Xref: utzoo comp.misc:3948 alt.bbs:171
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!ames!nrl-cmf!ukma!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!att!whuts!homxb!homxc!marty
From: marty@homxc.UUCP (M.B.BRILLIANT)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Houston bbs's vs SW Bell - more
Message-ID: <3972@homxc.UUCP>
Date: 28 Oct 88 22:27:53 GMT
References: <8992@ihlpb.ATT.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel
Lines: 69

In article <8992@ihlpb.ATT.COM> Rich Strebendt (ihlpb!res) makes some
good points, but I don't totally agree:
> ...
> In article <3945@homxc.UUCP>, marty@homxc.UUCP (M.B.BRILLIANT) writes:
>> ...  The usage cost of a BBS line is borne by the callers, and
>> the operator should not be charged for it.
>> 
>> The cost of the line itself is the cost of materials, installation, and
>> repairs.  That cost is not affected by usage.  All the cost of usage
>> has traditionally been paid by the caller.
> 
> Not quite.  The customer premise cost (wire, installation, etc.) is
> really not that great (on an annualized basis) compared to the cost in
> the switching offices.  What you say may be true for the per-line
> equipment, but is NOT true for the shared (common) equipment ...

Whoa.  The line includes only the per-line equipment by definition. 
The shared equipment is not part of the line.  It is paid for, when
used, by the calling party.

>> On local calls, the local
>> telephone company incurs all the costs and receives all the revenue. 
> 
> Again, not quite.  The long distance carriers incur the cost of
> providing access to their networks whether or not they are used.

That's not a cost of local calls.  There is, of course, the bogus
"usage charge" which is charged to all customers to pay part of that
access cost, but it's a small part of the bill.

Anyway, the long distance carriers provide only as many access channels
as are justified by the usage.  Similarly, the local carriers provide
only as many local trunks as usage justifies.  So charging the caller
on a usage basis is perfectly proper.

>> In part, commercial users are charged more because they are presumed to
>> make more local calls within the local no-charge calling area.
> 
> Another large component in the ratemaking exercise is the value of the
> service to the customer.  Obviously, a telephone is worth much more to
> a business than to a residential customer, so the business will be
> willing to pay more for the service.  The economists have a fancy
> phrase that describes this view.

The value of a BBS accrues at least as much to the caller as to the
sysop.  The caller pays the communications charges and gets free
services from the BBS.

>> Other than that, commercial lines might be charged more than
>> residential lines based on presumed ability to pay.  That might be
>> arguable but should not be argued in this newsgroup.  At any rate, no
>> such presumption applies to a BBS run for fun.
> 
> Actually, what I am seeing in this discussion is a special interest
> group that has been getting a bargain in telephone rates screaming when
> they were asked to pay part of the REAL cost of their special grade of
> service.

As I see it, its not the BBS sysop that gets the bargain.  If anybody
does, it's the caller.  If you want to avoid cross-subsidization, and
I think we all do, the way to do that is move to usage-sensitive
pricing, paid by the caller.  The person who chooses whether or not to
make the call is the one who should face the economic consequences.

						Marty
M. B. Brilliant		houdi!marty1, homxc!marty

Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer
	    explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.