From: marcontell@ezdial.com
Message-ID: <3315E8C4.59AB@ezdial.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:04:20 -0500
to: isp@fcc.gov

NO.

I vehemently object to the proposals by phone companies to charge
by-the-minuit for internet access.

PERIOD.

NO.

Mary Marcontell
3654-3c Gateway Dr
Portsmouth VA 23703

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From ProfitPwr@aol.com Thu Feb 27 15:17:18 1997
To: ISP@fcc.gov
Subject: CC docket 96-263



This is to protest strongly the proposed additional charges requested by the
telephone companies for internet usage. Internet ueage will undoubtedly
diminish if per minute charges were added. Your agency is supposed to protect
the consumer, not the telephone companies. It could hurt many small
businesses such as mine as well as deprive schoolchildren of internet access.
The only beneficiaries would be the telephone companies.

Stephen Greenberg
10007 E. Sunnyslope Lane
Scottsdale,
AZ 85258


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From dempseyk@gvi.net Thu Feb 27 15:24:20 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: phone companies' FCC filing to charge internet per minute
Content-Length: 890

To whom it concerns:

I understand that telephone companies have filed to impose per minute
charges for internet service. This move was predictable, knowing the
limitless greed of American corporations, and thus inevitable, but that
doesn't mean it isn't despicable. True, AOL's recent debacle with tied-up
phone lines makes a case for the phone companies, but imagine how greatly
internet usage will plummet if this imposition takes effect. The phone
ompanies, already enormous and capable of huge advances in technology (as
they never tire of telling us) are certainly capable of finding ways to
accommodate the continuing growth of the internet, rather than forcing
users to fork over more and more $$ only to put up with outmoded technology
the phone companies are too lazy to update.

I certainly hope this message is received. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Kristin Dempsey

--------------------------------------------------------------

From kkean@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 27 15:25:51 1997
Subject: Metered Phone Charges for Internet Access
To: <isp@fcc.gov>, "President Clinton" <president@whitehouse.gov>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Length: 1100

Sir/Madame:

I take strong exception to the ambition of the Baby Bells to levy time
charges for Internet access. Their argument that the ISP's should pay
per minute charges for usage contradicts their aggressive marketing of
second and third lines to homes and small businesses for modems. I
receive at least one promotion a month for ordering a second line,
usually with free installation. I doubt the cost of providing that line
exceeds the cost of Internet usage. If it did, why wuld they be
offering the lines with incentives?


The local phone companies simply see an opportunity to tap another
source of revenue. So long as they have a local monopoply, the rates
should not be metered. Take away their manopoply and make local phone
service a competitive market and I would have no argument with their
charging metered rates. But then I'd have a choice of local suppliers,
surely one of whom would charge a flat monthly fee with no per minute
fees.

Sincerely,

Kelvin L. Kean

Kelvin L. Kean
321 James Mill Road
Elverson PA 19520 USA
Phone: 610-286-7873
kkean@ix.netcom.com



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From dhoffman@digiforest.com Tue Feb 11 03:15:11 1997
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: Per minute charges for internet service


This is a horrible Idea.
Everyone I know will be horrified to hear this. This is obviously a scheme
for the telephone companies to make more money.
I protest !!!!!!
Dan Hoffman




---------------------------------------------------------




From evangela@community.net Tue Feb 11 03:15:11 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: propsed net fee by telephone companies


You seem to be the people we squeaky hinges need to squeak at in order
to get this Internet Fee stopped the phone companies want to charge us
for online time.


Don't we already pay the hone company for the time we spend on the
phone? (SQUEEK)


Don't we already pay to have the extra phone lines installed so we can
be on the internet without having the family phone tied up when online?
(SQUEEK)


Don't we already pay our internet providers which also pay for the phone
lines they have installed? (SQUEEK)


Why make us pay out more so the rich can get richer?(SQUEEK)


Those of us for whom internet use is a "non-necessity" will end up
having to discontinue our internet usage so we will be able to keep up
with the rest of our bills!(SQUEEK)


The Internet has taught me so much in the short time that I have been
able to afford it. I want to be able to teach my kids about it when
they come around to that point. :-)


It would be very tragic indeed for myself as well as others like me if
our connectivity was discontinued because the legislation passed for
this outrageous fee. (SQUEEK) (SQUEEK) (SQUEEK) (SQUEEEEEEEEEEEK)


I hope I haven't taken too much of your time. I just wanted to get this
off my chest.




-----------------------------------------------------------




From FBecket@aol.com Tue Feb 11 03:15:11 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Fwd: Internet Charge by minute


Surely you aren't seriously thinking of allowing this charge?


Flora Becket
FBecket@aol.com
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: tim_cox@tfr.america.net (Tim Cox)
Sender: Maiser@rmgate.pop.indiana.edu
Reply-to: tim_cox@tfr.america.net (Tim Cox)
To: DEEP-SOUTH-ROOTS@rmgate.pop.indiana.edu (DEEP-SOUTH-ROOTS genealogy list)
Date: 97-02-11 00:21:52 EST




----------------- AutoForwarded Message ----------------
Received: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:08:08
From: TIM COX
Original Sender: JWILLIE22@AOL.COM
--------------------------------------------------------


Subj: Internet Alert! Pay for local dial-up??
Date: 97-02-09 09:08:55 EST
From: freedom@econopromo.com (E-Mail Communications)


*****************************************


INTERNET USERS ALERT!!! It has come to our attention that several
local telephone companies have petitioned the FCC for permission
to charge Internet Users by the minute for LOCAL dial-up telephone
service. This would affect every Internet User, including those
using AOL dial-up.


For more information, see the FCC site: http://www.fcc.gov/isp.htm.
Please send an E-Mail to isp@fcc.gov
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to express your outrage at the idea of allowing telephone companies
to charge by the minute for LOCAL dial-up service. E-Mail comments
must be sent by Feb. 13th, 1997. This affects every Internet user!!


*******************************************




every Internet user!!


*******************************************




* PowerEdit 2.5 ATLANTA GENEALOGY BBS - FOR INFO EMAIL INFO@TFR.AMERICA.NET






---------------------------------------------------------------




From Debra@therightfoot.com Tue Feb 11 03:15:16 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: Debra@therightfoot.com (Debra Linder)
Subject: We vote NO




Do not let the phone companies charge per minute for useage of the internet.


Thanks,


Debra Linder




--------------------------------------------------------------




From bradspurr@fishnet.net Tue Feb 11 03:15:41 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: per minute charge for internet use




Dear FCC,


A per minute charge for internet use is just another scam so the greedy
phone companys can separate even more money from the public. The phone
companys get enough money from their monopolies. Don't let this
happen.
The public needs cheap communication to advance as a society.


Bradley Spurr




---------------------------------------------------------------






From srs@mudspring.uplb.edu.ph Tue Feb 11 03:15:46 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: response...




to whom it may concern,


i strongly say no to the additional charges for internet access filed by
our phone companies, first of all because this will hinder the majority of
Filipinos in attaining a higher economic status, and will inadvertently
affect the progress of our economy since this will strike the base of our
national and international telecommunication needs and requirements.


secondly, even the idea of metering local calls will not only affect
i-way users but also most of the middle class families whose only means
of managing and coordinating their own businesses is by the use of the
telephone.


thirdly, we do not need the compensation that pldt has to offer in that
it will reduce idd rates in exchange for the increase in ndd rates
because national calls are of more significance to an average filipino's
everyday activities than international ones. they should even think of
increaseing idd rates because some international numbers offer the once
controversial "censored" chat sites which are more harmful to our society
than the internet per se.


thank you and God bless.


CD-Rom


__ / __ \ __ / __ / | /
/ / / / / / / | /
/ / / ___/ ___/ / / | /
/ / / / / / / / /
______/ _______/ __/ __ _______/ __/ __/ __/


romel r. saplaco * bs economics * uplb * romel@geocities.com
srs@mudspring.uplb.edu.ph * http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/3916/






-----------------------------------------------------------------






From Krusafix@aol.com Tue Feb 11 03:15:41 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Imposed charges on Local Access to the Internet


Alright, lets get real here for a moment. Charging per minute for the phone
line connection to an internet provider?? A great money maker...but is it
really necessary? No. The phone companies make a drastic amount of money
already with the prices charged for phones, long distance, all those nice
little attractive bonuses like call-waiting and the like, and even some
places on regular local phone calls! In the rush for money making, everyone
in our society charges for practically everything...whether it be a necesity
to charge or a needless charge, we are charged nonetheless. That, in and of
itself, is causing the ruination of society the world over. People starving
for lack of food when, lets admit this, there's an abundance of it. The only
reason people are starving is because they can't pay, they can't give some
merchant a little greenish piece of paper that is, when you get down to the
bare bones of it...utterly worthless. To me that is a crime. The internet
is one of the very last things that's open to most people over the world and
its shipping a priceless commodity...*knowledge*. So lets get past our
fascination with that little greenish slip of paper and get on with our lives
and be satisfied with the money that's already coming in, and not charge
unnecessarily. And yes i know it is unnecesarry since i know quite a few
people in the communications/telecommunications/phone company area of
business. Keep what's left of the Internet and growing online community
free...since its one of the last vanguards of freedom left in this world.


Sincerely,


~Chris Royal~




-------------------------------------------------------------




From qurercus@catamaran.netwave.net Tue Feb 11 03:16:11 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
CC: votta@research.bell-labs.com
Subject: Per Minute Phone Charges By Local Telephone Operating Companies


Dear FCC,
I am completely opposed to this latest gambit by the local operating
companies to increase revenue while not really providing any new service
or value. They did not help create the internet, yet they have benfitted
greatly already because of the extra lines purchasedto support household
Internet use.
The extra line purchases and the explosion of cellular have created
more area codes. Unknown to most consumers, this has also greatly
increased Yellow Page revenue for the local operating company since most
businesses now have to advertised in several area codes to get the same
geogaphic coverage that they got before.
Enough is enough, I am opposed to the per minute phone charges by
local telephone operating companies. Thank you.
qurercus@netwave.net (Larry)






----------------------------------------




From: blinkerboy@earthlink.net Tue Feb 11 03:16:11 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: hi


I am writing in response to the proposal made by telephone providers to
>the FCC. I do not think it is the best interest of the general public,
>nor is it in the best interest of the economy of the United States. The
>proposed "per-minute" charge scheme would be highly damaging to the
>fledgling economy developing across the computer networks in this country.
>It would also be harmful to researchers, students, and government agengies
>across the country and world-wide. If per-minute charges are allowed to
>take effect, the effect would be a reduction of consumer interest, and a
>stagnation of academic progress and communications. I urge you to deny
>the proposal as it would deny many people the right to fast
>communications, as they would no longer be able to afford the charges.
>Many non-profit organizations and research groups would have a much more
>restricted access to this indispensable mode of communication. I urge you
>to do what is right for the general public of the United States, and for
>its many invaluable organizations. Please do not grant telephone
>providers' proposal as it is a monopolistic measure and would contribute
>to the rapid decline of services involved with the internet. You should
>consider how much economic damage this proposal will do to local access
>providers, major access providers (e.g. AOL), and universities as these
>groups attempt to develop and improve the communications and services
>provided on the internet. They would be hard pressed to deal with this
>new burden. Thank you for your time and consideration,
>> Sincerely,
>> Scott Warner




------------------------------------------------------


From Reticulum4@aol.com Tue Feb 11 03:16:11 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: No!!!




Per minute charges will only hinder progress in our world!!! The internet
make s the world smaller and is bringing people together. Please no per
minute charges!!!


Thanks!




Steve Boler
PO Box 250513
San Francisco, ca 94125-0513




-------------------------------------------------------------




From Faderfly@aol.com Tue Feb 11 03:16:41 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Local charges for ISP




This is to respond to the proposal before the commission regardig
minute-by-minute charges to internet users. As there is no real way to
cost-effectively discern an analogue data transmission from a telephone
conversation, the proposition has an inherent flaw. This legislation will
end flat rate local calls for all people...internet users and farm-hands that
don't know a PC from an FCC. Not to mention the Billions of dollars to be
extorted from telephone service "round-up" policies. This is an obscene
abuse of legislative control and anti-trust law. The American public is
paying for the additional lines, service and associated expenses for thier
communications needs...do not allow the fat-cat telco trusts to cash-in. It
is not our fault they haven't properly planned for the band-width crunch. To
make a short story into an epoch mini-series, a failure to plan on the
telco's part doesn't constitute a crisis/budgitary obligation on our
part....comprende???




Thanks,
Josh




-------------------------------------------------------




From plogue@ipgeek.com Tue Feb 11 03:16:42 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: per minute charges


Oh yeah, like the phone companies are going broke putting in all those
second phone lines, and collecting an extra $15.00 a month.


The internet is the mankind's best technical achievement since the
pop-top can, and the local phone companies are trying to crush it to
collect the deposit.


They're afraid that everyone will use the internet for voice
transmissions, and put them out of business. If that were true, then
maybe they would be justified in charging, but it's not. The internet
is used mostly for VIDEO, not audio.


The local phone companies are adding phone lines at a record rate out
here in Southern California, and they're not putting in new wire.
They're using digital multiplexing (piggyback) to sent two
conversations over one wire. No extra wiring, just a box installed in
the home, and switching circuits at the substation that gets paid for in
a few months by the extra line charges.


Don't buy their hard-luck, end of the world story, the money they're
pulling in with the extra lines MORE than pays for the costs they're
incurring.


I feel that per-minute charges are NOT JUSIFIED!


Thank you,


Paul Logue
plogue@ipgeek.com




----------------------------------------------------------




From mhogden@wolfenet.com Tue Feb 11 03:16:42 1997
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: NOI (CC Docket No. 96-263)


ISP's are in no way a long distance carrier. Attempts by regional phone
companies to assess access charges are the thin edge of the wedge which the
phone companies will use to fufill their lifelong goal of all users paying
for all calls on a per minute basis.


Mark Hogden
221 E St SE
Auburn WA 98002




--------------------------------------------------------






From evanshan@scf.usc.edu Tue Feb 11 03:16:42 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Hi there government people!


Well, Hi there government people.


Please don't let local telephone companies charge users at universities like
mine for net usage. We already have too many net backbone providers
charging for things.


Thank you, and have a happy day.


Evans Hanson




------------------------------------------------------------






From BFernandez@aol.com Tue Feb 11 03:17:11 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
cc: BFernandez@aol.com
Subject: telephone fees for internet access
Content-Length: 620


Dear FCC--


I understand you are considering allowing telephone companies to charge
per-minute fees for internet access. I am very much against this.


My phone company (Pacific Bell) already charges by the minute for "measured"
service, or charges a monthly premium for "flat-rate" service (I have been
using the latter for years to access AOL and CompuServe). If there were an
extra charge levied for internet access I'd essentially be paying twice for
each access, which would be unfair! I would also have to reduce my access to
the internet, making it less useful to me.


--Bill Fernandez
bfernandez@aol.com






------------------------------------------------------------------------






From chret1@fn5.freenet.tlh.fl.us Tue Feb 11 03:17:12 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Phone company charges


I think that this stuff with the phone companies, trying to charge by the
minute, is a bunch of trash. We as consumers pay way too much for
internet access already! Please decline this proposal!


Chris Etheridge
chret1@freenet.scri.fsu.edu




-------------------------------------------------------------------




From jmassey@iAmerica.net Tue Feb 11 03:17:42 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
CC: masseyc@nukote.com
Subject: Phone Co. charges for internet use


Dear Sir: Please do not let the phone companies sneak thru legislation
for charges to their customers for time spent on the internet. This
would greatly diminish the utility of the internet for most users. It
is not right that this should happen in a free society that I personally
for fought for in two wars. Yours truly, James W. Massey 318/322-8111






----------------------------------------------------------------




From mystical@netbistro.com Tue Feb 11 03:17:42 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: Trishia <mystical@netbistro.com>
Subject: Fwd: NEWS: Local Phone Company To Charge Per Minute For
Internet Access


>Subject: Fwd: NEWS: Local Phone Company To Charge Per Minute For Internet
Access


>For your information:
>>Local Phone Companies Want to Bill Internet Users.
>>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.




I just received this message via my e-mail! this is totally ridiculous. I
feel that the phone compnaies have no right to charge a per minute surcharge
for use of the internet! I for one, will discontinue my net usage if this
comes to fruition!


Please, whoever you are put a stop to this BEFORE it happens.




------------------------------------------------------------




From WASTE49@aol.com Tue Feb 11 03:17:42 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: NO


NO, I do not want to be charged for time on the phone while on the internet.
While I am a supporter of a free-market capitalistic society, I see this as
a violation of consumer rights since the cost is unfounded. Please vote NO
on this issue.


Jeff Goldsmith
waste49@aol.com




----------------------------------------------------------------




From tomboy1@juno.com Tue Feb 11 03:17:42 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: PHONE COMPANY SCAM


SO....THE AMERICAN PUBLIC GETS RIPPED OFF AGAIN...FIRST THE
RAZZLE-DAZZLE AND BIG PROMISES TO GET THEM TO BITE...ONCE THEY DO, IT'S
TIME TO MOVE IN FOR THE BIG PAYOFF. I WONDER IF OUR GOVERNMENT HAS ANY
IDEA JUST HOW SICK AND TIRED WE ARE OF BEING EXPLOITED BY THESE
UNDERHANDED AND IMMORAL BUSINESS PRACTICES. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION!!




------------------------------------------------------------






From stealth2000@juno.com Tue Feb 11 03:17:44 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: I think this is stupid!


Well once again the Government is trying to find yet another way to cheat
the hard working American out of more Money. Well I will be deeply
disappointed if you pass this Legislation to let the phone companies to
charge for Internet time because the only reason Phone companies want to
do that is because it is another way to make money. Our Government needs
to realize that Money should not be the center of the Government because
when it was look where it got us...in more debt. Well if they would
change their priorities and Put GOD first then the government would
finally change for the GOOD! But I doubt you will even read this email
throughout so I'll stop.


Thanks for your consideration!


Because of Christ,
Paul Gower (Concerned Citizen)




---------------------------------------------------------------




From dan@ink-jet.com Tue Feb 11 03:17:42 1997
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: Proposed per minute tariff for internet connection


Dear sirs:


It seems to me that the telephone companies are trying to put another one
over on the public again. This is, of course, without the publics
knowledge or consent. The melodramatic charges that internet use will
affect the quality of telephoe communication is ludicrous at best and
deceitul at worst. Bandwidth considerations on the existing lines have
been addressed for many years and are untilmately tied to population growth
rather than phone usage. fiberoptic carriers have virtually eliminated
limitations in available carrier density. Additionally, the laying and
operation of fiber carriers by the cable companies (TV) will continue to
improve bandwidth availability over the next couple of decades.


I believe this attempt to levy the internet connection on a per minute
basis is an affront to the American public. It is an attempt to promote
corporate interest over a free market. This attempt would put control of
this huge market potential into the hands of a few monolithic corporations.


To allow this deception to be successful would set a precedent that would
be very difficult to reverse. Local calls are charged on a flat fee basis.
Are we now to accept per minute tolling of this flat fee service? This is
the true aim of the phone companies.


I urge you to refuse to accept the filing for per minute charges for
internet connections. If you must review the filing, then I urge you in
the strongest terms possible to deny this petition.


Thank you for listening.


Daniel W. Loyer
Internet-based Business Owner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Dan Loyer http://www.ink-jet.com
MVM Products, LLC dan@ink-jet.com
647 Camino de los Mares Voice: (714) 366-1470
Suite 108-127 Fax: (714) 498-2958
San Clemente, CA 92673






----------------------------------------------------------------------------




From palmer@northnet.org Tue Feb 11 03:17:44 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: proposed local Internet charges




Folks, if local phone companies wish to compete in an expanding
telecommunications market, please don't let them do it yet again on our
backs! Don't those bozos have investment skills, or must they rely
every single time on raising rates?
We already pay for our phone connections and usage; we already pay
for our internet connection; in many cases, we already pay for a
necessary second phone line. These companies will, no doubt, somehow
find a way to make the average person fund their management's excessive
pay and perks, but just once I would like to see the average person,
star of stage and screen to hear the pols from both parties tell it, not
get screwed by those same pols and bureaucrats.
Has nobody in power figured out why most people don't vote anymore?
Indeed, I fear they have, and they like not being challenged any more by
a public too apathetic to act. WELCOME to the twenty-first century? For
whom--the Icahn's, Trump's, Bush's, and Clinton's of the world? "We hold
these truths...." Art.
--
"The human mind once stretched to a new idea never goes back to its
original dimensions." Oliver Wendell Holmes






--------------------------------------------------------------






From jonren@thegrid.net Tue Feb 11 03:18:14 1997


Letting the Phone Companys charge a per minute rate for the internet is
wrong. Don't let them do it.




----------------------------------------------------------


From roessler@kdsi.net Tue Feb 11 03:18:14 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Minute Charges


I feel the proposed charges are unfair. I think the phone companys need
to upgrade on thier own like all Copmanys.




---------------------------------------------------------




From aparo@well.com Tue Feb 11 03:18:14 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Comment from Italy


To Whom it may concern,


The proposal filed with the FCC to impose per minute charges for
internet service has to be considered damaging for the interest of
private citizens.
It is false that Internet usage has or will hinder the operation of the
telephone network. It is true that new tools available on the NEt, i.e.
Webphone and the VOIP protocol (Voice Over the Internet Protocol) willl
reduce the de-facto monopoly that local phone componied do enjoy.


I do live in Italy, where Telecom Italia imposes per minute charges.
This has heavily slowed down the use of Internet and the diffusion of
Intranet in companies, damaging the National economy.


In faith
--
AndreA Aparo
Fiat Auto Spa
Corso Agnelli 200
10135 Turin
Italy




----------------------------------------------------------------------




From JERidley1@aol.com Tue Feb 11 03:18:14 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Internet Phone Call Surcharge
Content-Length: 734


Allowing the phone companies to charge per minute on Internet phone calls is
wrong.
For years we were subject to a monopoly by the phone company (AT&T) and now
we live in a local monopoly situation in regards to phone service. I
understand the phone system is outdated and needs improvement but that is
shortsightedness brought on by the phone companies themselves not we the
consumer. If you do choose to allow the companies to charge per minute rates
for Internet access, then at least help us the consumer find a way to shop
for local phone access and induce competition for better rates. I do not
necessarily object to paying for the service, but it should be figured on a
flat rate basis.


Sincerely
James E. Ridley






---------------------------------------------------------




From PPCY19B@prodigy.com Tue Feb 11 03:18:44 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Re: Local Phone Companies




To whom it may concern:


Dear Sirs,


I have been informed that the local phone companies are trying
to get you to impose per minute charges for our Internet service.
If this is true, I want you to say now to the phone companies,
as if this were to happen, I feel along with many others that
Internet usage would diminish if users were required to pay
additional per minute charges, and it cannot be this way.
Thanking you in advance, I remain,


Sincerely yours,


Linda Jobe (PPCY19B@Prodigy.com)








-----------------------------------------------------------------------------







From Jerry_Bulmer@smtp.scpboi.com Thu Feb 27 03:15:32 1997
Subject: Local Charge for Internet access.
To: ISP@FCC.GOV


The request of the local telephone companies to place an additional
charge on local internet provider calls, in my opinion, is a
ridiculous idea. They are in business to provide local telephone
services, and that is exactly what a person uses when they log on to a
local internet provider. Why should a person have to pay extra for a
local phone call just because it is done through a computer? If this
occurs, it is going to put a BIG hamper on the World Wide Web that the
US Government is trying to hype up right now. That seems
counterproductive to me. In addition, if this passes, the next thing
they are going to ask for is a hike in charges for people joining
local BBS', and I can see it blossoming from there. I sincerely hope
that you do NOT approve their request.
Thank you for your time,
VR,
Jerry Bulmer


---------------------------------------------------


From PENWRT@aol.com Thu Feb 27 03:43:34 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: local telephone charges




Please do not allow local telephone co to charge extra for local calls. They
have charged outrageous fees as it is for services which used to be free or
were modest cost at one time.
Tom Bisogno




--------------------------------------------------------------------


From tazdezel@msn.com Thu Feb 27 03:47:04 1997
Message-Id: <UPMAIL09.199702270342210283@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: FW: FCC proposal








----------
Sent: Friday, February 14, 1997 7:59 PM
To: 'isp@fcc.gov'
Subject: FCC proposal


I have just learned about the proposal to allow local phone companies to
charge by the minute for internet access. If this comes to pass, a lot of us
normal working people will lose our ability to gain the information from the
internet that we currently have. I already pay for the phone lines and when
my family is on the internet, we lose our phone usage ability. This is
already payment enough. My son is getting a real education with his ability
to look things up for homework assignments, and also the creation of web
pages. I would hate to have to take this away from him. Please don't let
this come to pass.


----------------------------------------------------------




From Chandra_Srivastava@ccmail.ntrs.com Tue Feb 25 09:16:10 1997
Subject: Phone Companies try to Charge per hour for internet access
To: isp@fcc.gov
\Content-Length: 749


I am writing to protest the above.
The internet is here and is an industry phone companies need to live
and in some instances compete with. We don't need to "protect" phone
companies by imposing charges on internet usage. That is downright
outrageous and unwarranted. Please consider my appeal.
Thank you.
C. Srivastava.
***********************************
Most of the phone companies are petitioning the FCC to impose a
per-minute charge for internet use. Guesstimates range from 4-5 cents
per minute for the large companies up to 40 cents for the smaller
ones. They contend that internet usage has/will hinder operation of
the telephone network.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From douglas_l._stempfley@belcan.com Tue Feb 25 09:19:42 1997
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: internet charge




I think this is another attempt to rip off the american people.
The internet is the best all around ref. source we have today.
adding per minute charges would kill the net.
DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN.


DOUG STEMPFLEY




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From PCSD.DALLASPO.WSmith@mail2.allegro.net Tue Feb 25 09:21:44 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Local telephone companies charging for internet connection
serices
To whom it may concern:


It has come to my attention that the local LEC (local exchange carriers)
are attempting to pass regulations that allow them to charge additional
fees when a private individual is connected to the Internet through a local
ISP (Iinternet service provider).


This policy, I believe would undermine the purpose and intent of the
Internet. Phone companies currently charge for line usage and there is
no restriction on the length of a phone call, be it voice or data. I truly
believe that additional line charges singled out for connection to the
internet will give an unfair economic and business advantage to the local
phone companies. This advantage will allow them to set price structures
and generally monoploize the Internet service providing business. In a
sentence, it will fundamentally change Internet access and availability
and change it for the worse.


I strongly urge you not to allow the LECs (phone companies) to charge
additional service fees singled out for internet connections.


Warren Smith
432 Beard Dr.
Cedar Hill, TX 75104




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From djohnson@cssiusa.com Tue Feb 25 09:22:15 1997
To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: FW: [Fwd: FW: WARNING: Phone Company Internet Service Charge]


If what is detailed below is true this will cause serious problems in =
that a large number of people will discontinue to use the net. Companies =
will drop their sites. This will force some ISP's out of business. I am =
a small ISP ( www.Siteblock.net ) I can clearly see this causing the =
destruction of my company and business. This is just another example of =
the big guys trying to get a little bigger no matter who they step on. I =
also notice that this falls on the heels of most of the "phone =
Companies" getting into the ISP business. looks like another monopoly to =
me.




C. David Johnson
The Site Block Network
Djohnson@Siteblock.net=20


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: Karen Dulaney[SMTP:kdulaney@mailhost.cssiusa.com]
Sent: Friday, February 07, 1997 3:30 PM
To: everyone@cssiusa.com
Subject: [Fwd: FW: WARNING: Phone Company Internet Service Charge]




I am writing 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.=20
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.=20
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 litigation. Let everyone you know here this =
one.
Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of. isp@fcc.gov=20
Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all =
our
voices
may be heard!=20


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






From Diane.Jacobs@OAG.STATE.TX.US Tue Feb 25 09:22:15 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Proposed regs permitting per-minute surcharges for internet
use




** High Priority **


To whom it may concern,


This e-mail is in response to the proposed regulatory
change/legislation to impose per-minute charges for calling Internet
Service Providers. I use the internet to look for information, both in
business (as an assistant Texas attorney general enforcing consumer
protection laws) and individually. These changes are not in the
public interest, are detrimental to a variety of businesses and
industries, and would -- in my opinion --serve to place unreasonable
limits on the free exchange of information and speech provided by the
Internet. They would force me almost entirely off the net and would limit
my ability to gather information.
I urge, most strongly, that any such change or legislation be denied.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
Diane S. Jacobs




----------------------------------------------------------------




From "dwoodward@rpa.net"@www.rpa.net Tue Feb 25 09:22:46 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
CC: wayne@rpa.net
Subject: FCC Proposal


This message is to express my strong opposition to the telephone
companies proposal to inpliment per minute charges for internet access.
Libraries do not charge for access to their wealth of information and
knowledge. Neither should telephone companies be authorized to charge
for
the same data on the internet.


Don A. Woodward


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From bnibe@ne-hamilton.k12.ia.us Tue Feb 25 09:23:17 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Access Reform


I am a technology coordinator in a small rural school district. It has
cost our school a great deal of money to have current technology
available to our students, but we believe that it is important. It is
especially important that they have access to the same kinds of
information that are more readily available in urban areas. If we are
forced to pay per-minute charges for our internet access, that may well
be an expense that we cannot afford, and our students will be the ones
who suffer. Schools everywhee are struggling with rising costs and
declining budgets, while still trying to increase the services that we
provide to our students. This proposed change would be a hardship for
the education community, which is one of the best and most promising
users of the internet.


Thank you for your time.
Rebecca L. Nibe
Northeast Hamilton CSD
Blairsburg, IA 50034




---------------------------------------------------------------------------




From edcor@caverns.com Tue Feb 25 09:24:24 1997
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: Telephone Charges
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 07:21:09 -0700




I am have a local Internet provider. I pay around $22.00 a month for
service. This charge is also pays for the phone lines that are connected
to the Internet. The provider also pays a monthly fee to the phone company
for the use of the lines. Most all providers work this way. They already
pay a monthly fee to the telephone companies for the use of their lines. I
don't under stand why it is a debate weather or not we should pay the phone
companies twice. We as users pay the phone companies through our monthly
service fees now. Why should we have to pay them to use their line and
then pay them per minute that we use them. We should pa one or the other.
To use their lines or per minute. To charge us both is not right. The
use government can not tax us twice on things and we should not have to pay
twice for one service.


Brian J. Weston
EDCOR Electronics
edcor@caverns.com




-----------------------------------------------------------------------




From morris@ezl.com Tue Feb 25 09:24:47 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: morris@ezl.com (Morris Snively)
Subject: Changes in charges for Internet use




The proposed changes by the telephone companies to charge per minute for
Internet use seems nothing more to me than greed. If the system were to be
overburdened with Internet users, why then does the telephone company
advertise for second lines for that use? It seems to me the telephone
companies want people to use the internet (thus the new business for
additional phone lines) and also want to charge a per minute use to further
line their own pockets at the expense of others.


Please stand for the people instead of the corporations. Do not allow the
per minute charge proposal to be accepted.


Morris Snively morris@ezl.com
Director of Forensics office phone: 618-233-5070/752
Belleville East HS office fax: 618-233-0715
2555 West Blvd. home phone: 618-235-5571
Bellevill IL 62221 home fax: 618-235-5371




----------------------------------------------------------------------




From shslib@nh.ultranet.com Tue Feb 25 09:27:47 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: Cynthia Riley/Somersworth High School <shslib@nh.ultranet.com>
Subject: Internet phone charges
Content-Length: 437


This is to let you know that per minute phone charges for Internet use will
make the system unfair and inaccessible. I hope that as an American citizen
in a country "of the people, by the people and for the people" that my
request to keep this Internet as accessible as it is now, and to make it
more so, will be honored. Yours sincerely, Cynthia Riley, Librarian,
Media Specialist, Somersworth High School, Somersworth,N.H. 03878.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From 73744.3534@CompuServe.COM Tue Feb 25 09:28:17 1997
To: fcc <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: no per minute charges for phones using net
Message-ID: <970225142504_73744.3534_CHM56-1@CompuServe.COM>
Content-Length: 194


I am against per minute charges by the phone companies for internet connection..
How many more ways can they steal our money?


thank you


ilene miner
635 East 14 STreet 8H
New York NY 10009




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------




rom AIR4CE@aol.com Tue Feb 25 09:33:18 1997
To: ISP@fcc.gov
Subject: Phone Company Rate Hike !!!!!!
Content-Length: 848


To whom it may concern,


I think it is very unfair that the FCC is going to let the local phone
companies charge more for using your phone to get ON-LINE for computer
work.....Enough is enough already....How much more money is the government
going to get from the people of the US.....I do believe that a phone service
rates should be left alone....be it if you are using it for voice calls or
computer work it should be the same.....I do believe the FCC is starting to
discriminate again people who have computers and use an ON-LINE
Service.....If there is aclass suit brought against the FCC for approving a
hike in phone service for computer users I will be the first to follow suit
too......LETS STOP THIS NONSENSE ALREADY.....


Signed a very upset On-Line user....


Gary (AIR 4CE@AOL.COM)




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From hartsell@mail.io.com Tue Feb 25 09:34:51 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: hartsell@mail.io.com (Thomas G. Hartsell)
Subject: I know I'm late but...




Please consider my comments on Internet usage for consideration.


Constant communication for information "on demand" will trancend you.
If you tax it, they will vote you out.
If you fight it, they will stop you.
This is the way of the future. This should not be slowed down, this should
not be stiffled.
This is the way of the future.
If you stand in the way of progress, you will be overrun by the stampede.


Thank you for your consideration.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From kammerma@redwood.dn.hac.com Tue Feb 25 09:34:52 1997
Return-Path: kammrma@redwood.dn.hac.com





To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: protesting the Internet phone charge proposal
Content-Length: 399


Dear Sirs:


I believe that the current proposal that would allow telephone companies
to impose additional per-minute fees on internet providers is preposterous.
Why should the phone companies steal more of our money than they already do?


Please don't allow this to happen, as it is just another example of the
"man" stealing from the "people."


Sincerely,


Karl R. Ammerman
Hughes Aircraft Company




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From vmhf@frii.com Tue Feb 25 09:36:21 1997
Return-Path: vmhf@frii.com
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: proposed fee for internet users


The fee presently under consideration for internet users is extremely
unfair. We pay for our time on the internet and we pay for our telephones.
This fee would be piling on the charges and lining the pockets of those in
the communications sector. Please do not pass this fee.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From blayer@ix.netcom.com Tue Feb 25 09:37:51 1997
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: DOCKET NO. 96-263


To whom it may concern,


I would like to voice my concern over the request by AT&T to charge a
per-minute fee for Internet Access. The phone lines have never been
restricted in use, on a local basis, for as long a I know. Now, since
there is what appears to be a growing market, AT&T wants to jump in and try
to take advantage of a monopoly on the wire that is stretched across the
country we know as phone lines.


I would venture to guess that in most instances AT&T is already reaping the
benefits of the WEB due to the fact that most users have installed seperate
phone lines in their homes simply for computer access. This basically
doubles the phone bills in a home because AT&T doesn't give you a reduced
rate or seperate rate for
computer access. To add a per-minute charge to that would be outrageous.


Please take into consideration the importance of the WEB and the fact that
if these proposals come about, many people won't be able to afford the
luxury. Also consider that AT&T is simply trying to make a bigger buck on
an already existing monopoly.


Sincerely,


Bryan Layer




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From postwill@norwich.net Tue Feb 25 09:39:22 1997
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: Internet usage fees
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:35:38 -0500


NO PER MINUTE INTERNET USER FEES ! WHEN I CONNECT
I'M MAKING A LOCAL PHONE CALL . I ALREADY PAY FOR THAT SERVICE .




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From ICherkasskiy@perstorp-us.com Tue Feb 5 09:42:23 1997
To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: FW: No per minute charges for the Internet service.


I am writing in response to the proposal made by telephone providers to the
FCC. I do not think it is the best interest of the general public, nor is it
in the best interest of the economy of the United States. The proposed "per-
minute" charge scheme would be highly damaging to the fledgling economy
developing across the computer networks in this country. It would also be
harmful to researchers, students, and government agengies across the country
and world-wide. If per-minute charges are allowed to take effect, the
effect would be a reduction of consumer interest, and a stagnation of academic
progress and communications. I urge you to deny the proposal as it would
deny many people the right to fast communications, as they would no longer be able
to afford the charges. Many non-profit organizations and research grups
would have a much more restricted access to this indispensable mode of
communication.
I urge you to do what is right for the general public of the United States,
and for its many invaluable organizations. Please do not grant telephone
providers' proposal as it is a monopolistic measure and would contribute to
the rapid decline of services involved with the internet. You should consider
how much economic damage this proposal will do to local access providers, major
access providers (e.g. AOL), and universities as these groups attempt to
develop and improve the communications and services provided on the internet.
They would be hard pressed to deal with this new burden. Thank you for your
time and consideration,


Sincerely,


lya Cherkasskiy
Software Engineer
Perstorp Analitical Inc.


ICherkasskiy@Perstorp-US.com




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From nobody@exodus.content.earthlink.net Tue Feb 25 09:45:23 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Reply-To: richa@northrim.net
Subject: Form Data from 206.206.31.67
Content-Length: 598


I understand the FCC has tentatively concluded that providers of information services (including Internet service providers) should not be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess on long-distance carriers. I agree that Internet Service Providers should not be subject to the interstate access charges.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From tlr3w@curry.edschool.virginia.edu Tue Feb 25 09:47:23 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov


To Whom It May Concern:


I am concerned about the possibility of the phone companies
adding charges for e-mail time. In this age of high tech
communication, it is important that we ensure citizens easy
access to means of information processing. By adding
additional charges to e-mail processing, a significant number of
citizens will be eliminated from this means of communication.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From KassJ@aol.com Tue Feb 25 09:51:26 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Fwd: Per minute charge for Internet
Content-Length: 2372


Please listen to us
********************************8
Forwarded message:
Subj: Fwd: Per minute charge for Internet
Date: 97-02-21 19:39:44 EST
From: Mcdonaldb
To: KassJ


---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj: Per minute charge for Internet
Date: 97-02-21 19:39:16 EST
From: Mcdonaldb
To: isp@fcc.gov


I understand the FCC is conidering legislation to allow local telephone
service providers to apply surcharges to Internet phone calls. The
Internet is spreading like wildfire throughout all segments of the US.
It is creating a level playing field for rich and poor, small businesses
and large corporations - all have the same access to information and
learning tools that do not exist anywhere else in our society.


The Internet is growing rapidly largely because of inexpensive and
predictable flat-rate pricing for unlimited access. If you pass this
legislation, this practice will end. Ultimately, these charges will be
passed to consumers and businesses. If this happens those who benefit
most, the poor and small business owners, are the people that will be cut
off because they won't be able to afford to connect.


Think about it for a second. What library, university, primary school or
other public institution that the less fortunate depend on can for net
access can afford to provide it if they are going to be charged a usage
fee? None. Zero. You can't let this happen.


Not to mention the impact this would have on US businesses as well. This
type of legislation would put US business at a severe competitive
disadvantage if the rest of the world's businesses, institutions and
consumers are not incurring the same costs for access to what has become
a truly international asset. This would have a disproportionate effect
on small businesses which rely on dialup access to the Internet versus
large corporations which probably have leased lines into the net already.
Small businesses are fueling the growth in the US economy and they can't
afford this additional burden.


Please do not allow local phone companies that had NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING to do with the development of this technological marvel to gouge
consumers and small business and thus limit access and competitiveness in
the name of unwarranted profits. Don't let this happen.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From wsch@centuryinter.net Te Feb 25 09:53:26 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov


Sirs:
Please do not allow per minute charges for internet access. The phone
companies already profit from the additional lines used for access.
Allowing extra charges provides an excess profit.


The extra charges will make the internet access too expensive for many
users, especially those that need it most. Schools for instance should
be providing access as an educational tool.


Thank you for your consideration and for denying these per minute
charges.


Sincerely,


Walt Schlichting




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From erikengebreth@mindspring.com Tue Feb 25 09:53:56 1997
To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: Internet Phone Charges: NOT!


It is rumored that local phone companies are petitioning the FCC to =
allow differentiated charges for phone line usage, specifically that =
they will charge an additional fee if the phone line is used for =
internet service provider access.


Count me as one more citizen and voter who is OPPOSED to your allowing =
such a usage based fee structure.


ISDN lines are fee for bandwidth, not delineated by specific use. =
Analog phone lines should be treated no differently.


Sincerely,
Erik A. Engebreth
Ashburn, VA






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From wziegler@juno.com Tue Feb 25 09:54:27 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: CC Docket No.96-263


When I contracted with my local phone company to provide my service,
there were no conditions placed on that service, except that I pay for
it. I was not informed that I could only use x number of minutes per
month of local calls or that no call could exceed x minutes. If the
conditions of my agreement for local phone service are going to be
changed then provide me an opportunity to seek alternate local phone
service by allowing competition in the local service arena.
A provider will arrive that can meet the needs of its customers and make
money.
The providers of local phone services desire protection from competition
and the ability to charge however much they want and for whatever they
want.


The only reason that there is an issue of charging ISPs additional monies
for local phone services is that this could be the goose that laid the
golden egg for the phone companies. Use of ISPs is on the increase.
More hours on line obviously should translate into more money coming in.
This despite the fact that they have already happily agreed to provide
the local phone lines to these ISPs knowing full well how and how much
those lines would be used.


I am willing to pay more money for local phone service if I got something
more in return for my money. (That, by the way, is a basic principle of
economics) However, nothing in my local service has changed nor is it
likely to change. With a government sponsored monopoly there is no need
to be concerned with the public and its needs.


I believe that the core of this issue is competition. If there were
competition in providing local phone service then this would all shake
itself out without any government intervention.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From kjungkin@baste.magibox.net Tue Feb 25 09:55:57 1997
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: surcharge for online services


I would like to make my opposition clear to application of any surcharge
for telephone line use for online services or computer access. No
surcharge is included for regular telephone calls of whatever duration;
long distance charges vary widely. No additional charge should be made
simply because an individual is accessing a computer based service.


Katharine A. Jungkind
Evans & Petree
81 Monroe Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103
kjungkin@baste.magibox.net




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From LeraasCook@aol.com Tue Feb 25 09:55:58 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: On line charging practices
Content-Length: 389


It has come to my attention that the FCC is researching ways to charge
on-line users by the minute for the time they access the internet. I would
like to express my great DISMAY at this possibility. Access is made through
(800) numbers in order to connect with a resource which heretofor was not
available. Placing a charge on information is an affront.
Thank you. - Judith Leraas cook




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From davidv@veeneman.com Tue Feb 25 10:00:05 1997
To: <isp@fcc.gov>


I want to express my disagreement with per minute charges for Internet
access proposed by some telephone companies. I believe phone company claims
about cost are misleading, and that the proposal would stunt the growth of
the Internet and disadvantage low and middle-income users of the Internet,
creating classes of "haves" and "have nots" in the Inormation Age.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From: David C. Veeneman
davidv@veeneman.com


To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 9:57:04 EST


Members of the governing board,


I oppose access additional access charges for ISP connectivity
which are proposed by local telephone providers. The telephone
provider traditionally charges for connection time to their
service, and not for bandwidth. To allow this type of charge
would necessitate realignment of the telephone rate structure
to one based on bandwidth. This would not necessarily be
a bad thing, since one would expect traditional voice grade
customers to benefit, but I do not feel this is the intent of
the proposal. It is more likely to believe that the telephone
providers simply want additional revenue to subsidize the access
they provide, or make the competition of the ISP more difficult.


Since telephone service is moving toward a digitally based
service, the issue of bandwidth utilization as charge method
will become a viale argument, however, access to information
is not just an issue of commerce, it also affects broader social
issues; a move to a bandwidth charge methodology should be addressed
beyond the commercial implications and address also issues of
public welfare and public access to information.


Just as the telephone has become a requirement for employment
and public safety, access to electronic information will become
a requirement for an informed democracy.


The ideas and opinions raised here are my own, and do not
reflect the opinions of the company I work for, its employees
or management.


Douglas E. Maukonen
968 Oak Dr. Oviedo, Fl. 32765




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Tue Feb 25 10:00:58 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov


It is very interesting that Southwestern Bell would be party to a
complaint to the FCC about Internet users hogging their voice network
resources, when they already have a solution that they are marketing.
The complaint, before the FCC as CC Docket No 96-263, is a request for
"per minute" pricing, is intended to get a chunk of data traffic, aka
Internet access, off voice networks. But Southwestern Bell already has
a plan to do just that.


That's right, SBC Communications aka Southwestern Bell announced last
January 14th in California that it had a solution to get data users
off of voice networks and onto their own separate network. Internet/
Intranet Transport Services, or IITS, has been quietly tested with two
ISPs in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area for months, and is now available in
the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex, Austin, Houston, San Antonio,
St. Louis, Kansas City, Topeka, Wichita, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and
Little Rock. Other areas in TX, OK, AR, KS, and MO are targeted for
later this year.


The service, aimed exclusively at ISPs, has several advantages for
everyone:


- Since Southwestern Bell maintains the modem pool, the ISP can get rid
of modems.
- Faster and more reliable connections for users since they no longer
compete with voice network users.
- SWB gets Internet users off their voice network and has a new
revenue stream.
- Eventually SWB could sell this to large companies that have home
users.
- Current support up to 33.6Kbps, with 56Kbps on the way.


The technology, developed by Technology Resources Inc. (R & D for SBC)
and Northern Telecom (Nortel), works like this -- IITS recognizes the
call is a data call and redirects it at the originating switch to the
appropriate ISP over a frame relay connection directly to the ISP,
bypassing the voice network, being pumped i over 1.5Mbps (180
simultaneous users) or 45Mbps (5040 simultaneous users) lines. Pricing
is a "per port" rate plus the monthly high speed pipe. All the ISP
needs is a router that supports Layer 2 Forwarding protocol -- normal
authentication takes place, and supposedly admins at ISPs can have
some degree of control over their ports (knocking down a hosed user,
set timers for inactivity).


SBC wants to keep their "intelligent" switches that do this routing at
about 75% capacity to leave room for "quick growth needs" as they arise.
And since (by SBC's projections) the cost would save ISPs 20% over the old
ISP-owned modem pool solution, it is expected to be an easy sell,
especially for ISPs just starting up and not wanting to fork out the
expense for buying and maintaining a modem pool.


What SHOULD the target area be? California. By some estimates, 40% of the
U.S.'s Internet activity starts or involves California. California
residents have been complaining about access problems, several second
delays before getting a dial tone after lifting the receiver, and calls
not going through. THIS is the reason for the push for a "per minute" rate,
and I would hope that the FCC would have enough sense to not honor CC Docket
No 96-263 with anything except a statement that says "you have your own
solution already, implement it".


Now let's hope that CC Docket No 96-263 can be put behind us, since the
dozens of players behind this odd request already have a solution developed,
tested, and being implemented.




Simple Nomad <thegnome@fastlane.net>
February 22, 1997
Nomad Mobile Research Centre




--
Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet Pedantry: It's not just a job, it's an adventure.
Tampa Bay, Florida +1 813 790 7592




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From mstrwks@inlink.com Tue Feb 25 10:03:58 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: mstrwks@inlink.com (Tami L Johnson)
Subject: Access charges for Internet




Being a user of the internet primarily for business reasons, I would be
totally opposed to per minute usage charges to internet users. For years,
telemarketing companies have had people on phone lines 12-18 hrs per day,
at no extra charge (unless long distance). I use my internet access no more
than 2 hrs. per day (that's on the high side, it's probably much less), so
I think it's ludicrous to penalize me for doing what other businesses have
been doing in excess for years.


Tami Johnson
MASTERWORKS
Advertising & Promotion
83 Champagne Dr.
Lake St. Louis, MO 63367-1604
314/561-6630


Tami L. Johnson
Lake St. Louis, MO
E-mail: mstrwks@inlink.com




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From ko3@ix.netcom.com Tue Feb 25 10:05:59 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: per minute charge


I wanted to voice my opinion about the per minute charge proposed by the
phone companies.


If this is allowed, it would virtually destroy the internet. It is my
opinion that if this was allowed, it would be considered illegal. We
americans generally do not pay a per minute charge for a local telephone
call. By allowing the phone company to charge a per minute charge on
internet access it would be considered discrimination against the people
who do use the internet on a regular basis.


Most dedicated internet users have a seperate line in there house which
they access the internet on. Is'nt it enough that the phone company charges
$30.00 per month for a basic line which only makes local calls.


Please do not consider this action as it will definately cause many people,
kids included much heartache.


Cordially,
Dennis M. Chesney




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From lhicks@eonet.com Tue Feb 25 10:08:59 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: See below


http://www.kuntrynet.com/phone.html


From CapHill1@aol.com Tue Feb 25 10:10:29 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Internet Access Fees
Content-Length: 737


I am responding to the recent request by one or more ISP's to impose per
minute charges for internet access. I object strenously to this move for the
following reasons:

1) Does an internet user tie up lines any more than a bored housewife who
talks three hours non-stop to her old school chum?

2) The internet is the essence of democracy. It is overturning many ideas of
how the governed and the government relate.

3) From analyses of financial information generally available to the public,
it does not seem that the phone utilities are broke.

4) Lastly, the internet is now part of our national infrastructure and should
be maintained like our roads, railroads, etc. (Well, maybe a bit better.)

Thanks for listening to this diatribe.






From nmhma@thuntek.net Thu Mar 6 10:17:29 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: US West Charges per minute for Internet

It is our understanding (New Mexico Hotel & Motel Association and Santa Fe
Lodgers' Association) that many of the LECs like US West are requesting
authorization to charge Internet Access Providers per minute for use of
local phone lines. From our perspective...the consumer...it is totally
inappropriate for them to make such a request in light of their already
receiving what can only be deemed a "fair price" for their services. Let's
face it...a local call is a local call and for such companies to want to
recover more than the fair cost is inappropriate!


I recognize that the time for comment has expired...however...our 400-member
organization which consists of hotels, motels, B&B inns, resorts and
campgrounds ask that you take note of our concerns.

Arthur H. Bouffard
Executive Vice President




-------------------------------------------------------



From rexman@sprynet.com Thu Mar 6 10:39:51 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Concerns about usage charges

Dear FCC,


I am concerned about the telephone companies charging for per/minute
usage for Internet ISPs. I think that this will cost the consumer too
much money and the proposed rate of $.01 per minute is very high. Please
consider rejecting GTE and other companies attempts and doing this. If
you do let it pass, please lower the rate to something reasonable like
$.01 per 30 minutes. This would give them some revenue, but would not
discourage people from getting on the net.

Thanks,
Kevin Rexroad



----------------------------------------------------





From Pondfolk@aol.com Thu Mar 6 10:40:23 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: CC Docket No 96-263



I have heard that the phone company wishes to charge Internet users an extra
fee. I am an Internet user, who recently put in a separate phone line to my
home for the computer and fax. If the phone company charges extra for use of
the Internet, I will disconnect my new line and decrease my use of the
Internet. It is already an expense to belong to America Online, and more
charges make it seem like something I can probably live without, except to
retrieve Email.

Please do not allow the phone company to penalize those of us who work at
home and use the phone lines far less than the large corporations whose phone
lines are constantly busy. Thank you.
Karen Taylor , 4577 Apple Way, Boulder C0




----------------------------------------------------------




From Mike_Walsh@intuit.com Thu Mar 6 10:41:55 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Phone Company Proposes Charging for Internet Access



What do you think that you are doing?
You are making enough money as it is.
I do not have another choice as to who my local coverage will be carried with.
What are you going to do to monitor this, listen in to my telephone line?


This is totally out of controol.


You should reconsider.



____________________________________________________________

Your local telephone company (Pacific Bell-CA) has filed a
proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for
internet service. They contend that the usage has or will
hinder the operations of the telephone network.

The FCC has created an e:mail box for your comments;
responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send your
comments to: isp@fcc.gov

All telephone companies are in on this one and they are
trying to sneak it in just under the wire for legislation.
Please forward this e:mail to all your friends and
colleagues so all our voices may be heard!



--------------------------------------------------




From LADodgr@aol.com Thu Mar 6 11:03:08 1997
To: ISP@fcc.gov
Subject: Re: Phone company per-minute charge for INternet
Content-Length: 992




Dear People of the FCC:


I wish to express my strong opposition to a certain proposal by a consortium
of telephone-service access providers to begin charging the nation's Intenet
users according a new per-minute billing basis.


The Internet has become the backbone or nerve-center of the U.S.' burgeoning
"information superhighway," which millions of Americans feel will be the key
to our nation's ability to survive and compete in an increasingly competitive
international business environment.


The introduction and implementation of per-minute telephone charges
essentially will significantly increase the cost to individuals, families,
businesses, and institutions for Internet usage. As a result of these much
higher expenses, our society will realize a significant decrease in Internet
usage. In the long run, the U.S. will seriously erode and eventually lose
it's competitive advantage in the international market place.




Lutrell M. Christian


e-mail address: LADodgr@aol.com




--------------------------------------------------------------








From CARWILK@prodigy.net Mon Mar 3 02:24:28 1997


To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: PLEASE, DO NOT ALLOW PHONE COMPANIES TO CHARGE INTERNET USERS BY THE MINUTE!!!


I concur with this sentiment. Allowing phone companies to charge for
internet access is exactly counter to the freedom, efficiency and
vitality that has made the I-net such a necessary part of people's
lives. And it is further restricts access--including forcing otherwise
free computer access to charge a fee.
A horrible idea.




----------------------------------------------------




From blast@gramercy.ios.com Mon Mar 3 02:36:29 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: isp charges


I believe that the proposed tarif on internet providers will hurt the
growth of the internet and will not be in the interest of the American
Public. My "vote" is no.




Tom Olsen


----------------------------------------------------------


From filmguy@flash.net Mon Mar 3 02:48:59 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: filmguy@flash.net (john)
Subject: "CC Docket No 96-263" "My thoughts."


To all that may influence decisions pertaining to this matter:
I am confused as to why local telephone companies may be allowed to charge
for usage of telephone lines when they have a total monopoly of the market.
It appears that the telephone companies are just trying to squeeze out
profits on a technology that they had nothing to do with developing. If
they did not put forth the investment to create the Internet, they therefore
took none of the risk normally associated with "return on investment." This
is an obvious ploy to create a windfall profit at the consumers expense. If
this is allowed to happen, the continued erosion of faith in our government
agencies created to protect it's citizens against unscrupulous profiteers
will go unchecked. Please do not allow this to happen.


SgtMaj Michael W. Lundmark
Lundmark@flash.net
Full time husband, father, & U.S. Marine
Part time cowboy, bum, & bullshit artist




--------------------------------------------------------------


From filmguy@flash.net Mon Mar 3 03:00:00 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: filmguy@flash.net (john)
Subject: "CC Docket No 96-263" "My thoughts."
Content-Length: 877


To all that may influence decisions pertaining to this matter:
Please do not allow our local telephone to extort more money from their
customers. It appears that the telephone companies are just trying to
squeeze out profits on a technology that they had nothing to do with
developing. If they did not put forth the investment to create the
Internet, they therefore took none of the risk normally associated with
"return on investment." This is an obvious ploy to create a windfall
profit at the consumers expense. This will also hinder the free flow of
information, as many citizens will not be able to afford these charges. If
this is allowed to happen, the continued erosion of faith in our government
agencies created to protect it's citizens against unscrupulous profiteers
will go unchecked. Please do not allow this to happen.


John H. Williams
filmguy@flash.net




------------------------------------------------------




From Klawncare@aol.com Mon Mar 3 03:01:30 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: No per minute charges
Content-Length: 370


I would be very upset if you let my local phone company charge me per minute
for internet usage. I am going into the teaching profession and there is
much to be gained for me, other teachers, and students through internet
access. Per minute charges would seriously limit the amount of research that
could be done for educational purposes.


Thank You,


Michael Kaufman




------------------------------------------------------------




From ceil@ilhawaii.net Mon Mar 3 03:12:01 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: ceil@ilhawaii.net (Ceil Sinnex)
Subject: Opposed to phone company charges to Internet users


I am strongly opposed to any change in law that would allow or encourage
individual Internet users to be billed for telephone line use while using
the Internet. I also oppose any restructuring that would force Internet
service providers to pay such charges--which they would then assuredly pass
along to the consumer in the form of higher montly charges.


Any and all attempts to interfere with the international communications
network, the Internet, would have many deleterious repercussions for our
society.


Greed and improper profit motives are behind this move to take free
communication away from Americans, for the benefit of a corporate few. The
spirit of America has already been broken during these times of rapid
change and disenfranchisement of many. To force most citizens off the
Internet would send the death knell.


Keep the Internet accessible, or this decision will come back to haunt you!


Sincerely,


Ceil Sinnex
P.O. Box 383
Paauilo HI 96776


Ceil Sinnex
+ Ovarian Plus: Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Newsletter

http://www.monitor.net/ovarian/