mayerk@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Kenneth Mayer) (06/18/87)
When last we saw our hero, keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) ... >In article <2288@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: >> A terrible piece of news I just read about in the New York Times >>this morning. The FCC just voted 4-0 to impose a $4.50 - $5.50 an HOUR >>tax on people who are using the phone system to transmit information >>across state lines. After seeing all of the various versions of this, I decided to contact the FCC myself and get the facts straight: In 1983, the FCC adopted an access charge plan where every secondary user of local telephone services would be charged a tariff based on the costs of the local exchange. Two groups were exempted from this tariff -- resellers (those who buy telephone service in bulk and resell it at reduced prices) and enhanced service providers (data retrieval, manipulation, and transmission). This year, the resellers were removed from exemption. In a couple of weeks, the FCC will announce a *notice*of*inquiry*. Not a tariff, but a request for comments on a proposed rule change. The proposal is to add enhanced service providers back into the access charge plan. Although the local rates will vary, the national average should be about $0.09/minute. If you would like a copy of the notice of inquiry and instructions on how to submit comments, contact International Transcription Services, (202)857-3800. There will probably be a summary in the Federal Register. If you would like to make a comment, you may also mail a letter directly to the FCC, but I am unsure whether they will be received or acknowledged. Send your letters to The Hon. Dennis Patrick, Chairman, FCC 1919 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20554 In your letter, state that this is in reference to docket number 87-215. Also, send a copy to your elected representatives. If you have further queries, you may contact the FCC at (202)632-4047. Tell them that you have a query about docket number 87-215. Kenneth Mayer mayerk@eniac.seas.upenn.edu Teacher: "Two plus two equals..." Student: "Four, but what's a two?"
michael@stb.UUCP (06/20/87)
In article <1361@super.upenn.edu.upenn.edu> mayerk@linc.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Kenneth Mayer) writes: >When last we saw our hero, keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) ... >>In article <2288@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: >>> A terrible piece of news I just read about in the New York Times >>>this morning. The FCC just voted 4-0 to impose a $4.50 - $5.50 an HOUR >>>tax on people who are using the phone system to transmit information >>>across state lines. > >After seeing all of the various versions of this, I decided to contact >the FCC myself and get the facts straight: > >In 1983, the FCC adopted an access charge plan where every secondary >user of local telephone services would be charged a tariff based on >the costs of the local exchange. Two groups were exempted from this >tariff -- resellers (those who buy telephone service in bulk and >resell it at reduced prices) and enhanced service providers (data >retrieval, manipulation, and transmission). This year, the resellers >were removed from exemption. Wait a sec...Doesn't this mean that ATnT, Sprint, MCI, etc, etc, should be paying the same fees??? I smell a big rat. Anyone care to comment? -- : Michael Gersten seismo!scgvaxd!stb!michael : Ground floor, comming up -- 1-3-7
mayerk@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Kenneth Mayer) (06/23/87)
When last we saw our hero, michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) ... >Wait a sec...Doesn't this mean that ATnT, Sprint, MCI, etc, etc, should >be paying the same fees??? [the Devil's advocate, a dashingly handsome gentlemen, saunters in] Yes, they should be, and they do. The resellers and enhanced service providers have been exempt since '81 when the access fees were put in place. They are the only ones that aren't paying the fees now. (And resellers were phased in last year, so only esp's are left.) The question is, if access fees threaten the survival of these esp companies, what other alternatives are there that will add them back into the "rolls" while still maintaining low fees. Maybe the access fees could be scaled against the load on the network -- sort of reduced rates during off peak hours. Most home users (most of us) don't dial in until after six o'clock anyway. If the corporate community thinks it can absorb the added costs, they won't bitch (UNLIKELY!), but my interests are of my home/one-man-office use. [tennis racket in hand, the D's A deftly sends the ball over the net into the far corner... ...to be continued] Kenneth Mayer mayerk@eniac.seas.upenn.edu Teacher: "Two plus two equals..." Student: "Four, but what's a two?"
osmigo@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ron Morgan) (06/23/87)
I can't help but wonder if baud rates should figure into this. It just seems
a little warped that some guy downloading a file at 1200 should pay 4 times
the tax of somebody obtaining the *exact* same information at 9600. The answer
depends on exactly what it is that's being taxed.
Ron Morgan
--
osmigo, UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas 78712
ARPA: osmigo@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU
UUCP: ihnp4!ut-ngp!osmigo allegra!ut-ngp!osmigo gatech!ut-ngp!osmigo
seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigobriand@tekig4.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) (06/24/87)
>I can't help but wonder if baud rates should figure into this. It just seems >a little warped that some guy downloading a file at 1200 should pay 4 times >the tax of somebody obtaining the *exact* same information at 9600. The answer >depends on exactly what it is that's being taxed. Access is access. If you choose to use your access in an inefficient manner, then that's your business, but tying up resources and/or buying a service is unaffected by content. If you make a long distance call, you're charged the same whether you actually talk or if you sleep. -- -Brian Diehm (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply) Tektronix, Inc. briand@tekig4.TEK.COM or {decvax,cae780,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekig4!briand
apc@cblpe.UUCP (07/08/87)
In <1599@stb.UUCP> michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes: >> >>In 1983, the FCC adopted an access charge plan where every secondary >>user of local telephone services would be charged a tariff based on >>the costs of the local exchange. Two groups were exempted from this >>tariff -- resellers (those who buy telephone service in bulk and >>resell it at reduced prices) and enhanced service providers (data >>retrieval, manipulation, and transmission). This year, the resellers >>were removed from exemption. > >Wait a sec...Doesn't this mean that ATnT, Sprint, MCI, etc, etc, should >be paying the same fees??? > >I smell a big rat. Anyone care to comment? >-- >: Michael Gersten seismo!scgvaxd!stb!michael >: Ground floor, comming up -- 1-3-7 Uhm, I don't know how to break this to you, but AT&T DOES pay these access charges. Just look at the annual reports: revenues: 3,000,000,000 (or so) acc chrg: 2,000,000,000 (or so) -=----=- net rev: 1,000,000,000 (or so) MCI, sprint, (ie - resellers of AT&T lines...) etc, etc also pay, but I think they still get a "discount" at many offices/exchanges. It's about time that other companies pick up their "fair share" of this stuff. -- This space intentionally left | Alan P. Curtis blank | AT&T,BTL,CB | +1 614 860 4749 -----------------------------------------------| apc@cblpe.ATT.COM Kudos to stargate for redistribution rights | !cbosgd!cblpe!apc