IP: details on Cal PUC plan to make *all* calls to ISPs "long distance"

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>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.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