LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET (PACS Forum) (01/15/90)
From->"Peter S. Graham" <GRAHAM@PISCES.BITNET>
Subject: RE: FCC MODEM SURCHARGE PROPOSAL
I think there's some open questions here: in particular, it seems to me
that modem users quite likely do more intensively use the telephone system
than a voice user. We tend to stay on longer and (I wonder) with our tones
on the line you can't multiplex conversations the way you can with human
voices, i.e. using the spaces between spoken words.
It may be true that this is an underhanded and unjustifiable proposal, but
there may be a case on the other side too; if we act as though there simply
isn't, we may not be creditable in opposition.
It's probable that this debate should be on some other listserv, so we
probably shouldn't all gang up on this one here. If someone will point to
the proper listserv we can all go there. But I didn't start this.
Peter Graham / Rutgers University
-----
From-> Jeff Huestis <C81350JH@WUVMD>
Subject-> Re: FCC MODEM SURCHARGE PROPOSAL
-----
I saw the original content of the following message originally on CUMREC-L.
It was followed by a cautionary note that the validity of the information
should be checked before people started passing a chain letter around the
network. That in turn was followed by a note from James Bradshaw at Clemson
who said that they had checked it out and that no such process was underway
at FCC. Oh, incidentally, the second note listed some valid reasons why
modem users *should* pay more. The first prerequisite for a public access
computer system is that it be managed sufficiently responsibly that it's
existence isn't threatened.
--Jeff Huestis
Washington University Libraries
ps. I assume that the notes mentioned above can be pulled down from the
CUMREC-L archives by anyone interested.
-----
From->"George Rickerson" <C6340A@UMVMA>
Subject: FCC MODEM SURCHARGE PROPOSAL
Several persons I know received this warning about the "proposed" FCC
regulation. Upon contacting the FCC for the number of the regulation, they
discovered that no such proposed regulation was being considered.
I wish we could all agree to check out rumors we receive before posting them.
These things are sort of like verbal "viruses" - they spread quickly, result in
the expenditure of unnecessary time and effort, and damage the credibility of
such resources as PACS-L.