------ @MSGID: 1:153/908 988d16ca @Original: Dallas Hinton cc: Dallas Hinton B.C. Tel has reviewed the many informative messages and letters of comment received from members of the bulletin board system (BBS) community. These comments have been very helpful in expanding our knowledge of the subject. We truly appreciate the effort you have made in providing this input. B.C. Tel believes that the local exchange telephone service that serves a BBS can be classed as either Business or Residential, depending on whether the BBS is being used in a "business" or "residential" manner; this is in accordance with the Company's tariffs. The following criteria will determine the appropriate classification for computer bulletin board systems: Residential local exchange rates will apply to a BBS EXCEPT when: 1. Money or payment in kind (including club membership, contribution of any type) is paid for services; -AND/OR- 2. The bulletin board is sponsored by or operated in affiliation with a not-for-profit or otherwise commercial entity; -AND/OR- 3. When advertising, as a function of the bulletin board, is for the financial gain of a not-for-profit or otherwise commercial entity; -AND/OR- 4. When the system operator/owner/sponsor of the bulletin board solicits or receives money or payment in kind for providing advertising as a function of the bulletin board. These criteria will be utilized when customers apply for multiple line telephone service for the purpose of providing a BBS. These criteria will be in effect on a "going forward" basis, as customers request new service, move or change existing service. There is no plan to comprehensively review existing BBSes. Again, thank you for your help in this matter. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I hope that this clears up any misunderstandings. cjs curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | "Sometimes it's like a party you go to where curt@cynic.uucp | there are no lights and everyone is doing {uunet|ubc-cs}!van-bc!cynic!curt | animal impressions." -Phillip Evans on usenet
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/09/91)
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: > Residential local exchange rates will apply to a BBS EXCEPT when: > 1. Money or payment in kind (including club membership, > contribution of any type) is paid for services; If this does not include software uploads (as SW Bell tried to regard as "payment"), then this is a totally reasonable policy. Much better than the disasterous "3 lines max" that COSUARD agreed to down here. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (03/16/91)
In article <0852J16@taronga.hackercorp.com> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: >> Residential local exchange rates will apply to a BBS EXCEPT when: > >> 1. Money or payment in kind (including club membership, >> contribution of any type) is paid for services; > >If this does not include software uploads (as SW Bell tried to regard >as "payment"), then this is a totally reasonable policy. Much better than >the disasterous "3 lines max" that COSUARD agreed to down here. This is NOT a reasonable policy even if it doesn't include software uploads. If a BBS asks for money, that does not necesarily mean that it makes a profit. And the definition of a business is (IRS) something which did not make a loss for the past three years. Most BBSes, even though they may take in money never pull a profit. (And even if they do make some more money, it is usually invested into the system.) This is NOT a business, it is a hobby, as the IRS calls it. (And it is.) If the phone company calls me a business I would atleast want the IRS to call me a business. -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/17/91)
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: > This is NOT a reasonable policy even if it doesn't include software > uploads. If a BBS asks for money, that does not necesarily mean that > it makes a profit. And just because it doesn't make a profit, doesn't mean it's residential. Bringing the IRS into it is a red herring: the IRS has different goals, different reasons for classifying something as a business. They don't tax churches at all, but churches are businesses for IRS purposes. On the other hand, someone working at home (say, painting) is not a business to the phone company but they still have to report business profits to the IRS. Basically, the IRS is in charge of taxes. They care if you are making money by engaging in business transactions. The phone company is in charge of phone service. They care if a phone line is primarily used for business transactions. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
mpd@anomaly.SBS.COM (Michael P. Deignan) (03/19/91)
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >The phone company is in charge of >phone service. They care if a phone line is primarily used for business >transactions. Since my phone at home is primarily in existance so the operations staff at work can reach me at home if there is a problem, according to this logic I should be charged business rates. MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan / -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / "The Mother Of All Battles" -- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / apparently had an abortion... -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/20/91)
mpd@anomaly.SBS.COM (Michael P. Deignan) writes: > peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >The phone company is in charge of > >phone service. They care if a phone line is primarily used for business > >transactions. > Since my phone at home is primarily in existance so the operations staff > at work can reach me at home if there is a problem, according to this > logic I should be charged business rates. Is it really? You wouldn't have a phone if the company didn't need to call you? There is a certain amount of flexibility in the definition of "business transaction", and there is a certain amount of inertia on the part of the phone company. But I think between your phone, even granting your premise, and a BBS that requests monetary donations there is a fairly substantial gap. In the case of the BBS the phone line is the only channel for the service provided (you *do* do more than read news all day :->), and the only payments are for that service (voluntary or not). -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (03/23/91)
In article <GOD27SE@taronga.hackercorp.com> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: >> This is NOT a reasonable policy even if it doesn't include software >> uploads. If a BBS asks for money, that does not necesarily mean that >> it makes a profit. > >And just because it doesn't make a profit, doesn't mean it's residential. >Bringing the IRS into it is a red herring: the IRS has different goals, >different reasons for classifying something as a business. They don't tax >churches at all, but churches are businesses for IRS purposes. On the other >hand, someone working at home (say, painting) is not a business to the >phone company but they still have to report business profits to the IRS. > >Basically, the IRS is in charge of taxes. They care if you are making money >by engaging in business transactions. The phone company is in charge of >phone service. They care if a phone line is primarily used for business >transactions. You have some good points. But what are we going to do, find motives? Most BBSes are hobbies, not businesses, even if they do take money. Maybe if the classification was called high-volume or low-volume I wouldn't mind, because that is the reason (I think) that business rates are more. (Yet they give volume discounts. . .) -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt J. Sampson) (03/24/91)
In article <1991Mar23.025428.6672@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: > Most BBSes are hobbies, not businesses, even if they > do take money. Maybe if the classification was called high-volume or > low-volume I wouldn't mind, because that is the reason (I think) that > business rates are more. (Yet they give volume discounts. . .) This, at least in Canada, is not the reason that residential telephone lines cost only twenty to twenty-five percent as much as business lines. According to B.C. Tel, the "real" cost of a telephone line is about thirty dollars per month. Residental lines are about fifteen dollars per month and business lines are about sixty to seventy-five dollars per month. The CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, which is similar to the USA's FCC), which regulates the prices that may be charged for telephone service, has a policy of setting residental rates lower than cost and letting them be subsidised by business lines and long-distance calls. cjs -- | "It is actually a feature of UUCP that the map of curt@cynic.uucp | all systems in the network is not known anywhere." curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | --Berkeley Mail Reference Manual (Kurt Schoens)
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/24/91)
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: > You have some good points. But what are we going to do, > find motives? Most BBSes are hobbies, not businesses, even if they > do take money. I don't think the motive is that relevent. What if my hobby is running a Pizza place (and I can afford it), should I pay residential rates? If you're soliciting donations for a transaction carried on over a phone line, you're using the line for business purposes... profit or not. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`