kimf@ogcvax.UUCP (Kim Flowers) (10/14/83)
The following (LONG) article is forwarded from an article composed by a system operator of our local computer bulletin board (CBBS/NW) as I thought it would be of general interest to many people on the net. *********************************** Well, it seems that Mother Bell is at it again. In light of the impending break up, she has decided to "suddenly" implement a little known 1965 tariff. This "Information Terminal Service" tariff would seem to be another in the long line of efforts to minimize the impending "losses" which the Bell Company sees coming as a result of the impending government imposed breakup. If you have not seen the number of messages on the local bulletin board systems (which would be effectively forced out of operation should this tariff go into effect), or the numerous articles that have been going around in the trade papers lately, let me bring you up to date. This tariff imposes a monthly charge of approximately $50.00 on each modem connected to a residential phone line ($38.00 in Oklahoma where the tariff is currently in effect) and increases the charge for touch-tone service by about $2.00 regardless of the frequency of use. This would probably be substantially higher for a business line. One of the more amusing reasons I have seen given for the sudden implementation of this new charge was "Because of the expense of providing 'Data Grade' lines for use with these devices". Funny, but I don't remember requesting a "Data Grade" phone line. It even says in the modem manual that the modem was designed for use on "Voice Grade" phone lines. Does this mean that what we now consider a standard phoine line (marginal though it may be at times) we should be paying more for? And does it mean that a "Voice Grade" phone line will be considerably worse? This seems to me, not unlike a measure proposed a few years ago by an Eastern senator which would have imposed a $50.00 yearly tax on all computer terminals both in commercial and private use. When asked for the reason for such a tax, he replied "because there are so many of them that they need to be taxed". Consider for a moment the possible effects of such a charge beyond the obvious effects on the public bulletin board and remote access systems. The possibilities are indeed frightening as this would not only effect the no-charge systems such as CBBS/NW and the Beaverton RCP/M (just to name 2) but the large commercial systems such as Compuserve and The Source as well. This tariff would seem to be a throwback to the days before the landmark "Carterphone" decision which made it legal to connect privately owned and produced equipment (that had been FCC approved) to the phone network without the use of a phone company supplied DAA (Direct Access Arrangement) device. At that time, since the only people who could supply the DAA device was the phone company, and since the DAA could not be purchased but only rented from the phone company, the phone company was assured of receiving their "cut". At the time this tariff was instituted (judging from the date quoted by phone company representatives) it might have been construed as an attempt to prevent anyone else from getting into the business of building modems. Since in 1965 about the only people building modems were the Bell system itself so it would have received little opposition. Consider also some of the other new (or "revised" as the phone company would rather refer to them) charges that will most likely be coming up soon after the 1st of the year (the date of the Bell system breakup). *Message Unit Billing:* This is the way that long distance calls are billed. Only after the 1st of the year you will probably be billed in this manner for local calls as well rather than the monthly flat rate that most of us now pay. *Answering Unit Billing:* An "unofficial" rumor that has surfaced from some phone company representatives. Currently, only the phone that is originating (making) the call is billed for time spent on the line. Unser this method of billing, the answering unit would also be billed for connect time. Now consider some of the things that are already being billed... *Network Access:* This is the basic charge for hooking up to the phone network. It currently also covers your charges for local calling and usually does not vary regardless of the number of local calls placed in a month. The question now is; when the phone company begins Message Unit Billing for local calls, will the Network Access Charges be reduced or eliminated? Probably not. *Extended Area Service:* This is the charge for connecting to other "local" exchanges that are not part of your phone company's operating area. An example would be a GTE customer in Beaverton who is calling a Bell system customer in Portland. While this is considered a local call, you are billed for the ability to connect to the Portland system. *Regulated Lease:* This is the rental charge you pay on any phone company equipment that you have in your home (the only simple, honest charge that I can find on the bill). *Other Charges:* This is not meant to be a vague category, but this is what it says on the bill. I have no idea what it covers. These combined with things like Federal Excise taxes, 911 Emergency taxes, late payment charges, and others (which are all billed separately) make for quite a phone bill. And we have not even considered long distance charges... The really curious part of all this is that even the phone company does not seem to know just how they want to implement this new charge. In Oklahoma, it seems to be a surcharge just as described in the 1965 tariff. However in Seattle the word is that they intend to bill any line that has a modem on it as a business line. Confused? Me too! It would appear that the phone company is selecting random areas to implement these new charges as test cases. Perhaps to see which variation of the surcharge receives the least resistance after which they would start to impose the charge on a nationwide basis. Personally, I don't believe for a second that the "breakup" of the Bell system will prevent the system from at least "recommending" procedures for the network at large. All in the interest of reducing losses of course, while the newly "independent" companies regain control of their separate operations. Well, I fear that this article has rambled far enough for one session. If you would like more information on how the battle is going, I will conclude with names, addresses, and phone numbers of the organizations that have formed to contest these new and questionable charges. I will also attempt to update you as new news becomes available. I will also be attending a meeting of the Seattle based Telecommunications Users Group (TUG) coming up on 10/15/83 at which the sloe topic of the meeting will be the charges that I have discussed here. I hope to bring back news (hopefully good) from that meeting. Representatives from the Bell system, as well as from numerous modem and computer manufacturers are expected to attend. I have also suggested that CompuServe and The Source be contacted so that they might also be represented. Seattle contacts: Telecommunications User's Group (TUG) Brian Sullivan or Glenn Gorman (206) 746-0145 (206) 763-7733 Oklahoma contacts: Oklahoma Modem User's Group 911 West Imhoff Rd., #634 Norman, OK. 73069 Robert Braver, President 24 hour hot line (recorded message updated daily) (405) 360-7462 Periodic updates will also be available on CBBS/NW (503) 646-5510 or (503) 284-5260 as further information becomes available to us. ********************************* Please send any comments to me at the following address: uucpNET ...[allegra!hp-pcd!teklabs]!ogcvax!kimf CSNET kimf@Oregon-Grad Dave Morgan (SYSOP Beaverton RCP/M)