🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4krc8n$2i9@nntp.interaccess.com>, kammeyer@flowbee.interaccess.com (David Kammeyer) writes:
>jhines@mcs.net wrote:
>
>: This is not about freedom of speech, its about MONEY.  Currently internet
>: providers take advantage of a provision in the law, which exempts them from
>: paying the access fees which IXC (Long Distance) companies pay.
>
>Wrong.  They may not pay the same access fees that LD providers pay, but
>they do pay another "access fee", namely, their phone lines.  Essentally,
>their phone lines are the tranit from the phone network to the ISP's
>network.  Back in the early days before dial 1+ service, this is exactly
>what companies like MCI did.  There is nothing illegal about what ISPs
>are doing.  Furthermore, the suit alledges that the companies that make
>Internet Phone software are provding phone service.  This is ridiculous --
>that's like claiming that the company that provided your phone is your
>long distance carrier.

Whats wrong?  You describe exactly what I'm talking about, this case is 
the same thing as 1+ you describe.

I think they want to _loose_ this case, so they can say "Ok, now make them
pay the access fee also", as they must know the impracticality of what they
ask.

Just like the law changed to allow 1+, and MCI had to start paying access fee's
just like at&t did. This is the same kind of thing, the US gov is now involved,
and no matter what happens in this case, the 'net is not going to be the same.

                                                           -john