No Bob,
I really didn't mean that as tongue in cheek humor at all. If I thought I could help this kid with a simple gesture such as putting a business card in an envelope and attaching a .32 cents stamp then I don't feel bad at all. If I was duped then so be it but I have no regrets at all.
As far the fcc , they have setup an E-mail address to solicit responses from interested parties. It is your perogrative to utilize that forum if you wish, if not then the next time your offered this chance to speak up you may have to pay for it by the minute. I sent my reply and my concerns on this issue you do whatever you feel is best for you.
February 8, 1997
FCC Considering Access Fees for ISPs
By ROBERT E. CALEM
he $19.95 flat monthly fee for unlimited Internet access is
being threatened by a proposed change in the federal
government's telephone regulations.
Under pressure from local phone companies, the Federal
Communications Commission is considering imposing a
per-minute, per-customer fee on Internet service providers who
offer dial-up connections to customers through
modem-equipped phone lines.
Related Articles
A Sure Bet on Access
Fees: More Uncertainty
(Jan. 29, 1997)
Access Providers
Rethinking Flat-Rate
Pricing for Internet
(Jan. 12, 1997)
An 'All You Can Eat' Price
Is Clogging Internet
Access
(Dec. 17, 1996)
A decision on the fee -- which could run as high as 90 cents a
minute -- could be made by the FCC as soon as next summer.
The FCC does not officially comment on pending matters. But
an agency spokesman who asked not to be identified said that
even if the fee is eventually imposed, it would not go into effect
before the end of the year, if ever.
While discussing new government regulations designed to allow
long-distance phone companies to offer local service, local
phone companies have told the FCC that their networks, which
were designed to carry voice calls, are being swamped by traffic
from Internet service providers.
Most phone systems were designed to anticipate that a
maximum of 10 percent of all users would be using their phones
at any one time. That assumption was reasonable given the
average amount of time most callers spend talking on the
phone. But people tend to spend far more time on the line when
making data calls -- a trend that has been exacerbated in the
last 10 months as more and more ISPs began offering unlimited
access to the Internet for a flat rate of $19.95 a month.
The phone companies say they need to charge ISPs an access
fee similar to fees the Baby Bells have charged long-distance
phone companies since 1983 for access to local phone
networks on both ends of a long-distance call. The companies
say they would use the extra revenues to upgrade their networks
to handle even more traffic as the Internet grows.
Until now, ISPs have been exempted from paying such fees
because 14 years ago the FCC classified what few ISPs existed
then as "enhanced service providers," a category that also
included voice-mail companies, home-alarm monitoring
companies, and early data networks like CompuServe. The
FCC's reasoning was that these services' use of the phone
network more closely resembled consumer demand than
long-distance demand.
Opponents of the new fee have told the FCC that the local
phone companies are not doing all they can to upgrade their
networks for data with the revenues they already earn. Among
the most vociferous opponents are long-distance companies,
many of which are also ISPs.
But because of the rapid growth of the Internet as a commercial
communications tool, the local phone companies have pressed
for the ISP's special status to be dropped.
Last December, the FCC invited people to comment on the
issue by March 24 and set a deadline of April 23 for replying to
those comments. After that, according to FCC procedures, the
agency must issue of Notice of Proposed Rule Making, giving
anyone the opportunity to suggest how phone companies and
ISPs should be treated under the law. Later, the FCC would take
action, issuing a regulation that has the force of law. Even then,
there would still be an opportunity to file a petition for a change in
the rule.
Right now, the FCC spokesman said, the agency has more
questions than answers about the issue. He also noted that in
addition to the issue of access fees, the document asking for
comment -- known as a Notice of Inquiry -- raised questions
about which are the most efficient technologies for carrying data
traffic over telephone networks.
Gordon Evans, vice president of federal regulatory affairs for
Nynex Corp. in Washington, D.C., said that one of the main
questions raised by the notice was whether the FCC should
regulate ISP traffic over local phone networks at all. Nynex's
stand, he said, is that very little, if any, of the traffic crosses
state lines en route to central Internet servers and so wouldn't
be subject to FCC regulations.
The FCC can only regulate interstate communications; state
utility boards regulate all communications within their borders. If
the FCC does not have jurisdiction over local phone providers
serving ISPs, Gordon said, then ISPs would be subject to
whatever access fees local telephone companies choose to
charge under the laws of the states in which they operate.
Still, ISPs both large and small say they're not worried yet.
"We've always been looking at other means to support our
business, besides dial-up service," said Brian Freedman,
director of operations at Internet Channel, a small ISP based in
New York.
Giant ISPs, like AT&T WorldNet or America Online, are more of
a threat than a possible access fee from Nynex, Freedman said,
because they can undercut his price and can afford to lose
money at the same time. Internet Channel, a small regional ISP,
for example, charges $25 per month for unlimited access to the
Internet, he noted, compared with $19.95 per month from the
larger ISPs.
Michael Miller, a spokesman for WorldNet, said it was too early
to determine the impact any access fee would have on the
service's price. The official position of AT&T, Miller said, is that
local telephone companies already charge "exorbitantly high"
access fees to long-distance companies, and charging ISPs
similar fees "would greatly impede the growth of an important
and fast growing part of the American economy."
Regards,
RH |
