34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET (Bill Gorman) (02/09/91)
Index Number: 13592 The following message is forwarded for those who may be following this whole affair. Your BBS is probably next! W. K. (Bill) Gorman ---------------------------------CUT HERE------------------------------- |From: ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com (Ed Hopper) |Subject: Michigan BBS Results (Round 1) |Date: 3 Feb 91 16:35:23 GMT |Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575 | |I am posting the following, verbatim, from a message passed on to me |by Bruce Wilson at his request. Anyone who wishes to engage in flames |over the completeness of this report should direct their comments via US |Mail to the address given. | | ---------- | |GRID News. vol 2 nu 4. January 29, 1991. |World GRID Association, P. O. Box 15061, Lansing, MI 48901 USA | |Michigan Bell Fends off BBS Complainant |by Michael E. Marotta | |James R. Imhoff is the sysop of Variety and Spice BBS. In January of |1990, Michigan Bell began assessing him business rates. He filed a |complaint with the Michigan Public Service Commission. MBT filed for |and was granted a motion hearing. On January 18, 1991 at 10:00 am, a |hearing was conducted by telephone. Judge Daniel Nickerson presided. |Two MPSC staffers were present in person. Michigan Bell's Craig |Anderson and Char Hoffman were connected and James R. Imhoff was |connected. | |At that time, Michigan Bell asked for several "discoveries". As the |defendants, they had a right to know what proofs and witnesses Imhoff |intended to rely on. Judge Nickerson granted most of the eight |requests. | |Docket U9725, James Imhoff vs Michigan Bell Telephone was heard on |January 29, 1991. Present were Bruce Rainey, Tomasin Garcia, and Sam |Khattar of the MPSC staff. Craig Anderson, Charlene Hoffman, Nancy M. |Rhoads, and Amy Edwards of Michigan Bell. James Robert Imhoff |appeared, also. Daniel Nickerson was the administrative law judge. | |We met in a pre-hearing at 9:00 am. The judge announced that the |purpose of the pre-hearing was to define the issues of discovery. |Craig Anderson, speaking for Bell, said that discovery was not |resolved. The MPSC staff said that it did not see the complaintant's |reponses to the request for discovery until this morning. Craig |Anderson said he had a motion. The judge said he would continue |presently. | |Anderson's motion was heard. "I spoke to Imhoff and reminded him of |the deadline," he said. That deadline was Friday, January 25, 1991 at |5:00 pm. According to Anderson, Imhoff delivered the responses to |Bell on Monday at 12:10 pm. Speaking for the MPSC staff, Tomasin |Garcia said she did not receive the response. Anderson said that |Imhoff did not provide addresses or other materials as directed by the |judge. MBT asked that Imhoff be precluded from calling witnesses as |they did not have adequate time to prepare a defense or response. | |James Imhoff said that he delivered the materials to Bell's Michigan |Avenue Detroit office at 4 pm on Friday, January 25, 1991, but that |the guard was unconcerned. The guard did not know Craig Anderson. |Imhoff said that three guards were present, two men chatting with |women, a third woman chatting with another woman. Imhoff also said |that he did not know he was to give materials to the MPSC staff, he |thought he was to deliver them to MBT staff. Further, he does not |know the addresses of his witnesses because they are all computer |people whom he knows online only. He did not know who could and could |not appear. Judge Nickerson asked Imhoff if he received a letter |outlining is responsibilities. Imhoff replied that he did not know if |he got the letter because he gets a lot of mail, some of it redundant. | |Some discussion transpired on the state of readiness of security at |MBT and whether and when every package delivered is logged. | |After a recess to consider the arguments, Daniel Nickerson ruled. |"Discovery is allowed," he said, calling it an important aspect of an |efficient and fair hearing. "Therefore," he said,"I find that my order |was not complied with. Both staff and respondant are prejudiced for |not receiving the answers ... The matter is dismissed without |prejudice." | |James Imhoff said he would file again and take it up later. | |After the hearing, I spoke with the principals and the audience. |Craig Anderson said that Michigan Bell is not interested in going |after every BBS. He would not comment on two hypothetical cases. He |would not say whether he would consider file uploads to be a value |rendered and he did not feel he could say what this might mean in an |information society. Anderson and his colleagues all agreed that |these issues would have to be addressed in the future as we continue |to wire our network nation. | |I also spoke with James Imhoff. "I do charge for access," Imhoff |said. When a user sends him money, "they get time on my system... |they get into the library." Imhoff feels he should not be charged |business rates. "The last seven years I have run this system I have |not made dime one on this system. I actually lose between $100 and |$150 a month. It is a hobby for this reason. If I were charging by the |minute like a Prodigy or a CompuServe, it would be a business. I just |want to get close to break-even. According to the IRS, anytime you |lose money on a business for three years, that is a hobby. I make |anywhere from $1000 to $1200 a year and it costs me about $800 a |month. The cost of a man's toys do not determine whether his hobby is |a business or a residence. | | ----------- | |BBS: 713-997-7575 ehopper@attmail.com ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com