🚀 go-pugleaf

I hate it when I have to apologize to the world twice, for the same
  infraction, but...

James Barry wrote:
> 
> I would just like to know what We can do about it.  Is this something
> that could be voted on by US Citizens, or is this one of those lofty
> issues that involve our pocketbooks that some higher power has decided
> we ought not concern ourselves with - and if that's the case, who do
> we send our verbal or written protests to?  Is this something our
> Senators would have any influence over?  What really aggravates me is
> when some high, untouchable, unimpeachable professional bureaucrat who
> is a willing target of professional lobbyists and all the corruption
> that goes on gets to spend money right out of our pockets in this way
> and we just sit here and talk.  So, if anyone has a clue to whose
> (singular or plural) attention we can bring this to (Email address
> would of course be preferred), I for one would prefer to vent my
> displeasure to those who can do something about it.
> 
> krw@ibm.net wrote:
> 
> >In <5dt8ul$q2b@imagine.convex.com>, jerryw@convex.com (Jerry Whelan) writes:
> >>In article <5dsorm$7l$1@news.iastate.edu>,
> >>Kurt Glaesemann <kurtg@iastate.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>-} It's about time that people start paying for what they are using.  Using
> >>-} modems to connect to the internet costs the phone companies huge amounts of
> >>-} money because it's resulted in a huge surge in phone usage.
> >>
> >>Not all phone companies are experiencing these kinds of problems.  I
> >>believe BellSouth is one of the larger baby bells that is not complaining
> >>about congestion due to modem usage.  The reason?  Good planning.  If
> >>the reports about BellSouth are true, the problem here is not Internet
> >>users being subsidized by other kinds of phone users, it is baby bells
> >>who are guilty of poor management.
> >
> >  Duh.  How are they going to go to the PSB and demand higher rates?  I
> >  think this is very poor planning!
> >>
> >>The local telephone companies that didn't have enough management foresight
> >>to anticipate the change in usage patterns and plan appropriately are
> >>the ones complaining that they need more money.  Many Internet users
> >>have purchased second phone lines for their modem usage, typically
> >>costing $60-70 to install and then another $20+ per month, that right
> >>there is a substantial amount of money that the local telcos are receiving.
> >>In fact, many people pay more for their second lines than they do for
> >>Internet access itself.
> >
> >  Umm, let me see.  I pay about $28/month for my "basic" phone service.  I
> >  pay ~$20 for my internet access ans about another $25 for my local phone
> >  charges for my Internet time.  I think they are well compensated.
> >
> >  I would add a second line, but it is just too expensive!  I cannot see
> >  another $50/mo for a phone line.
> >>
> >>Furthermore, if the local telcos had not mishandled the deployment of
> >>ISDN by insisting on such outrageous pricing that most people couldn't
> >>afford to buy it, they would not be in this predicament right now
> >>either.
> >
> >  Please, tell it to someone in the real world.  ISDN just does not
> >  exist here.  As much as I hate our cable company, I'm rooting for
> >  them to figure out how to din Inet.  They are about as bad as NYNEX
> > so who knows.
> >
> >  <The rest snipped - all agreed - except the Telcos could care less
> >  about thechnology or performance.  They want to milk the investment.
> >  Bring on the competition!>
> >----
> >  Keith R. Williams
> >
> >

  In short, there is no such serious proposal in front of the FCC. 
We've
  been duped by another variation of the Godd-Times virus.  That is all.
  In fact I've read that the FCC is refusing to consider ISPs as even
  phone companies outside of their LATA.

  Settle down, until there is a battle anyway.
----
  Keith R. Williams
  krw@ibm.net