[ale] Update on FCC and the Internet access charges

[Susan Liebeskind]

I asked around after seeing the initial posting that exhorted all of us
to email the FCC on this topic. One of my friends just forwarded this to me.  
I was dubious about the posting given that I have seen many email hoaxes over
the years, as was the poster of this message, but he took the effort to
follow up, and the result is in this note.   Since the initial mail
showed up on the ale list, I thought I'd post it here as well. 

Susan

> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:47:37 -0800
> From: Patrick Douglas Crispen <crispen at CAMPUS.MCI.NET>
> Reply-To: TOURBUS-Request at LISTSERV.AOL.COM
> To: TOURBUS at LISTSERV.AOL.COM
> Subject: TOURBUS -- 13 FEBRUARY 1997 -- EDUPAGE / FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE              FCC
> 
> FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC
> ----------------------------
> 
> Over the past couple of weeks, you may have received e-mail letters telling
> you that
> 
>      Many local telephone companies have filed a proposal with the FCC
>      [The United States' Federal Communications Commission] to impose
>      per minute charges for Internet service.  They contend that use
>      of Internet has or will hinder the operation of the telephone
>      network.
> 
> At first, I thought that this was simply a new version of the old "modem
> tax" hoax (http://www.eff.org/papers/eegtti/eeg_83.html#SEC84) that has
> been floating around the Net since *1987*.   After all, the current FCC
> story has all of the markings of a classic urban legend:
> 
>      1. It uses official-looking language;
> 
>      2. It mentions a government agency or an organization with
>         which everyone is familiar;
> 
>      3. It contains a plea for you to take some sort of immediate
>         action; and
> 
>      4. It requests that you forward the warning letter to as many
>         people as possible.
> 
> Besides, according to an article that appeared in this morning's Edupage,
> 
>      ONLINE COMPANIES ASK TELCOS, "WHERE'S THE BEEF?"
>      Tired of telephone companies' complaints that Internet usage is
>      overwhelming their network capacity, the Internet Access
>      Coalition has released findings contending that Net usage is, in
>      reality, a bonanza for the Bells.  The study found that local
>      carriers received a total of $1.4 billion in 1995 in revenues
>      resulting from the installation of second lines in homes, while
>      spending only $245 million to beef up their networks for the
>      additional usage.  A Bell Atlantic spokesman says the real
>      problem is that the telcos have no idea when a line will be used
>      for data rather than voice, and thus tied up longer.  Both sides
>      agree that the ultimate solution is higher capacity networks.
>      (Business Week 17 Feb 97)
> 
> Well, out of curiosity -- and out of a deep-felt desire to avoid studying
> for the two major economics tests that I have next week -- your fearless
> bus driver decided to call the FCC in Washington to see if anyone there was
> willing to talk about this rather explosive issue.  Unfortunately, I soon
> discovered that the FCC only has one employee, she is a secretary, and her
> job is to transfer all incoming telephone calls into voice mail hell.  :)
> 
> Actually, I talked to some nice people at the FCC who faxed me a 10 page
> explanation of what's *really* going on.  Unfortunately, the 10 page
> explanation was written in "FCC-ese," so I am going to have to translate
> their explanation into English for you (and I can assure you that, since I
> know *NOTHING* about telephony, my translation will probably contain a few
> inaccuracies;  if it does, please let me know).
> 
> First, some local telephone companies have indeed asked the FCC to allow
> them to assess a per minute access charge on the telephone lines used by
> Internet Service Providers.  Local telephone companies currently charge
> long-distance carriers (like AT&T and MCI) an interstate access charge for
> the long-distance traffic that travels over their local lines, and the
> local telephone companies would like to see this charge extended to include
> the high-speed lines that your local Internet Service Provider uses to
> access the Internet.
> 
> In December, the FCC rejected the telephone companies' request and
> tentatively concluded "that the existing pricing structure for information
> services should remain in place."  In other words, the FCC has tentatively
> concluded that Internet service providers should *NOT* be subject to the
> interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess
> on long-distance carriers.
> 
> The FCC now seeks the public's comments on this conclusion.
> 
> Unfortunately, the "warning" letter that is currently circulating around
> the Internet gives the impression that some sort of sinister operation is
> afoot here, that the FCC and the telephone companies are trying to sneak
> this proposal through without anyone noticing, and that it is up to each
> and every one of us to stop the evil FCC.
> 
> What garbage.  In fact, the FCC has, at least tentatively, REJECTED the
> telephone companies' proposal.  The FCC is now simply asking you if you
> agree or disagree with their decision.
> 
> The most disappointing aspect of this whole situation is that because of
> the misinformation that has been distributed across the Internet over the
> past couple of weeks, the FCC has received 100,000+ e-mail letters, most of
> which flame them for making a decision that EVERYONE AGREES WITH!  Hands
> down, the flaming of the FCC is one of the Internet's most shameful acts
> ever.
> 
> I also discovered another thing about the FCC that increased my respect for
> their organization one-hundred-fold.  Part of the 10 page explanation that
> the FCC sent me states that their "existing rules have been designed for
> traditional circuit-switched voice networks, and thus may hinder the
> development of emerging packet-switched data networks."  Because of this,
> the FCC is also seeking the public's comments on the implications of the
> Internet and its usage through the public switched telephone network.
> 
> Folks, *ANY* government agency that stops and says 'hey, we can ALWAYS use
> some more information so that we are better prepared for whatever happens
> in the future' has earned my respect and admiration.
> 
> By the way, most of the information that I have shared with you today can
> be found on the FCC's "ISP" homepage at
> 
>      http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html
> 
> If you would like to send your comments to the folks at the FCC (the
> deadline for comments about their decision not to impose interstate access
> changes on Internet service providers is Friday, February 14th), make sure
> that you check the FCC's ISP Web page first.  At the bottom of this page
> are some pretty specific instructions on what you need to put in the
> subject line of you e-mail letter before you submit it to the FCC.
> 
> Personally, I'm going to leave the poor folks at the FCC alone for a while.
> They seem to be doing a great job in the face of unnecessary (and
> misinformed) opposition.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
===========================================================================
Susan Liebeskind (susan.liebeskind at gtri.gatech.edu) 
GTRI/ITTL/CSITD
347 Ferst St
Atlanta, GA  30332-0817				 Phone 404-894-4266