[misc.handicap] Increased telco charges for BBSes, Modem Licensing,

34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET (Bill Gorman) (01/07/91)

Index Number: 12657

Here is a collection of additional information regarding what the Baby
Bells are doing about charging business rates to modem users. This is
NOT "old news" and it is NOT going away without input from computerists.
My own state, MI, is holding hearings in TWO WEEKS to decide this issue
and so far, NOBODY HAS EVEN MENTIONED THE IMPACT ALL THIS WILL HAVE ON
disABLED USERS WHO DEPEND ON COMPUTERS, MODEMS, TTYs, ETC., FOR ACCESS
TO SERVICES, COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

----------------------------Original message----------------------------

 from: "Michael H. Riddle" <riddle@CRCHPUX.UNL.EDU>
 subject: Telecoms Ripping off BBSs?
 Date: Thu, 27 Dec 90 05:59:11 cst

note: A number of states have already begun charging BBSs with
business rates. In some states, this may be a nuisance but not
prohibitive.  In Illinois, for example, our own base rate in DeKalb
of $24.02 would increase to $34 were we to run a BBS.  In other
states (see following file), the charges could be prohibitive if
multi-line charges required deposits and other fees. A
representative from GTE in Indiana indicated that they had no
formal means of enforcing the charges other than to investigate if
they received reports of an unregistered BBS operating in their
jurisdiction. We have heard of no hobbyist in the U.S. paying for a
business line to run a non-commercial BBS, but the implications, if
the practice is allowed to spread unchecked, are serious. Enforced
charges could be the end of the local or regional Bulletin Board as
they currently exist.

The issue, according to the Indiana spokesperson, is alleged to be
one of fairness and equity in billing. Why, they, ask, should
someone whose phone is in constant use pay the same as somebody who
uses their phone only a fraction of the time? Our response is that
there is little, if any, added expense to telecom operations
whether a phone is used for 20 minutes or 20 hours during a given
day. Further, the user is already paying an added charge simply for
the receipt of calls. If one adds in toll charges for the hundreds
of thousands of those who call long distance, BBSs generate
considerable revenue for telecom companies. Classifying BBSs as
business lines and increasing the charges strikes us as unabashed
greed. Why not *REDUCE* the rates for BBS lines, which only receive
calls and generate considerable revenue in long distance charges?

This is not a trivial concern. Telephone rates, like all utilities,
tend to rise. The policies identified in the following two files
should motivate all of us to become involved by
  1) Writing letters to local telecom companies
  2) Writing to elected officials
  3) Introducing these campaigns in local and regional elections
  4) Writing to state utililty commissions
  5) Attending and participating in hearings

---  original post on alt.cosuard as reposted on comp.dcom.telecom---

The following cross-posted information is extracted from alt.cosuard.
Can anyone in Indiana or a closely neighboring state provide any
details on this?

>From: BILL BLOMGREN - Sysop: St. Pete Programmers Exchange RIME: PETEX

Well ... thought I would pass this tidbit of bad news along ...  GTE
Indiana prevailed against the BBS systems there ... ALL BBS's in GTE's
area there are now at BUSINESS RATES. Which means $50 per month base
rates, plus MUCH higher long distance charges.

Indiana Bell ... has filed the same tariff with the PUC (Public
Utilities Commission) there, making it state wide.

Needless to say, GTE has a history of going after the little guy, so
you can expect it here in the REAL near future!  I expect it nation-
wide in the near future.  In Indiana, they decided that THE PHONE
COMPANY can decide that your residence is a business, and charge high
rates to all service incoming.

Unfortunately, the courts agreed with them.

Ain't Monopolies Nice???

                              -----

  Not a nice situation huh?  We didn't need a precedent to be set like
this ... now this paves the way for other companies to follow suit.
It'll be interesting to watch the nodelist to see if the nets in
Indiana (201 in Lafayette, 227 in South Bend, 230 in the Gary Area,
231 in Indy, 236 in Ft. Wayne/NE IN and 2230 in Terre Haute and 11/15
in Evansville) start shrinking.

Paul

UUCP: crash!pro-lep!shiva
ARPA: crash!pro-lep!shiva@nosc.mil
INET: shiva@pro-lep.cts.com

                  --- End of Cross Posting ---

            <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
riddle@hoss.unl.edu                  |   University of Nebraska
postmaster%inns@iugate.unomaha.edu   |   College of Law
mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org  |   Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

---- my own responses to comments in the Omaha Sysops echo ----

In a message to M. RIDDLE, JACK WINSLADE writes as of 25-DEC-90  14:30:26

>Since you are the closest to being a real lawyer of any of us, and since
>you were the one who 'broke' the story to Tel_Dig, would you be willing to
>give an educated opinion on specifically what, when, and how much the
>Indiana decision will affect us here in Omaha.

See the previous response to Joan for what news there is.

>I'm sure that this will result in Yet Another round of 'The Sky Is
>Falling' <tm> messages in every sysops' conference just as soon as it hits
>Arfnews, etc. and enters the distortion-prone person-to-person-to-person
>chain of communication.

The only thing faster than the speed of light is the manner is which
disinformation about BBS law propagates across the net.

>Is this decision effective immediately, or will a higher court (or
>something else) intervene ??   How might this affect the situation in
>Nebraska (where Clink is about to buy the farm) and in the other states
>such as Texas ??

Since the limited information we have suggests this is a PUC decision, it is
still appealable to the courts.  If appealed, it will probably not go into
effect until final judgment.  It's direct effect would only be in Indiana.

The Nebraska PUC might not care a great deal what Indiana did, or it might
give them some value as "persuasive precedent."  The arguments GTE used
might have some value.  They might not.  It all depends on how the
Indiana statutes are worded.  My guess is the fight is over "what is a
business for the purpose of telephone rates?", which will in turn include
"why do businesses pay higher rates than residences?"

The answer to the second is generally "because they use the phone more."
The answer to the first has usually been "some kind of organization that
either makes a profit or has formal nonprofit status."

We all know that successful BBSes use telephone resources more than a
residence, perhaps more than many businesses.  That supports GTEs position.
The fact that they are hobby operations is what complicates the picture,
and the PUC reaction is difficult to predict.

>Comments, suggestions ??

Keep calm and wait for a better report on what happened.

>Good (??) Day!        JSW

G'Day back to you, mate!     MHR

--- end of quoted messages ---

------------------------------

 from: Ed Hopper <ehopper@ehpcb.wlk.com>
 subject: Michigan Bell vs BBSs
 Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 23:49:03 CST
 Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575

From: TELECOM Digest    Tue, 1 Jan 91 03:46:40 CST   Volume 11 : Issue 1

(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 Commission 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

------------------------------

 from: well!jwarren@APPLE.COM(Jim Warren)
 subject: Clarification of Gail Thackeray's Comment on Modem Licensing
 Date: Sun, 30 Dec 90 12:59:54 pst

GAIL THACKERAY RE LICENSING MODEMS & RESTRICTING MODEM USE
  On 12/21, as a postscript on e-mail to Gail Thackeray, I asked:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
  Been meanin' to check this *rumor* for months (I rarely trust what I
haven't checked, personally):  Have you said that modems should be licensed
and their use restricted?  (It's been widely quoted/paraphrased and is a
common [mis?]perception of your views.)  If you ever said it, do you now
hold that view?
  I'm not challenging it; just tryin' to verify or refute a provocative
rumor.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
To which, Gail responded:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 10:04:05 pst
 from: gailt (Gail Thackeray)
 To: jwarren
    No, I never said so -- when talking about the lack of parental
supervision of computer use for beginning youngsters, I have pointed
out that in other instances involving driving, guns, etc. we
recognize that kids don't have good judgment and we insist on training,
supervision, licensing, etc. to minimize the risk to the rest of
society.  I have specifically said that I DON'T want to see licensing
of modems, or FCC regulation, etc. -- but that if we look at historic
parallels involving new technology (driving, airplanes, etc.) when
society grows annoyed/concerned enough with abuses, damage, risk to
others, "entry requirements" such as licensing have been imposed.
I have recommended that to avoid such a trend in electronic technology,
we should put a lot of effort into developing "rules of the road"
that we all agree on and abide by & teach youngsters -- or the back-
lash may cause formal regulation (just think about the regulations
controlling ham radio, etc. -- and the potential for similar rules
is quite real, computer-wise.)
    Regulation usually comes about as a reaction to complaints of
enough  people to attract the interest of legislators.  We are
rapidly approaching that "critical mass" stage with computer
communications, and if we don't want to see licensing of BBS's, we
need to do whatever will curb the abuses (interference with other
people's rights).  I have recommended that parents check into what
their kids are doing with their modems, set rules, ans if need be,
"ground" their kids just as they do for other kinds of rules-
violations, like being reckless with the family car....
--------------------------------------------
This prompted my 12/24 comments and request:
--------------------------------------------
& mail gailt
 subject: licensing etc.
Gail,
  This is important:
  If you have not yet posted exactly those comments, in detail, regarding
licensing and regulation of modem users, I *urge* you to post them
immediately and completely to the eff Conference, and explicitly add a note
encouraging their widespread duplication (without editing, of course)
across the nets.
  You are more than welcome to preface it with a comment that I urged you to
post the comments (if that has any value :-).
  I absolutely agree with your observations and think we have *much* to fear
from overzealous legislators/regulators responding to the miniscule
minority who are abusive of our tremendously productive cooperative anarchy.
...
------------------
I also urged her to send it to jthomas for the Computer Underground Digest
and emmanuel for 2600, and sent mail to both of them urging them to publish
it, if Gail sent it, saying, in part:
------------------
  Her explanation of what she had and had not said related to such matters
was both reasonable and **illustrated a very real threat** (from legislators
and regulators; *not* from Gail T) against all of us.  Her comments were
very realistic; her prognosis highly likely, if we cannot exercise adequate
discipline within our ranks.
  I have urged her to post her comments on the WELL, and forward them to
Cud and 2600 for publication (and release them for general posting around
the nets).
---------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you will help do so, because we now have her permission:
---------------------------------------------------------------
 from gailt Mon Dec 24 19:51:53 1990
 Date: Mon, 24 Dec 90 19:51:51 pst
 from: gailt (Gail Thackeray)
 To: jwarren
 subject: Re:  licensing etc.
   Willing, but ignorant:  so how do I DO that?  I thought whatever
was sent in E-mail went into the cosmic winds.... is there a way I
can retrieve what I sent you, & post it?  Can you retireve & upload
it?  I'm (definitely) still stumblin' around here, and help would be
great/grate/fully accepted....
&
 Date: Mon, 24 Dec 90 19:55:02 pst
 from: gailt (Gail Thackeray)
 To: emmanuel, jthomas, jwarren
 subject: Re:  Thacvkeray and licensing
   By the by -- feel free to use it -- I just don't know (after scanning\
the manual -- how to retrieve what I sent Jim, and publish it out of
e-mail.  ...
**************
For those who don't know of Ms. Thackeray, she is an Assistant State
Attorney General for the State of Arizona, active in pursuing computer
crime, and controversial for some of her public statements and/or
statements that.some press *allege* she said.  In some cases, she may have
been as misleadingly quoted-out-of-context -- or flat-out abusively
misquoted -- as has been the case with some reports about Mitch Kapor, John
Perry Barlow and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
--Jim Warren  [permission herewith granted to circulate this-in-full]

------------------------------