JIM.KUTZ@p6.f889.n106.z1.fidonet.org (JIM KUTZ) (01/17/90)
According to Congressman Dennis Eckart's technical staff, phone
companies in "several states" have made overtures to their State
Public Utility Commissions regarding tariffs on BBS lines or other
modem activity. But Eckart's office wasn't sure which States are
involved.
That information should be fairly reliable, since Congressman
Eckart is a member of the Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee
of the Energy & Commerce Committee, which vetoed the FCC's decision
on local access fees for value-added networks two years ago.
I suggest that out-of-state readers ask your state PUC (or get
your legislators to ask) whether your local phone company has
filed notice or requested permission to engage in such activities.
You may also want to get yourself put on the PUC's list to be
served with notice of future docket items or opportunities for
public comment.
According to the Consumers' Council hotline, the phone companies
are hot to get rid of 'flat rate' service and 'unbundle' the various
services. As Southwestern Bell explained at the September meeting,
the Bells anticipate separate routing for modem traffic through the
Integrated Services Digital Network, which means separate metering.
Here in Ohio, the State legislature has already passed a sweeping
deregulation bill ( House Bill 536 ) "to provide exceptions ... for
particular telecommunications services...". While "basic" service
is not deregulated, that's little consolation if computer access
is "unbundled" from basic service.
A close reading of Southwestern Bell's comments at the September
COSUARD meeting makes clear that they're after far more than sysops.
Bell is merely USING sysops as an example of heavy users, while
deriding the Commission for backing 'flat rate' service with
unlimited calling. Clearly the Bells aren't just after a few
measly sysops - the Bells want to get rid of 'flat rate' plans
so they can nickel-and-dime EVERYBODY, while creating such a
complex rate structure that the regulators will be hopelessly
hogtied. If this is so, then MANY phone companies can be expected
to go after BBS's in a big way, just to establish a precedent for
'heavy' users.
Notice that in many States the PUC does not have the funding to
fight off an army of phone company lawyers who file hundreds of
motions. And phone company clout is expected to increase dramatically
as Bells claim a right to engage in free market competition with
independent co-ops. According to this month's Popular Science magazine,
a few rural areas are already using cellular phone rather than trying
to string wires over rough terrain.
The problem with all that is that the State legislatures can't cover
all the bases, so the tell the PUC's to "do what's fair" for the phone
company, and for any other identifiable group that ASSERTS their needs
and their rights. My point is that as Ben Franklin once said, "We
must all hang together or we shall all hang separately."
- Jim Kutz, cosysop of the Skeptics SIG on Cleveland Free-net. Free-net
is a 32-line, 2-gigabyte system accessible on PC-Pursuit (216) 368-3888
* RNet 1.02: COSUARD Net:COSUARD BBS-Houston, Tx-713-487-3911
NANCY.WARD@p6.f889.n106.z1.fidonet.org (NANCY WARD) (01/17/90)
Jim, I have said right along that Bell was probably up to more than just
the Sysops of Texas. As I said also, something is rotten in SWB. You
have given us much to think about. Thanks for the input.
* RNet 1.02: COSUARD Net:COSUARD BBS-Houston, Tx-713-487-3911
REGINALD.HIRSCH@p6.f889.n106.z1.fidonet.org (REGINALD HIRSCH) (01/18/90)
I find your comments timely and astute. * Via ProDoor 3.1 * RNet 1.02: COSUARD Net:COSUARD BBS-Houston, Tx-713-487-3911