I received the following from another US based BBS and I pass it on for
interest or action if desired.
I know nothing more so please do not respond to me. I reside in Australia
where we pay 25c for all local calls but they are untimed at present.
Certainly in Australia there are official concerns at the increasing load
being placed on the local telephone services because of the Internet,
particularly as some people are now making actual telephone connections via
the Net and avoiding overseas connection fees.
John Saxon 1958 MGA 1500.
>>>From PRR-Talk@dsop.com
>>
>>I received this from a friend. It affects all of us. Maybe one of our
>>members that is great at composing an E-mail, could compose an E-mail for us
>>to copy and send to the government. Anyone willing to do this?
>>
>>Chuck
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>From erc@Traveller.COM
>>
>>I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter
>>currently under review by the FCC. Your local telephone company has
>>filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your
>>internet service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the
>>operation of the telephone network.
>>
>>It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were
>>required to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an
>>email box for your comments, responses must be received by February
>>13, 1997. Send your comments to isp@fcc.gov and tell them what you
>>think.
>>
>>Every phone company is in on this one, and they are trying to sneak
>>it in just under the wire for litiagation. Let everyone you know here
>>this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of.
>>
>>isp@fcc.gov
>>
>>Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all
>>our voices may be heard!
>>
>>##########################################
>>
>>My proposed E-message:
>>
>>Gentlemen;
>> I have received a note over an E-mail net that there is presently
>>legislation before the FCC to allow phone companies to charge for internet
>>access time.
>>
>> The present system provides the long distance phone companies with payment
>>for internet access: I am presently on America On Line and access thru
>>Sprintnet- who I presume gets a portion of the money AOL charges me. For
>>these access companies to charge more- on top of their present fees- is
>>unreasonable: additional minutes of use will give them additional income, so
>>there is no problem.
>>
>> As for the local phone company, I presently pay a fee for "unlimited local
>>service", and it does not matter what use I put that service to. Either
>>they meet my service demands, or they are committing fraud (which is the
>>problem with AOL). A specific-purpose fee is in violation of our present
>>contract for "unlimited local service".
>>
>> In the case of a local customer on a fixed time plan, their additional use
>>above the plan baseline will result in greater fees (and presumably enough
>>income to provide more equipment). So again, a special-purpose surcharge is
>>unjustified.
>>
>> I urge you to disallow this proposed legislation. The phone companys
>>(long distance and local) are responsible under the terms of their present
>>consumer contracts to provide adequate equipment- for which a portion of
>>their earnings should be provided for capitalization.
>>
>> If they failed to do this, they should be responsible. If their
>>motivation is to "cash in" on the internet phenominom, their greed should be
>>curtailed. Either way, they should be required to uphold their part of our
>>mutual consumer contracts: certainly they will act quickly enough if we fail
>>to do so.
>>
>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>
>>Robert A. Boyd
>>4933 Chippewa #1E
>>St. Louis, Mo. 63109
>>
>>RBoyd40076@aol.com
>>
>>
>John A. Shaw, jashaw@fileshop.com
>Home page: http://www.tfs.net/~jashaw/main.html
>Kansas City, Kansas
>Site of the 1998 NMRA National Convention "The Heartland Express"
>
>
>
>
|