gt1246c@prism.gatech.EDU (Warren Furlow) (01/12/90)
The following message was taken from a local BBS:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 01-03-90 00:32
From: Matt Matthews
To: All
Subj: New! FCC Regulations on Modemizing (may cost you $$$)
Two years ago the FCC tried and (with your help and letters of protest)
failed to institute regulations that would impose additional costs on
modem users for data communications.
Now, they are at it again. 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 CompuServ, 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.
Here's what you should do (NOW!):
1- Pass this information on. Download this file which contains the
text you are reading now. Find other BBS's that are not carrying
this information. Upload the ASCII text into a public message on the
BBS, and also upload the file itself so others can easily get a copy
to pass along.
2- Print out three copies of the letter which follows (or write your
own) and send a signed copy to each of the following:
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
Here's the suggested text of the letter to send:
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 to
restrict 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.
Sincerely,
[your name, address and signature]
It is important that you act now. The bureaucrats already have it in
their heads 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.
Thanks for your help.
--- QuickBBS v2.04
* Origin: - StarNet-II 560 MB Hayes 9600 (404)393-4136 (8:7301/513)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) (01/12/90)
In article <4800@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1246c@prism.gatech.EDU (Warren Furlow) writes: > The following message was taken from a local BBS: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Date: 01-03-90 00:32 > From: Matt Matthews > To: All > Subj: New! FCC Regulations on Modemizing (may cost you $$$) > > Two years ago the FCC tried and (with your help and letters of protest) > failed to institute regulations that would impose additional costs on > modem users for data communications. > Now, they are at it again. 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 CompuServ, 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. AARGH! The chain-letter strikes again. It's a false alarm, folks. Folks, Jim Eason did speak of this issue on his show... TWO YEARS AGO, and not since! That's when the "enhanced service provider" surcharge was being considered. The FCC proposal was defeated, soundly, and has NOT been reintroduced. Someone apparently downloaded the MOBILIZE.ZIP file from a bulletin-board somewhere, read it, ignored the dates (or, perhaps, downloaded an undated article), assumed that the issue was current, and started uploading the file all over the place. It has been travelling around FidoNet and USENET for almost a month now. When this issue came up two years ago, the resulting letter-writing campaign got the message through to the FCC and to Congress. It was very effective, folks... it worked. The FCC has not reintroduced the proposal, they're on notice from Congress that it would not be acceptable to do so, and right now they are very puzzled and bemused as to why they are receiving blizzards of mail about a dead issue. Please, do NOT pass this article on, unless and until you have some solid information that the FCC has actually reintroduced the proposal... a docket number, House or Senate bill number, etc. -- Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 493-8805 UUCP: ...!{ames,apple,uunet}!coherent!dplatt DOMAIN: dplatt@coherent.com INTERNET: coherent!dplatt@ames.arpa, ...@uunet.uu.net USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc. 3350 West Bayshore #205 Palo Alto CA 94303
honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) (01/12/90)
In article <44474@improper.coherent.com> dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) writes: >In article <4800@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1246c@prism.gatech.EDU (Warren Furlow) writes: >>... >AARGH! The chain-letter strikes again. It's a false alarm, folks. >... slow moving parody of ... how does that go again?
marka@dsinet (Mark Anacker) (01/13/90)
In article <1990Jan12.052050.22300@terminator.cc.umich.edu>, honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) writes: > In article <44474@improper.coherent.com> dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) writes: > >In article <4800@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1246c@prism.gatech.EDU (Warren Furlow) writes: > >>... > >AARGH! The chain-letter strikes again. It's a false alarm, folks. > >... > > slow moving parody of ... how does that go again? I got it - a critically-ill FCC Commissioner wants to get in the Guiness record book for collecting the most letters from modem users... :) (maybe we could combine these two perennial plagues on the net...) -- Mark Anacker msa@dsinet -or- msa@toybox Digital Systems International, Inc. Redmond, WA USA (206) 881-7544
jjw7384@ultb.isc.rit.edu (Jeff Wasilko) (01/14/90)
In article <4800@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1246c@prism.gatech.EDU (Warren Furlow) writes: >The following message was taken from a local BBS: >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Date: 01-03-90 00:32 >From: Matt Matthews >To: All >Subj: New! FCC Regulations on Modemizing (may cost you $$$) >------------------------------------------------------------------------- More info on the real situation: Path: ultb!rit!rochester!udel!wuarchive!uwm.edu!lakesys!tim >From: tim@lakesys.lakesys.com (Timothy Winslow) Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio,alt.sex Subject: FCC Fakery! Message-ID: <1533@lakesys.lakesys.com> Date: 8 Jan 90 19:28:24 GMT Reply-To: tim@lakesys.lakesys.com (Timothy Winslow) Followup-To: rec.ham-radio Distribution: usa Organization: Lake Systems - Milwaukee, Wisconsin Lines: 33 Xref: ultb rec.ham-radio:12317 alt.sex:18195 RUMOR ON PROPOSED FCC RULE A rumor is making the BBS rounds that the FCC is considering a proposed rule to assess a surcharge on personal computer modem users accessing the nation's telephone network. THIS RUMOR IS FALSE! A telephone call to Ms Jerri Payton, Common Carrier Division, FCC, Telephone: (202) 632-7553, on 29 Dec 89, to find out what the proposed rule number was. Ms Payton stated no such rule is under consideration. A similar rule, which was turned down, was proposed over two years ago. No similar rules are pending or planned. Over 57 people wrote in to the FCC so far about this rumored rule. The vast majority failed to provide their return address so the FCC can't respond to them. The FCC plans to issue a press release on either Friday, 12/29/89, or Tuesday, 01/02/89, discounting the rumor. The press release will be provided to both the national and local media. Help put this rumor to rest. Please pass on this message to any other BBS sysop who unsuspectingly posted this rule proposal on their BBS. There's no sense getting the FCC upset at modem users by answering a bunch of unneeded letters generated by a rumor when we may need the FCC's help in the future on real regulatory issues. -- | RIT VAX/VMS Systems: | Jeff Wasilko | RIT Ultrix Systems: | |BITNET: jjw7384@ritvax+----------------------+INET:jjw7384@ultb.isc.rit.edu| |UUCP: {psuvax1, mcvax}!ritvax.bitnet!JJW7384 +___UUCP:jjw7384@ultb.UUCP____+ |INTERNET: jjw7384@isc.rit.edu |'claimer: No one cares. |
MARCELO@phoenix.princeton.edu (MARCELO) (01/17/90)
.. Ok people .. What is the deal .. I wish everyone would get the facts straight .. I do not who to beleive any more .. One system says this the other says that .. Asside from the fact that it is causing wonderful discussions on all BBS' around the country it's not doing any good to anyone .. I remember hearing something about it on the news several weeks ago to the tune of "Remember that rumor about the modems ..." and that's all I caught .. (wasn't my TV) .. So my proposition is everyone get together and find out what is actually going on .. .. Marcelo ..