ralphw@IUS2.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralph Hyre) (06/16/87)
[followups directed to comp.dcom.telecom, where they belong] In article <802@aramis.rutgers.edu> lear@aramis.rutgers.edu (eliot lear) writes: >From what I understand the original article is not quite right. The >term ``tax'' is not appropriate. The FCC will now allow local >companies to charge long distance carriers such as MCI and AT&T for >connections. The idea is that the local carriers provide a service >that the long distance carriers are not currently paying for. I believe that this is an ill-considered expansion of the 'bypass' argument for access charges. I accept as a given that CompuServe, Source, and PC Pursuit users are bypassing the possibility of using long-distance voice connections to connect to their service. I see no problem with this. In the data world, GTE Telnet and Tymnet ARE the long distance carriers, just at AT&T and MCI are long distance voice carriers. I see NO reason to regulate anything, unless the FCC plans to charge anyone who provides their own bypass facilities as an alternative to using the existing long-distance voice networks to carry ANY kind of information. I don't want to use a long distance voice channel for data, but if this passes then it might be cheaper to do so. I'd much rather make a relatively noise-free local call and connect to the local, inexpensive packet switch than be 'encouraged' to call cross-country to the service I'm trying to contact. This new access charge is only about data services though, it's as if the FCC wanted to give the local phone companies a monopoly on data services as well as POTS (voice). Not a good idea. The FCC has been doing some paradoxical things lately, like giving Novices amateur radio operators voice priviledges on 220-225 Mhz, the proposing to reallocate 220-222 Mhz for land mobile communication. They claim to be for deregulation but propose anti-competitive programs like these access charges for interstate data services. >It will be possible for big business entities to get around such a surcharge >by connecting to long distance carriers via microwave, thus bypassing >local services. Such a method might become cost effective at this >point. It is also my understanding that the FCC has no authority to >tax anyone. That is the congress' responsibility. In general access charges are meant to reduce bypass by subsidizing business users. Residential users get screwed. 'Access' charges' are now 40% of my basic local phone bill. >By the way, such a surcharge would make a service like Stargate much >more attractive as Stargate bypasses MaBelle (at least in one >direction). Perhaps the FCC wants to encourage bypass in the case of data services, to further encourage innovative ways to bypass the Bell monoply. Perhaps they want to put extra cash in the local operating companie's coffers so they can get enough capital to provide (expensive, to be sure) data services into subscriber premises directly. Alternative services like satellites and packet radio are interesting alternatives. Does anyone know the REAL purpose of access charges for data services? - Ralph Hyre