Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: Jack.Winslade@iugate.unomaha.edu (Jack Winslade)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Grade-School Math, BBS, and Ma Bell
Message-ID: <15992@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 11 Jan 91 05:18:13 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: jsw@iugate.unomaha.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 29
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 27, Message 2 of 7


Hmmmmmmm ... something just hit me -- something that is so obvious
that we cannot see it for the trees.

If we figure that the metro Omaha area gives Ma Bell about 500,000
customers, and we figure the number of BBS systems that have been
around for more than one month and will be here one month into the
future is about 50 (comma) that means that the BBS lines make up about
50/500000 of the active lines, or about 1/100 of one percent.

I think we can then assume that the ratio of BBS systems to dialable
numbers is more or less the same, +/- one order of magnitude,
throughout the USA.

Why is it, then, that some phone companies, including the one in Texas
(S.  Bell or SW Bell, I can never keep them straight) and GTE in
Indiana (or was it Ohio, I can never keep them straight ;-) are so
concerned with such a small fraction of their customers??

Heck, if .01% of the telephone subscribers kept their phones off hook
all day long, it shouldn't generate any blip at all in any accounting
records and it certainly is so insignificant that it would be buried
in the margin of error of any traffic measuring study.

Why is it then, that they are paying >>THAT<< much attention to such a
miniscule group of their subscribers ??


Good Day!       JSW