Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!hybrid!scifi!bywater!uunet!bu.edu!telecom-request
From: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Peter Anvin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Message-ID: <72181@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Date: 13 Jan 91 06:22:08 GMT
Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University
Lines: 31
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 32, Message 2 of 7


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