------------------------------ Subject: Michigan Bell Fends off BBS Complainant From: "Michael E. Marotta" Subject: News from Michigan Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 15:24 EST ******************************************************************** *** CuD #3.05: File 8 of 8: The CU in the News *** ******************************************************************** From: GRID News. vol 2 nu 4. January 29, 1991. World GRID Association, P. O. Box 15061, Lansing, MI 48901 USA -----------------------------------------------------------------Michigan Bell Fends off BBS Complainant by Michael E. Marotta James R. Imhoff is the sysop of Variety and Spice BBS. In January of 1990, Michigan Bell began assessing him business rates. He filed a complaint with the Michigan Public Service Commission. MBT filed for and was granted a motion hearing. On January 18, 1991 at 10:00 am, a hearing was conducted by telephone. Judge Daniel Nickerson presided. Two MPSC staffers were present in person. Michigan Bell's Craig Anderson and Char Hoffman were connected and James R. Imhoff was connected. At that time, Michigan Bell asked for several "discoveries". As the defendants, they had a right to know what proofs and witnesses Imhoff intended to rely on. Judge Nickerson granted most of the eight requests. Docket U9725 James Imhoff vs Michigan Bell Telephone was heard on January 29, 1991. Present were Bruce Rainey, Tomasin Garcia, and Sam Khattar of the MPSC staff. Craig Anderson, Charlene Hoffman, Nancy M. Rhoads, and Amy Edwards of Michigan Bell. James Robert Imhoff appeared, also. Daniel Nickerson was the administrative law judge. We met in a pre-hearing at 9:00 am. The judge announced that the purpose of the pre-hearing was to define the issues of discovery. Craig Anderson, speaking for Bell, said that discovery was not resolved. The MPSC staff said that it did not see the complainant's reponses to the request for discovery until this morning. Craig Anderson said he had a motion. The judge said he would continue presently. Anderson's motion was heard. "I spoke to Imhoff and reminded him of the deadline," he said. That deadline was Friday, January 25, 1991 at 5:00 pm. According to Anderson, Imhoff delivered the responses to Bell on Monday at 12:10 pm. Speaking for the MPSC staff, Tomasin Garcia said she did not receive the response. Anderson said that Imhoff did not provide addresses or other materials as directed by the judge. MBT asked that Imhoff be precluded from calling witnesses as they did not have adequate time to prepare a defense or response. James Imhoff said that he delivered the materials to Bell's Michigan Avenue Detroit office at 4 pm on Friday, January 25, 1991, but that the guard was unconcerned. The guard did not know Craig Anderson. Imhoff said that three guards were present, two men chatting with women, a third woman chatting with another woman. Imhoff also said that he did not know he was to give materials to the MPSC staff, he thought he was to delivery them to MBT staff. Further, he does not know the addresses of his witnesses because they are all computer people whom he knows online only. He did not know who could and could not appear. Judge Nickerson asked Imhoff if he received a letter outlining his responsibilities. Imhoff replied that he did not know if he got the letter because he gets a lot of mail, some of it redundant. Some discussion transpired on the state of readiness of security at MBT and whether and when every package delivered is logged. After a recess to consider the arguments, Daniel Nickerson ruled. "Discovery is allowed," he said, calling it an important aspect of an efficient and fair hearing. "Therefore," he said,"I find that my order was not complied with. Both staff and respondent are prejudiced for not receiving the answers... The matter of dismissed without prejudice." James Imhoff said he would file again and take it up later. After the hearing, I spoke with the principals and the audience. Craig Anderson said that Michigan Bell is not interested in going after every BBS. He would not comment on two hypothetical cases. He would not say whether he would consider file uploads to be a value rendered and he did not feel he could say what this might mean in an information society. Anderson and his colleagues all agreed that these issues would have to be addressed in the future as we continue to wire our network nation. I also spoke with James Imhoff. "I do charge for access," Imhoff said. When a user sends him money, "they get time on my system... they get into the library." Imhoff feels he should not be charged business rates. "The last seven years I have run this system I have not made dime one on this system. I actually lose between $100 and $150 a month. It is a hobby for this reason. If I were charging by the minute like a Prodigy or a CompuServe, it would be a business. I just want to get close to break-even. According to the IRS, any time you lose money on a business for three years, that is a hobby. I make anywhere from $1000 to $1200 a year and it costs me about $800 a month. The cost of a man's toys do not determine whether his hobby is a business or a residence. Kevin Craft, sysop of Beam Rider noted that Imhoff seemed "not well prepared." Rick Wisckol, former sysop of Northern Point said that when faced with Michigan Bell, you "shouldn't wing it. ...Get someone who can work the ropes on the same level as Michigan Bell." Imhoff said that he was a target in a larger conspiracy. He said that there are 50 million registered home modems in American. If Bell can collect an extra $3 per month, he said, that will be an extra $150 million per month in income. "Going after me is just the first step." ******************************************************************** ------------------------------ **END OF CuD #3.05** ********************************************************************