🚀 go-pugleaf

[Followup-to: set to alt.internet.services, ',,' trimmed from Newsgroups:]
[a.i.s,news.newusers.questions,alt.folklore.urban pre-pended]

In <32F94FC3.2362@airmail.net> deborahm@airmail.net wrote:
>Angie wrote:
>> <snip>
>> 
>> > >Most telephone companies have filed a
>> > >proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet
>> > >service. 
>
>This information is partially right.  Some RBOC's have asked the FCC to 
>lift the so-called "ESP waiver" which keeps them from charging some kinds 
>of access fees to Internet Service Providers and on-line services. Not 
>all RBOC's have joined in the filing on this -- and remember that the 
>subsidiaries most of them are starting like BellSouth Internet Services, 
>will have to pay the fees, too, if they are lifted.
>
>This waiver was put into effect in the early 80's when companies like 
>CompuServe were start-ups, and the FCC wanted to encourage this new 
>communication vehicle.
>
>But the charges are per incoming modem line, per month -- not per 
>consumer, per minute.  The charges would affect SOME ISP's, not to 
>consumers.  Not even all ISP's will be affected.  Some ISP's, for 
>instance, are going to big software-based switching, not modems, to 
>handle their incoming lines.  So services like that would not be affected 
>at all by the change.  I believe, but don't know for sure, that most of 
>the big ISPs locally would be unaffected by the change because they're 
>already using the new technology that wouldn't be covered anyway.
>
>By all means, give your opinions to the FCC, but let's be careful about 
>asking bureaucrats for regulations unless we're very specific about what 
>we want! 

The original msg. sounds like a 1990s version of the "modem tax" rumor -
lots of excitement, not much information, and "pass it on."  But, it is
clear that local calling patterns have changed and at least one RBOC
wants to recover traffic costs (or "cash in on", depending on your POV).

Some resources for more detailed information on this topic that people
might want to read before inundating the FCC with e-mail include:

<HTML>
<a href="http://www.fcc.gov/bandwidth/">
        FCC Bandwidth Home Page</a><br>
<a href="http://www.fcc.gov/bandwidth/bauman.html">
        Pacific Bell on Bandwidth and ESP exemptions</a><br>
<a href="http://www.fcc.gov/bandwidth/vtwsurv.html">
        1997 Small ISP Survey - Voters Telecommunications Watch</a><br>
<a href="http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/970123.txt">
        FCC BANDWIDTH FORUM transcript - appx. 330 Kbytes</a><br>
</HTML>

>David D. Dorman, Chairman, President and CEO of Pacific Bell (soon to be 
>a subsidiary of Southwestern Bell) is the leading proponent of this 
>change.  And why not?  Up to 50% of all the traffic on the Internet 
>tonight comes from within a 50-mile radius of his office in San 
>Francisco.  If there is any part of the world where the impact of 
>unlimited, low-cost dial-up Internet access has been felt, it's in 
>Northern California.
>
>Dorman's comments from the recent Upside Technology Summit, along with a 
>good tutorial on the issue, is in the on-line edition of Upside Magazine 
>this week.  (www.upside.com)

Please post a URL if there is something substantive at upside.com - 
I didn't find anything informative there.

-- 
Denis McKeon 
dmckeon@swcp.com