peterm@rwing.uucp (Peter Marshall) (01/01/91)
Re: Ed Hopper's 12/31 post in V11,#1: As seems unfortunately to be the case with a number of such posts, the lack of relevant information doesn't exactly seem to facilitate the purpose of such communications. Witness, for one other recent example, posts re: GTE and Indiana BBSs. In the current case, no case number or title is supplied; the issues presented for hearing are not specifically identified. Nor is the relevant tariff identified or the relevant tariff language cited. On the other hand, as is frequently the case with such posts, claims are nonetheless made about the significance of the case, etc. Pat's comments do well in providing some other kinds of "corrective" information here re: bus. rates for NPOs, but do not reach the broader question of whether there's valid justification for some of the alleged cost-based distinctions for bus-res rate differentials. Suggest that if Ed et al are serious they do a second cut at this and fill in some of the blanks noted, as simply stuffing a hearing room with sysops and users doesn't seem particularly promising by itself. To put it a little differently, if you have decided to play on the PUC field, then play effectively; otherwise, it may be preferable not to play at all. Peter Marshall
ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) (01/01/91)
(Note: I am sending this on behalf of Bruce Wilson.)
From the FACTS BBS in Flint, Michigan, by way of the Vehicle City
BBS in Davison, Michigan:
On January 15, 1991, an administrative hearing will be held before
the Michigan Public Service Commision to discuss a complaint filed
against Michigan Bell Telephone Company.
Early this year, a private bulletin board in Grosse Point, called
the Variety and Spice BBS, was ordered to pay an increased charge for
phone service because it was discovered he was accepting donations for
use of his BBS.
This BBS ran on an IBM, and supports sixteen separate lines.
Although a portion of the BBS was open to the public, most of the BBS
(including an "adult file" area, were restricted to those who sent a
donation to the BBS. The money collected didn't even come close to
the actual cost of running such a BBS.
Michigan Bell claims that placing any condition on the use of a
BBS constitutes a business, and that the sysop must pay a business
rate for his phone line, plus pay a $100 deposit for EACH LINE in use.
This means the Variety and Spice sysop would have to pay a $1600
deposit, plus about $50 additional each month if he wanted to continue
his BBS.
The sysop refused to pay this fee, so Michigan Bell disconnect his
lines. The sysop filed a complaint with the MPSC. Until this case
was heard, he decided to re-install the phone lines (at a considerable
cost to himself).
If Michigan Bell wins this case, they will require every BBS sysop
to pay business rates for each of their lines, if it is determined
that the BBS is accepting fees or donations. The Variety and Spice
sysop claims that MBT considers requiring users to upload files or
post messages (ie upload/download ratios) the same as a donation, and
will require the sysop to upgrade his line to a business line whether
money was exchanged or not. However, in an interview I did in March,
I talked to the chief spokesman of MBT, who claimed that this was not
the case. Only if money is accepted will MBT demand the sysop pay
business rate.
The important thing here is that AT THIS TIME, these are the rules
that MBT believes is in the tariff. If Variety and Spice loses this
case, it is conceivable that MBT can request further restrictions to
be placed.
At this hearing, the public will be allowed to voice their
opinions and comments. This applies to both sysops and users. If MBT
wins this case it can cause serious restrictions to be place on BBS's,
and will set a precedence for other phone companies around the country
to follow.
Your help is urgently needed!! Please try to attend this hearing.
It will be held at the Public Service Building, 6545 Merchant Way,
Lansing, Michigan. The date is January 15. I do not have the exact
time but I assume this hearing will last most of the day. You do not
have to testify, but it would really be helpful if you can attend as a
show of support. The MPSC does not think the Michigan public even
cares about BBS's. But we can certainly jar their thinking if we can
pack the room with sysops and users!
For more information, please contact Jerry Cross at 313-736-4544
(voice) or 313-736-3920 (bbs). You can also contact the sysop of the
Variety & Spice BBS at 313-885-8377.
Please! We need your support.
--------------
Notes from Ed Hopper:
In our case against Southwestern Bell, the same cockeyed logic was
applied. For a brief period, Southwestern Bell also maintained that
the requirement of file uploads was, in and of itself, cause for them
to declare a BBS to be a business because it required something "of
value" for access. We were able to force Southwestern Bell to see
things in a more moderate tone.
Recently, I had the opportunity to testify before the Texas PUC
regarding the Texas BBS case. In that testimony, I stated that the
telcos draw all sorts of extreme scenarios in which the provision of
residential service to BBS systems is against the public good. Their
argument goes: "If we allow them to have residential service, it will
upset the equations and raise the cost of telecommunications services
to everyone." However, there is not a BBS on every block, or even one
in every subdivision, and no rational observer would ever expect that
to be the case. There is, however, cause for most rational observers
to believe that the increased cost of business service, including it's
increased burden in the area of deposits and installation charges,
could cause the closing of many BBS outlets. This, truly, would not
be in the public good.
Ed Hopper
President
The Coalition of Sysops and Users Against Rate Discrimination
BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com
[Moderator's Note: The problem of course is that the telephone company
only has two basic rates: a rate for residence/personal communications
and a rate for all else, which they term 'business phones'. Where
Ed's counter-argument fails is that while there are not BBS's on every
block, neither are there churches and charities on every block -- yet
they pay full business rates, as do social service hotline, information
and referral services. Are BBS information providers to be treated
differently than dial-a-prayer lines which run on business phones, or
the proverbial "Battered Women's Shelter outgoing phone line where the
calls can't be traced" which also pays business rates?
Here are some questions you may wish to give response to: Should there
be a third rate category made available, covering charitable and
religious organizations? Should this third rate category be available
to all not-for-profit phone services such as BBS lines and social
service referral numbers or hotlines? If BBS operators who charge
money got such a rate, should Compuserve or GEnie also be allowed to
use the same rate? Should telco be the one to audit the revenues and
decide which computer sites should be treated as 'business' and which
should be 'charitable organization'? Is it the fault of telco if the
BBS operator does not charge enough money to make a profit? Where is
the line to be drawn? Answers? PAT]john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (01/02/91)
Ed Hopper <ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com> writes: > At this hearing, the public will be allowed to voice their > opinions and comments. This applies to both sysops and users. If MBT > wins this case it can cause serious restrictions to be place on BBS's, > and will set a precedence for other phone companies around the country > to follow. Well, maybe. In many cases, including California, major changes would have to be made to the tariff structure. In CA, the opening assumption concerning whether business or residence service is appropriate is "where is the line to be installed?" If the line is installed in someone's residence, residential service is assumed UNLESS certain conditions apply. A line installed anywhere else is assumed to be for business service. This would include churches, shelters, charities, etc. Pac*Bell would be hard pressed to charge business service for any BBS installed in someone's home, regardless of "upload requirements" or any other nebulous manifestations of "consideration". On the other hand, if someone logged in and was presented with a rate card, that could easily be construed as a business venture and the service would be subject to regrading accordingly. > The MPSC does not think the Michigan public even > cares about BBS's. But we can certainly jar their thinking if we can > pack the room with sysops and users! This may be the key. It has often been said that Pac*Bell would never screw around with BBSes, or people who use modems in general because of the high concentration of users and because of the high interest in such matters particularly in the Silly Valley. The MPSC is banking on public disinterest and only a demonstration by the people to the contrary will carry any weight. It is a political fact of life that the minorities and obscure factions take the brunt of laws and regulations. Computer users must make it clear to those in power that as a group, such users are neither passive nor silent. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert Woodhead) (01/03/91)
Seems to me like a Solomon-like "cut the baby in half" solution is in
order. It is unreasonable for MB to demand deposits, as all of the
traffic on the modem lines is incoming (and they can be flagged for
local outgoing calls only, most likely). At the same time, modem
lines attached to BBSes do consume significantly more resources than
the average residential line, thus the extra $50 a month (for sixteen
lines thats $3/line/month) is not unreasonable.
| Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp |flank@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Brett Jacobson) (01/06/91)
(This message forwarded from petrilli@dogface.UUCP) In article <15756@accuvax.nwu.edu> kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co. jp!trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert Woodhead) writes: >Seems to me like a Solomon-like "cut the baby in half" solution is in >order. It is unreasonable for MB to demand deposits, as all of the >traffic on the modem lines is incoming (and they can be flagged for >local outgoing calls only, most likely). At the same time, modem >lines attached to BBSes do consume significantly more resources than >the average residential line, thus the extra $50 a month (for sixteen >lines thats $3/line/month) is not unreasonable. I believe you miss the point that has been raised countless times in the past, which is: Do the RBOCs have the right to charge you for your use of the lines other than for voice? They are obligated to provide service, and unless the service is measured, they have no right to complain about how much goes through. Here in Texas the problem has occured several times between SWBT, and the BBS operators of the state. Basically the conclusion became: SWBT is obligated to provide X quality service, whether you need it or not, and they may NOT degrade the line below a set minimum. They also have no legal right, as common carriers, to listen to what is on the line, other than to tell if there is a signal or not. By saying that "$50 is not unreasonable," you open the door for rate increases based on the excuse "we underestimated the burdon," (which BTW, they have been bearing quite easily in the past). Once you allow the tarriff, you have opened yourself up to many rate increases at the whim of the RBOC. We are at-least semi-fortunate here in Texas that SWBT doesn't gourge us too much (except on installation charges), and the PUC doesn't let them raise rates much. Chris Petrilli petrilli@dogface.UUCP petrilli@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) (01/07/91)
peterm@rwing.uucp (Peter Marshall) writes: > Re: Ed Hopper's 12/31 post in V11,#1: > As seems unfortunately to be the case with a number of such posts, the > lack of relevant information doesn't exactly seem to facilitate the > purpose of such communications. Witness, for one other recent example, > posts re: GTE and Indiana BBSs. > In the current case, no case number or title is supplied; the issues > presented for hearing are not specifically identified. Nor is the > relevant tariff identified or the relevant tariff language cited. ... > Suggest that if Ed et al are serious they do a second cut at this and > fill in some of the blanks noted, as simply stuffing a hearing room > with sysops and users doesn't seem particularly promising by itself. Please note that I was forwarding a message from Bruce Wilson. *I* did *NOT* compose the message (with the exception of my personal comments at the end). I agree that there is a fairly common chicken-little phenomenom in these cases. Amateur lawyering abounds and lapses in logic are common. The docket in Texas is 8387. We expect a final hearing and settlement in a few days at which time I will post a summary of the activity. That post will also more clearly discuss the issues that I briefly touched upon in the testimony I gave in the PUC hearing. Ed Hopper BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com