Allyn@cup.portal.com (01/04/90)
Ok folks what is the definitive answer on the modem tax? Is it being
considered again or is this a rumour? Someone on a local system
claims to have checked (who? The FCC?) and they say that it IS being
reconsidered!
I remember an article was recently posted to TELECOM which seems to
have put the subjet to rest. Unfortunately, I can't the article on my
local system.
Can anyone help?
Allyn Lai
allyn@cup.portal.com
[Moderator's Note: It was not a modem 'tax', but rather, a requirement
by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company that users of modems in
general, and BBS operators in particular, pay business rates for their
phone service. This first came up a few years ago, presumably was
squashed, then the issue was raised again lately. Ken Levitt, a
Fidonet participant in the Digest, passed along a report from a group
of BBS sysops in SWBT territory implying the threat was again present.
The following day, a message appeared here which referred to the
earlier message as just a rumor that supposedly had long since been
killed. Levitt sent along another anouncement last week stating that a
group of sysops was actively negotiating that issue and others with
SWBT. I'm sure more news will be forthcoming soon, and that the
sysop's organization will keep us informed. PT]
Miguel_Cruz@um.cc.umich.edu (01/04/90)
> [Moderator's Note: It was not a modem 'tax', but rather, a requirement > by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company that users of modems in > general, and BBS operators in particular, pay business rates for their > phone service. This first came up a few years ago, presumably was > squashed, then the issue was raised again lately. Ken Levitt, a > Fidonet participant in the Digest, passed along a report from a group > of BBS sysops in SWBT territory implying the threat was again present. > The following day, a message appeared here which referred to the > earlier message as just a rumor that supposedly had long since been > killed... PT] Au contraire... The "modem tax" is something the FCC rumbles about every few years when the phone companies start complaining. It was apparently put off the last time because of the flood of letters which came in to FCC people and legislators, presumably as a result of a national BBS campaign. The campaign has started again, because the FCC is apparently considering levying an additional hourly charge (like $6) on companies like Telenet which make use of the phone network for information transit. Also, apparently (though I'm fuzzy on this) there is something involving a similar fee for any modem use over phone lines. I'm sure others out there know much more about this. [Moderator's Note: This is true, but the key here is the writer had asked about a message which appeared in the Digest just a few days earlier saying the 'tax' was only a rumor. The message he made reference to was one sent in response to Mr. Levitt's regards SWBT vrs. the BBS'ers using residence lines. But indeed, the suggested 'tax' you remind us of is still a possible threat also. Eternal vigilence is required, friends. PT]
bet@orion.mc.duke.edu (Bennett Todd) (01/05/90)
In-reply-to: Allyn@cup.portal.com I think two different issues have gotten confused with one and other here. 1: A couple of years ago the FCC was considering a ruling that would require services like GTE's PC-Pursuit to pay an access charge, similar to that paid by alternative LD carriers. This has been hooted down, and I haven't heard any new news about that in a couple of years. As far as I know that one's dead. 2: In a completely unrelated piece of news, SWB has been battling for a while now to force individuals to pay business rates if they use a modem. They particularly targeted BBS owners. That issue appears to be open still, though it looks like the sysops have succeeded in making major headway. -Bennett bet@orion.mc.duke.edu
Martin J Shannon <mjs@mozart.att.com> (01/06/90)
Several folks have made mention of the FCC's recurrent proposed tax on modem use, and the SWBT fiasco with BBS users and operators, and I'm sure that various & sundry regulatory agencies have proposed surcharges and/or taxes on modem use in the past, and will continue to do so until the modeming community makes itself heard. How to make ourselves heard, you ask? (I'm *so* glad you did!) Consider the following for a moment: How much revenue would the local phone companies (*and* long distance carriers) lose if most modem use were to cease for a month? How many BBS users regularly run up a $100/month bill? $200/month? $500/month? I can't remember the last time my BBS hopping cost less than $100/ month; in fact, only 1 month in the last 8 or so was under $200! I can't really believe that I'm particularly pathological in my modeming habits, so I'd figure that a protest of voting with our wallets would carry a great deal of weight. Now, I'm not (necessarily) actually proposing such a stunt, but if the FCC (or any of the state PUC's) were to make the mistake of penalizing BBS users and/or operators, it would seem to me that the only "right and proper" thing for us all to do is "Just say no!" Do any of you TELECOM folks have access to ballpark figures of just how much the "little people" (BBS users & operators) actually pay to the various phone companies? I'd love to see some figures! Marty Shannon; AT&T Bell Labs; Liberty Corner, NJ, USA (Affiliation is given for identification only: I don't speak for them; they don't speak for me.)
"Fred R. Goldstein" <goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com> (01/06/90)
There are two things. One is the FCC Enhanced Service Provider (ESP)
surcharge, which they don't call a surcharge, but is one. That is
what the latest "modeming" chain letter was about. It is a false
rumor, as my message of last week sought to squash.
The other is Southwestern Bell's idea that people who use modems at
home are really doing business with them, and not qualified for
residential rates. That's a state issue and totally separate. SWBT
is losing there too, but seems to fight on.
Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com
or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com
voice: +1 508 486 7388 Allyn@uunet.uu.net (01/06/90)
Ok it looks like there are really two similar issues being discussed. One is the SouthWestern Bell vs. Texas BBS operators issue and the other is the FCC "access charge" issue. I think the people on my local BBS are talking about the FCC access charge. So I presume that this issue is being discussed in Congress right now? Anybody know how to check up on such things? Doesn't seem likely to pass what with all the businesses in the U.S. that depend on common carriers (i.e. Telenet, Tymnet)... Anyway, thanks! Allyn Lai allyn@cup.portal.com
rocke@lll-crg.llnl.gov> (01/06/90)
In Lai's 1/3 post and moderator's note regarding so-called "modem tax," the moderator seems to be confusing and blending two different, yet conceptually similar, matters. The so-called "modem tax" affair was an FCC thing; it was, and is, unrelated to the SWB-COSUARD matters referenced in the moderator's note.
John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> (01/07/90)
Martin J Shannon <mjs@mozart.att.com> writes: > Do any of you TELECOM folks have access to ballpark figures of just > how much the "little people" (BBS users & operators) actually pay to > the various phone companies? I'd love to see some figures! I'm sure everyone's mileage varies, but I know how much I spend to support my computer habit. My home computer uses four lines, two measured and two unmeasured. This comes to about $50/month with all the tax and license. Plus, my machine is in regular contact with several systems in southern California to the tune of about $100/month. Simple arithmetic would indicate that my home computer spends $150/month with "the phone company". But in all fairness to Pac*Bell, I have to say that there have been no rumblings whatever about screwing modem users. Furthermore, sometime this year Pac*Bell and GTE California will drop all charges for touch tone (as opposed to raising them as I have heard some other telcos are doing). Pac*Bell is fully aware of the use to which I put my phone lines and I have never had any crap about upgrading to business, "one line limit" per machine, or any of the nonsense that SWBT seems to be laying on its customers. This is, after all, Silly Con Vallee. As one Pac*Bell rep admitted to me, it is very common in this area for people to have many residential lines and have them heavily used for modem traffic. If Pac*Bell were to pull any of the horsehooey that seems to go on elsewhere, they would find many people up in arms. There are a lot of Pacific Telesis buildings in San Francisco to picket in front of, not to mention the State building down the street! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !