I forward this additional material from Dan Drasin
It is everything you would ever want to know about the CPUC
meeting....and ways to take action...Jean Wasp
Folks... I just checked the CPUC website (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov) and
have found that his is *NOT* a hoax. California may act to impose long
distance charges for internet access as of June 3. This could easily
set a precedent in other states. Please act fast to help nip this one
in the bud.
Please see a suggested sample letter in the following email.
Thank you
=Dan Drasin=
=====================================
Subj: *** PLEASE EMAIL THIS TO YOUR ISP IMMEDIATELY ***
Date: Sun, May 30, 1999 5:58 AM PDT
From: johnnyk@primenet.com
X-From: johnnyk@primenet.com (Johnny King)
To: johnnyk@primenet.com
PLEASE EMAIL THIS TO YOUR CALIFORNIA INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER
IMMEDIATELY
*** ATTENTION CALIFORNIA INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER !! ***
[see See http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/]
ON JUNE 3 THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISION IS LIKELY TO VOTE
TOMAKE ALL TELEPHONE CALLS TO ISP'S IN CALIFORNIA LONG DISTANCE CALLS.
THE FIVE-MEMBER CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION HAS TWO SEATS
VACANT, AND NOT YET ASSIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR, AND ONLY THREE MEMBERS.
TWO OF THE PRESENT THREE MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION HAVE PREVIOUSLY VOTED TO MAKE ALL TELEPHONE CALLS TO ISP'S
INCALIFORNIA LONG DISTANCE CALLS.
UNLESS THERE IS IMMEDIATE MASSIVE PUBLIC RESPONSE, IT IS LIKELY THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION WILL VOTE JUNE 3 TO MAKE ALL
CALLS TO ISP'S IN CALIFORNIA LONG DISTANCE CALLS.
THIS IS NOT AN URBAN LEGEND THIS IS NOT A TEST THIS IS THE REAL
THING
[see See http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/]
*** JUNE 3 ***
******* THE VOICES OF INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS IN CALIFORNIA ****
***
NEED TO BE HEARD
* NOW! *
PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE APPROPRIATELY
********* INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS IN CALIFORNIA **********
NEED TO ALERT ALL USERS TO MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD IMMEDIATELY
>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.
THIS IS NOT AN URBAN LEGEND THIS IS NOT A TEST THIS IS THE REAL
THING
======================================================================
====
SUMMARY OF IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED
EXCERPTED FROM FOLLOWING ARTICLE
write:
Governor Gray Davis
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone (916) 445-2841
Fax (916) 445-4633
Email:
Senator Debra Bowen
Chair, the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee
Assemblymember Roderick Wright <
assemblymember.wright@assembly.ca.gov>
Chair, the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee
or see:
http://WWW.sen.ca.gov/bowen/
and:
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/
======================================================================
========
SUMMARY
[Jim Warren QUOTING "a VERY experienced and VERY
*effective* long-time insider"]
>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 oftechnology. 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.)
END OF SUMMARY
==================================
X-Sender: johnnyk@pop.primenet.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 05:03:06 -0700
From: johnnyk@primenet.com (Johnny King)
Subject: *** URGENT IMMEDIATE ACTION PLEASE ***
This is *not* an urban legend. The California Public Utilities
Commission is truly about to make *all* calls to internet service
providers long_distance_!!
This will drastically increase the cost of internet access for *all*
users, including YOU, and many ISP's will simply go out of business.
IF YOU ARE IN A RURAL AREA, YOU MAY NO LONGER HAVE *ANY* internet
access if this passes!
Please read carefully, and contact those listed below immediately
(before
JUNE 3)
-Johnny 29.5.99 12:45 PDT
The following is compiled of 2 separate posts authored by Jim Warren
======================================================================
===
1st post
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 16:14:51 -0700
Reply-To: Jim Warren
Sender: State and Local Freedom of Information Issues
From: Jim Warren
Subject: details on Cal PUC plan to make *all* calls to ISPs
"long
distance"
X-To: CAL-FOI@rosebud.berkeley.edu,
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum
X-cc: "Tom Newton, Gen.Counsel, CNPA"
To: FOI-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
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
-
>> > 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
[Note from Johnny King : further reading below
this says the PUC is *not* the most important contact, but the
Governor, and certain members of the Legislature. Please read on.]
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
======================================================================
===
This message is compiled of 2 separate posts authored by Jim Warren
======================================================================
===
2nd post
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 19:55:07 -0700
Reply-To: Jim Warren
Sender: State and Local Freedom of Information Issues
From: Jim Warren
Subject: Fighting the PUC -- re hearing to make *all* ISP calls
"long
dist"
X-To: CAL-FOI@rosebud.berkeley.edu,
Public-Access Computer Systems Forum
X-cc: "Tom Newton, Gen.Coun., CNPA" ,
Senator.Bowen@sen.ca.gov,
Assemblymember.Wright@assembly.ca.gov
To: FOI-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
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
=== 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.
======================================================================
=====
END OF 2 separate posts authored by Jim Warren
END OF
message from Johnny King
PLEASE FORWARD TO YOUR CALIFORNIA ISP IMMEDIATELY
======================================================================
=====
-- Jean Wasp (jean@sonic.net), June 02, 1999.