Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: Miguel_Cruz@um.cc.umich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!)
Message-ID: <2586@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 4 Jan 90 08:35:08 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 32
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 5, message 8 of 12


> [Moderator's Note: It was not a modem 'tax', but rather, a requirement
> by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company that users of modems in
> general, and BBS operators in particular, pay business rates for their
> phone service. This first came up a few years ago, presumably was
> squashed, then the issue was raised again lately. Ken Levitt, a
> Fidonet participant in the Digest, passed along a report from a group
> of BBS sysops in SWBT territory implying the threat was again present.
> The following day, a message appeared here which referred to the
> earlier message as just a rumor that supposedly had long since been
> killed...  PT]
 
Au contraire...  The "modem tax" is something the FCC rumbles about
every few years when the phone companies start complaining.  It was
apparently put off the last time because of the flood of letters which
came in to FCC people and legislators, presumably as a result of a
national BBS campaign.  The campaign has started again, because the
FCC is apparently considering levying an additional hourly charge
(like $6) on companies like Telenet which make use of the phone
network for information transit.  Also, apparently (though I'm fuzzy
on this) there is something involving a similar fee for any modem use
over phone lines.  I'm sure others out there know much more about
this.

[Moderator's Note: This is true, but the key here is the writer had
asked about a message which appeared in the Digest just a few days
earlier saying the 'tax' was only a rumor. The message he made
reference to was one sent in response to Mr. Levitt's regards SWBT
vrs. the BBS'ers using residence lines. But indeed, the suggested
'tax' you remind us of is still a possible threat also.  Eternal
vigilence is required, friends. PT]