Courtesy of Friends & Lovers BBS ------------------------------------ SW BELL ISSUES ULTIMATIM! ------------------------------------ Southwestern Bell Telephone 1616 Guadalupe, Room 600 Austin, Texas 78701 Phone (512) 870-5713 L. Kirk Kridner Attorney November 16, 1989 Mr. Reginald A. Hirsch Lipstet, Singer & Hirsch Two Post Oak Central 1980 Post Oak Blvd, Suit 1780 Houston, Texas 77056 VIA EXPRESS MAIL Re: Docket 8387: Petition of R. A. Hirsch Against Southwestern Bell Company; Pending before the Public Utility Commission of Texas Dear Mr. Hirsch: Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation, this is to provide you with information regarding Southwestern Bell's Interim Bulletin Board System (BBS) policy for you to convey to the membership of your BBS operators association. It is my understanding that this organization will vote on whether to proceed with the above referenced complaint. It is also my understanding that the outstanding issues are how the terms "gain" and "receive" in Southwestern Bell's definition of business are interpreted. For purposes of Southwestern Bell's interim definition, the term "gain" means any monetary or cash exchange. This includes any transaction where the BBS operator receives cash, or money from checks, credit cards, drafts or other negotiable instruments. It does not include trading, barter, non-negotiable items, software, paper, baskets of fruit, etc. My client is firm on the inclusion of the term "receive" within the definition. There are too many charitable organizations currently at business rates to now allow a special group to be receiving "donations" and be peremitted to pay residential rates. It would also be a violation of the non- discrimination requirements of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) to give BBS operators a preference in this regard. As we discussed, in the event that you elect to proceed with your complaint, then it is probable that my client will urge that the Commission accept its original position. Specifically, if the Commission is to consider an appropriate definition of business, then Southwestern Bell may seek to have the Commission declare that the use of a telephone line to provide any goods or services will require a business rate regardless of whether there is any exchange of consideration. This could result in all BBS operators being required to pay business rates. Further, in the event that the Commission does not allow such a position, Southwestern Bell could still file a tariff change at a later date seeking to redefine residence/business services. Finally, as to alternative rates to which BBS operators may be able to subscribe, I would suggest that you advise your membership to inquire of their Southwestern Bell service representative of the alternative rates which are available. The service representatives are familiar with the measured service alternatives and can advise the BBS operators of those rates and their requirements. Very truly yours, Kirk Kridner ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Addendum by Kevin McAleavey, Friends & lovers BBS, NYSSOA 010502: On November 11, 1989, Members of COSUARD voted against the proposed settlement offer, remanding the matter for a final decision by the Texas PUC. It is expected that the Texas PUC will hear the final arguments in mid-February. Reginald Hirsch has explained that the settlement offer made no distinction between those BBS's which "accepted donations" and regular free BBS's run by hobbyists without any charge, and that the proposed settlement offer made no differentiations in its "one line" rule. It is interesting to note that the above letter was written 5 days AFTER the vote. The public outcry must have SW Bell frightened indeed. In addition, a new force has entered the fray, none other than A.R.R.L (The American Radio Relay League which represents Amateur radio operators) after SW Bell announced that the same rates would now also apply to Amateur radio operators in Texas who operated "auto-patches" which would allow "ham" radio operators to access the telephone network from mobile radio transceivers (a custom in regular useage since the 1950's). Reggie intends to fight SW Bell to the end, and now with the additional support which A.R.R.L. and its membership is bringing to bear on the matter bodes well for the eventual outcome, since Amateur radio operators comprise the backbone of Texas' Emergency Preparedness system, and access to the phone network in an emergency situation is of great concern to all people of the State of Texas. The above letter should remind all modemers that a boycott of such services as U.S. VideoTel and other co-opted "Gateway Services" is in great order. I also recommend boycott of New York Telephone's "Infolook Gateway Services" in order to demonstrate to the Bell Operating Companies that we modemers take such threats very seriously, and that such attitudes are "bad for business." A nationwide boycott of "Gateway services" with an explanation from us to our respective telephone service providers would encourage OUR phone companies to bring pressure to bear on SW Bell and would likely resolve this issue far more quickly than waiting for the matter to be decided by the Texas PUC for all of us. As we have often reminded everyone, what happens in one State becomes a precedent for similar actions in all other States, and the "baby bells" are waiting with baited breath for this one to go THEIR way. We will continue to follow this story here as always, and will keep you informed of any developments in this, and any other issues which threaten the "quiet enjoyment" of modeming. Kevin J McAleavey, Sysop Friends & lovers BBS NYSSOA Member #010502 3/12/24 8N1 7PM - 9AM EST (518) 767-3316 [New accepted 7-10 PM EST]