Missouri

Cybercrime

Tampering with computer users, penalties.

Missouri Code § 569.099. 1. A person commits the crime of tampering with computer users if he knowingly and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization:

(1) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network; or

(2) Denies or causes the denial of computer system services to an authorized user of such computer system services, which, in whole or in part, is owned by, under contract to, or operated for, or on behalf of, or in conjunction with another.

2. The offense of tampering with computer users is a class A misdemeanor unless the offense is committed for the purpose of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain any property, the value of which is five hundred dollars or more, in which case tampering with computer users is a class D felony.

Municipal Broadband

• Carthage | Carthage Water and Electric
• Gallatin Municipal Utilities
• Kirkwood Electric Department
• Nevada | 8600 pop | 8.9 sq mi | $35 / month | Wifi
• City of Nixa
• North Kansas City | LinkCity | 4.2 sq mile. 1000 businesses. Daytime working pop 40k. | Fiber| Network not online yet as of April 2006. | Base service 256 kbps $15/month |
  • John Toccalino, FTTH A Necessity for Growth - Lessons Learned from North Kansas City, Digital Expo April 2006
    • 4.3 Sq mile. Located short distance from teleco hotels.
    • Choice of fiber: Business network, security concern, high bandwidth demand. City was not a MUE therefore not BPL. Active instead of PON - want to scale, telco hotels across MO river with multiple carriers. FTT Subscriber.
    • Sell only data services (see law) to residences and small bus. Sell dedicated bandwidth and transport to handful of large businesses. Gig service will be available. Need for symetric over non symetric service.
    • Finances: 100% city financed. Pays in lieu of taxes beginning 2007. Postive margin in 2008. Cash postiive in 2010. Mature op margins 40%. New ILOT paid - 2.1M over 10 years. Cash generated - $2.2M over 10 years.
    • Rationale - econ - keep businesses, attract new businesses. Had cities go to local incumbent asking for OC3; incumbent would not provide so business went to neighboring town. There was no cable modem or DSL service to businesses. Businesses not coming to NKC; some even moved out.
    • City resolution adopted June 2003. Ground breaking Dec 2005. Held public hearing. CEO of local businesses showed up all spoke in favor of it. One spoke against it from Time Warner. Unanimous vote to move forward.
    • Hired Baller Herbst law firm. Hired Black & Veatch engineering for plan. Hired Doug Dawson of CCG for business plan. Equipment provider - worldwide packets.
    • Tech: put it underground due to weather.
    • Time Warner filed suit against the city of North Kansas City. Fed Dist Court dismissed case. TW appealed. US Court of Appeals for 8th Cir affirms Dismissal of case. TW argued MO can only offer cable service after referendum. But NKC was not offering cable services. TW filed suit, argue that cable service is a "no brainer." KCCP Trust . CNKC, US Court of Appeals, 8th Cir. Dec. 2005 PDF . Time Warner Kansas City.
    • Already signed up during construction phase as of April 2006 125 residential customers and 65 business customers.
    • Partner with Sprint
    • Property develoipers are revising their entire marketing plan in order to attract high tech clients requiring bandwidth capabilities
• Sikeston Board of Municipal Utilities
• Springfield | Springnet | Fiber / Wireless* | Free for one hour *
• Law:
  • Sec. 392.410(7). No political subdivision of this state shall provide or offer for sale, either to the public or to a telecommunications provider, a telecommunications service or telecommunications facility used to provide a telecommunications service for which a certificate of service authority is required pursuant to this section. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to restrict a political subdivision from allowing the nondiscriminatory use of its rights-of-way including its poles, conduits, ducts and similar support structures by telecommunications providers or from providing to telecommunications providers, within the geographic area in which it lawfully operates as a municipal utility, telecommunications services or telecommunications facilities on a nondiscriminatory, competitively neutral basis, and at a price which covers cost, including imputed costs that the political subdivision would incur if it were a for- profit business. Nothing in this subsection shall restrict a political subdivision from providing telecommunications services or facilities:

    (1) For its own use;
    (2) For 911, E-911 or other emergency services;
    (3) For medical or educational purposes;
    (4) To students by an educational institution; or
    (5) Internet-type services.

    The provisions of this subsection shall expire on August 28, 2007.

• Missouri Municipal League v. Nixon , (S.Ct 2003) [Duke :: Oyez ] (8-1)
  • Some States Dictate Conditions For Municipal Networks, NJ Telecom Update Aug 25
  • D-Day for Municipals, Broadband Reports Oct 2003
• Municipalities and muni utilities barred from providing telecom services. APPA Sept 2005
• Free Press Cities barred from offering service unless they meet conditions

VoIP

• Missouri PSC
• Missouri VoIP Informaction
  
• MO PSC reportedly has an investigation into Comcast VoIP offering and whether it is being offered without state authority.  Comcast reportedly took this to federal court 2:06-CV-04233-NKL where the judge denied Comcast's motion to injoin the investigation on the grounds of federal preemption.
  
• Case No. TW-2004-0324-- RE: In the Matter of a Study of Voice over Internet Protocol:
• The Missouri Public Service Commission has established a case designed to further the Commission's knowledge of issues relating to voice over the Internet.  Any party interested in participating in this case should file a notice of participation with the Missouri Public Service Commission no later than February 10, 2004. Order | Press Release
• Industry Workshop Meetings
• VOIP Industry Workshop Meeting

February 23, 2004
9:30am to 4:00pm
Harry S Truman State Office Building
Room 500
Jefferson City, MO
VOIP Industry Workshop Meeting
March 8, 2004
9:30am to 4:00pm
Harry S Truman State Office Building
Room 500
• Jefferson City, MO
• Order Granting  motions to accept their late-filed Notices of Participation March 29, 2004
• VoIP Industry Task Force Report March 30, 2004
• ["Staff" refers to the Staff of the PUC Telecommunications Department which is not necessarily the same as the State Commission itself]
• 1) Should VoIP be solely regulated at the interstate level?
• STAFF: No. To the extent VoIP services, or some subset of VoIP services, are deemed telecommunications services, they should also be regulated at the intrastate level. Under Missouri law (Section 386.250(2), RSMo 2000), any telecommunications service, regardless of the technology utilized, is subject to this Commission's jurisdiction unless it falls within specific statutory exemptions set forth in Section 386.020(53). There is no such exemption for Voice Over Internet Protocol ("VoIP").
• 2) Is there an intrastate component to VoIP Telephony and if so, can it be separated to satisfy previous rulings by the FCC (Computer II and III, etc.)?
• STAFF: Yes. Telecommunications service originating and terminating within a state's boundaries should be considered an intrastate telecommunications service regardless of how or where the traffic is routed. Using IP technology and/or routing calls through the internet should not change this basic concept. Staff acknowledges that determining the jurisdiction of a call has always been somewhat problematic as companies can currently rely on factors in determining jurisdictional usage. For instance, the use of PIU (percentage interstate usage) factors and interMTA (major trading area) factors are commonly used today for determining the jurisdiction of interexchange and wireless telecommunications traffic. Similar factors could be applied to VoIP telephony in determining an intrastate component. Such factors are usually based on limited traffic studies, analysis, or mutual agreement among the involved parties. Alternatively, jurisdiction could be based on technical considerations depending on what requirements, if any, might be placed on VoIP telephony. For example, technical requirements may eventually be developed and applied to make it possible to determine the origin of an IP originated call. Other ideas for determining jurisdiction may include: the point of interconnection, the point the call hits the public switched network or the switch port location for the NPA NXX. Such possible ideas have drawbacks; however, they may deserve further consideration for determining the jurisdiction of VoIP telephony.
• 3) Will the marketplace sufficiently discipline the conduct of VoIP providers towards consumer protection in the absence of regulation?
• STAFF: At this time, no. The market is typically reactive and not proactive. The marketplace may eventually discipline the conduct of VoIP providers; however, consumers may be harmed before the market is able to effectively address problems. Society has placed an importance on high quality telecommunications services. Applying regulatory oversight to all providers regardless of technology ensures limited standards will be  maintained, as well as, minimizes competitive advantages caused by different regulatory treatments.
• 4) Should VoIP be regulated differently than other information service providers?
• STAFF: Yes. VoIP should be regulated differently than other information service providers. VoIP telephony is different than other information services because VoIP service may interconnect with the public switched telephone network as a replacement for traditional telecommunications service.
• 5) Will VoIP broadband service offer an alternative form of communication for traditional telephone subscribers, especially in rural markets and non-competitive markets where the ILEC has defacto monopoly status?
• STAFF: Yes. Customers with broadband Internet access may find VoIP service, if available, to be an acceptable alternative form of communication. If the ILEC offers broadband Internet service only when combined with basic local service, some customers may still find VoIP service to be a more economical toll service.
• 7) Is VoIP really "phone" service?
• STAFF: Yes. VoIP is typically a two-way connection that allows people to communicate. To the extent it offers the same or similar functions as traditional telecommunications services, or is a complement to POTS, it is "phone" service.
• 9) Should VoIP providers contribute to USF?
• STAFF: Yes. VoIP providers should be required to contribute to USF regardless of whether VoIP is classified as a telecommunications service or an information service. Any provider using a portion of the public switched telecommunications network to originate and/or terminate voice calls should contribute to the USF.
• 10) Should VoIP providers be certificated?
• STAFF: Yes. Currently Missouri statutes require any company providing telecommunications service in Missouri to have a certificate of service authority from the Missouri Public Service Commission. Shared tenant service providers and payphone providers are also required to be certificated. Such certification allows the state to have a record and contact information of those companies providing various types of services within the state. Certification also can allow a state commission to ensure minimum consumer protection rights are enforced.
• 11) Should VoIP providers be required to adhere to the same quality of service, tariff filing, directory listing, consumer safeguard, certification, and other standards and requirements expected of local exchange carriers?
• STAFF: Yes. If a VoIP provider is found to be providing basic local exchange telecommunications service, the VoIP provider should be required to adhere to the same requirements of other providers of basic local exchange telecommunications service. If VoIP service is classified as an information service, certain standards should still be required and maintained.
• 12) Does the FCC's Pulver Order apply to services provided by other VoIP providers such as Nuvio and Vonage?
• STAFF: No. The FCC, in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, limited its determinations to Pulver's "present FWD offering.only to the extent it facilitates free communications over the Internet between one on-line FWD member using a broadband connection and other on-line FWD members using a broadband connection.we specifically decline to extend our classification holdings to the legal status of FWD to the extent it is involved in any way in communications that originate or terminate on the public switched telephone network, or that may be made via dial-up access."
• 14) Should VoIP be subject to access charges/intercarrier compensation? If yes, how should the jurisdiction of the call be determined? (Should the jurisdiction be determined by customer's physical location, when it enters the PSTN, other?)
• STAFF: Yes, however, the entire access charge/intercarrier compensation scheme needs to be reviewed. The FCC has an open docket specifically considering this issue. Ideally, intercarrier compensation rates should be based on the local exchange carrier's cost and applied to other carriers regardless of the technology used on a portion of the call. Reaching such an idealistic state may be difficult to achieve. In regard to determining a call's jurisdiction, see response to Issue No. 2.
• 15) Should interconnection rights and access to telephone numbers and UNEs be extended to VoIP providers?
• STAFF: Yes. Any provider offering basic local exchange telecommunications service should have interconnection rights and access to telephone numbers and UNEs. If VoIP service is classified as an information service and not a telecommunications service, then Staff would not expect the VoIP provider to have direct access to some of these items. Nevertheless, Staff anticipates VoIP providers may simply develop affiliated companies that technically offer basic local exchange telecommunications service in order to gain such access. Some internet service providers use such a process today. This type of process may not be entirely efficient; however, Staff is unsure of how to draw the line on obtaining interconnection rights, access to telephone numbers and UNEs unless the provider is offering basic local exchange telecommunications service.
• 16) Are there transiting traffic issues associated with VoIP traffic?
• STAFF: Yes. There will always be transiting traffic issues in situations where a terminating carrier may apply different terminating rates and the terminating carrier is unable to readily determine the proper carrier to bill and the carrier's billable jurisdictional traffic.
• 17) Should ILECs be required to provide IP interconnections at the tandem level?
• STAFF: Yes. If a carrier is providing telecommunications service and accepts responsibilities associated with interconnecting at the tandem, then such interconnection should be allowed.
• 18) Should VoIP providers be required to provide 9-1-1 emergency telephone service?
• STAFF: Yes. All entities providing basic local exchange telecommunications service should provide 9-1-1 service. If VoIP telephony is classified as an information service, then VoIP providers should still be required to provide 9-1-1 service.
• 19) Should VoIP providers contribute financially to existing/future 9-1-1 systems?
• STAFF: Yes. All providers, including VoIP providers, who provide basic local telecommunications service should be subject to the same financial requirements for supporting existing/future 9-1-1 systems. If VoIP telephony is classified as an information service, then VoIP providers should still be required to contribute financially to 9-1-1 systems.
• 20) Should VoIP providers have access to the selective routers for 9-1-1 purposes?
• STAFF: Yes. Anyone providing basic local exchange telecommunications service should have access to the selective routers. If VoIP telephony is classified as an information service, then VoIP providers should still have access to selective routers on the basis that Staff expects the VoIP provider to provide 9-1-1 service.
• 21) Are there homeland security issues related to VoIP? CALEA? Patriot Act?
• STAFF: Yes. The FCC is expected to consider issues related to CALEA and the Patriot Act in a VoIP environment in future proceedings. The FCC is currently considering a petition to open a rulemaking to address these issues.
• 23) Will the widespread use of Virtual NXXs contribute to premature numbering exhaust?
• STAFF: Yes. Virtual NXX may have an impact on premature numbering exhaust; however, the practical impact of Virtual NXX is unclear. Premature number exhaust can be affected by many other factors besides Virtual NXX usage. In addition, Virtual NXX usage should not be solely attributed to VoIP providers. For example, other providers such as Internet service providers, may also use Virtual NXXs. Recent telephone number conservation efforts have significantly helped to alleviate premature number exhaustion in many areas.
• 24) What authority, if any, does the MoPSC have over the issuance/administration of telephone numbers to LECs and VoIP providers?
• STAFF: Some state commissions have authority over the issuance/administration of telephone numbers. In CC Docket 99-200, NSD File No. L-99-90, the FCC granted the Missouri Commission's petition for additional delegated authority to implement number conservation measures. The FCC gave the Missouri Commission the authority to order the return of unused and reserved NXX codes, to monitor the use of numbering resources through the use of mandatory reporting requirements and number utilization forecasting, to require sequential number assignments, set and establish number assignment and NXX code allocation standards (including the requirement that carriers meet certain fill rates prior to obtaining additional numbering resources). In another FCC decision, in CC Docket No. 99-200, NSD File No. L-01- 275, the FCC granted the Commission the authority to implement thousand-block pooling trials, to reclaim unused and underused thousands-blocks, to audit a carriers' use of numbering resources, to order the submission of utilization and forecast data from all carriers including wireless providers and to audit such reporting and order sequential number assignments.
• In the Matter of an Investigation of Voice Over Internet Protocol and Virtual NXX Telephony, Case No. TO-2004-0172, Order Denying Motion to Open Case (Nov. 4th, 2003) (denying staff's motion to open case because issues are currently contested in Case No. LA-2004-0133)
• Case No. LA-2004-0133
• Application of Time Warner Cable Information Services (Missouri), LLC, d/b/a Time Warner Cable, for authority to provide local exchange and interexchange voice (VoIP) services in portions of Missouri) - Order Setting Prehearing Conference. Updated 12/30/03.
• Notice Closing Case April 1, 2004 ("On March 2, 2004, the Commission issued an order granting a certificate to provide basic local, local exchange and interexchange telecommunications service to Time Warner Cable Information Services (Missouri) LLC. ")
• Minutes of Agenda Meeting - case discussed
• Order Granting Certification March 2, 2004
• On September 12, 2003, Time Warner Cable Information Services (Missouri), LLC, filed an Application for a Certificate of Service Authority to provide local and interexchange voice telecommunications services within the state of Missouri, and for competitive classification.  On September 23, 2003, the Missouri Public Service Commission issued its Notice of Applications for Intrastate Certificates of Service Authority and Opportunity to Intervene, establishing October 8 as the deadline for intervention with regard to interexchange services and October 23, as the deadline for intervention with regard to local exchange.  Because Time Warner sought to provide services involving aspects of Voice over Internet Protocol, applications to intervene were filed by a number a parties wishing to be included in a general discussion of the subject.  On November 4, 2003, the Commission granted the applications and set the matter for prehearing conference.  Prior to the prehearing conference additional applications to intervene were filed out of time and granted by the Commission.  As a result of the prehearing conference, the parties and the Commission realized that the services Time Warner sought to provide did not merit a broad discussion of Voice over Internet Protocol.  In light of this realization, the Commission established a separate case, Case No. TW?2004?0324, for the purpose of investigating issues surrounding Voice over Internet Protocol.
• Rural carriers worry about VoIP disconnecting access fees Bizjournals Feb 2004
• Missouri PSC opens study of VoIP Bizjournals Feb 2004
• Trials and Market Deployments
• Time Warner Cable Information Service
• St. Louis AT&T Broadband VoIP field trial St. Louis Putting VoIP to the Crash Test, CED May 2002
• Trial to "friendly customers"  Cablecos Set Sights on VoIP, Xchange February 1, 2004
• St. Louis Charter Launch 2002 Merrill Lynch, Everything Over IP (March 12, 2004)
•