jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour) (04/02/91)
An associate of mine spotted this in news.sysadmin. I find it hard to believe, but with some of the nonsense coming out of FCC these days, it's probably true. | Article 240 of news.sysadmin: | Path: medar!uunet!isis!scicom!milo | From: milo@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Michele Lord) | Newsgroups: news.sysadmin | Subject: Modem Tax | Message-ID: <11236@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> | Date: 31 Mar 91 18:11:41 GMT | Distribution: usa | Organization: Alpha Institute | Lines: 85 | | Article: 5828 of info.paranet | Path: scicom!paranet!f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin | From: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) | Newsgroups: info.paranet | Subject: Fcc Modem Charge | Message-ID: <70488.27F3A4AF@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> | Date: 29 Mar 91 19:19:00 GMT | Sender: ufgate@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.26) | Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/4 | Lines: 69 | Status: R | | | * Forwarded from "Communications Echo" | * Originally from Philip Kirschner | * Originally dated 03-28-91 03:48 | | Next Again | Msg # 8 of 9Date: Fri 3-22-91, 4:37 pm | From: SYSOPRead: 37 times | | Subject: MODEM TAX | | A new regulation that the FCC is quietly working on will directly affect you as | the user of a computer and modem. The FCC proposes that users of modems should | pay extra charges for use of the public | telephone network which carry their data. In addition, computer | network services such as Compu Serv, Tymnet, & Telenet would also be charged as | much as $6.00 per hour per user for use of the public | telephone network. These charges would very likely be passed on to the | subscribers. The money is to be collected and given to the | telephone company in an effort to raise funds lost to deregulation. Jim Eason | of KGO newstalk radio (San Francisco, Ca) commented on the proposal during his | afternoon radio program during which, he said he learned of the new regulation | in an article in the New York Times. Jim took the time to gather the addresses | which are given below. | What you should do: First, take the time to download this message and the | letter which follows. Next find three or more other BBS systems which are not | carrying this message and upload this text. Finally, print three copies of the | letter which follows (or write your own) and send a signed copy to the three | addresses. It is important that you act now. The bureaucrats already have | it in there mind that modem users should subsidize the phone company and are | now listening to public comment. Please stand up and make it clear that we | will not stand for any government restriction on the free exchange of | information. | | | The three addresses to write to: (a letter to send follows) | Chairman of the FCC | 1919 M Street N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20554 | | Chairman, Senate Communication Subcommittee | SH-227 Hart Building | Washington, D.C. 20510 | | Chairman, House Telecommunication Subcommittee | B-331 Rayburn Building | Washington, D.C. 20515 | | Dear Sir, | Please allow me to express my displeasure with the FCC proposal which would | authorize a surcharge for the use of modems on the telephone network. This | regulation is nothing less than an attempt | torestrict the free exchange of information among the growing number of | computer users. Calls placed using modems require no special telephone company | equipment, and users of modems pay the phone company for use of the network in | the form of a monthly bill. In short, a modem call is the same as a voice call | and therefore should not be subject to any additional regulation. | | | Or words to that effect | | | | -- | Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 | UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name | INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f4.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG | | Forwarded by: | Michele Lord (milo@scicom.alphacdc.com) | Alpha Institute | -- Jim Seymour | Medar, Inc. ...!uunet!medar!jseymour | 38700 Grand River Ave. jseymour@medar.com | Farmington Hills, MI. 48331 CIS: 72730,1166 GEnie: jseymour | FAX: (313)477-8897
jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour) (04/03/91)
In article <102@hdwr1.medar.com> jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour) writes: >An associate of mine spotted this in news.sysadmin. I find it hard to >believe, but with some of the nonsense coming out of FCC these days, it's >probably true. > Note that I'm posting a follow-up to my own article. I have already received no less than three (3) pieces of mail regarding this. Before anyone else responds, please read the beginning *very* *carefully*. Note that I said "I find this hard to believe, but...". One response suggested I post a retraction. Hmmm, I don't know that it's false yet. On seeing this I took two actions: 1) I contacted the local FCC Field Office for verification as to whether or not it's true and, 2) I posted it to this newsgroup, assuming that if any group of folks knew anything about it, it would be here. Now, it seems (according to the mail received so far) that this may be a very old proposal that is long dead. It may be. I will certainly post follow-up information on FCC's response. I note that none of the responses I've received so far have disclaimed it on fact, but on the supposition that it's the same old regurgitated claim made several times in the past. I will admit that "probably true" was a poor choice of words, being as I had nothing more than another net posting to go on. I also note that the original information did not include an NPRM number, which places the authenticity of it in doubt. Something that I should have mentioned in the original article. Perhaps I have been the unwitting victim of an April Fools joke? -- Jim Seymour | Medar, Inc. ...!uunet!medar!jseymour | 38700 Grand River Ave. jseymour@medar.com | Farmington Hills, MI. 48331 CIS: 72730,1166 GEnie: jseymour | FAX: (313)477-8897
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (04/05/91)
In article <102@hdwr1.medar.com> jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour) writes: >An associate of mine spotted this in news.sysadmin. I find it hard to >believe, but with some of the nonsense coming out of FCC these days, it's >probably true. >| Article 240 of news.sysadmin: >| Path: medar!uunet!isis!scicom!milo This article is now over three years old. I don't know how many times I have seen it. I suspect this and the "send the postcards to Craig Shergold" are the most repeated most outdated articles appearing on any of the systems. THey appear to have a life of their own. Anyone care to add any other to the "most often repeated message list?". -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) (04/06/91)
In article <102@hdwr1.medar.com>, jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour) writes: > An associate of mine spotted this in news.sysadmin. I find it hard to > believe, but with some of the nonsense coming out of FCC these days, it's > probably true. No, it is not true. This is only an example of "nonsense coming out of (Fidonet) these days", not the FCC. Where this rumor probably started was some years ago the FCC had exempted data carriers from the line access charges that long distance carriers pay to local telcos. It was a temporary exemption, and when it expired, they were ready to charged Tyment and others just like long distance carriers. But Compuserve, Tyment and other data carriers got all of us modem users riled up, and now every local telephone user in the USA subsidizes data carriers, because the data carriers don't pay their fair share for access to the local telephone network. There was such a huge reaction to these companies being charged access fees like everyone else that the FCC dropped the idea, and is in no mood to bring it up again. At any rate, there was never any move to put a fee on modems. Jim Eason > | of KGO newstalk radio (San Francisco, Ca) commented on the proposal during his > | afternoon radio program during which, he said he learned of the new regulation > | in an article in the New York Times. Jim took the time to gather the addresses > | which are given below. When this rumor was going around a couple of years ago, I found out that Jim Eason had talked about this on his show several years before THAT. > | What you should do: First, take the time to download this message and the > | letter which follows. Next find three or more other BBS systems which are not > | carrying this message and upload this text. And this is how this mis-information keeps circulating for years...through a sort of chain letter effect. Every time it gets brought up and discredited again, eventually someone on a Fidonet BBS runs across an and downloads an old file....usually titled something like MODEMTAX.ZIP. And just like the rumor that the FCC is about to ban religous broadcasting, it keeps going round and round and round and.... Finally, print three copies of the > | letter which follows (or write your own) and send a signed copy to the three > | addresses. It is important that you act now. The bureaucrats already have > | it in there mind that modem users should subsidize the phone company and are > | now listening to public comment. Please stand up and make it clear that we > | will not stand for any government restriction on the free exchange of > | information. > | > | > | The three addresses to write to: (a letter to send follows) > | Chairman of the FCC > | 1919 M Street N.W. > | Washington, D.C. 20554 Don't bother sending any comment on proposed rulemaking to the FCC without an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) number. Otherwise the clerks don't have a clue as to what rulemaking process to file your comments with. This is like the old story going around among fundmentalists for the past 15 years that the FCC is about to ban religous broadcasting. The FCC gets more mail on this issue than all other (real) issues combined. But it all gets trashed because it comes in without an NPRM number. There is no NPRM number because there is no move to ban religous broadcasting. > | > | Chairman, House Telecommunication Subcommittee > | B-331 Rayburn Building > | Washington, D.C. 20515 I contacted an aide on this committee a couple of years ago. They get LOTS of letters on this, all just like the sample in the Fidonet file. Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7ENT.#WWA.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP