*****IMPORTANT ***** IMPORTANT*****
I rec'd this in today's mail from another listserv.... seems legit.
The phone cos. want to charge LD
charges to internet users.... Please read below & send your comments...
First the mergers - now internet access
perhaps we CAN prevent this from occurring....
SEE BELOW...
karen mahnk
>Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:43:00 -0600
>From: Bill Strout <bstrout@CI.SAT.TX.US>
>Subject: FW: [Fwd: Phone Company Internet Service Charge]
>X-To: web <web@siesta.packet.net.>,
> "Wirth & Assoc. Kevin Wirth" <kevin.wirth@accessone.com>,
> Wise1 <wise1@express-news.net>, wtatun <wtatun@Logical.Net>
>To: Multiple recipients of list NCS-L <NCS-L@UMDD.UMD.EDU>
>X-UIDL: 87c5a6c397de20b43544f61d9476308b
>
>>I apologize to our overseas members. This is no joke. The FCC is
>considering allowing local
>>phone companies charge interstate rates for the use of the Internet. I have
>added the portion of
>>the FCC NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING. Please send you comments to
>>isp@fcc.gov.
>>
>>Bill Strout
>>Research and Planning
>>San Antonio Police Department
>>PO Box 839948
>>San Antonio, TX 78283-9948
>>Voice (210) 207-7542
>>Fax (210) 207-4369
>>http://www.ci.sat.tx.us/sapd/
>>mailto:bstrout@ci.sat.tx.us
>>
>>
>>----------
>>From: Linda Hedricks[SMTP:lhed@earthlink.net]
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 1997 1:41 AM
>>To: Bill Strout; gulley@timetrend.com; MsPaeper@aol.com;
> bullett357@aol.com;
>>kjensen@oemd02.oem.state.or.us; Jon.Bratseth@idt.ntnu.no; wingspan@CLEAF.COM;
>>jmackey@usa.net; suds@pacificcoast.net; fsiegel@fredsplace.org; pdw3@gte.net;
>>burgess@admin.ogi.edu; cmorris@uniserve.com; halljone@gte.net;
>>aurora_cuff@co.washington.or.us; allen_watson@co.washington.or.us;
>>abennett@centric-corp.com
>>Subject: [Fwd: Phone Company Internet Service Charge]
>>
>>Robert Dent wrote:
>>>
>>> I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter
>>> currently under review by the FCC. Your local telephone company has
>>> filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your
>>> internet service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the
>>> operation of the telephone network.
>>>
>>> It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were
>>> required to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an
>>> email box for your comments, responses must be received by February
>>> 13, 1997. Send your comments to isp@fcc.gov and tell them what you
>>> think.
>>>
>>> Every phone company is in on this one, and they are trying to sneak
>>> it in just under the wire for litiagation. Let everyone you know here
>>> this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of.
>>>
>>> isp@fcc.gov
>>>
>>> Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all
>>> our voices may be heard!
>>>
>>> Just passing it along...
>>>
>>> Robert Dent
>>>
>>> E-Mail: language@empnet.com
>>> http://www.survival-spanish.com
>>
>> B.Treatment of Interstate Information Services
>>
>> 282. Usage of interstate information services, and in particular the
>>Internet and other
>>interactive computer networks, has increased dramatically in recent years.
>>Such new services
>>create significant benefits for the economy and the American people. The
>>1996 Act states that
>>it is the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and
>>competitive free market that
>>presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services,
>>unfettered by Federal or
>>State regulation," and we have long sought to avoid unnecessary regulation of
>>information
>>services. As usage continues to grow, such services may have an increasingly
>>significant effect
>>on the public switched network.
>>
>> 283. Therefore, as part of this comprehensive proceeding, we must
>>consider how our
>>rules can provide incentives for investment and innovation in the underlying
>>networks that
>>support the Internet and other information services. We consider in this
>>section the narrow
>>question of whether to permit incumbent LECs to assess interstate access
>>charges on information
>>service providers. We make no specific proposals, and we tentatively
>>conclude that the existing
>>pricing structure for information services should remain in place at this
>>time. In Section X, we
>>issue a Notice of Inquiry to examine various fundamental issues about the
>>implications of usage
>>of the public switched network by information service and Internet access
>>providers.
>>
>> 284. Beginning with the Computer II proceeding in the 1970s, we have
>>distinguished
>>between basic and enhanced communications services. The category of enhanced
>>services,
>>which includes access to the Internet and other interactive computer
>>networks, as well as
>>telemessaging, alarm monitoring, and other services, appears to be quite
>>similar to the term
>>"information services" in the 1996 Act. In the 1983 Access Charge
>>Reconsideration Order, we
>>decided that, although enhanced service providers (ESPs) may use incumbent
>>LEC facilities to
>>originate and terminate interstate calls, ESPs should not be required to pay
>>interstate access
>>charges.
>>
>> 285. As a result of these decisions, ESPs may purchase services from
>>incumbent LECs
>>under the same intrastate tariffs available to end users, by paying business
>>line rates and the
>>appropriate subscriber line charge, rather than interstate access rates.
>>Those business line rates
>>are significantly lower than the equivalent interstate access charges, in
>>part because of
>>separations allocations and the access charge per-minute rate structure, and
>>in part because the
>>business lines that ESPs now purchase generally do not include
>>usage-sensitive charges for
>>receiving local calls. ESPs, consequently, typically pay incumbent LECs a
>>flat monthly rate
>>for their connections regardless of the amount of usage they generate.
>>Pacific Bell estimates that
>>calls to Internet-provided services could comprise up to 25 percent of its
>>traffic by the end of the
>>decade. US West projects that 30 percent of all local exchange traffic will
>>be for access to the
>>Internet by the year 2000. The Internet access market is also highly
>>competitive and dynamic,
>>with over 2,000 companies offering Internet access as of mid-1996. It is
>>extremely likely that,
>>had per-minute interstate access rates applied to ESPs over the past 13
>>years, the Internet and
>>other information services would not have developed to the extent they have
>>today -- and indeed
>>may not have developed commercially at all.
>>
>> 286. For some time, however, incumbent LECs and others have argued that
>>ESPs impose
>>costs on the network that are similar to those imposed by providers of
>>interstate voice telephony,
>>and that ESPs should therefore pay interstate access charges. Several
>>parties made this
>>argument in their comments in response to a petition filed by America's
>>Carriers
>>Telecommunications Association (ACTA) earlier this year. In addition, four
>>BOCs have filed
>>studies in recent months purporting to show that the current pricing
>>structure for Internet access
>>contributes to the congestion of incumbent LEC networks. The BOCs claim that
>>Internet users
>>typically stay on the line far longer than voice users, but that the flat
>>monthly rates Internet
>>service providers pay to incumbent LECs do not cover the additional cost of
>>network upgrades
>>that are required to support such traffic.
>>
>> 287. In response, information service providers argue that the rates
>>they pay to
>>incumbent LECs, combined with the additional revenues from sources such as
>>second lines
>>installed for Internet usage, more than cover the costs they impose on the
>>network. These
>>parties also argue that the imposition of access charges would stifle growth,
>>investment, and
>>innovation in information services, causing detrimental effects for the
>>economy and U.S.
>>competitiveness. The Network Reliability and Interoperability Council
>>(NRIC), an advisory
>>committee of industry representatives organized to advise the FCC, is also
>>looking into the
>>effects of Internet usage on the public switched telephone network.
>>
>> 288. We tentatively conclude that information service providers should
>>not be required to
>>pay interstate access charges as currently constituted. As we have explained
>>throughout this
>>Notice, the existing access charge system includes non-cost-based rates and
>>inefficient rate
>>structures. We see no reason to extend this regime to an additional class of
>>users, especially
>>given the potentially detrimental effects on the growth of the still-evolving
>>information services
>>industry. Although our original decision in 1983 to treat ESPs as end users
>>rather than carriers
>>was explained as a temporary exemption, we tentatively conclude that the
>>current pricing
>>structure should not be changed so long as the existing access charge system
>>remains in place.
>>The mere fact that providers of information services use incumbent LEC
>>networks to receive
>>calls from their customers does not mean that such providers should be
>>subject to an interstate
>>regulatory system designed for circuit-switched interexchange voice
>>telephony. We seek
>>comment on this tentative conclusion.
>>
>> 289. We recognize that this issue is of special interest to users of
>>the Internet and online
>>services. Therefore, we have established an electronic mailbox at
>><isp@fcc.gov> for submission
>>of informal comments on the treatment of Internet and other information
>>services. Additional
>>information on this issue is available through our World Wide Web site at
>><http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html>. We are inviting all parties that file formal
>>paper comments in
>>this proceeding to submit copies of their comments in electronic form, and we
>>intend to make
>>those electronic submissions available for review on the World Wide Web.
>>
>> 290. We invite interested parties to discuss the number of ESPs and
>>Internet service
>>providers, if any, that can be considered "small entities" within the meaning
>>of the Regulatory
>>Flexibility Act, and whether there is any reason to establish different
>>requirements for small
>>ESPs and information service providers.
>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:30 PST