Re: Internet Per Minute Charge Proposal

[Johanna Halbeisen Woodland ES <jhalbei@k12.oit.umass.edu>]

Here's some important information about this issue:

>This from Patrick Douglas Crispen (TOURBUS) on the TelCo's proposal to
charge for internet use:
>
>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.

--
Johanna Halbeisen
Woodland Elementary School(K-4)
Southwick, Mass
jhalbei@k12.oit.umass.edu