Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Sue.Welborn@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org (Sue Welborn) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS Message-ID: <13582@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 15 Oct 90 01:56:00 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: Sue.Welborn@p3.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537 Lines: 78 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 738, Message 5 of 8 For anyone looking for information concerning the blocking of calls to BBS's by Teleconnect, you can find the text of the articles that were written by contacting Jim Schmickley either by the US Mail address or on the BBS's listed at the end of this note. The original text is over 27,000 bytes long, and I did not wish to tie up TELECOM Digest with four to six very long messages. I am currently waiting for a reply from Jim as to the current status of the situation. The date of the last file concerning this matter is January 1989. Any replies can be directed to: Sue.Welborn.@p3.f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org ------------- As many of you know, an attempt by one alternative long distance telephone company to tell us what bulletin boards we aren't allowed to call, through the mechanism of "blocking" those numbers, has serious implications for free telephone communications throughout this country. If Teleconnect can block computer/data calls, would they not have as much "right" to also block voice calls to you, your doctor, or whoever? And, if Teleconnect is permitted to block calls, other long distance carriers can be expected to follow suit, if they aren't already. In eastern Iowa, we are waging a dedicated fight to stop this abuse of consumers and abridgement of our rights by this long distance carrier. The battle to date is detailed in this archived file. Yes, the story is long, but you should find it very interesting. Please read it, and then help us in the fight for all our rights. We need your moral support, your help in spreading the word, and any "blocking" experiences you may have had to add to our ammunition. And, we also need your financial support to help cover expences encountered so far and anticipated in the upcoming formal hearing. Please send contributions to: Hawkeye Personal Computer Users Group Anti-Blocking Expense Fund c/o Pat Alden, Treasurer 840 Maggard Iowa City, IA 52240 If you wish to communicate with me directly, BUT PLEASE DO NOT SEND FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO ME, my address is: James H. Schmickley 7441 Commune Court, N.E. Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 Telephone (voice): (319) 393-2036 Two local BBSs are serving as clearing houses for additional information on the blocking situation; they are: Hawkeye RBBS, Ben Blackstock, SysOp (319) 363-3314 The Forum PCBoard, John Oren, SysOp (319) 373-2975 E-mail on the "blocking" issue may also be posted on QwikNet on the SYSOPS Echo Conference or the TECH Echo Conference. msged 1.99S ZTC Sue's Point of View, Omaha (1:285/666.3) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Sue.Welborn@f666.n285.z1.fidonet.org [Moderator's Note: Actually Sue, if you want to send these articles along, we'll use a selection here and put them all in the Telecom Archives for future reference. The blocking of paid traffic by a telco is quite unethical to say the least, if not actually illegal, which I suspect it is, without going to look through a bunch of tariffs. Its the old bit about telcos not being legally permitted to deny service to *qualified* subscribers; a qualified subscriber being one who has demonstrated the ability and willingness to pay for the service; no more, no less. What the customer actually talks ahout on the phone -- or in this case what data is passed is none of telco's concern. The subscription includes receiving incoming calls. PAT]