ftai@pro-generic.cts.com (Francis Tai) (12/27/89)
I had just grab this post off L&L Productions in Denver, and This might be
very interesting to all of you.. (Doesn't concern me since I live in Toronto!)
Brd: Main Bulletin Board
Numb: 127 of 128
Sub: FYI
To: All
From: Barry Prowell (#449)
Date: Tue. Dec 26, 1989 @ 07:13:34
*****************************************************************************
** **
** READ THE FOLLOWING! **
** **
*****************************************************************************
MOBILIZE!
=========
Two years ago the FCC tried and (with your help and letters of protest)
failed to institute regulations that would impose additional costs on
modem users for data communications.
Now, they are at it again. A new regulation that the FCC is quietly
working on will directly affect you as the user of a computer and modem.
The FCC proposes that users of modems should pay extra charges for use
of the public telephone network which carry their data. In addition,
computer network services such as CompuServ, Tymnet, & Telenet would also
be charged as much as $6.00 per hour per user for use of the public
telephone network. These charges would very likely be passed on to
the subscribers. The money is to be collected and given to the
telephone company in an effort to raise funds lost to deregulation.
Jim Eason of KGO newstalk radio (San Francisco, Ca) commented on the
proposal during his afternoon radio program during which, he said
he learned of the new regulation in an article in the New York Times.
Jim took the time to gather the addresses which are given below.
Here's what you should do (NOW!):
1- Pass this information on. Find other BBS's that are not carrying
this information. Upload the ASCII text into a public message on the
BBS, and also upload the file itself so others can easily get a copy
to pass along.
2- Print out three copies of the letter which follows (or write your
own) and send a signed copy to each of the following:
Chairman of the FCC
1919 M Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Chairman, Senate Communication Subcommittee
SH-227 Hart Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Chairman, House Telecommunication Subcommittee
B-331 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Here's the suggested text of the letter to send:
Dear Sir,
Please allow me to express my displeasure with the FCC proposal
which would authorize a surcharge for the use of modems on the
telephone network. This regulation is nothing less than an attempt to
restrict the free exchange of information among the growing number of
computer users. Calls placed using modems require no special telephone
company equipment, and users of modems pay the phone company for use
of the network in the form of a monthly bill. In short, a modem call
is the same as a voice call and therefore should not be subject to any
additional regulation.
Sincerely,
[your name, address and signature]
It is important that you act now. The bureaucrats already have it in
their heads that modem users should subsidize the phone company and are
now listening to public comment. Please stand up and make it clear that
we will not stand for any government restriction on the free exchange of
information.
[B1 #127 of 128] ? or Cmd [N]#
-*-
Hmm... Very Interesting I must say, Those guys would actually do ANYTHING
of more $$'s...
Francis
Well, I don't know what version logic have since I don't pay their
membership fee (well.. I don't need it...) Since It's shareware, I can put the
program up on my directory and I'll include the documentation with it. ( don't
know why Logic doesn't include the docs??? ) But anyways my directory is underbrad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (01/02/90)
I would advise against sending that letter. It doesn't address the real issue. As I understand it, it works like this: a) A modem call is *not* the same as a voice call. (This has more to do with the local BBS == business line question than the $5/hour surcharge question.) o) Modem calls last far longer than voice calls in the local calling area, for one thing. One of the reasons businesses pay a premium for phone lines is that they use their lines a great deal more than home users. o) Modem calls involve continuous transmission of singal in both directions at all times. Voice calls are almost always half duplex (except with rude people!) and also full of the gaps between words and other pauses. (Being put on hold, for example.) While most modem use is also half-duplex, the phone company can't know that, sort of decoding your data, sending it on their own channels, and re-modulating it out on the other end. So it uses at least 3 times the bandwidth of a voice call. (If they *did* decode it before putting it on the trunks, then a 2400 bps modem call would in fact take only 6% of the bandwidth of a voice call. This is exactly why packet net connections cost less than voice calls! Clever, eh?) 2) As far as I know, they want to put this tax on the packet networks. Right now, the voice long distance companies connect to the local bells in the USA. They pay the local Bells part of what they bill for LD to pay for the work the local Bell does in moving your signal from your home to the LD company's nexus. The packet companies also connect into the local bells, and move data out from their local nexus to their worldwide net. CIS, GEnie, Tymnet etc. all right packet nets in this fashion. They only pay the local Bells regular charges for a local voice line, when in fact they are getting the same service as AT&T or any other LD company. That isn't fair. There are two ways to make it fair: Charge the packet companies some charge to receive local calls and send them out of the LATA, just as LD companies are charged, or Remove the access charge for all, and raise the local rates. The latter solution is the most fair. Each company is paid for exactly what it does, by the people who use its service. But it would be difficult from a political standpoint to do this. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
gwangung@milton.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) (01/02/90)
I agree with Brad. It's premature to write letters since there was no docket numbers, no actual hard evidence that the FCC is even planning such modem surcharges. In fact, didn't I just read on the TELECOM digest that this whole brouhaha is an inaccurate misunderstanding of the confirmation hearings for the new FCC chief, and that he refered to "enhanced service" and not even modem lines.....? At any rate, I think we need docket numbers and hard evidence of intent before we launch a pre-emptive strike....
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (01/03/90)
Brad et al,
I think these analyses are correct in the small, but miss the truth
entirely.
My guess is that they're (TPC) moving towards making sure that, as
promised, ISDN (BRI) is much cheaper than using the voice network. Of
course, it didn't occur to most of us that this would be accomplished
by skyrocketing the costs of modem use on the voice network rather
than offering attractive rates for BRI. Perhaps we'll see a little of
both.
This happens all the time to manipulate those markets in their favor.
For example, in this area they're raising DDS-I tariffs as fast as
they can get away with to force customers over to DDS-II (which is
pretty reasonably priced, but I guess they can't wait for people to
move themselves, they're going to give a push by manipulating tariffs,
I doubt their costs for DDS-I have gone up anything like the tariffs
they've proposed.)
I don't think it has a helluva lot to do with the basic costs of
providing a particular service, more to do with manipulating customers
into their grand plan. Which may in fact be better for everyone in the
long run, it's hard to tell without the plan.
Here's a question which may point out my quibble better: Given the
several things you list as leading one to the conclusion that modem
users deserve this tariff what are the actual costs to their network?
Do they gibe at all with the proposed new tariffs? Or maybe the
factors you cite account for fractions of a cent per minute? Who knows
(well, they do.) You've pointed out that it's *possible* that, in a
microeconomic sense, it costs them something more to allow modem
traffic, but the real question is; how much?
Similarly, in the macro sense, how much additional traffic do these
modems generate? The phone system is a volume sales system, a call is
not the same as a million calls divided by a million. The entire
network's economics is based on massive usage. How do modems factor
into that picture of delivering them their needed volume to make their
network economical. Put another way, what's the contribution to their
economics of a few million modem users? How much does that offset the
claimed extra costs of carrying that traffic? I don't know, but it
deserves consideration in any real analysis.
Another analogy is when directory service suddenly became a cost
add-on. Well, no doubt it costs money to have operators etc. and that
was the reasoning.
But originally it was supposed to be there to encourage us to use our
phones and hence generate revenue for them, a fine trade-off. It also
was worked into the phone charges (musta been, it was being paid for.)
Now suddenly it's an extra-cost item. Wait a minute, doesn't that mean
we're now paying for it twice? I know my bill didn't go down when they
"unbundled" directory service (that's cause it wasn't unbundled, it
was just added on again.) I suppose they'd answer that I should be
thankful it didn't go up (huh?)
See how an oversimplified analysis (they now charge for directory
assistance because obviously it costs money) leads to missing what
might be the real point (didn't they always, by definition, include it
in my charges? Aren't I paying twice now?) Ok, divestiture made that a
little more complicated, but I think I've made the point.
Anyhow, my suspicion here is that we're not seeing something as simple
as "it costs us more so we're passing on that cost" but rather some
social engineering and trying to change people's behavior for some
grander purpose.
Perhaps it's all well and good and we should get ready to change how
we do this sort of stuff, but I don't think we've gotten to the bottom
of it yet in this discussion.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzsbzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (01/03/90)
Actually, Brad et al's point that this may all be a non-issue has
merit and is much more important to consider than whether or not the
tariff is justified.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzsdavidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (01/03/90)
In article <70194@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: | o) Modem calls last far longer than voice calls in the local | calling area, for one thing. One of the reasons businesses pay | a premium for phone lines is that they use their lines a great | deal more than home users. I miss your reasoning here. We are already paying by the message unit, why charge a higher rate, too? Long calls already cost more than short calls in most areas, why stick modem users with a surcharge on top of that. | | o) Modem calls involve continuous transmission of singal in both | directions at all times. Voice calls are almost always half | duplex (except with rude people!) and also full of the gaps between | words and other pauses. (Being put on hold, for example.) Do you know of a system which does "data detect" on voice calls? I am under the impression that they still use time division multiplexing. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (01/03/90)
I agree with most of Templeton's points here, but I think there is one of questionable validity. In article <70194@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > o) Modem calls involve continuous transmission of singal in both > directions at all times. Voice calls are almost always half > duplex (except with rude people!) and also full of the gaps between > words and other pauses. (Being put on hold, for example.) > > While most modem use is also half-duplex, the phone company can't > know that, sort of decoding your data, sending it on their own > channels, and re-modulating it out on the other end. So it > uses at least 3 times the bandwidth of a voice call. I believe most modem calls are within the same end office or within the same toll office. While long-distance calls may (depending on the equipment available) allocate bandwidth to a call based on its actual usage, direct electrical connections within the same end office or toll office are allocated the entire bandwidth of the connecting wire, regardless of how much they use. Some areas may have upgraded their local switching equipment so this is no longer true, but I doubt that many have. In any case, since the baby Bells are talking very seriously about beginning home fiber optic wiring before the end of the decade, leading to an explosion in phone-based services, I can't believe they would support the imposition of a stiff surcharge that would sharply curtail the growth of that industry right now. Templeton is right; let's wait until this becomes a real target, rather than a vague idea being kicked around, before we mobilize against it. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Something was badly amiss with the spiritual life of the planet, thought Gibreel Farishta. Too many demons inside people claiming to believe in God." -- Salman Rushdie, THE SATANIC VERSES
zvs@bby.oz.au (Zev Sero) (01/03/90)
In article <1990Jan2.174527.9041@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
Another analogy is when directory service suddenly became a cost
add-on. Well, no doubt it costs money to have operators etc. and that
was the reasoning.
But originally it was supposed to be there to encourage us to use our
phones and hence generate revenue for them, a fine trade-off. It also
was worked into the phone charges (musta been, it was being paid for.)
Now suddenly it's an extra-cost item. Wait a minute, doesn't that mean
we're now paying for it twice?
I was in the US when this happened, and I recall the reason given was
that people were calling AT&T directory assistance, and then calling
the number on Sprint or ITT or something (I know I did). Instead of
providing a revenue-generating courtesy to its own clients, as it
had been, AT&T found itself providing a free service for its
competitors and *their* clients! Obviously, this did not make sense,
so they started charging for it.
As for the component of your original bill which represented the
overhead of directory assistance, remember that your billing structure
changed completely during the divestiture. I presume that somwhere in
the calculations which produced your post-divestiture bill, this was
factored in.
When the price of coffee changes, presumably this affects the overhead
of your local Bell, which has to buy coffee for staff. When they go
to the FCC for a tarrif change, this would be included in their
`changed costs'. Do you notice the slight change in your bill due to
`Brazilian drought' or whatever?
--
Zev Sero - zvs@bby.oz.au
As I recall, zero was invented by Arabic mathematicians
thousands of years ago. It's a pity it still frightens
or confuses people. - Doug Gwyncampbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (01/03/90)
In article <1970@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes:
-
- I miss your reasoning here. We are already paying by the message unit,
-why charge a higher rate, too? Long calls already cost more than short
-calls in most areas, why stick modem users with a surcharge on top of
-that.
I don't know about "most areas", but here in Boston, residential telephones
are flat rate. I pay a flat monthly rate no matter how much I use my
telephone.
Actually there is a message unit option -- you can choose to pay a lower
monthly rate and then pay message units, but the difference in the monthly
charge is only something like six or seven bucks, so no one ever picks that
option.
Flat rates are available only to residential customers; business customers
always pay message units.
--
Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc.
campbell@redsox.bsw.com 120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02109lfm@ttardis.UUCP (The Master -- ttardis SuperUser) (01/06/90)
In article <31.infoapple.net@pro-generic>, ftai@pro-generic.cts.com (Francis Tai) writes: >Two years ago the FCC tried and (with your help and letters of protest) >failed to institute regulations that would impose additional costs on >modem users for data communications. In late 1988 and early 1989, Texas AT&T affiliates attempted some "strong-arm" tactics with the local BBS's. As a followup to the current "troubles", I am posting a shar file of the postings which concern AT&T attempts for interested users. -JT #--------------------------------CUT HERE------------------------------------- #! /bin/sh # # This is a shell archive. Save this into a file, edit it # and delete all lines above this comment. Then give this # file to sh by executing the command "sh file". The files # will be extracted into the current directory owned by # you with default permissions. # # The files contained herein are: # # -rw-r--r-- 1 lfm root 640 Jan 5 10:44 address.lst # -rw-r--r-- 1 lfm root 4096 Jan 5 10:45 bbs.txt # -rw-r--r-- 1 lfm root 4385 Jan 4 12:30 fcc.bad # -rw-r--r-- 1 lfm root 23168 Jan 5 10:48 fonewar1.doc # -rw-r--r-- 1 lfm root 3456 Jan 5 10:49 hints.msg # -rw-r--r-- 1 lfm root 8832 Jan 5 10:51 notice.txt # -rw-r--r-- 1 lfm root 3072 Jan 5 10:52 readme.first # -rw-r--r-- 1 lfm root 3712 Jan 5 10:53 tariff.txt # -rw-r--r-- 1 lfm root 3456 Jan 5 10:54 vidtex.txt # echo 'x - address.lst' if test -f address.lst; then echo 'shar: not overwriting address.lst'; else sed 's/^X//' << '________This_Is_The_END________' > address.lst Xcc: Federal Communications Commission X 1919 M Street NW X Washington, D.C. 20554 X X Public Utilities Commission of Texas X Ms. Betty Suthard X 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd, Suite 450N X Austin, Texas 78757 X 1-512-458-0230 X X James R. Adams X President, Texas Division X Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. X One Bell Plaza X 208 S. Akard X Dallas, Texas 75202 X 1-214-464-3111 X X Reginald Hirsch X 1980 Post Oak Blvd.#1780 X Houston,Texas 77056 X Phone : 1-713-961-7800 X ________This_Is_The_END________ if test `wc -l < address.lst` -ne 23; then echo 'shar: address.lst was damaged during transit (should have been 23 bytes)' fi fi ; : end of overwriting check echo 'x - bbs.txt' if test -f bbs.txt; then echo 'shar: not overwriting bbs.txt'; else sed 's/^X//' << '________This_Is_The_END________' > bbs.txt XHouston Chronicle XWednesday, October 12, 1988 X X"Computer 'bulletin' operators say phone hike will close them" Xby Rad Sallee X X Some operators of computer "bulletin boards" here, most of Xwhom offer their services for free, say a recent phone company Xdecision to charge them business rates, instead of the residential Xones they've paid since 1985, will force many boards to shut down. X X Most bulletin baord operators, or sysops (system operators), Xare computer hobbyists who offer message exchanges along with Xhelpful advice and free software to members, who use their Xcomputers to "talk" over the phone with the sysop's computer. X X Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. decided to charge bulletin Xboard operators in Texas the business rate of $32.85 a month Xinstead of the $13.35 residential rate after the operator of a Xfor-profit board, who paid the higher rates, complained to the Xstate Public Utility Commission that boards paying residental Xrates were unfair competition. X X Spokesman Ken Brasel said Bell is simply rectifying its Xown error. "We shouldn't have connected these (bulletin boards) Xat the residental rate to begin with," he said. X "When the lines are used to provide a service to others, it Xis business. Whether for profit or not isn't germane." X Brasel noted that churches, government, charities and other Xnon-profit orgazinations also pay the business rates. X Attorney Reginal Hirsch, who runs a board called The Old XBailey, says busines rates for the above types of user are Xspecified in state reuglations, which do not mention bulletin Xboards. X Also, Hisrch say, bulletin board operators and users should Xhave been allowed to file comments with the PUC before the Xchange took effect. X Bell is also notifying users of "auto-patch" devices that Xthey must pay business rates. X These users typically buy an electronic device called a X repeater that provides a link (or "patch") between two-way Xradios in vehicles and the phone network. X Brasel said Bell is not charging commercial rates to Xpersons who simply use a computer to contact other commputers Xby phone or to amateur "ham" radio operators who patch radio Xmessages to their home phone -- so long as these calls do not Xgo to outsiders who wouldn not normally use the phone. X Brasel said he doubts that business rates would be charged Xto ham radio operators who patch long-distance radio callers Xthrough to their loved ones during idsasters such as Xhuricanes or earthquakes. X Brasel said Bell's March 15, 1985, tariff, the PUC Xdocument that governs what Bell can charge, says business rates Xapply "at residences when the customer has no regular business Xtelephone, and the use of the (phone) service can be construed Xas more of a business than a residence nature." X Some local sysops are writing protest letters to Bell and Xthe PUC and are querying fellow operators in other states about Xphone company policies theres. Hirsch said sysops in New XYork and Wisconsin told him they are charged residential rates. X Interested persons will meet at noon Oc. 27 in Hirsch's Xoffice, 1980 Post Oak Blvd, Suite 1780, to plan strategy against Xthe change. X He estimates Houston may have 800 to 1,000 bulletin boards, Xwith perhaps 10 percent to 15 percent charging a fee and fewer Xthan 5 percent being profitable. X Several local operators said taht if all boards must pay Xhigher rates, they will have to charge membership fees and Xstart keeping records, and some will decide it is just too much Xtrouble. X Hirsch estimates he would lose 75 percent to 80 percent of Xhis board's users if forced to cover costs with a fee. Greg XJoplin, a field service engineer who runs a Commodore 64 board Xcalled The Hip Pocket as a hobby, says he would probably lose X90 percent of his. X Joplin says most board users are probably under 18 and could ________This_Is_The_END________ if test `wc -l < bbs.txt` -ne 76; then echo 'shar: bbs.txt was damaged during transit (should have been 76 bytes)' fi fi ; : end of overwriting check echo 'x - fcc.bad' if test -f fcc.bad; then echo 'shar: not overwriting fcc.bad'; else sed 's/^X//' << '________This_Is_The_END________' > fcc.bad XPath: ttardis!sharkey!math.lsa.umich.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pro-generic.cts.com!ftai XFrom: ftai@pro-generic.cts.com (Francis Tai) XNewsgroups: news.misc, mi.misc XSubject: Fcc Regs/Data Comm. XMessage-ID: <31.infoapple.net@pro-generic> XDate: 27 Dec 89 06:21:59 GMT XSender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU XOrganization: The Internet XLines: 101 X X X I had just grab this post off L&L Productions in Denver, and This might be Xvery interesting to all of you.. (Doesn't concern me since I live in Toronto!) X X Brd: Main Bulletin Board XNumb: 127 of 128 X Sub: FYI X To: All XFrom: Barry Prowell (#449) XDate: Tue. Dec 26, 1989 @ 07:13:34 X X***************************************************************************** X** ** X** READ THE FOLLOWING! ** X** ** X***************************************************************************** X XMOBILIZE! X========= X XTwo years ago the FCC tried and (with your help and letters of protest) Xfailed to institute regulations that would impose additional costs on Xmodem users for data communications. X XNow, they are at it again. A new regulation that the FCC is quietly Xworking on will directly affect you as the user of a computer and modem. XThe FCC proposes that users of modems should pay extra charges for use Xof the public telephone network which carry their data. In addition, Xcomputer network services such as CompuServ, Tymnet, & Telenet would also Xbe charged as much as $6.00 per hour per user for use of the public Xtelephone network. These charges would very likely be passed on to Xthe subscribers. The money is to be collected and given to the Xtelephone company in an effort to raise funds lost to deregulation. X XJim Eason of KGO newstalk radio (San Francisco, Ca) commented on the Xproposal during his afternoon radio program during which, he said Xhe learned of the new regulation in an article in the New York Times. XJim took the time to gather the addresses which are given below. X XHere's what you should do (NOW!): X X 1- Pass this information on. Find other BBS's that are not carrying X this information. Upload the ASCII text into a public message on the X BBS, and also upload the file itself so others can easily get a copy X to pass along. X X 2- Print out three copies of the letter which follows (or write your X own) and send a signed copy to each of the following: X X Chairman of the FCC X 1919 M Street N.W. X Washington, D.C. 20554 X X Chairman, Senate Communication Subcommittee X SH-227 Hart Building X Washington, D.C. 20510 X X Chairman, House Telecommunication Subcommittee X B-331 Rayburn Building X Washington, D.C. 20515 X X XHere's the suggested text of the letter to send: X X Dear Sir, X X Please allow me to express my displeasure with the FCC proposal X which would authorize a surcharge for the use of modems on the X telephone network. This regulation is nothing less than an attempt to X restrict the free exchange of information among the growing number of X computer users. Calls placed using modems require no special telephone X company equipment, and users of modems pay the phone company for use X of the network in the form of a monthly bill. In short, a modem call X is the same as a voice call and therefore should not be subject to any X additional regulation. X X Sincerely, X [your name, address and signature] X X XIt is important that you act now. The bureaucrats already have it in Xtheir heads that modem users should subsidize the phone company and are Xnow listening to public comment. Please stand up and make it clear that Xwe will not stand for any government restriction on the free exchange of Xinformation. X X[B1 #127 of 128] ? or Cmd [N]# X X X-*- X X Hmm... Very Interesting I must say, Those guys would actually do ANYTHING Xof more $$'s... X X Francis X X X Well, I don't know what version logic have since I don't pay their Xmembership fee (well.. I don't need it...) Since It's shareware, I can put the Xprogram up on my directory and I'll include the documentation with it. ( don't Xknow why Logic doesn't include the docs??? ) But anyways my directory is under ________This_Is_The_END________ if test `wc -l < fcc.bad` -ne 111; then echo 'shar: fcc.bad was damaged during transit (should have been 111 bytes)' fi fi ; : end of overwriting check echo 'x - fonewar1.doc' if test -f fonewar1.doc; then echo 'shar: not overwriting fonewar1.doc'; else sed 's/^X//' << '________This_Is_The_END________' > fonewar1.doc XFONEWAR1.WS - an ongoing chronicle of Southwestern Bell's X attempt to reclassify BBS phone lines to a higher X rate class XBeginning: Oct 5, 1988 XLoring Chien Xmodem: 495-3039 3/12/2400 baud X XBill Pearre, Sysop of the OUCH RCP/M in Houston called me XThursday evening with the news that someone at Southwestern Bell Xhad called him and announced they were going to reclassify his Xsystem's phone liine to business and charge a higher rate. X XAndrea Prothrow of Southwestern Bell Telephone (SWB) called me on XFriday, September 30 to inform me that my number, 495-3039 would Xbe charged at the business rate beginning on the next phone bill. XThe rate increase will cause a substantial (3 X) increase in the Xoperating cost of Phoenix RCP/M. There is a little confusion on Xthe rate, I think I was told $35.50 on the phone, but her letter, Xin response to a request for written confirmation, says $33.50. XI believe the current residential base rate is $11.25. Quite a Xfew state, local and federal taxes and other surcharges apply Xdriving the rate up even more. X XShe said that it has been determined that I was running a XBulletin Board System (BBS) (which I did not admit to at the Xtime). I asked how they had determined that it was a BBS and she Xrefused to tell me. I asked why it was a business and she said Xthat BBSs performed a service and that since it was a service I Xwas to be considered a business. I asked what recourse I had and Xshe said I could drop the phone service. She told me that SWB's Xlawyers had looked at the matter and felt they were within their Xrights to do this. X XThe attached letter and "Exchange Tariff" regulation were Xdelivered to me after I requested written confirmation and the Xphone company's written description of what constitutes a Xbusiness. X X[Text of letter from SWBT to Loring Chien] X X X X Southwestern Bell Telephone X P.O. Box 1530 X Houston, Texas 77251-1530 X October 3, 1988 X XLoring Chien X6519 La Mora Drive XHouston, Texas 77083 X XRe: (713) 495-3039 X XDear Loring Chien, X X This will confirm our telephone conversation informing you Xof the reclassification of your account from residence to Xbusiness. The appropriate classification for bulletin board Xservice providers is business and the appropriate business rates Xapply. X X We will not back bill you for the past underbilling due to Xthe misclassification of your account. However, effective with Xyour next bill dated October 15, 1988, your account will be Xrevised to reflect the appropraite business classification, and Xyour monthly rate will be $33.50 per month. X X We apologize for this error and any inconvenience this may Xhave caused. Should you have any questions regarding your Xaccount, please call your local service representative on (713) X561-2766. X X Sincerely, X X X Andrea Prothow X Service Representative X Marketing Operations X X X X[Text of letter sent by Bill Pearre, SYSOP of OUCH RCP/M] X X W. H. Pearre X 7011 Sharpview X Houston, TX, 77074 X XSept. 30, 1988 X XCertified Mail - Return receipt X XSouthwestern Bell Telephone Company XBusiness Office X14575 Presidio Square, Room 200 XHouston, Texas 77083 X XDear Sirs: X XI received a telephone notification today from "Andrea" at your Xcompany's telephone 561-2766 that my personal telephone line 777- X2114 was being changed from peronal usage to business usage due Xto a "new" interpretation of your tariff by your lawyers. X XThis personal telephone line has been used as a Computer Bulletin XBoard since March 1987 with no indication from you for all that Xtime that this usage was to be considered as business usage. X XThis Bulletin board is operated as a Hobby and for Public Service Xwithout any charge to persons using it. X XThis Bulletin Board is not advertised by me for any purpose. X XWill you please furnish me in writing your authority to change Xthe status of this line from personal to business. X XMy understanding is that you must prove a change on the operation Xof a telephone line and notify me in writing before you can Xchange its status. X XI will appreciate an early reply. X X X X XSincerely, X X X X XW. H. Pearre X X X X Xcc: Federal Communications Commission X 1919 M Street NW X Washington, D.C. 20554 X X Public Utilities Commission of Texas X Mr. Coyle C. Kelley, Exec. Director X 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd, Suite 450N X Austin, Texas 78757 X X Senator Buster Brown X P. O. Box 12068 X Austin, Texas 78711 X X XAnalysis of possible actions Xby Loring Chien XOct 6, 1988 X X X XMy opinions: X XI think there are three possible tacks to take here: X XA. One is that we do not fit Southwestern Bell's (SWB) Xdefinition of a business. Arguably we provide a service. "Andrea" XProthrow told me that were going after bulletin boards because Xthey provide a service and thus are a business. Their tariff Xdoes not stress the service aspect. It does stress that the Xchief indication of a business is that the business be Xadvertised. We have not advertised at all, and do not have a Xlisting in their yellow pages or business section, nor do we Xrequire one. Our number has been passed by word of mouth. It Xhas appeared on a number of BBS lists around town, probably how Xthe phone company identified it as a BBS. The tariff is specific Xthat a user's line is considered business service if "the use of Xthe service by himself... or parties calling him can be Xconsidered as more of a business than a residence nature". I am Xrunning the system as a hobby on second-hand and donated Xequipment: a 1980-vintage CP/M-based 8-bit microcomputer three Xgenerations behind current IBM-PCs. We do not charge; therfore Xit is hard to conceive that we operate a business. I see no Xdictionary definition of business that we conceivably fit. I Xsuspect hat SWB is most vulnerable here. We can and should Xenlist the PUC. X XB. Another tack is that we can persuade them it is not practical Xto go after BBSs. From the size of the current BBSLIST file Xupdated monthly by local modem enthusiasts, I figure that there Xare two hundred and twenty-five BBSs in Houston, (maybe 400 in Xall of Texas) of which 150 are privately run (the rest are run by Xreal businesses: schools, stores, libraries and museums, or their Xowners charge for access priveleges). SWB stands to gain about X$45,000 per year by this campaign in Houston. However I predict Xthat 2/3 of the private operators will fold their systems. XSimply put the reclassification raises the cost of their hobby Xfrom around $150 per year to nearly $500 and I think most would Xnot spend it. Thus the company would only net about $10,000 in Xadditional revenue from this campaign, which may very well be Xlost to ill will. X XFurthermore, I would estimate that each bulletin board has 100 to X500 users, representing a large number of users (you don't have Xto point out the fact that many are redundant users of more than Xone system). If two thirds of the private systems were to vanish Xover the next six months, local modem use would go down and there Xare many two-phone households specifically because of personal Xmodem hobbies. SWB would find that many two-phone housholds Xwould drop the 2nd line. This would rapidly erase the $10,000 Xrevenue gain. It would only take around 80 2nd phone Xcancellations to do this. This would be hard to prove or Xdisprove as I'm sure that SWB has no statistics on why there are Xsecond lines installed. It would be my guess that there are X4000 very active modem users and 30,000 sporadic users in Houston. XSome percentage of the 4000 is sure to have a second line Xinstalled for their hobby. X XIf I were to use this I'd go much more carefully over the figures Xand especially the board count, but I'm pretty confident of the Xrange. X XThis financial impact approach might be worth pursuit - I'm not Xsure how important this is to SWB. The girl calling everyone, X"Andrea" didn't give her last name outwhen she called and sounded Xrather like a new recruit. She has no secretary (the letter, Xwhile not bad, was not a fine example of a business letter -- Xsalutation with no title, a comma, no colon, and lack of a Xsecretarial signature) and no permanent phone! (rather strange Xfor SWB, no?). Her title is Service Representative (sounds like Xan entry level job). Maybe they had someone extra and are Xfinding make-work for her? X XC. Probably a least likely course of action, but the ACLU might Xlike this one. The BBS is a unique institution for freedom of Xspeech. SWB may not like them because of a small but highly Xpublicized group of phone vandals (incorrectly referred to as Xhackers) have used modems for possibly illegal and definately Ximmoral purposes. However, for the rest of us it may be Xconsidered a medium of free speech, disemination of information Xand technology transfer; thus low phone rates are protected by Xthe fifth ammendment or something along that line. X XI have some statistics on the use of Phoenix RCP/M available, as Xto number of hours and callers, that can be printed out with Xmedium effort. X XFinally, there are likely well over 200 other Sysops being Xcalled by Andrea, many will be comtemplating the same actions-- Xshould we and can we co-ordinate actions with them? X X Loring Chien X modem (preferred) 495-3039 X voice 495-5007 X X X[Text of letter sent by Loring Chien] X X X 6519 La Mora Drive X Houston, Texas 77083 X October 9, 1988 X X XSouthwestern Bell Telephone Company XP.O. Box 1530 XHouston, Texas 77251-1530 X Xre: Business Classification of Residential Phone line 495-3039 X XDear Sirs: X XI wish to protest the recent unilateral reclassification by XSothwestern Bell Telephone Company of the telephone line 495-3039 Xfrom residential service to business service. I am aware that Xyou have deemed this line a computer "BBS". I believe you are Xgrossly misapplying your tariff in this case where I use the Xline for hobby purposes. According to fellow hobbyists, you Xhave done the same thing all over Houston. X XThe acronym BBS is widely used for "Bulletin Board System", not X"bulletin board service" as stated in your letter. We will Xprobably not easily find a legal description of what exactly Xconstitutes a computer BBS. Let me describe how I use what you Xcall a BBS. X XMy hobby is computers, and on the phone line in question, I have Xconnected a computer through a modem at my home. This system is Xrun as part of my hobby. The system allows me to operate my Xcomputer from remote locations with a modem. It has also been Xavailable to interested callers for discussion of both computer- Xrelated and non-computer related topics of interest and for Xtransfering data of interest to me and my friends who are also Xhobbyists. Like my voice telephone, 495-5007, at the same Xaddress, the number has been given to my friends and associates. XIn some cases they have also given it to their friends. Both Xnumbers have been used in the pursuit of my hobby. On my voice Xtelephone, I have a conventional phone answering machine. X XIn the case of the number in question, 495-3039, I have never, Xand do not in the future, intend to levy a charge, monetary or Xother, for persons calling and interacting with the system. I do Xnot use the system for advertising or promoting any commercial Xproducts for financial gain to me or any other party. Some Xproducts are discussed, as topics or for informational purposes, Xin the course of conversations held between me and callers. X XI have never engaged in any advertising, such as business cards, Xcirculars, television or radio ads, newspaper ads, handbills or Xother printed or broadcast materials, of this system for any Xreason at all. I am aware that the number has been placed on Xlocally- and nationally-distributed lists of computer-callable Xsystems by other persons who compile such lists. This is not Xuncommon; I am on many computerized phone lists, judging by the Xnumber of unsolicited phone calls I receive on my voice line. X XThe equipment on the line in question is a "home-brew" computer, Xessentially a collection of parts, in some cases designed by me, Xand in other cases repaired or modified by me and assembled into Xa functioning computer. The chassis is a S-100 bus unit made by XIntegrand, the Z-80 CPU and disk controller made by California XComputer Systems, the disk drives are 8" floppy media units made Xby Remex and Siemens. I designed and assembled the serial port Xinterface and clock last year. The only other part of the system Xmade after 1981 is the modem. This is truly a hobbyist system. X XThe software is also hobbyist in nature. The operating system is Xa highly modified CP/M version 2.2, no longer sold. All the Xother software in use is considered public domain and customized Xor written by me. If you were to ask any reasonably-informed Xpersonal computer expert, he would inform you that this system Xwould not today be sold as a commercial system. X XYour representative, Ms. Andrea Prothrow, who contacted me via my Xvoice line, stated that the reason that BBSes are now being Xcharged business rates is that they provide a service, and that Xany service must therefore be a business. X XHowever, your Exchange Tariff, Section 23, sheet 2, dated XNovember 20, 1984, effective March 15, 1985, specifically states Xthat, for phones at residences, business rates are to be in Xeffect when the nature of use is business rather than Xresidential. The tariff suggests that business use is indicated Xby advertising. I have also checked my dictionary and it says Xthat "business" is commerce or trade, with a profit motive. X XI assure you that my hobby system meets none of these criteria. XI do not advertise for people to call this number, I do not Xoperate in expectation of profit, and I am not engaged in any Xcommerce or otherwise commercial activities. While there may be Xothers who operate bulletin board systems that advertise for or Xsupport commercial ventures, I do not. It is very heavy-handed Xof your company to, in a blanket fashion, assume that my line Xand other similar lines carry commercial traffic. I challenge XSouthwestern Bell to provide a written explanation of its Xreasons for assigning business status to this line. X XThe General Exchange Tariff goes on to state that residence rates Xapply "in private residences where business listings are not Xprovided." I believe there is no question that that Xclassification should apply here. X XI expect that Southwestern Bell Telephone will review its Xdecision and reassign residential status to the phone line 495- X3039 retroactive to October 1, 1988. I will remind you that you Xare a public utility and that the unilateral actions you have Xtaken are not those taken by a company sensitive to public Xappearances. Personal computer operations like that which I have Xare a bold expression of the freedom we have in this country. XSystems such as I have would never be tolerated in a closed Xsociety like the Soviet Union, where the government and Xgovernment-controlled utilities would take measures to discourage Xit. X XIt is important to realize, in this and future related Xsituations, that transfer of data is not solely a function of Xgovernment and business. There are many other users such as I Xfor whom digital data communication is very much a matter of Xfreedom of speech, freedom of press, and pursuit of happiness. I Xcertainly hope that Southwestern Bell Telephone will not use its Xposition as a publically-sanctioned monopoly to penalize in any Xway those who chose to use their residential phones for digital Xdata. The difference between business rates and residential Xrates would add a substantial financial penalty to me as an Xindividual for the pursuit of my hobby. X XOfficials of the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, and the Xparties to whom copies of this letter are being sent, have my Xpermission to call this number (1-713-495-3039 at 300/1200, or X2400 baud, 8 bits, no parity) and see firsthand that it is not a Xbusiness. Please do not call my voice number. I prefer that all Xfurther communications from Southwestern Bell Telephone regarding Xthis account be in writing. X X XYours truly, X X X X XLoring Chien X Xxc: XMr. Coyle Kelley, Executive Director XPublic Utility Commission of Texas X7800 Shoal Creek Road, Suite 450N XAustin, Texas 78757 X XMrs. Betty Suthard XPublic Utility Commission of Texas X7800 Shoal Creek Road, Suite 400N XAustin, Texas 78757 X XFederal Communications Commission X1919 M Street NW XWashington, D.C. 20554 X XMr. Donald R. Morris XThe Houston Post XP. O. Box 4747 XHouston, Texas 77210-4747 X[Text of a letter written to Donald Morris, columnist for the XHouston Post] X X 6519 La Mora Drive X Houston, Texas 77083 X October 9, 1988 X X XMr. Donald R. Morris XThe Houston Post XP. O. Box 4747 XHouston, Texas 77210-4747 X XDear Don: X XI have corresponded with you on Bulletin boards some time ago. XAt the time we were engaged in fighting 550-pt Adventures on CP/M Xsystems. I was co-sysop of RIBBS at that time. I know that you Xare a computer afficiando of sorts, and also a frequenter of XBBSes. X XThere is a matter which has come up recently which I think Xsignificantly affects the future of BBSes in Houston. My friend Xand fellow Sysop Bill Pearre has suggested that you might be Xwilling to use this as a subject for a column in the near future. X XThe primary matter at hand is the unilateral action by the XSouthwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) to raise the rates of Xthose who operate BBS systems from their homes as a hobby. Late Xlast week sysops started receiving calls from Andrea who informed Xthem that their rates would be changed from the residential rate Xto the business rate. Currently the monthly expense of running Xmy system, Phoenix RCP/M, is about $16. This is the base Xresidential rate of $11.25 plus local, state and federal taxes Xand access charges. It would actually be possible to lower the Xbase rate to $8.25 or so if I was to switch to measured service Xon both my phone lines. X XAt the business rate of $35.50 per month, I anticipate that my Xmonthly expense, including taxes and access charges, would be Xnearly $46. The increase in cost of my hobby would be $360 per Xyear, from $190 to $550, or very nearly trebling my phone cost! X XThere are several issues here. One is the legality of the SWBT Xaction. I have enclosed some materials which are the letter from XSWBT to me, the SWBT general tariff which details what conditions Xare required for business classification, and my response. I Xthink that I have reasonable grounds for reversal of the Xreclassification. If necessary I and other sysops will enlist Xthe PUC and lawyers to fight this. X XThe other issue is the general harrassment by the phone company Xof modem users in general. The impression I and others have is Xthat SWBT an the other Baby Bells regard digital data transfer as Xthe sole province of government and busines. There have been Xrumors to the effect that SWBT may soon be sweeping the lines and Xany phones bearing modem tones will be subject to commercial user Xrates. X XAs you know there is a group who periodically compile and Xdistribute, by modem, a list of BBSes in Houston. The list I Xhave dated Aug. 5, 1988 has the numbers of 225 such systems, Xincluding Bill Pearre's and mine. There are a few of these that Xare run by computer stores and such, but the majority are Xprivately-operated systems like mine. Their future is placed in Xjeopardy by the reclassification since many sysops cannot afford X$550/year operating costs. I predict two-thirds of the private Xsystems, or somewhere around 130 BBSes would be gone in six Xmonths time. X XMy personal thought is that freedom of digital data transmission Xshould have been in the Bill of Rights. Since the Constitution's Xframers made this oversight, we will have to rely upon freedom of Xspeech, freedom of the press and pursuit of happiness. I think Xthe number of BBSes in operation is a tribute to the freedom we Xhave in this country. Can you imagine BBSes operating in the XSoviet Union? Now SWBT is mounting a concentrated campaign Xagainst these systems. X XHistorically the phone companies have always had run-ins with Xmodems. At first, they tried to maintain a virtual monopoly on Xthe equipment. The legal decision that allowed you to own a non- Xphone company-supplied phone was the Carterfone decision, and XCarterfone made modems, not telephones. When I got my first Xmodem in 1981, the phone companies still wanted to know if you Xwere attaching a modem to their line. X XLater on, in California, Pacific Bell was engaged in trying to Xdestroy BBSes and actually confiscated the BBS equipment of a Xsystem there. Allegedly the message base of that system Xcontained information used by phone phreaks to mess with the Xphone company's equipment. Although the content of the messages Xwas not known by the sysop, the phone company held him Xresponsible. In fact, they seized not only the BBS system but all Xthe computer equipment in his house, and he was a professional Xcontract programmer. The outcome, I believe was in the sysop's Xfavor, but the overwhelming tone was that Pac Bell was trying to Xintimidate the BBS community. X XOver the last two years there was a running campaign on the BBSes Xto write to the FCC regarding some phone-company sponsored Xregulation-change proposals to heavily raise rates to users of Xlong distance digital data communications. Happily the FCC saw Xotherwise and users of Compuserve etc. were protected from what Xcould have been a doubling of access rates to those systems. X XAs stated earlier, I am enclosing some materials I have written Xor received. These are the letter from SWBT, the tariff in Xeffect, and letters to SWBT. There is also an analysis of Xpossible actions we can take. Other sysops are taking action. XThere are some notes on the HAL-PC board as well as Ye Olde XBailey, a legal BBS (at 520-1569) here in town. X XIf you could, Don, please consider a column devoted to some of Xthe issues here. I and the BBS/modem community here in Houston Xwould be highly appreciative. Thanks. X X XYours truly, X X X XLoring Chien XSysop, Phoenix RCP/M, 495-3039, 300/1200/2400 baud X X X X X X X X X ________This_Is_The_END________ if test `wc -l < fonewar1.doc` -ne 547; then echo 'shar: fonewar1.doc was damaged during transit (should have been 547 bytes)' fi fi ; : end of overwriting check echo 'x - hints.msg' if test -f hints.msg; then echo 'shar: not overwriting hints.msg'; else sed 's/^X//' << '________This_Is_The_END________' > hints.msg X XArea 75 [58] > 78 Highest read: 58 XFrom: Eric Larson 106/386 XTo: John Secor 106/889 Msg #58, 14 Oct 88 19:47:14 XSubject: Re: BBS telephone rates X X >> X >> As far as I know it's local to your telephone company. If X >> I were you I would write to the PUC, give them a copy of X >> the Telephone company's directive, and include a very polite X >> letter about the difference between a business and a hobby. X >> I bet the PUC jumps on the telephone company's case! X > Jeff, the above argument will have a MUCH better chance IF the BBS is a X > free bbs, it it requires a fee to use the system, of a 'Donation' for X > better access, then the Phone company may have a point. X XA couple of ideas.... X XMaybe the PUC would view this as a rate increase by the phone company without Xthe PUC's review? Point out that if BBS's are a service, they are a PUBLIC Xservice, operated by sysops out of the goodness of their hearts, and refer Xthem to Echoes like Grand_Rounds. Perhaps BBS' really deserve FREE basic phone Xservice for the community spirit and goodwill they generate - not to mention Xpublic education, contributing to an environment that supports the growth of XHigh Tech local industry, and on and on. Maybe the phone company should pay Xthe sysops for the priviledge of hooking their phone lines to the BBS... X XCertainly regulatory agencies have been favorable toward similar groups, i.e. XPublic Television, which operates under a completely different code than Xcommercial TV, and amateur radio operators, in the past. X XRemember some of the arguments fostered during the Computer III row with the XFCC? Telecommunications is a strategic industry for the future growth of the XUS, and as such, deserves special treatment by the regulatory industries to Xfoster it's growth - and certainly hobbyists have had a big impact in the Xtechnologies now used by business. Heck, Fidonet carries more traffic, and has Xmore nodes than any commercial E-Mail net, including Western Union. Maybe the Xphone company should be required to donate hardware to sysops. X XPoint out that under recent regulatory action by the FCC and Judge Greene that Xlocal phone companies are now permitted to act as gateways to commercial Xon-line services, and this action is clearly a move by the bad evil phone Xcompanies to use their clout to unfairly restrict competition from hobbyists Xoffering similar services free or much cheaper. Maybe the phone companies had Xbetter pay a whopping fine for trying to unfairly use their control of access Xto phone service to generate business in a related market. In fact, they had Xbetter not even be allowed to offer services like this because of their nasty Xbehaviour. Of course, this fine should be returned to the local BBS community. XWrite lots of letters to congressmen, especially Mr. Markey, Dem, Mass., who Xis chairman of the House telecommunications subcommittee, and whose threat of Xlegislation was the primary reason that the FCC dropped the VAN access fee Xproposal. Write letters to Judge Greene. I'm sure he would be interested!! XWrite letters to the local newspapers pointing out evil anti-competitive Xactions of the phone company. In other words, make a real big stink. X XBad, BAD, phone company. X XBy the way, what is IFNA doing? X X X X X X X--- ConfMail V4.00 X * Origin: Shockwave Rider HST *Mac Support* (1:260/330) X ________This_Is_The_END________ if test `wc -l < hints.msg` -ne 67; then echo 'shar: hints.msg was damaged during transit (should have been 67 bytes)' fi fi ; : end of overwriting check echo 'x - notice.txt' if test -f notice.txt; then echo 'shar: not overwriting notice.txt'; else sed 's/^X//' << '________This_Is_The_END________' > notice.txt X X X ***** P U B L I C N O T I C E ***** X X X Southwestern Bell Telephone is attempting to eliminate X non-commercial Bulletin Board Systems in its operating area. X X XHistory: X X A protest was filed by a commercial bulletin board operator Xwith the Texas Public Utilities Commission regarding special rates Xgranted a competitor. This forced Southwestern Bell to review its Xoperating Tariff. Unfortunately the protestor also ran a Bulletin XBoard System. X X Southwestern Bell representatives met with a small group of XSysops in June of this year on a fact finding mission. The Xrepresentatives were assured that the Bulletin Board Systems served Xthe community and were of a hobbyist nature. At this meeting a copy Xof a Houston BBS listing was voluntarily handed over to them at their Xrequest. X X XBell's Action: X X After reviewing the information garnered with their lawyers XSouthwestern Bell Telephone concluded they could reclassify all XBulletin Board Systems as Bulletin Board Services. A small Xdistinction but according to the Tariff all "Services" are Xconsidered to be business enterprises. This encompasses non-profit Xorganizations, churches, and other entities where no fee is charged. X X As a "Utility" Southwestern Bell Telephone is regulated by Xthe Texas Public Utilities Commission. Southwestern Bell's return Xis set by this commission which was reported to be 12.5% last year. XHowever this profit margin is unique in that it is based on the Bell's Xincoming revenues. Thus the greater the incoming revenues the larger Xthe actual profit in dollars. X X All States served by Southwestern Bell Telephone will be Xaffected. This is not a state issue but a regional one. And it is Xstrongly believed that if Southwestern Bell is successful in defending Xthe reclassification other telephone operating companies will adopt Xthe measure. The name of the Utility Commissions will be different but X the issue will be the same. X X In late September or early October certified letters Xwere mailed to the Sysops identified on the Houston BBS Listing Xadvising them of the reclassification. Stating what the business Xrate would be and when it would become effective, almost tripling Xthe residential amount. X X XSysop's Reaction: X X Southwestern Bell was contacted directly and issued a Xrange of responses. Unknowledgeable about Bulletin Board Systems Xin general, believing all were engaged in pirating game software Xor phreaking the telephone system. Disbelieving that anyone would Xbe willing to invest the time and expense of operating a BBS without Xsomehow profiting financially. Others were sympathetic and enforcing Xa company policy they couldn't change. And one who admitted XSouthwestern Bell's management knew it would evoke a storm of protest Xbut had opted to ride out the tempest. Seems their lawyers had assured Xthem "they could get away with it"! X X The Public Utilities Commission was contacted by numerous Xindividuals. Their recommendation is to file an individual protest Xwith the commission. Pay only the previous residential rate and Xenclose a letter of protest with every bill notifying Southwestern XBell the reclassification is being contested. The PUC will then Xcontact Bell on a case by case basis, Xaddress below. X X Public Utilities Commission X Ms. Betty Suthard X 7800 Schoal Creek Blvd. X Suite 450 North X Austin, Texas 78757 X X A meeting of Houston FidoNet Sysops was held Saturday, XOctober 15, 1988, that welcomed any Sysop to discuss Bell's action. XReginald Hirsch and Bruce Penny gave presentations and a general Xdiscussion ensued for several hours. General consensus was reached Xon several issues. X X XGeneral Consensus: X X Reginald Hirsch will file a suit against Southwestern Bell's Xreclassification of the Bulletin Board Systems. He is seeking Xrepresentatives from all the different BBS operating systems to Xjoin him in this action. In laymen terms it would be considered a X"Class Action" suit. He has scheduled a meeting to further inform XSysops of this issue. X X By reclassifying Bulletin Board Systems as "Services" XSouthwestern Bell has placed to burden of proof on the Sysop. We Xfeel this would severely inhibit the establishment of new Bulletin XBoard Systems for they would automatically be classified as a Xbusiness service. X X We seek to assure the right of any person to establish Xa non-profit Bulletin Board System in their residence. That said XBulletin Board System should be accessed residential rates for it Xis of a hobbyist nature rather than commercial. X X Southwestern Bell is a very powerful entity with unlimited Xresources. Thus our fight is expected to extend for months if not Xinto the next Governor's race. The final result of our actions might Xbe a special dispensation for all free Bulletin Board Systems under XBell's operating Tariff. X X XThose Offering to Help: X X The Sysops are still organizing and accepting ideas on Xpossible actions. No negative actions are to be taken whatsoever! XFor we must have public opinion for us, not against. We would prefer Xto wait until a Concerted Effort can be organized before we take action. XPlease keep in contact with your favorite BBS for all Sysops will become Xinvolved before the matter is resolved. X X The Sysops of the Fee-based Bulletin Board Systems are Xjoining the suit to assure the PUC that the non-charging BBSs Xaren't in competition with them. X X FidoNet, roughly 4,500 Boards connected internationally, Xis willing to back any reasonable actions against Southwestern Bell in Xwhatever ways possible. The leadership realizes this reclassification Xwill not remain a regional one. X X XScheduled Meetings: X XFrom: Reginald Hirsch XRE: Notice of Meeting October 27,1988 Noon XPlace: 1980 Post Oak Blvd.#1780 X Houston,Texas 77056 XPhone : 1 713 961 7800 XDate: October 6,1988 XFor: Immediate Distribution all Sysop's State of Texas XOrigin: Ye Olde Bailey Houston,Texas Data 1 713 520 1569 X XSouthwestern Bell has given notice of their interpretation of a XTexas Public Utility regulation which effective 11/1/88 raises all XBBS's systems in the State of Texas from a residential to business Xrate. The result is a double in rates. I asked to see a copy of Xthe announcement and was told that it was internal. I am getting Xthe particular tariff. I am going to hold a lunch, BYOL in my office Xfor concerned users and sysops Thursday October 27,1988 noon 1980 XPost Oak Blvd. #1780,Houston,Texas 77056. Please confirm by calling X1 713 961 7800 ask for Sandy. The purpose of the meeting is discuss Xthese events and what course of action to take.Please tell other sysops. XDownload Tariff.arc and disseminate to your favorite Board. XTime is short. X X X* Original: FROM.....Jim Westbrook (382/30) X* Original: TO.......Merrilyn Vaughan (106/0) X* Forwarded by ......OPERETTA 106/889 X XMerrilyn, X X This is an invitation for you, your net, and ANY interested Xsysops in your area to attend the November 10th meeting of the Central XTexas Sysops Assn. in Austin, TX. X The topic of the evening will be the current "re-interpretation" Xof phone billing rates taking place in Houston and soon to be other Xlocations served(?) by South Western Bell. X Representative(s) of SW Bell will be the guest speakers and Xaccept questions from the floor. Other organizations which are Xreceiving invitations include: the Public Utilities Commission, Xthe Austin Zoning Commission, the American Civil Liberties Union, Xthe Federal Communications Commission, and various elected representatives Xin State and Federal government. X Please forward a copy of this message to each node in your net Xwith a request that they in turn pass on the information to any non-net Xboards which they frequent. X XLocation: Criss Cole Rehabilitation Center Auditorium X 4800 N. Lamar X Austin, TX X XDate: November 10, 1988 XTime: 7:30pm - ??? X X As a strong showing of BBS operators may influence the outcome Xof the SW Bell actions, attendance by sysops from your area is to our Xmutual benefit. I, for one, resent SW Bell's reclassification of ANY Xhobby BBS to business class phone rates. Particularly in the absence Xof public hearings and approval by the PUC. X XLooking forward to seeing you on Nov. 10th, XJim Westbrook - President, Central Texas Sysop Assn. X X X -------- X ________This_Is_The_END________ if test `wc -l < notice.txt` -ne 201; then echo 'shar: notice.txt was damaged during transit (should have been 201 bytes)' fi fi ; : end of overwriting check echo 'x - readme.first' if test -f readme.first; then echo 'shar: not overwriting readme.first'; else sed 's/^X//' << '________This_Is_The_END________' > readme.first X Beginning the 1st of October, 1988, Southwestern Bell XTelephone Company began contacting Bulletin Board Sysops Xin Houston. Their message was simple. "We have determined Xthat we have been undercharging you and beginning with your XOctober bill, we are going to charge you business rates Xbecause you are running a computer bulletin board." In the XHouston area this will result in an increase in the base Xrate from $13.35 to $32.85 per month for each line. X We have heard that SW Bell intends to follow this same Xpolicy throughout Texas. If this action is allowed to Xsucceed unchallenged, we feel that it constitutes a grave Xthreat to our bulletin board hobby as we know it today. X What can you do to help? First read the enclosed files. XThey should provide you with an understanding of what is at Xstake. Then, if you are a sysop in Texas and you receive a Xletter from Southwesten Bell raising your rates, file a Xcomplaint with the Texas Utility Commission. If you are a Xsysop anywhere, write the Texas Public Utility Commission Xand protest this action. Distribute this file as widely Xas you can. Tell your users about this action and the Xthreat that it represents to their hobby. Urge them to Xwrite letters to the Texas Public Utility Commission Xprotesting the action being taken by Southwestern Bell. X In your letters emphasize the hobbiest nature of your Xsystems. Tell the commission about the public interest Xnature of bulletin board systems. Tell them what it will Xmean not only to you, the sysop, but to bulletin board Xusers everywhere if half of the bulletin boards close Xdown because they cannot afford to stay open. X If you are a Texas BBS sysop and you receive a letter Xfrom Southwestern Bell raising your phone rates and you Xwould like to to more than just protest to the PUC, Xconsider joining in filing a formal complaint with the XPUC as part of a class action. For information on that Xoption contact Reginald Hirsch at the address in address.lst. X X X Merrilyn Vaughan X Net Coordinator, Net 106 X Houston, Texas X X ------------------------------------------- X Contents of Enclosed Files X XReadme.1st This file XBBS.Txt Houston Chronicle article with General information X on the rate hike XVidtex.Txt Article of U.S. Videotel's plans for the X nationwide provision of information services XTariff.Txt The text of the current Texas tarriff XAddress.Lst Address of Texas PUC XFonewar1.Doc Letters from SW Bell to sysops, and sysop X responses XNotice.Txt Background and history on rate hike XHints.msg Some thoughts to keep in mind while writing your letter X X ------------------------------------------- X XFor further information contact: X X Justin Marquez, RC, Region 19, 106/100 X Merrilyn Vaughan, NC, Net 106, 106/889 X Reginald Hirsch, Ye Ole Bailey, 1-713-520-1569 (Data, PC-Board) ________This_Is_The_END________ if test `wc -l < readme.first` -ne 63; then echo 'shar: readme.first was damaged during transit (should have been 63 bytes)' fi fi ; : end of overwriting check echo 'x - tariff.txt' if test -f tariff.txt; then echo 'shar: not overwriting tariff.txt'; else sed 's/^X//' << '________This_Is_The_END________' > tariff.txt XPresident - Texas Division General Exchange Tariff XSouthwestern Bell Telephone Company Section: 23 XDallas, Texas Sheet: 2 XIssued: November 20, 1984 Revision: Original XEffective: March 15, 1985 Replacing: X X RULES AND REGULATIONS APPLYING TO ALL CUSTOMERS' CONTRACTS X X3. APPLICATION OF BUSINESS AND RESIDENCE RATES X X 3.1 Business rates apply at the Following Locations: X X In offices, stores, factories, and all other places of X strictly business nature. X X In boarding houses (except as noted below), offices of X hotels, halls and offices of apartment buildings, quarters X occupied by clubs, or lodges, public, private or parochial X schools, or colleges, hospitals, libraries, churches, and X other similar institutions, except in churches and lodges as X specified below. X X At residence locations when the customer has no regular X business telephone and the use of the service either by X himself, members of his household or his guests, or parties X calling him can be considered as more of a business than a X residence nature, which fact might be indicated by advertis- X ing, either by business cards, newspapers, handbills, bill- X boards, circulars, motion picture screens, or other advertis- X ing matter, such as on vehicles, etc., or when such business X use is not such as commonly arises and passes over residence X telephones during the intervals when, in compliance with the X law or established custom, business places are ordinarily X closed. X X At residence locations, when the service is located in a X shop, office or other place of business. X X In college fraternity houses where the members lodge within X the house. X X At any location where the listing of service at that loca- X tion indicates a business, trade or profession, except as X specified below. X X 3.2 Residence Rates Apply at the Following Locations: X X In private residences where business listings are not X provided. X X In private apartments of hotels, rooming houses or boarding X houses where service is confined to the customer's use, and X elsewhere in rooming and boarding houses where are not X advertised as a place of business or which have less than X five rooms for roomers or which furnish meals to less than X ten boarders, provided business listing are not furnished. X X In the place of resience of a clergyman, physician, dentist, X veterinary surgeon, other medical practitioner, Christian X Science practitioner, nurse, midwife, or in their office, X provided the office is located in their residence and is not X a part of an office building. In any such cases the listing X may indicate the customer's profession, but only in connec- X tion with an individual name. If listings of firms or X partnerships, etc., or additional listings of persons not X residing in the same household are desired, business rates X apply. X X In a private stable or garage when strictly a part of a X domestic establishment. X X In churches where the service is not accessible for public X partronage, as in pastors' studies. X X In lodges where there is only occasional use of the service. X ________This_Is_The_END________ if test `wc -l < tariff.txt` -ne 76; then echo 'shar: tariff.txt was damaged during transit (should have been 76 bytes)' fi fi ; : end of overwriting check echo 'x - vidtex.txt' if test -f vidtex.txt; then echo 'shar: not overwriting vidtex.txt'; else sed 's/^X//' << '________This_Is_The_END________' > vidtex.txt XHouston Chronicle XMonday, September 18, 1988 X X X X "INFORMATION SERVICE TO BE TESTED IN AREA" X By John Barnett X X "Imagine reading several different restaurant menus at home before Xdeciding where to go, or asking a computer to locate the closest theater Xshowing your favorite movie. X That and more will be possible in the Houston area in March when XSouthwestern Bell, Houston-based U.S. Videotel and Audio Information XSciences Inc. begin testing new services available through the phone Xsystem. X The services will range from airline information to movie guides Xto horoscopes. Customers will be able to view the listing with a Xsmall desktop terminal hookep up to the phone lines. Customers without Xterminals will be able to get similar information through Touch-Tone Xphones. X 'Houston will be the site of the largest voice and data gateway Xtrials ever conducted in the United States, starting in March,' said XSouthwestern Bell spokesman Ken Brasel. 'This will be the first time Xboth voice and data gateways will be available to an entire market' X Dialing a phone number will put customers in touch with the information Xsystems. Houston's 1 million Touch-Tone phone customers will have Xaccess to the voice information. X The phone company plans for about 60,000 customers to access the Xservice through Videotel terminals or their own personal computers. X Southwestern Bell plans for the information menu to be free, with Xmany of the information services from the menu also free. Before Xa customer uses a service, he will be clearly notified if it has Xa fee. X Southwestern Bell will also offer free blocking preventing access Xto the system. Customers will also have the option of blocking only Xthe services that charge a fee. X U.S. District Court Judge Harold Greene, who directed the breakup Xof the nation's phone system, in September 1987 lifted the restriction Xforbidding regional Bell operating companies from participating Xin information services delivery. That opens the door for in-home Xphone information services. X Ray Mashburn, Southwesten Bell program director, said the company Xchose Houston for the tests because the city has many customers who Xwould be interested in the services offered on the system. X U.S. Videotel has been testing its system in Houston. The company Xhas about 850 terminals in operation, said Videotel President Mark XSwank. X 'We have successful videotex services up and running in Houston Xand have lined up numberous information providers that we'll be putting Xbehing the Southwestern Bell gateway,' Swank said. X U.S. Videotel is basing its system on the French Minitel system, Xwhich has about 4 million users. U.S. Videotel uses the Minitel Xcomputer modified for American use. X The tests will serve two functions for U.S.Videotel, Swank said. XThey will provide large-scale use of the terminals, which will help Xdetermine the services people want most, and they will provide a Xbasis for the firms expansion into other areas of the country, he Xsaid. U.S. Videotel is negotiating with five other Bell operating Xcompanies...to provide similar information services. X 'Our intentions are national in scope,' Swank said. X U.S. Videotel will provide the technology and software for the Xsystem and will be responsible for maintaining the information Xlistings." X X X X ________This_Is_The_END________ if test `wc -l < vidtex.txt` -ne 67; then echo 'shar: vidtex.txt was damaged during transit (should have been 67 bytes)' fi fi ; : end of overwriting check exit 0 ------------------------------------CUT HERE----------------------------------- ______________________________________________________________________________ "We can do anyting we want. We're government!" -- "Face" on _A-Team_ Alpha/Strek Enterprises, Inc. Internet: ttardis!lfm@rel.eds.com JT the LFM (Large Furry Marsupial) UUCP: ...uunet!sharkey!rel!ttardis!lfm
sean@pattye.lonestar.org (Sean McCollister) (01/06/90)
In article <2417@ttardis.UUCP>, lfm@ttardis.UUCP (The Master -- ttardis SuperUser) writes: > In late 1988 and early 1989, Texas AT&T affiliates attempted some "strong-arm" > tactics with the local BBS's. As a followup to the current "troubles", I > am posting a shar file of the postings which concern AT&T attempts for > interested users. Pardon me? "AT&T affiliates"? "AT&T attempts"? "Strong-arm tactics"? In case you haven't noticed, Southwestern Bell (or any other Bell Operating Company, for that matter) has not been an "AT&T affiliate" since 1/1/84. AT&T has made no attempt to charge anyone a higher rate for their BBS lines because AT&T is no longer in the business of providing anyone's dial-tone. Please check your facts before making such accusations in public. -- Sean Internet: sean@pattye.lonestar.org McCollister UUCP: {texbell,attctc}!pattye!sean
root@johnbob.uucp (01/11/90)
In article <70194@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >a) A modem call is *not* the same as a voice call. (This has more to >do with the local BBS == business line question than the $5/hour surcharge >question.) ... > o) Modem calls involve continuous transmission of singal in both > directions at all times. Voice calls are almost always half > duplex (except with rude people!) and also full of the gaps between .... > uses at least 3 times the bandwidth of a voice call. ??? I was under the impression that for local calls all the bandwidth is available all the time. Does anyone know of a local phone system that compresses the signal to remove silence? If your local phone system doesn't then a modem call will have the same bandwidth as a voice call, even during the silent parts. (you're just using all that bandwidth to send nothing) This claim of a modem using 3 times the bandwidth sounds bogus. For a long distance call over a packet network, I can see how a modem would use more bandwidth. John Harvey AT HOME ...!sequoia!johnbob!jph OR ..!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!johnbob!jph AT WORK john@johnbob OR @cs.utexas.edu:ibmchs!auschs!johnbob.austin.ibm.com!john OR ..!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!johnbob.austin.ibm.com!john I don't speak for anybody. Not even myself.