Xref: utzoo comp.misc:3947 alt.bbs:170
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!ames!nrl-cmf!ukma!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!att!whuts!homxb!homxc!halle
From: halle@homxc.UUCP (J.HALLE)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Houston bbs's vs SW Bell - more
Message-ID: <3964@homxc.UUCP>
Date: 28 Oct 88 18:38:45 GMT
References: <4252@moray.UUCP> <1933@uokmax.UUCP> <3940@homxc.UUCP> <7360@nsc.nsc.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel
Lines: 62

In article <7360@nsc.nsc.com>, nessus@nsc.nsc.com (Kchula-Rrit) writes:
> are relatively idle.  Most residential lines that I know of get more use in
> the "off-peak" times when business lines tend to be idle.  I'm sure that
> "ability to pay" enters into the equation somewhere, as well.

The residential peak time is indeed different from the business peak, but
the peak level of usage is still significantly smaller for residential.
Ability to pay only enters into it in that the PUCs will not yet allow the
telcos to charge residences what they ought to.  They are still being
subsidized by business users.

>      My USENET feed operates ONLY during the night-rate period(11pm-7am);
> the primary reason I do this is co$t; I cannot afford to get an extra line
> just for the modem.  It does not seem right to me that I should pay daytime
> rates so I can use my modem at night.

If there were a tariff for nightime only business use, and if such activity
could be monitored, then a reduced rate for such use would be in order.  The
monitoring is possible with most modern switches.  Now get after your PUC to
authorize such a tariff.  This would be the best solution for all.

>					My impression is that "business use"
> implies an intention to make a profit from a particular activity; non-profit
> organizations by their nature [in theory] have other reasons for their
> existence.  I do not operate my USENET node to make a profit, it is one
> of my "windows on the world"; as such it is very valuable to me.

Not at all.  "Business use" is non-residential.  Period.  Profit never enters
the picture.
 
>      I find it interesting that your "alternative" is already what I have
> implemented on my phone; it's called "measured-rate service"; I pay a
> connect-charge followed by a per-minute charge, modified by a multi-
> plication factor which takes into account the [roughly approximate]
> time of day.  Fortunately, in my case, the connect is 4 cents followed
> by 1 cent per minute of connect time; if these amounts were multiplied
> by 2.4 (the business/residential differential mentioned above), I would
> have to get off the net altogether.
 
Not quite.  You pay only for calls you originate.  But the line is in use
even on calls you receive.  If you receive substantially more calls than you
originate, you don't pay your "fair share."  (Granted those at the other end
do if they are in the same LATA with the same rate structure.)  Your billed
usage is not indicative of your actual usage.
 
> pardon my cynicism but, in my observation, Ma Bell is non-
> monopolistic in name only.  At least in [Northern] California, the Public

It never was non-monopolistic for local service.  That's why it's regulated.

> Utilities Commission seems to be a rubber-stamp(Yes-man, if you prefer)
> to the utilities; it seems every month that some new rate-raise is
> "allowed" by them.  Since they supply our power, water, and communications

That may be true for the other utilities, but not for communications.  The
CA PUC is universally recognized as the toughest commission in the USA when it
comes to phone service.  Rates are not allowed to rise and other telco
concessions are forced routinely.  As proof, look at the ROR, the bond rating,
and the stock performance of PacTel vs. the other six.  PacTel is consistently
on the bottom.

(diatribe on utilities in general deleted as immaterial to the discussion)