DON.KIMBERLIN@p6.f889.n106.z1.fidonet.org (DON KIMBERLIN) (01/10/90)
..The rumored FCC surcharge issue (that was the topic of a 1987
docket) may not be COMPLETELY dead and gone. Read the following
from the MCIOne bbs, a closed system for professional
Telecommunications Consultants in Washington. NOTE PARTICULARLY
the 1989 docket number and the actions Telcos have been taking of
recent times. (Did your friendly local Telco tell you they were doing
this? Or were they waiting to inform you after they got it that it
was just "too bad, somebody in Washington at the FCC requires they
charge you $6.00 an hour for your $1.00 an hour PC-Pursuit?")
January 2, 1990
ACCESS CHARGE FOR INFORMATION SERVICES PROVIDERS
There is no pending specific proposal by the FCC to
impose a charge on so-called enhanced service providers
(ESPs) for their access to the public network. An
earlier proceeding which was examining the imposition of
such an access charge was terminated in late 1987.
Recent references in the trade press to the possibility
of such a charge stems from statements made by members
of Congress and the FCC's chairman, Alfred Sikes,
opposing such a charge.
However, the issue has arisen recently because the
FCC, in its proceeding regarding modification of the
FCC's rules for implementation of Open Network
Architecture (CC Docket No. 89-79), raised the question
of whether such a charge should be imposed. In comments
filed in that proceeding, the telephone industry
generally favored instituting an access charge on ESPs,
while user groups opposed such a charge. The Commission
has not yet released a decision on the matter, but, as
noted, Chairman Sikes is against imposing the charge.
There currently is one vacancy on the 5-person FCC.
Although a letter to the Chairman is probably preaching
to the converted, he would doubtless appreciate
receiving evidence that knowledgeable members of the
public support his position. More importantly, the
remaining three commissioners should receive such
evidence. The volume each commissioner receives is
important as long as identical form letters are not sent
(these tend to be ignored).
It is most important to write SOMETHING reasonably
and honestly stated, in either typewritten or
handwritten form, objecting to the imposition of a
charge on enhanced service providers (which, of course,
would be passed on to users of such services).
Certainly a strong argument can be made that modem
calls require no special telephone company equipment,
users of modems pay the local telephone company for use
of the network in the form of a monthly bill, and, thus,
a modem call is the same as a voice call and should not
be subject to any additional charge.
Also, any local telephone company advocating its
entitlement to levy an access charge on an ESP should
have the burden of proving that such a charge is
cost-justified. Since the accurate quantification of
such local telephone company costs is subject to much
debate, and since many companies have never calculated
their costs, it would be particularly unfair and
unreasonable to grant permission to impose an additional
charge based on speculation and blind faith.
You can express your views in writing to the FCC
commissioners individually, each to the same address.
Remember to put the docket name and number--Re: Open
Network Architecture, CC Docket No. 89-79--between the
address and salutation of the letter, or make reference
to it in your letter.
Honorable Alfred C. Sikes, Chairman
Honorable James H. Quello
Honorable Sherrie P. Marshall
Honorable Andrew C. Barrett
Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
You might also send a copy of one of your letters,
or one specifically directed to Congress, to the
following addresses:
Chairman, Senate Communications Subcommittee
SH-227 Hart Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Chairman, House Telecommunications Subcommittee
B-331 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
. EZ 1.24 . Safety Harbor Institute of Technology
PCRelay:PETEXCH -> RelayNet(tm)
4.10.9 St Pete Programmers Exchg *HST* 813 527-5666