[12940] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: California PUC Plan
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Tue Jun 1 20:20:42 1999
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 14:15:30 -0600
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
Message-Id: <0FCN000MAXLDY4@Post-Office.UH.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
2 Messages; 264 Lines
*-----
Subject: details on Cal PUC plan to make *all* calls to ISPs "long distance"
X-Sender: jwarren@mail.well.com
This is NOT an "urban legend"! And the cartel of telco local monopolies
(RBOCs, regional Bell operating companies) are pushing this in almost all
states; not just before California's Public Utilities Commission.
--jim, Jim Warren, jwarren@well.com, GovAccess list-owner/[im]moderator/janitor
345 Swett Rd, Woodside CA 94062; 650-851-7075; fax-for-the-quaint/650-851-2814
-
To add or drop GovAccess, email to Majordomo@well.com ('Subject' ignored)
with message: [un]subscribe GovAccess YourEmailAddress (insert your eaddr)
For brief description of GovAccess, send MajorDomo the msg: info GovAccess
=== the outrageous details ===
>> > http://www.saber.net/sabernet/cpucdocs.html
CPUC ruling on Local vs. Long Distance access in California CPUC Issues on
Local vs. Long Distance Internet Access in California
This information was updated 5/27/99 at 4:30pm
The consideration of matters scheduled for May 27 has been postponed at
the request of the Commissioners of the CPUC.
The matter involving Pac West and Pacific Bell will be considered on
June 3. The decision to rehear will be considered on June 10.
The California PUC (Public Utilities Commission) is considering a
ruling that would affect California customers' access to the Internet.
Basically, as part of an arbitration proceeding between Pacific Bell and
Pac-West Telecomm, Pacific Bell has asked the PUC to rule that calls to
the Internet are long distance calls instead of local calls! This web
page documents information concerning this issue, and gives information
on contacting public officials to express your opinions.
Summary:
In October, 1998, the California PUC ruled that calls to Internet Service
Providers (ISP's) should be considered local, rather than long distance.
Two commissioners dissented and 3 concurred. Pacific Bell appealed
the ruling to an arbitrator, who concurred with the original ruling.
Pacific Bell now has appealed the arbitrator's decision back to the PUC.
The PUC will rule on this appeal on May 27, 1999. The PUC now has three
commissioners, and commissioners Neeper and Duque dissented from the
October decision, arguing that ISP access should be considered long
distance.
On one agenda for the May 27th meeting are two possible responses to the
arbitrator's decision (Items 5 and 5a under "Orders"). Under another
agenda, the request to rehear the previous decisions is covered under
item EX-4 under "Orders". Please see the links near the bottom of this
page for the text of these two agendas.
The PUC could:
Uphold the arbitrator's decision, thus maintaining the status quo. This
is item 5 on the 5/27/99 agenda, and this is the item that the ISP's
would like to see passed.
Modify the arbitrator's decision by removing "reciprocal compensation"
from it. This modification would stop payments by Pacific Bell to PacWest
Telecomm, thus forcing PacWest to increase its charges to the ISP's
which are PacWest's customers. These increased costs would be passed on
to ISP customers in the form of rate increases. This is item 5a on the
PUC agenda. The ISP'S recommend NOT passing item 5a.
Contact Information
Please do NOT send e-mail to the Commission.
It is recommended that persons interested in contacting the PUC
concerning this issue write "snail-mail" letters to: California
Public Utilities Commission Telecommunications Division,
Issue 98-11-024 505
Van Ness Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102
Or you may FAX your letter to:
(415) 703-1158
or
(415) 703-1910
Your letter should include:
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
Reference to issue 98-11-024
Your Comments
Your Signature
Since the commission now contains only three commissioners (out of
five seats), it would be a good idea to also write to the governor:
Governor Gray Davis State Capitol,
1st Floor Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-2841 (Voice)
(916) 445-4633 (FAX)
(No E-mail address given) And you may wish to contact your
California representatives:
http://www.ca.gov/s/govt/legisca.html
An analysis of the situation is as follows:
Pacific Bell was required by the PUC to allow competing companies to
offer local telephone service in the state of California.
Pacific Bell implemented "reciprocal compensation". This meant that if
a customer of a competing local telephone company made a call which
terminated in Pacific Bell, the competing company would pay Pacific
Bell a nominal fee for completing the call. Likewise, if a Pacific
Bell customer made a call which terminated to a competing company's
customer, Pacific Bell would pay the competing company a nominal
fee for completing the call. This normally would favor Pacific Bell,
since more calls would go toward Pacific Bell, since it has the most
customers. PacWest Telecomm registered as a local telephone company,
and began providing local telephone services. PacWest targeted ISP's,
and provided attractive competitive rates to the ISP companies. Thus,
many ISP's began using PacWest's services, and their customers, who were
Pacific Bell customers, began placing calls from Pacific Bell telephones
to the ISP's which were on PacWest. Therefore, Pacific Bell began having
to pay PacWest Telecomm to complete these calls.
Pacific Bell, wishing to preserve the original model of reciprocal
compensation, asked the PUC to re-classify calls to ISP's as long
distance. That way, such calls would result in PacWest paying Pacific Bell
MUCH more than Pacific Bell is now required to pay PacWest (since long
distance access charges are much higher than reciprocal compensation).
The PUC ruled against Pacific Bell's request in October, 1998. Pacific
Bell then appealed, and the arbitrator ruled against Pacific Bell in
April, 1999. Pacific Bell is now appealing the arbitrator's ruling back to
the PUC at a time when the original rulings might be overturned. The PUC
agenda at this point lists two possible rulings. The first, item 5, would
preserve the status quo. The second, item 5a, would most likely result in
increased rates to Internet users throughout California. On May 27th, the
commissioners will adopt one of these agenda items. The California ISP's
and their customers need to let their voices be heard before May 27th,
1999, or Internet access in the state of California may be drastically
altered! Rates will rise for customers and many rural areas may lose
local Internet access altogether!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SaberNet's position in this matter is as follows:
The Commission should not modify its October decision or the
arbitrator's decision without obtaining input from the ISP's and their
customers.
The Commission should wait until five commissioners are seated before
considering this issue, especially if the commissioners favor item 5a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following links give background information on the issue: Agenda for
5/27/99 meeting.See Items 5 and 5a under the "Orders" section. Item
5, if approved, would keep the status quo. Item 5a, if approved,
would raise the base rates being charged to ISP's by companies like
Pac-West Telecomm, since those companies would stop receiving reciprocal
compensation from Pacific Bell, and would have to raise their rates to
compensate. Fortunately, no item is proposed to overturn the arbitrated
agreement.
Another agenda for the May 27th meeting - see item EX-4 under "Orders".
Links:
PUC's write-up on the original ruling on 10/5/98
Commissioner Knight's memo concurring with the decision (Note:
Commissioner Knight is no longer with the PUC)
Commissioner Duque's dissent memo
Commissioner Neeper's dissent memo
This page was last updated 5/21/99 at 1pm
*-----
From: Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com>
Subject: Fighting the PUC -- re hearing to make *all* ISP calls "long dist"
More regarding the local telcos' plan to make all [local] phone calls to
ISP numbers into "long distance" calls, and thus, billable. [BCC'ed to
others; please pass it along. The CalPUC hearing on this is now set for
JUNE 3rd!]
The following is from a close friend who is VERY knowledgable about how the
Calif PUC works, and how to be effective in dealing with them. I trust
this advice *completely*!
(Also, I know that the California Newspaper Publishers' Association chief
counsel [lobbyist] has shown some interest in this -- since it is a
potential disaster for every newspaper, and every other California
business, that is now developing an online presence to reach consumers.)
--jim, Jim Warren, jwarren@well.com, GovAccess list-owner/[im]moderator/janitor
345 Swett Rd, Woodside CA 94062; 650-851-7075; fax-for-the-quaint/650-851-2814
-
To add or drop GovAccess, email to Majordomo@well.com ('Subject' ignored)
with message: [un]subscribe GovAccess YourEmailAddress (insert your eaddr)
For brief description of GovAccess, send MajorDomo the msg: info GovAccess
=== from a VERY experienced and VERY *effective* long-time insider ===
>If the net community really wants to get results, ISPs need to set up a fax
>server that goes directly into the Governor's office, then broadcast an
>action alert as widely as possible to email lists and newsgroups. ISPs
>themselves can email their own customers about the issue and point them to
>the web site where the fax service is located. There isn't any better way
>to reach people, and it's a legitimate issue for ISPs to contact their
>customers about.
>
>Contacting the California PUC is basically a waste of time. Historically,
>pressure from the public just delays their decisions for a while.
>
>People need to get their concerns to Gov. Davis rather than the PUC because
>Davis has two vacancies to fill on the PUC. If Davis gets enough pressure,
>he will be inclined to pressure the PUC to put off its decision until he
>fills the vacant seats, and if he's feeling heat on the issue his
>appointees will, also. Davis could even formally ask the PUC to delay a
>decision until he fills the vacant seats.
[Although the previous governor had an email address, our new governor's
homepage begins with his bio and photos, but lists no email address on
http://www.ca.gov/s/governor/ . All it says about contacting him is to
write:
Governor Gray Davis
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone (916) 445-2841
Fax (916) 445-4633
--jim]
>The other key pressure points are the chairs of the Senate and Assembly
>committees with oversight responsibility for the PUC. Your old friend
>Debra Bowen chairs the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications
>Committee, and Roderick Wright chairs the Assembly Utilities and Commerce
>Committee.
>
>I don't know anything about Wright, but Bowen is a strong legislator. These
>folks can literally order the PUC to appear before their committees. If
>Gov. Davis is feeling pressure, you can bet he's going to put some pressure
>on his Democratic committee chairs to look into it.
[Email to Senator.Bowen@sen.ca.gov and
Assemblymember.Wright@assembly.ca.gov, or see http://WWW.sen.ca.gov/bowen/
and http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/ .
--jim]
>Beyond sending faxes to Gov. Davis, ISPs should try to organize a press
>conference in Sacramento, (not SF), to complain about how the PUC is
>considering action that would put barriers up to expanding the use of
>technology. Given how important the tech industry is to Calif., this could
>become a political embarrassment. Especially if the ISPs could recruit
>support from other elements of the tech industry. (If the cost of Internet
>service is prohibitive, people might be less inclined to buy computers.)
>
>Anyway, that's two-cents' worth of advice from some who has been there.
