Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bu.edu!telecom-request From: 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates Message-ID: <72212@bu.edu.bu.edu> Date: 14 Jan 91 02:03:00 GMT Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 86 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 34, Message 3 of 8 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 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.