Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: details on Cal PUC plan to make *all* calls to ISPs "long distance"
From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 19:36:36 -0400
X-Sender: jwarren () mail well com Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 16:14:38 -0700 To: farber () cis upenn edu (Dave Farber),........ From: Jim Warren <jwarren () well com> Subject: details on Cal PUC plan to make *all* calls to ISPs "long distance" 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.htmlCPUC 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
Current thread:
- IP: details on Cal PUC plan to make *all* calls to ISPs "long distance" Dave Farber (May 28)