W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.arpa (06/12/87)
Here we go again!! From the Wall Street Journal, June 11, 1987... PHONE-ACCESS FEE IS PROPOSED FOR COMPUTERS: FCC WOULD MAKE FIRMS PAY TO LINK NETWORKS TO LOCAL PHONE LOOPS By Bob Davis, Staff Reporter of the WSJ WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission proposed a fee that would steeply increase telecommunications charges for many business and residential computer users. Under the FCC proposal, companies such as US Sprint Communications Co.'s Telenet subsidiary and McDonnell Douglas Corp.'s Tymnet unit would be charged as much as $5 per hour per user to hook up their communication networks to local telephone loops. Currently, computer networks are exempt from these so- called access charges. The charges would almost certainly be passed on to consumers and business customers. US Sprint is a joint venture of GTE Corp. of Stamford, Conn. and United Telecommunications Inc., Kansas City, Mo. Price increases would be a big blow for millions of personal- computer hobbyists who depend on computer networks to communicate cheaply with one another and to call up such information services as H&R Block Inc.'s Compuserve Inc. Currently, most customers pay only a few dollars an hour in telephone costs. The proposal also would be a major setback for Telenet and Tymnet, which have attracted consumers and business customers with discount computer telecommunications rates. These companies rent private telephone lines, which previously haven't been subject to access charges, and spread the costs among thousands of computer users. Rate increases "will dry up the marketplace for new and innovative computer services" said Joseph Markowski, counsel for Adapso, a trade association of computer service companies. "Prices will go through the roof." He added that the proposal would improperly discriminate between computer-network companies and other companies that maintain their own data networks. The latter companies apparently wouldn't be charged access fees under the FCC proposal. Clark Woodford, a Compuserve executive vice president, said any access charges "will cause us to reassess our pricing structure." The FCC voted 4-0 to seek comment on a plan to end the access- charge exemption by Jan 1, 1988. The commissioners said the exemption amounted to a subsidy for the computer-network companies that was being paid by business and residential telephone users. "We don't want the (telecommunications) network to evolve in response to various subsidies and anomalities [sic]," said FCC Chairman Dennis Patrick. Agency staffers and others said the Jan 1 date wasn't firm. Page Montgomery, vice president of Economics and Technology, Inc. a Boston telecommunications company, urged the agency to delay the decision for perhaps a year until the local phone companies change their networks to give competitors equal connections. Otherwise, the regional Bell companies, which are trying to enter the computerized-communications field, would have a big advantage. That's because the computer-service companies would be burdened with price increases and also wouldn't be able to offer hook-ups to the local telephone network that are as good as those offered by the phone companies. "It would be a serious policy mistake" to end the exemption Jan. 1, 1988, Mr. Montgomery said. The FCC said that access charges should decline over the next few years, by about a dollar per hour, as the agency increases residential charges for connecting to the telephone network. Much of the revenue from these assessments is used to reduce the access charges paid by telecommunications companies. The FCC proposal came as a surprise. In March, the agency decided that computer-network companies should remain deregulated, which industry observers interpreted to mean that rates wouldn't increase. But now the FCC said that only purely private networks, operated by some big companies for their internal communications, would remain free of access charges.
SNELSON@STL-HOST1.arpa (06/12/87)
In Missouri Southwestern Bell has had a 175% of the cost of a flat rate business line surcharge in effect for 10 years for dial up lines terminating in a computer. We (the Army) challenged this in 1977 through the legal troops. What had really frosted us was that we had 24 dial-up lines terminating in 3 muxes riding an AT&T 209A modem and link to the Wright-Patterson TIP. We paid! It seems the very simple way the tariff was written made anything in Missouri that is directly connected/attached to a computer port gets charged. We have 52 dial in modems and the cost per month isn't cheap. What isn't clear is whether both ends of connection are billed $5 per hour per session or $5 an hour per line regardless of use? How will they differentiate between data and voice as a lot of companies use them alternatively for voice during the day and for data during the low rate periods at night. Take a major programming change for the ESSs to track incoming calls not to mention the billing programs. Some of the older switches are pretty dumb and couldn't even do that. I wonder if the pork barrellers (congress) has EMAIL? Regards Steve
W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.arpa (Keith Petersen) (06/14/87)
One way to fight the FCC proposal is to contact your congressman.
Congress has frequently overridden the FCC on unpopular rulings by
changing the law. Also, when you call or write your congressman,
he/she will contact the FCC to ask what's going on. When the FCC gets
a lot of calls from congressman they get nervous (and rightly so
because their budget can be cut).
--Keith Petersen
Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA
Uucp: {bellcore,decwrl,harvard,lll-crg,ucbvax,uw-beaver}!simtel20.arpa!w8sdz
GEnie: W8SDZ
RCP/M Royal Oak: 313-759-6569 - 300, 1200, 2400 (V.22bis) or 9600 (USR HST)kent@MCNC.ORG (06/23/87)
In article <446@cup.portal.com> Phil_CW_Sih@cup.portal.com writes: >This proposal threatens to ruin the entire online industry overnight. >Does anyone have any suggestions on how to fight something like this? > >Phil Sih >408/973-9111 I saved two long, but very competent seeming postings, one from comp.sys.mac, the other from comp.sys.amiga. Since this seems likely to be or become a crisis for the community of people who use computer networks regularly, (I figure my own usage cost would go from the current $25 I pay for "unlimited use" private phone service to my local Baby Bell, to about $1525, per month, for my 10 hours per day online. OK, I admit it, I'm hooked. ;-), I hope you will forgive the repeat posting. I do think this satisfies the above query. Please feel free to spread the word to other services. My thanks to the excellent efforts by the authors of these two articles. Kent. -- Kent Paul Dolan, LCDR, NOAA, Retired; ODU MSCS grad student // Yet UUCP : kent@xanth.UUCP or ...{sun,harvard}!xanth!kent // Another CSNET : kent@odu.csnet ARPA : kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu \\ // Happy USPost: P.O. Box 1559, Norfolk, Virginia 23501-1559 \// Amigan! Voice : (804) 587-7760 -=][> Last one to Ceres is a rotten egg! -=][> *************************** the first posting ************************** >From: bruceb@telesoft.UUCP (Bruce Bergman @spot) Subject: HOW TO RESPOND TO THE FCC REGARDING THEIR PROPOSAL Date: 19 Jun 87 21:44:35 GMT Old-Subject: Re: ATTENTION ALL MICRO USERS!!! FCC INFORMATION TAX AHEAD!! John D. Hays asked for someone to post a sample letter for addressing comments to the FCC regarding their future proposal to surcharge Enhanced Service Providers (such as Tymnet, Telnet, etc.). First of all, THE FCC HAS NOT RELEASED THE DOCKET! Sending in comments before the docket is released would be bad manners. The FCC said that the docket should be released in a couple of weeks. To save hassle, I'll send out a message when the docket is available for public consumption, as well as a lead to where you might obtain said document. Keep an eye out in these newsgroups. The FCC General Docket number is 87-215. The TITLE is "Amendment of Part 69 of the Commission's rules relating to Enhanced Service Providers." An example of how to reply to FCC docket 87-215. Below you will find such a beast. This sample is taken from a recent posting I made to rec.ham-radio to oppose a proposal the FCC was making to remove certain Amateur Radio frequencies. It is a tried and true format that the FCC will consider valid, AS LONG AS YOU FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES LISTED. Take this opportunity to respond to the FCC. They love to let things slide, and to save something, all it takes is a LOT of people writing letters like what is provided below. We've done it before for ham radio -- it can be done here. If you have questions or concerns, PLEASE email me. I'll gladly answer any questions about writing the FCC that I can. Just ask. (The example below mentions a list of possible reasons why you might want to oppose this proposal. Since the docket hasn't been released, I'm not going to include any reasons yet. As soon as I get a copy of the docket, I'll post reasons and references. Stay tuned.) bruce bergman (my net address is at the bottom of this message) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------- HOW TO REPLY TO FCC DOCKETS --------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The following is a do-it-yourself-kit for responding to FCC docket 87-215 regarding amendment of Part 69 relating to Enhanced Service Providers. Before I get started with the actual "form letter," let me take this opportunity to make a few comments regarding responding to the FCC. EVEN IF YOU DON'T BOTHER WITH THE SAMPLE LETTER STUFF, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS USEFUL AND IMPORTANT TO THE SUCCESS OF YOUR RESPONSE. 1) If you really want to make an impression on the Commissioners, SEND MORE THAN ONE COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE. Send FIVE copies. If you want to make an even better impression, send ELEVEN copies. Five copies makes sure that your vote counts, as well as provides a copy for each of the general groups. Eleven copies will get your document in the 'IN' basket of each Commissioner. If this isn't possible, even ONE letter counts as a vote. Don't send more than 11. Just 11 will do. 2) DON'T SEND FORM LETTERS! While I referred to this message as a "form letter," it really isn't. Form letters are usually not worth the effort you put into them. Why, you ask? Well, while each form letter you send gets counted as a vote, it can be rejected later. If it turns out that we win this round, it is entirely probable that OUR OPPONENTS WILL ASK TO GO THROUGH EACH AND EVERY RESPONSE. If they can show that 100 responses are identical (or closely similar) with the exception of the signature, THEY CAN BE REDUCED TO ONLY ONE VOTE! Make sure your letter is sufficiently different enough not to get caught by this. 3) LIMIT YOUR MAIN ARGUMENTS TO ONE PAGE. If you want to go into more detail, augment your document with additional pages expanding on your original comments, keying to those original points. Number your points. 4) Give REASONABLE REASONS why you oppose this docket. You can't just say that you oppose the rule-making without a sound, reasonable response. REMEMBER THAT THE OPPOSITION WILL READ EACH AND EVERY RESPONSE YOU SEND, if it can benefit them. We don't have that type of financial backing; they *DO*. Use some of the samples below if you're stuck for ideas. 5) MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU DO. How important you are actually makes a difference. If you have a certain expertise, or if you have a degree of some sort, TELL THEM THAT. It counts a lot for what the commissioners think if they know you are someone who knows what you are talking about. If you run a service, are an administrator, offer services to the public, etc., briefly describe what you do and why. 6) DOUBLE SPACE YOUR DOCUMENT. This can make the difference between your response being read or just counted! If your response is CLEAR, DOUBLE SPACED, and CONCISE, it will be read and given a better subjective value. 7) GET YOUR NEIGHBORS INTO THE ACT. If your friends and/or neighbors are familiar with your activities and support you and your activities, ask them to write a letter to the FCC expressing their concern over how this docket might affect your community. If you can get local officials to do the same, great! Letterhead and many copies make the BEST response. 8) MAKE SURE THE DATE IS ON THE DOCUMENT. It is important that the reader be made aware that this isn't an old response. Put the date on your document. And, of course, DON'T EVER FORGET TO PUT THE DOCKET NUMBER AT THE TOP!! 9) Lastly, remember that this is going to be a very important point in future rule-making efforts. Any time the FCC wins a battle, whether by apathy or some other means, it is a big step for them in the future. If the FCC decides in favor of this docket, it's likely that you will see more of the same type later on. Private agencies will see how easily it went over and base future requests on that information. If we win, it will make it tough for anyone to raise the issue again. If a specific proposal fails to make it through a certain number of times (because of the public's efforts), the commissioners tend to NOT reconsider it again during their term... Even if you don't bother with this proposal, you have a vested interest in what happens to it. Eventually, THIS *WILL* AFFECT YOU! Okay, enough preaching. On to the "form letter." Basically, you will want to create a letter which has the name of the FCC at the top, AS WELL AS A CLEAR POINTER TO THE DOCKET NUMBER. If the people at the FCC have to search for a docket reference, they'll "loose" your response. Here's an example first page header: +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Before the | | FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION | | Washington DC 20554 | | | | | | In the Matter of \ | | \ | | Amendment of Part 69 of the > GENERAL DOCKET 87 - 215 | | Commission's Rules relating to / | | Enhanced Service Providers / | | | | TO: The Commission | | | | COMMENTS OF <your full name>, <any professional titles> | | | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ After you have created the header, you can begin your text, DOUBLE-SPACED. Begin by expressing who you are and any specific titles, duties, or any responsibilities that might qualify you as someone who has a vested interest in what's going before their consideration. Even only as a user of this network is suitable. Now is NOT the time to be humble, however. Just tactfully explain what makes you significant to this proposal. YOU'RE OUT TO MAKE AN IMPRESSION. DO SO! (Don't be verbose, however.) Then, begin listing the reasons (numbered) WHY you oppose this proposal. The more reasonable the reason, the better. BE CONCISE and clear. If you need to go into detail, refer the reader to attached pages. Here's an example: +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | I am a user of an Enhanced Service Provider. I frequently make use | | | | of such services to obtain information from computer information | | | | services that would otherwise be unavailable to me. The information | | | | I obtain allows me to <something...>. | | | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ After you've explained who you are, and have shown why you have an interest in this docket, continue with... +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | I strongly oppose the Commission's proposal to surcharge Enhanced | | | | Service Providers for the following reasons: | | | | 1. <reason one> | | | | 2. <reason two> | | | | 3. <whatever comments you feel appropriate to your situation> | | | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Remember, you don't need to be verbose to get your point across. You want to make sure the reader understands why you feel the way you do. If you need additional material in order to accomplish this, feel free to include additional pages, however if you are only interested in making your feelings known and don't want to get really in-depth, the simple statements like the ones pictured above are sufficient to make your point. Where you can refer to the text of the original document, DO SO! This is great for those who like to know exactly what you are referring to. It also shows that you have done your homework and are not just spouting off. The best mode of attack in instances like this is to first explain WHY you are against the proposal. Once you have made it clear that there are good reasons why this wouldn't be a good thing, SUGGEST ALTERNATE IDEAS. It can go a long way for your arguments if you can suggest a viable alternative. There are lots of reasons you can supply. I've listed about 10 that come to mind at the bottom of this message. Please use them if you like, however any that are pertinent to your local situation are going to be the better responses. Finally, follow up your reasons with a nice suffix like: +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Respectfully submitted, | | <sign in BLACK INK> | | <your spelled-out name and title> | | | | | | <your street address> | | <your city, state, and zipcode> | | <THE DATE> | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Black ink is important when you sign your response. Also, make sure that you send the original. Copies for yourself, original to the people you are writing to. Please make sure you sign it and date it. If you have included additional pages, it would be wise to include a trailer at the bottom of each page, designating what page out of the total number of pages this is. Example: +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Responses to General Docket 87-215 Page 1 of 3 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Finally, place a return address on your envelope, place the correct postage on it, and mail it SOON! If you can spend the extra cash, don't fold your responses; mail them in a larger manila envelope and keep them flat. This is especially useful if you are sending multiple copies. Chances are that it will get there in one piece, and will look great sitting on the desk of some Commissioner (flat). The key to remember is that you are out to make a feasible point about the docket. You don't want to sound like you don't know what you are talking about, so be sure of your facts. You can best do this by being concise, clear, correct, and impressive. The impressive part comes to bear when you consider arrangement and looks of your document as well as your status in the topic under consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me! This document was prepared by Bruce Bergman, N7HAW, Northern San Diego County EC. To the best of my knowledge, all the information contained herein is correct. Comments, corrections, etc. are welcome and encouraged. ***** Appendix A ***** ***** Possible Responses to Docket 87-215 ***** [To Be Provided] [End of Document] -- bang!- allegra!\ \ (619) 457-2700 x123 gould9! \ crash!--\ ihnp4! \ \ >--sdcsvax!---->--telesoft!bruceb (Bruce Bergman N7HAW) noscvax! / / scgvaxd! / log-hb!--/ TeleSoft, Inc. ucbvax! / / 5959 Cornerstone Court talaris!- San Diego, CA. 92121-9891 All opinions are mine. [ packet: n7haw @ n6atq-1, fido: 103!203 ] ***************************** the second posting **************************** >From: mayerk@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Kenneth Mayer) Subject: Re: ATTENTION ALL MICRO USERS!!! FCC INFORMATION TAX AHEAD!! Summary: Rumor control Date: 17 Jun 87 21:03:07 GMT 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?"