From MilMayhem@aol.com Wed Feb 19 11:16:05 1997 Return-Path: MilMayhem@aol.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16407 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:16:05 -0500 From: MilMayhem@aol.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11179; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:16:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from emout10.mx.aol.com(198.81.11.25) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011166; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:15:50 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA25390 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:15:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:15:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219111521_1581605171@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Re: FW: FCC & THE INTERNET Content-Length: 242 You should not consider the idea of allowing a phone charge to our internet use. If you do so I would be force to not use the internet as much as I need or all together have to stop using it. It would be a grave mistake. Judy Davis-Miller From mkb@dns.ida.net Wed Feb 19 11:18:38 1997 Return-Path: mkb@dns.ida.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16411 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:18:37 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11266; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:18:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from dns.ida.net(204.228.203.1) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011259; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:18:17 -0500 Received: from pmif157.ida.net by dns (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA05828; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:11:47 -0700 Received: by pmif157.ida.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BC1E45.A4C54660@pmif157.ida.net>; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:16:52 -0700 Message-Id: <01BC1E45.A4C54660@pmif157.ida.net> From: Keith Branter To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" Subject: Per Minute Charges for Internet Services Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:16:42 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 1073 I understand that my local telephone company has filed a proposal with = the FCC to impose a per minute charge for my Internet services. They = contend that my usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone = network. I feel that I am all ready paying the telephone company enough money to = use my telephone. I have installed a separate telephone line just for my = computer and FAX machine. I feel that what I am paying for this separate = telephone line is more then adequate compensation to the telephone = company for the use of their telephone lines. Maybe the telephone = companies got caught with their pants down when it came to the Internet = and they feel as though they are not making enough money on this = technology. Please take into consideration these comments and do NOT = allow the telephone companies of the USA to charge the consumer a per = minute charge for the use of the Internet. = SINCERELY M. K. = Branter From billd@darkstar.swsc.k12.ar.us Wed Feb 19 11:21:09 1997 Return-Path: billd@darkstar.swsc.k12.ar.us Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16415 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:21:08 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11389; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:21:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(170.211.19.3) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011378; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:20:54 -0500 Received: (from billd@localhost) by darkstar.swsc.k12.ar.us (8.6.11/8.6.10) id KAA27353; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:14:50 -0600 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:14:50 -0600 (CST) From: Bill Dempsey To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: time based billing for Internet Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 690 Dear Sirs: Please do not bow to the monopolistic interests of the telephone companies. Their desire to charge per minute for Internet use is pure and simple greed. The Internet is a grand and exciting change in the way technology is improving our lives. A per minute charge will kill the enthusiasm. Most people I know use the net, because it does not have a time based fee associated with it. School districts like mine which have made large investments in connectivity could not afford these extra charges. Say no to them. Sincerely, Bill Dempsey Bill Dempsey Director of Technology Texarkana Arkansas Schools 501-772-3371 fax 501-773-2602 billd@darkstar.swsc.k12.ar.us From Michael_Boyle@elftech.com Wed Feb 19 11:21:43 1997 Return-Path: Michael_Boyle@elftech.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16419 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:21:38 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11412; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:21:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from safety.worldcom.com(198.64.193.5) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011403; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:21:19 -0500 Received: (from smtp@localhost) by safety.worldcom.com (8.8.5/Hahahahaha) id KAA09654 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:20:12 -0600 (CST) Received: from worldcom-45.worldcom.com(198.64.193.76) by safety.worldcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma009632; Wed Feb 19 10:20:09 1997 Received: by WORLDCOM-45.worldcom.com.worldcom.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.14/3.3) id AA5669; Wed, 19 Feb 97 10:17:49 -0500 Message-Id: <9702191517.AA5669@WORLDCOM-45.worldcom.com.worldcom.com> Received: from worldcom with "Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP" id 054BBD2599E535268625644300596DBD; Wed, 19 Feb 97 10:17:49 To: isp From: Michael Boyle Date: 18 Feb 97 18:17:21 Subject: -No Subject- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Content-Length: 954 To whom it may concern, Please add this letter to the many that feel metered internet access will be a detriment to everyone. Just as we do not charge for airplane seats by how much the passenger weighs, and do not charge per minute on a standard voice telephone call, there are certain things that should not be metered. The growth of the internet in this country has been phenomenal, and most of it is because of easy, affordable access by the masses. If that is restrained, then it will affect the entire country across many industries that are dependent on such growth, such as computer software and hardware manufacturers, networking equipment manufacturers and installers, not to mention the ISPs, of which many operate on razor-thin margins. Please consider how this measure would affect our world leadership in the internet and telecommunications areas. Thank you, Michael Boyle Manager, Network Operations Center ELF Technologies, Inc. From FredSSr@aol.com Wed Feb 19 11:22:15 1997 Return-Path: FredSSr@aol.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16423 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:22:11 -0500 From: FredSSr@aol.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11459; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:22:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from emout17.mx.aol.com(198.81.11.43) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011447; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:22:09 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout17.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA10929; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:21:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:21:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219112116_1248344376@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: isp@fcc.gov, PeggyTS@aol.com cc: rcesare@engsyshq.echlin.com, nmathew@echlin.com, sjs5144@siena.edu, whitehouse.gov@aol.com Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: Phone Charges] Content-Length: 2723 In a message dated 97-02-08 12:10:24 EST, areinh@gte.net (Al Reinhart) writes: << isp@fcc.gov >> Dear Sir or Madam: Charging for Internet phone line service will have a major impact in my and my families ability to use the Internet. My children use the Internet as an educational tool. If additional service fees are charged, I will find it necessary to discontinue using the Internet. As President Clinton stated in his State of the Union address, the Internet should be available to all the citizens of the United States including the schools. Additional charges and fees will be a major deterrent to accessing the information highway. Only the wealthy will have ability to freely communicate with the world. Sincerely, Fred Smith fredssr@aol.com --------------------- Forwarded message: From: areinh@gte.net (Al Reinhart) Reply-to: areinh@gte.net To: dabrazzz@gte.net, TobieB@aol.com, galimski@gte.net, InSea@aol.com, bluemoon@usa.pipeline.com, Jscott9628@aol.com, fredssr@aol.com, SpBeau@aol.com, areinh@gte.net Date: 97-02-08 12:10:24 EST Received: from main.ismi.net (main.ismi.net [206.31.56.1]) by mail.gte.net (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AutoCF) via ESMTP id JAA10942 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:49:44 -0600 Received: from jim---lynda-s (pm3-15.ismi.net [206.31.56.85]) by main.ismi.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA06773 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:47:26 -0500 Message-ID: <32FCA0AC.6CA1@main.ismi.net> Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 10:50:05 -0500 From: Jim Reinhart Reply-To: jimrein@ismi.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: areinh@gte.net Subject: Phone Charges Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Phone Charges Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:22:25 -0500 From: Dave Wordell Please pass this along to as many as you can. 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. 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 litagation. Let everyone you know hear this one. Get the email address to everyone you can think of. That's isp@fcc.gov Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all our voices may be heard. Dave W Titletown USA From cirop36@grove.ufl.EDU Wed Feb 19 11:22:43 1997 Return-Path: cirop36@grove.ufl.EDU Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16427 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:22:43 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11486; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:22:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.grove.ufl.edu(128.227.8.81) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011473; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:22:29 -0500 Received: from dogwood.grove.ufl.EDU (cirop36@grove.ufl.edu [128.227.8.12]) by mail1.grove.ufl.EDU (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA14084 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:22:00 -0500 (EST) From: Jose Gonzalez Received: from localhost (cirop36@localhost) by dogwood.grove.ufl.EDU (8.8.5/8.7.3/3) with SMTP id LAA10906 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:21:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:21:54 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: cirop36@dogwood To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet tax Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 399 To Whom it may concern: It is appauling to think that telelphone companies will now try to take advantage of the ever growing internet craze. Their service is to provide communication to the customer, what he/she decides to do with that service is not important. I am strongly opposed to the attempt of local telephone companies trying to levy additional taxes. Sincerely, Jose a gonzalez From gothic@themall.net Wed Feb 19 11:22:44 1997 Return-Path: gothic@themall.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16432 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:22:44 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11488; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:22:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.themall.net(204.80.99.30) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011476; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:22:30 -0500 Received: from UUnet.themall.net ([208.204.244.3]) by mail.themall.net (8.8.5/8.8.2/IIAM 1.0 (DCH)) with ESMTP id IAA13344 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:19:33 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702191619.IAA13344@mail.themall.net> From: "Lance" To: Subject: Local telephone access charge for internet access. Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:18:12 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1160 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 342 I can't believe this. Of course the Bells like the idea of getting more money for ISP's. This makes perfect sense especially when every Bell I know of is running their own ISP. Sounds like a conflict of interest to me. Just had to vent. Thank You, Garey D. Walker, Jr. Internet In A Mall Area Manager San Antonio, TX spartan@themall.net From snash@mindspring.com Wed Feb 19 11:22:45 1997 Return-Path: snash@mindspring.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16439 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:22:45 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11511; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:22:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from mule1.mindspring.com(204.180.128.167) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011480; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:22:43 -0500 Received: from snash.mindspring.com (user-168-121-105-197.dialup.mindspring.com [168.121.105.197]) by mule1.mindspring.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id LAA205246 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:22:17 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970219162646.0067671c@mindspring.com> X-Sender: snash@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:26:46 -0500 To: isp@fcc.gov From: Steve Nash Subject: Internet Usage Fee Content-Length: 428 I disagree with the phone companies charging for internet access. I understand most people do not have all the facts, and neither do I claim this, but this seems to be an attempt by the phone companies to majoritize the internet. If their bandwidth is so taxed, why are they trying to be an internet provider? If they have internet access, then they can undermine the prices of their competitor with the governments blessing. From lmorris@orca.esd114.wednet.edu Wed Feb 19 11:22:44 1997 Return-Path: lmorris@orca.esd114.wednet.edu Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16433 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:22:44 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11484; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:22:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from orca.esd114.wednet.edu(164.116.5.5) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011478; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:22:34 -0500 Received: from [168.212.15.193] by orca.esd114.wednet.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4-Orca1) id AA15487; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:17:59 -0800 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:24:11 -0700 To: isp@fcc.gov From: lmorris@orca.esd114.wednet.edu (Lorie Morris) Subject: PER MINUTE RATES/INTERNET Content-Length: 228 THIS IS RIDICULOUS!! I HOPE THAT THIS DOES NOT GET PASSED. IT WOULD BE A BURDEN TO EVERYBODY WHO USES THE INTERNET, ESPECIALLY THE KIDS WHO USE IT FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PLEASE PUT A STOP TO THIS LORIE MORRIS, EDUCATOR From GRABLUTZL@centocor.com Wed Feb 19 11:24:16 1997 Return-Path: GRABLUTZL@centocor.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16443 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:24:15 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11555; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:24:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(38.253.252.2) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011546; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:24:00 -0500 Received: from US5D1-Message_Server by centocor.com with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:24:50 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:26:43 -0500 From: Laura Grablutz To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Proposed Internet phone surcharges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 1485 I am writing in response to the proposed phone use surcharges for Internet connect time. First, I believe that this move would discriminate against deaf people and others with disabilities who use the Internet and other digital devices for communication purposes. I would caution against any attempts to interfere with or passively profit from the free speech of Americans. It is very likely that the phone companies are less worried about the strain on their physical equipment, than the threat of losing current and potential future profits. They have been more than happy to upgrade to digital lines in the hopes of carrying cable tv and the like, but are probably now worried that customers will abandon historically overpriced long distance service. The Internet can offer almost free communications -- even live voice messaging -- technology that the phone company has been lagging behind in. And more disturbing is the trend for long distance carriers such as AT&T offering Internet connections. Will they unfairly lure in customers by offering to waive the connection fees charged by their sister local companies? If the phone companies want to profit from the surge in digital communications, especially through the Internet, let them invest in, offer fair prices for, and develop the market to make us want to pay for advancements such as ISDN lines that will further improve global communications, not inhibit them. Laura Grablutz 616 Pughtown Rd Spring City, PA 19475 From cgllc@flash.net Wed Feb 19 11:24:17 1997 Return-Path: cgllc@flash.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16447 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:24:17 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11578; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:24:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from endeavor.flash.net(208.194.223.40) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011549; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:24:15 -0500 Received: from LOCALNAME (pm22-168.flash.net [208.194.194.168]) by endeavor (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA02592 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:21:10 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <330B6187.265E@flash.net> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:24:39 -0800 From: "Darrell R. Lester" Reply-To: cgllc@flash.net Organization: The Centra Group, L.L.C. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1258 I am writing in reference to a proposal by our local telephone company to impose per minute charges for Internet Service. I would be opposed to this change and offer the following reasons. 1)In my companies use of the Internet we have seen a substantial decrease in the amount of paperwork. The Internet will serve to reduce the volumes of paper used and increase efficiency in Business Administrative functions. Applying a per minute charge will render the Internet useless to Business applications. 2)We have already made use of many Government locations on the Internet. Specifically, the IRS home page has allowed us to download tax forms and instructions for the preparation of tax returns. This alone will save much paper, government printing cost, and mailing cost. The per minute charge would render these services useless. 3)On a personal note, the Internet has allowed children the luxury of information access as never before. In my sons case, the quality of his written research papers has improved threefold. Per minute charges would limit this access only to the wealthiest of people. The above are only some of the reasons I ask this proposal not to be enacted. Thank You for your consideration. Darrell R. Lester cgllc@flash.net From hlozekcc@stratos.net Wed Feb 19 11:24:48 1997 Return-Path: hlozekcc@stratos.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16451 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:24:47 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11590; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:24:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from home.stratos.net(207.25.199.2) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011586; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:24:34 -0500 Received: from 708644668 ([207.25.199.232]) by atlas.stratos.net (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP id AAA91 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:22:23 -0500 Message-ID: <330B2923.4170@stratos.net> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:24:03 -0500 From: hlozekcc@stratos.net (hlozekcc) Reply-To: 278@fcc.gov, East@fcc.gov, 150th@fcc.gov, Street@fcc.gov, Cleveland@fcc.gov, Ohio@fcc.gov, 44110-1211@fcc.gov Organization: Hlozek, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Access Charges Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1221 FCC Webmaster: I am writing to state my opinion that the telephone companies like Ameritech, etc. do not need to assess access charges to internet providers or their customers. Currently, most of these companies are creating their own internet services as well as offices and homes now require many extra lines to accomodate FAX, on-line and telephone services. In my new home business, I have home, FAX, office and on-line services. I'm sure that these companies are generating more than enough revenue from this increase in the number of indidvidual lines for businesses, etc. Also, the fees they charge for these additional services are not inexpensive by any means. I have just opened a new business which is getting it's foot off the ground due to the Internet. I hope you also see that this will cause alot of middle-class Americans to no longer be able to utilize the WWW because it will be too costly. The goal of the WWW is to provide information and easy access to it to all, over the entire world. Let's not loose sight of this and remember that everyone has the right to move into the 21st century. Thank you. Sincerely, Christopher C. Hlozek CEO/President, Hlozek Communication, Inc. www.rnfa.org From rackem@neuro.wustl.edu Wed Feb 19 11:24:49 1997 Return-Path: rackem@neuro.wustl.edu Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16455 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:24:48 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11596; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:24:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from neuro.wustl.edu(128.252.197.5) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011582; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:24:34 -0500 Received: from [128.252.151.139] ([128.252.151.139]) by neuro.wustl.edu (8.7.6/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA03550 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:22:20 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:27:50 -0600 To: isp@fcc.gov From: rackem@neuro.wustl.edu (Michael Racke) Subject: Fwd: Fwd: URGENT Content-Length: 1870 >> >>I am writing in response to the proposal made by telephone providers >to >> the FCC. I do not think it is the best interest of the general >public, >>nor is it in the best interest of the economy of the United States. >The >>proposed "per-minute" charge scheme would be highly damaging to the >>fledgling economy developing across the computer networks in this >>country. It would also be harmful to researchers, students, and >>government agengies across the country and world-wide. >> >>If per-minute charges are allowed to take effect, the effect would be >a >>reduction of consumer interest, and a stagnation of academic progress >and >>communications. I urge you to deny the proposal as it would deny many >>people the right to fast communications, as they would no longer be >able >>to afford the charges. Many non-profit organizations and research >groups >>would have a much more restricted access to this indispensable mode of >>communication. >> >>I urge you to do what is right for the general public of the United >>States, and for its many invaluable organizations. Please do not >grant >>telephone providers' proposal as it is a monopolistic measure and >would >>contribute to the rapid decline of services involved with the >internet. >>You should consider how much economic damage this proposal will do to >>local access providers, major access providers (e.g. AOL), and >>universities as these groups attempt to develop and improve the >>communications and services provided on the internet. They would be >hard >>pressed to deal with this new burden. Thank you for your time and >>consideration. >> >> Sincerely, Michael K. Racke, M.D. Assistant Professor of Neurology Washington University School of Medicine Box 8111 660 South Euclid Avenue St. Louis, MO. 63110 Phone: 314-362-7968 FAX: 314-747-1345 From sandwood@internetmci.com Wed Feb 19 11:25:20 1997 Return-Path: sandwood@internetmci.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16459 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:25:20 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11620; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:25:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailsrv1.pcy.mci.net(204.71.0.43) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011616; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:25:06 -0500 Received: from usr1-dialup44.Houston.mci.net (usr1-dialup44.Houston.mci.net) by MAIL-CLUSTER.PCY.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.0-7 #10044) id <01IFLJYSI9YO8WWAKJ@MAIL-CLUSTER.PCY.MCI.NET> for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:25:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from usr1-dialup44.Houston.mci.net (usr1-dialup44.Houston.mci.net) by MAIL-CLUSTER.PCY.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.0-7 #10044) id <01IFLJYCRQ5O8WWB91@MAIL-CLUSTER.PCY.MCI.NET> for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:24:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:20:54 -0600 From: Lynwood and Sandie Kindt To: isp@fcc.gov Message-id: <01IFLJYDFWEW8WWB91@MAIL-CLUSTER.PCY.MCI.NET> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 Content-Length: 458 DEAR FCC, I'm APPOSED to any proposal by the phone company to charge me by the minute for Internet service. I installed a second line and I pay for this separate line specifically for electronic media. I have three children close to or in their teens. My kids are on the phone constantly. They're usually chat much longer than my computer is online. The phone company should charge my kids by the minute if they're going to use this logic. Lynwood Kindt From niko@ny.cks.com Wed Feb 19 11:26:51 1997 Return-Path: niko@ny.cks.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16463 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:26:50 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11683; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:26:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ny.cks.com(206.152.45.70) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011676; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:26:48 -0500 Received: from [206.152.45.69] ([206.152.45.69]) by ny (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) via ESMTP id LAA24472 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:28:27 -0500 X-Sender: niko@ny Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:27:57 -0500 To: isp@fcc.gov From: Niko Sluzki Subject: TelCo per minute charges ... Content-Length: 709 > > 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. Please do not allow this to happen. This will dramatically hinder the miraculous progress the Internet has made in global communication and education. Limiting the Internet in this manner would be a travesty. Best regards, Niko Sluzki ___________________________________________________________________________ Niko Sluzki Senior Technologist CKS Partners, Inc. New York, NY From nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov Wed Feb 19 11:27:51 1997 Return-Path: nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16467 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:27:51 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11716; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:27:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from exodus.content.earthlink.net(206.250.94.3) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011708; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:27:32 -0500 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by exodus (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) id IAA01338 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:27:05 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:27:05 -0800 From: nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (SVR4 nobody uid) Message-Id: <199702191627.IAA01338@exodus> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Form Data from 204.216.57.110 Content-Length: 547 Date: Wed Feb 19 08:27:05 PST 1997 address = 13211 Buena Vista city = Poway comments = email = name = Perry F Collins regarding = FCC Docket #96-263 state = Ca statement = I understand the FCC has tentatively concluded that providers of information services (including Internet service providers) should not be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess on long-distance carriers. I agree that Internet Service Providers should not be subject to the interstate access charges. zipcode = 92064 From Jerome_Brock@gcam.com Wed Feb 19 11:28:23 1997 Return-Path: Jerome_Brock@gcam.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16471 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:28:22 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11747; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:28:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail1.noc.netcom.net(204.31.1.150) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011740; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:28:02 -0500 Received: from gcam.com (mail1.gcam.com [207.220.84.24]) by mail1.noc.netcom.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA03730 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:24:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 97 13:35:28 CST Subject: Phone Company Domination Message-ID: <0000005E.qm@gcam.com> From: Jerome_Brock@gcam.com (Jerome Brock) To: isp@fcc.gov (isp) Organization: Gleason/Calise/Associates Inc. X-HoloGate: 1.1.8 Lines: 3150 Content-Length: 527 Subject: Time: 1:07 PM OFFICE MEMO Phone Company Domination Date: 2/11/97 Please don't let the phone companies tag an extra charge on local calling internet connections. We're using a common network with known limitations. The difference between voice and data is nominal. I'm already paying a standard rate for local phone service. How I decide to use this service is incidental. If you wan't to charge exorbitant fees, upgrade the network... From tmanley@proaxis.com Wed Feb 19 11:28:24 1997 Return-Path: tmanley@proaxis.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16475 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:28:24 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11751; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:28:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from speedy.proaxis.com(198.68.7.14) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011741; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:28:11 -0500 Received: from cvo12685.ch2m.com ([130.77.3.251]) by speedy.proaxis.com (8.8.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA21332 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:27:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702191627.IAA21332@speedy.proaxis.com> From: "Tim Manley" To: Subject: internet per minute use charge Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:25:40 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 517 This is insane. If you ever wanted to stop a technology from growing this is the best way to do it. Leave the internet and computers alone so that they can mature into the technology that they were meant to be. Imagine if cars were heavily taxed in the beginning. No one would drive and only companies would have them. Interstate commerce and travel would not be what it is today and many communities would be dead due to no tourism. We are overtaxed already. You need to more taxes away not create new ones. From nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov Wed Feb 19 11:28:53 1997 Return-Path: nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16479 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:28:52 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11769; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:28:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from exodus.content.earthlink.net(206.250.94.3) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011767; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:28:53 -0500 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by exodus (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) id IAA01583 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:28:33 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:28:33 -0800 From: nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (SVR4 nobody uid) Message-Id: <199702191628.IAA01583@exodus> To: isp@fcc.gov Reply-To: bsewell@northrim.net Subject: Form Data from 206.206.31.79 Content-Length: 1275 Date: Wed Feb 19 08:28:33 PST 1997 address = PO Box 393 city = Wendell comments = Any additional charges for Internet Access will likely hinder progress as a whole. Education is a key element to all progress made in society, and additional charges will prevent the less fortunate from learning, and at the same time, restrict their much needed input from the rest of society. We must take a step back and review the possible consequences of this action, and consider if it is a worthwhile action which will only benefit certain corporations. I believe that going against additional charges will benefit these corporations even more in the long run. I am against any changes that will increase the costs of Internet access to any end user, public or private. Most Sincerely, Bob Sewell Jr. email = bsewell@northrim.net name = Bob Sewell Jr. regarding = FCC Docket #96-263 state = Idaho statement = I understand the FCC has tentatively concluded that providers of information services (including Internet service providers) should not be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess on long-distance carriers. I agree that Internet Service Providers should not be subject to the interstate access charges. zipcode = 83355 From afd138@flash.net Wed Feb 19 11:29:23 1997 Return-Path: afd138@flash.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16483 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:29:23 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11778; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:29:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from centurion.flash.net(206.149.24.19) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011773; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:29:11 -0500 Received: from [1.1.1.1] (wizrealm.com [204.134.71.66]) by flash.net (8.8.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id KAA23510; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:28:54 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:28:54 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: afd138@pop.flash.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: isp@fcc.gov From: afd138@flash.net (Netprobe Internet Communications) Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Cc: tvinson@flash.net Content-Length: 895 Dear Sirs, It is totally and inequivically illegal for you to consider double-billing people for phone use. That is exactly what it is...DOUBLE BILLING. Please be advised that I will definitely be supporting cable net in lieu of all the support I have previously given telecommunications. DO NOT DOUBLE BILL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, PLEASE. Respectfully, Susan Parr Netprobe Internet Communications --------------------------------------------------------- NETPROBE INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS http://www.netprobe.net 10405 Delicado Place NE . Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111 $99/yr Unlimited Internet Access http://www.netprobe.net DOMAINS http://www.netprobe.net/aaaholidaysale.html Software HELP http://www.netprobe.net/netsoftware.html CARD ORDERS SECURE ONLINE (505) 271-4722 --------------------------------------------------------- From ellipsis@alliance.net Wed Feb 19 11:29:24 1997 Return-Path: ellipsis@alliance.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16487 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:29:24 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11780; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:29:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from allinux1.alliance.net(198.110.233.10) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011774; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:29:24 -0500 Received: from Alliance Network Inc..alliance.net(really [198.110.233.61]) by alliance.net via sendmail with smtp id for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:29:02 -0500 (EST) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #8 built 1996-Nov-8) Message-ID: <330B2A92.5584@alliance.net> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:30:10 -0500 From: ellipsis X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: INFO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 107 Can you please send me some info on the $.03 charge a minute on phone bills thanks ellipsis@alliance.net From nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov Wed Feb 19 11:29:53 1997 Return-Path: nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16491 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:29:53 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11795; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:29:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from exodus.content.earthlink.net(206.250.94.3) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011789; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:29:37 -0500 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by exodus (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) id IAA01711 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:29:17 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:29:17 -0800 From: nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (SVR4 nobody uid) Message-Id: <199702191629.IAA01711@exodus> To: isp@fcc.gov Reply-To: bluhart@northrim.net Subject: Form Data from 206.206.31.81 Content-Length: 473 Date: Wed Feb 19 08:29:17 PST 1997 address = 1121A E 2900 South city = Hagerman comments = email = bluhart@northrim.net name = Evelyn Summers regarding = FCC Docket #96-263 state = ID statement = I understand the FCC has tentatively concluded that providers of information services (including Internet service providers) should not be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess on long-distance carriers. zipcode = 83332 From dpiccini@juno.com Wed Feb 19 11:30:23 1997 Return-Path: dpiccini@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16495 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:30:23 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11825; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:30:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from m8.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.196) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011815; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:30:04 -0500 Received: (from dpiccini@juno.com) by m8.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LcW27622; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:28:43 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: ISP per minute charges Message-ID: <19970219.114044.10070.2.dpiccini@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3-4,6 From: dpiccini@juno.com (daniel piccini) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:28:43 EST Content-Length: 324 I do not think that users of the internet should be charged additional per minute charges for internet access. I do not think that grandmothers should be charged additional per minute charges for talking to their grand children. --Dan @ (via Albany, new york] *djp:SWAnhTesbRotjMetKeaMopRtlAjfaML From mgibson@atlantic.net Wed Feb 19 11:31:27 1997 Return-Path: mgibson@atlantic.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16499 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:31:27 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11889; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:31:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from berlin.atlantic.net(204.215.255.12) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011886; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:31:21 -0500 Received: from rio.atlantic.net (root@rio.atlantic.net [204.215.255.3]) by berlin.atlantic.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA29805 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:41:55 -0500 Received: from atlantic.atlantic.net (ppp-gnv-fl-028.atlantic.net [204.215.255.58]) by rio.atlantic.net (8.8.5/8.7.5) with ESMTP id LAA10180 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:35:07 -0500 Message-Id: <199702191635.LAA10180@rio.atlantic.net> From: "Goldschlager" To: Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:31:50 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 361 Dear FCC, I do not wish to pay extra for my internet access. Please vote against the local telephone companies. I fear the additional charge will bring the internet to a halt. Just think of all the businesses that primarily sell on the internet, they will all go under. Please don't kill this new found media to express ourselves. Thank you, Mike S Gibson Jr. From Panthra_Kar@prodigy.com Wed Feb 19 11:31:58 1997 Return-Path: Panthra_Kar@prodigy.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16504 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:31:57 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11907; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:32:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from pimaia4w.prodigy.com(198.83.18.139) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011898; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:31:36 -0500 Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by pimaia4w.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA30370 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:12:58 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id LAA13968 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:04:59 -0500 Message-Id: <199702191604.LAA13968@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: Panthra_Kar@prodigy.com (MR PATRICK M SCHULZ) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:04:59, -0500 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet Phone Charges Content-Length: 822 To Whom it may concern; I am a member of Prodigy, one of the major on-line services in the US. I believe that charging phone rates for Internet usage is ludricrious. It is almost impossible to track usage, as far as I know, unless you monitor the access numbers used by the people. It is unfair, to both the users and suppliers of service. Many people who go on-line use it for recreation, shopping, and buisness. Making someone pay above and beyond the charges placed by the service is akin to highway robbery. I think that anything of this nature is wrong. The phone companies already make enough off of long-distance calls, why allow them to charge for dialing an access number which is local. What's next, charging for every minute for calling anyone at all, even local calls? Patrick Schulz From itrica@ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 19 11:31:59 1997 Return-Path: itrica@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16509 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:31:58 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11917; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:32:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.9) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011905; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:31:58 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA16958 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:31:37 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702191631.KAA16958@dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> Received: from sjx-ca83-04.ix.netcom.com(207.94.112.100) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma016850; Wed Feb 19 10:27:01 1997 From: "itrica" To: Subject: Objection of Internet Charge Change Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:28:08 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 358 Dear Sirs: I was told that the ISP/Telco try to change the charge formula for Internet service, I think it is a very bad plan to discourage the use of Internet and stop the pervasiveness of Internet. like the flat telephone service for home users is already well familiar, the ISP Internet charge shall keep the same. please consider the above, thanks. From BOWEJA@DIANA.HOLLINS.EDU Wed Feb 19 11:31:59 1997 Return-Path: BOWEJA@DIANA.HOLLINS.EDU Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16510 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:31:58 -0500 From: BOWEJA@DIANA.HOLLINS.EDU Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11909; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:32:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(192.160.94.38) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011897; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:31:36 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:06:37 -0500 (EST) To: isp@fcc.gov Message-Id: <970219110637.3818@DIANA.HOLLINS.EDU> Subject: Per minute charges. Content-Length: 187 This is outrageous...... If the problem is with tying up the lines, make new lines. we pay the taxes anyway, right? Jennifer Bowe 204 Campbells Creek Drive Charleston, WV 25306-6604 From marbeth@ix.netcom.com Wed Feb 19 11:31:59 1997 Return-Path: marbeth@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16511 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:31:58 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11911; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:32:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.8) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011899; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:31:47 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA13683 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:31:27 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:31:27 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702191631.KAA13683@dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com> Received: from ple-ca9-27.ix.netcom.com(204.31.114.123) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma013602; Wed Feb 19 10:31:07 1997 From: marbeth@ix.netcom.com (Martha Beth Lewis) Subject: internet To: isp@fcc.gov Content-Length: 97 Please don't allow the phone companies to do this to us! thank you Martha Beth Lewis California From hwa@Pacesetter.COM Wed Feb 19 11:32:30 1997 Return-Path: hwa@Pacesetter.COM Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16519 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:32:30 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11940; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:32:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns.pacesetter.com(150.202.8.2) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011935; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:32:30 -0500 Received: by gate0; id AA21584; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:32:03 -0800 Received: from lakers(150.202.12.2) by gate0 via smap (V1.3) id sma021575; Wed Feb 19 08:31:38 1997 Received: from medusa.Pacesetter.Com by Pacesetter.COM (5.x/master.cf-1.18-3/30/95) id AA20145; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:31:33 -0800 Received: from mendocino.Pacesetter.Com by medusa.Pacesetter.Com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA25985; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:31:32 -0800 Received: by mendocino.Pacesetter.Com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4-PI) id IAA02442; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:31:31 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:31:31 -0800 From: hwa@Pacesetter.COM (Jen-Gwang Hwang) Message-Id: <199702191631.IAA02442@mendocino.Pacesetter.Com> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: imposing per minute charges X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Content-Length: 196 Dear FCC: >Our local telephone company has >filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your >internet service. Is it true? Please do not allow them to do that. Thanks. -Jen From nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov Wed Feb 19 11:33:03 1997 Return-Path: nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16523 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:33:00 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11959; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:33:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from exodus.content.earthlink.net(206.250.94.3) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011952; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:32:59 -0500 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by exodus (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) id IAA02405 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:32:38 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:32:38 -0800 From: nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (SVR4 nobody uid) Message-Id: <199702191632.IAA02405@exodus> To: isp@fcc.gov Reply-To: scnossen@northrim.net Subject: Form Data from 206.206.31.74 Content-Length: 571 Date: Wed Feb 19 08:32:38 PST 1997 address = 3451-A South 1800 East city = Wendell comments = email = scnossen@northrim.net name = Sam Cnossen regarding = FCC Docket #96-263 state = ID statement = I understand the FCC has tentatively concluded that providers of information services (including Internet service providers) should not be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess on long-distance carriers. I agree that Internet Service Providers should not be subject to the interstate access charges. zipcode = 83355 From nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov Wed Feb 19 11:33:30 1997 Return-Path: nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16527 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:33:30 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11974; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:33:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from exodus.content.earthlink.net(206.250.94.3) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011953; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:33:00 -0500 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by exodus (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) id IAA02401 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:32:38 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:32:38 -0800 From: nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (SVR4 nobody uid) Message-Id: <199702191632.IAA02401@exodus> To: isp@fcc.gov Reply-To: bluhart@northrim.net Subject: Form Data from 206.206.31.81 Content-Length: 465 Date: Wed Feb 19 08:32:38 PST 1997 address = 1121AE 2900 S city = Hagerman comments = email = bluhart@northrim.net name = Ron Summers regarding = FCC Docket #96-263 state = ID statement = I understand the FCC has tentatively concluded that providers of information services (including Internet service providers) should not be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess on long-distance carriers. zipcode = 83332 From bobsta@connecti.com Wed Feb 19 11:33:31 1997 Return-Path: bobsta@connecti.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16533 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:33:31 -0500 From: bobsta@connecti.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11980; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:33:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mercury.connecti.com(206.24.66.2) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011969; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:33:18 -0500 Received: from ConnectI-253251.ConnectI.com (ConnectI-253251 [207.51.253.251]) by mercury.ConnectI.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id KAA14957 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:32:03 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:32:03 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702191632.KAA14957@mercury.ConnectI.com> X-Sender: bobsta@connecti.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: isp@fcc.gov Content-Length: 480 greetings, this is to let you know that i am AGAINST any flat "per minute" fee for use of the telephone for internet access. everyone pays a fee for local service and a per-minute fee for long distance as it is. additional fees would be detrimental to the free flow of ideas and use of the internet, making it even more difficult for poor people and people in rural areas to gain access to the information on the 'net. thank you R.G. Harloff 2341 FM 1150 Kingsbury TX 78638 From msr@comtel.net Wed Feb 19 11:33:32 1997 Return-Path: msr@comtel.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16532 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:33:31 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA11983; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:33:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(207.137.145.2) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma011972; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:33:33 -0500 Received: from MSRHOME ([207.137.145.232]) by www.COMTEL.NET (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA270 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:31:21 -0800 Received: by MSRHOME with Microsoft Mail id <01BC1E3F.5E6017A0@MSRHOME>; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:31:57 -0800 Message-ID: <01BC1E3F.5E6017A0@MSRHOME> From: msr@comtel.net (ATI Michael S. Rinebold) To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" Subject: New regulations Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:29:42 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 472 Please do not allow the phone companies to dictate our usage of the net. = People of means will continue to use the net if there were usage = charges. But the people without money will not.=20 The internet has the potential to be a great equalizer in society-but = only if everyone has it. Charging access would be like converting the = highways to all toll roads or charging for mail delivery.=20 Please make sure the road stays open! Sincerely, Michael S. Rinebold From mbennett@qualcomm.com Wed Feb 19 11:34:03 1997 Return-Path: mbennett@qualcomm.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16539 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:34:03 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12025; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:34:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from frobozz.qualcomm.com(129.46.50.79) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012003; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:34:00 -0500 Received: from [129.46.191.187] (mbennett-mac.qualcomm.com [129.46.191.187]) by frobozz.qualcomm.com (8.8.5/1.4/8.7.2/1.13) with ESMTP id IAA20184 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:33:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:33:32 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: mbennett@nala.qualcomm.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: isp@fcc.gov From: martin bennett Subject: Proposed "per-minute" charge Content-Length: 1867 I am writing in response to the proposal made by telephone providers to the FCC. I do not think it is in the best interest of the general public, nor is it in the best interest of the economy of the United States. The proposed "per-minute" charge scheme would be highly damaging to the fledgling economy developing across the computer networks in this country. It would also be harmful to researchers, students, and government agengies across the country and world-wide. If per-minute charges are allowed to be initiated, the effect would be a reduction of consumer interest, and a stagnation of academic progress and communications. I urge you to deny the proposal as it would deny many people the right to fast communications, as they would no longer be able to afford the charges. Many non-profit organizations and research groups would have a much more restricted access to this indispensable mode of communication. I urge you to do what is right for the general public of the United States, and for its many invaluable organizations. Please do not grant telephone providers' proposal as it is a monopolistic measure and would contribute to the rapid decline of services involved with the internet. You should consider how much economic damage this proposal will do to local access providers, major access providers (e.g. AOL), and universities as these groups attempt to develop and improve the communications and services provided on the internet. They would be hard pressed to deal with this new burden. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Martin Bennett Office: M280E Qualcomm Inc. Direct: (619) 658-2564 5525 Morehouse Road Fax: (619) 658-1584 San Diego, CA 92121-2779 mbennett@qualcomm.com From majumder@rtc1.icdi.wvu.edu Wed Feb 19 11:36:05 1997 Return-Path: majumder@rtc1.icdi.wvu.edu Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16543 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:36:05 -0500 From: majumder@rtc1.icdi.wvu.edu Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12091; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:36:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay7.uu.net(192.48.96.17) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012085; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:36:07 -0500 Received: from names by relay7.UU.NET with SMTP (peer crosschecked as: names.wvu.edu [157.182.140.2]) id QQcdpa14616; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:35:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtc1.icdi.wvu.edu by names (SMI-8.6/SMI-4.0:JLF-19970113) id LAA08464; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:33:02 -0500 Received: from WVURTC/SpoolDir by rtc1.icdi.wvu.edu (Mercury 1.12); Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:38:04 EST5EDT Received: from SpoolDir by WVURTC (Mercury 1.12); Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:37:49 EST5EDT Organization: Intl Center for Disability Info To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:37:45 EST Subject: new rules on internet access Return-receipt-to: Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: <30A52054BA@rtc1.icdi.wvu.edu> Content-Length: 484 I feel the purpose of improved information exchange will be defeated by imposing additional charge by the telephone company for internet use. I hope you avoid this disincentive to use internet service. Thank you. Ranjit Majumder Director & Professor WVRRTC/ICDI West Virginia University 806 Allen Hall Morgantown, WV 26506-6122, USA Phone 304-293-5313 (VOICE/TDD) Fax 304-293-6661 MAJUMDER@RTC1.ICDI.WVU.EDU ********************* Seasons Greetings ! ********************* From wwachtel@cascade.net Wed Feb 19 11:36:38 1997 Return-Path: wwachtel@cascade.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16547 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:36:34 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12102; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:36:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from cascade.cascade.net(204.57.138.2) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012083; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:36:03 -0500 Received: from LOCALNAME (ppp5.cascade.net [204.57.138.55]) by cascade.cascade.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA16861 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:33:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <330B2C35.68CA@cascade.net> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:37:09 -0800 From: "William M. Wachtel" Reply-To: wwachtel@cascade.net Organization: none X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Phone rates Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 313 Gentlemen: As an Internet user, I am concerned about the desire on the part of the telephone companies to charge higher fees for Internet access. I believe that higher fees would severely hinder the development and use of this marvellous and valuable means of communication! Respectfully, William M. Wachtel From csm@desoto.net Wed Feb 19 11:39:10 1997 Return-Path: csm@desoto.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16551 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:39:09 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12212; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:39:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.desoto.net(207.30.189.2) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012205; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:39:05 -0500 Received: from [207.30.189.190] by desoto.net id 5c600.wrk; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:35:02 EDT Message-ID: <330B2BEC.1CDC@desoto.net> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:35:56 -0500 From: Chris and Sonja Meyer Reply-To: csm@desoto.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ISP@fcc.gov CC: csm@desoto.net Subject: CC Docket No. 96-263 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 566 This letter is to protest the proposed additional per minute charges requested by the telephone companies. The only benefits of such a proposal will be for the telephone companies and will cause a definite harm to individuals, small businesses and schools if such a proposal was accepted. Please protect us, the consumers, the people, by refusing to give the telephone companies the rights to charge us more money for usage of telephone lines that we are already paying for. Thank you very much! Sincerely, Sonja L. Meyer 2129 N.E. Bishop St. Arcadia, Fl. 34266 From BHilbert1@aol.com Wed Feb 19 11:39:40 1997 Return-Path: BHilbert1@aol.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16555 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:39:40 -0500 From: BHilbert1@aol.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12249; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:39:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from emout01.mx.aol.com(198.81.11.92) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012235; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:39:30 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA06980 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:39:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:39:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219113908_-972121267@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Surcharges Content-Length: 181 The ideas of phone companies surcharging for internet or other computer usage will definitely affect how much I use online services. Their income will be decreased. Brian Hilbert From KRAUSEDE@saber.udayton.edu Wed Feb 19 11:40:12 1997 Return-Path: KRAUSEDE@saber.udayton.edu Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16559 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:40:12 -0500 From: KRAUSEDE@saber.udayton.edu Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12287; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:40:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from saber.udayton.edu(131.238.1.15) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012264; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:39:47 -0500 Received: from saber.udayton.edu by saber.udayton.edu (PMDF V5.0-6 #16468) id <01IFLJQULPGW0011BM@saber.udayton.edu> for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:41:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:41:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: reponse to proposal of per minute charges for internet service. To: isp@fcc.gov Message-id: <01IFLJQULT8I0011BM@saber.udayton.edu> X-VMS-To: IN%"isp@fcc.gov" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Length: 2041 This letter is in response to the proposal to impose per minute charges on internet service. I am a student at the University of Dayton, and my primary use of the internet is as a refesernce source for general information or as a means of communication with the graduate schools to which I am applying. As a student, I know there are many productive ways of using the web. Granted some people may and have found ways to abuse the new technology, but I believe the benefits of internet usage far outway the costs. As a student, I can contact professors in other departments or specialists and professional organizations with far greater ease and receive positive feedback and information. If internet usage has a price tag attached to it, my usage and the usage of other responsible students like myself will decrease because of the price factor. Internet usage is a wonderful means for responsible referencing and communication, perhaps precisely because it has no price tag attached... with the exception of the price that may be attached to the computers themselves (which can be a concern in itself for elementary and secondary education). I am a physics major planning to pursue an E-11 teaching certification. I hope when I teach physics and the other sciences to high school students that I am able to access the internet for new ideas to stimulate my students learning and that they are able as well, to use the internet to see the vast realm of possibilities and potential for the sciences from the sites that can be found on the web. In my current geology class, we have used the web to find pictures of fossils, erupting volcanos etc. to see sites and realize the importance of geology. The internet helps create a world view and I beleive that denying equal access to the internet by retricting usage for those with the money to pay per minute charges would be a grave mistake in a country that is striving for equality. Debra E. Krause krausede@saber.udayton.edu 413 Irving Avenue Dayton, Ohio 45409 From RozRN2@aol.com Wed Feb 19 11:40:47 1997 Return-Path: RozRN2@aol.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16563 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:40:47 -0500 From: RozRN2@aol.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12360; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:40:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from emout02.mx.aol.com(198.81.11.93) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012323; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:40:31 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout02.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA29987 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:40:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:40:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219114010_-1709016494@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet surcharges Content-Length: 395 I believe this idea came from people who are trying to find ways to make even more money. Greed will be your downfall in the end. How much is enough? How much do you want to take away from people who cannot afford it? For many of us, the Internet is our basic connection to the outside world, and we are on disability, or otherwise limited incomes. Why would you want to take that from us? From sarah.coffin@arch.gatech.edu Wed Feb 19 11:41:21 1997 Return-Path: sarah.coffin@arch.gatech.edu Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16567 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:41:21 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12412; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:41:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from murmur.arch.gatech.edu(130.207.85.142) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012381; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:41:00 -0500 Received: from murmur.arch.gatech.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by murmur.arch.gatech.edu (Netscape Mail Server v2.0) with SMTP id AAA12717 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:39:36 -0400 Subject: local phone charges for internet usage To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:39:35 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: sarah.coffin@arch.gatech.edu (Sarah Coffin) Message-ID: <19970219163936.AAA12717@murmur.arch.gatech.edu> Content-Length: 1000 I am responding to a disturbing message I received from a friend regarding local phone company attempts to extort yet more money out of their customers. Since when did internet usage interfere with phone service? I'm under the impression that what is affecting phone service is the numbers of calls being routed, not the length of time each call takes. How are internet calls any different cell phone calls or regular phone calls. It is still a phone call. I'm sure phone companies have figured out clever arguments to the contrary. I see this move as a sly way for the greedy phone companies to find yet another legal way to suck more money from their customer's ever dwindling monthly income. I protest such usery!!! I thought monopolistic behavior was illegal in this country. If the phone companies continue on this path...what's next? Will they figure out a way to bill us for our mere ability to pick up the phone? Sincerely, Sarah L. Coffin Atlanta, GA sarah.coffin@arch.gatech.edu From DebLouLaw@aol.com Wed Feb 19 11:43:22 1997 Return-Path: DebLouLaw@aol.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16571 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:43:22 -0500 From: DebLouLaw@aol.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12496; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:43:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from emout16.mx.aol.com(198.81.11.42) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012483; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:43:06 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA21384 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:42:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:42:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219114246_1348393294@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Per minute charges for internet service Content-Length: 849 To whom it may concern: While I can understand local companies concerns over the usage of the internet creating a hardship on the telephone network I do not believe that imposing a per minute charge on my internet usage is the answer. It is a new technology and should not be discouraged by placing this burden on the users. The reasons that I use the internet are to communicate with others that are far from me without worrying about the time I am on the line and to obtain information that is not otherwise availble. A charge based on time on line would defeat the first purpose and severly hinder the second. I ask you to continue the situation as is as far as charges. If they feel like they are overburdened then maybe they need to let someone else take over that can provide the service===after all it is free interprise. Thank you. From Preston.Wertheimer@jwalter.com Wed Feb 19 11:43:23 1997 Return-Path: Preston.Wertheimer@jwalter.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16575 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:43:23 -0500 From: Preston.Wertheimer@jwalter.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12500; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:43:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from jwtna.jwalter.com(206.230.98.2) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012484; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:43:15 -0500 Received: from ccMail by jwtna.jwalter.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 (Gold Candidate) Enterprise) id 0002682F; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:42:22 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:35:05 -0500 Message-ID: <0002682F.3034@jwalter.com> Subject: INTERNET USE FEES To: isp@fcc.gov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Content-Length: 159 Local phone companies should not be allowed to charge per-minute user fees for local phone calls to internet service providers. End of discussion. Thank you From AFIOURIS@allstate.com Wed Feb 19 11:43:24 1997 Return-Path: AFIOURIS@allstate.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16579 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:43:24 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12515; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:43:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay.allstate.com(167.127.242.253) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012487; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:43:23 -0500 Received: from mail.allstate.com by relay.allstate.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA40432; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:43:02 -0600 Received: from Allstate-Message_Server by allstate.com with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:42:59 -0600 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:42:28 -0600 From: Andreas Fiouris To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: per minute charges... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 216 I would like to register my extreme disapproval of the proposed scheme to allow the phone companies to impose per minute charges when their customers use the internet. Sincerely, Andreas Fiouris - fiouris@ibm.net From WongJan@excel.net Wed Feb 19 11:43:53 1997 Return-Path: WongJan@excel.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16583 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:43:53 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12524; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:43:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from excel.net(156.46.156.2) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012520; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:43:40 -0500 Received: from ply012.excel.net (ply012.excel.net [156.46.161.77]) by excel.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA16083 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:43:30 -0600 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:43:30 -0600 Message-Id: <199702191643.KAA16083@excel.net> X-Sender: jwong@excel.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ISP@fcc.gov From: WongJan@excel.net (Jane Wong) Subject: CC Docket No. 96-263 Content-Length: 987 This letter is to protest the proposed additional per minute charges requested by the telephone companies I would not be able to use the internet because of the extra telephone costs. It is my belief that Internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per minute charges. Your agency is supposed to protect consumers, not the telephone company. It could hurt or destroy many small business. Schools will not be able to permit students to use the internet because of the additional costs. It will hurt all Americans. The only beneficiaries would be the telephone companies. Jane Wong WongJan@excel.net _o \o_ __| \ / |__ o_ o/ \o/ __|- __/ \__/o \o | o/ o/__ /\ /| | > > / \ ( \ /o\ / ) | (\ /| < \ / \ +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* From AVANTGUARD@aol.com Wed Feb 19 11:44:54 1997 Return-Path: AVANTGUARD@aol.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16588 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:44:53 -0500 From: AVANTGUARD@aol.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12538; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:44:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from emout03.mx.aol.com(198.81.11.94) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012536; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:44:53 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout03.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA07858 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:44:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:44:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219114432_-1675598513@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Re: Phone Co. Surcharges for Net Use Content-Length: 1642 To whom it may concern: I have just been advised, and have reacted with some alarm, to a proposal the phone companies have made. They would like a per minute surcharge for customers who use the internet. I am opposed to such surcharges. The phone companies use the rationale that, because of increasing internet use, their networks are becoming overloaded with use. They may have to install new equipment and cables. However, we are already paying for local phone service. We are charged for the installation of the lines as well. We are also paying the ISP's for their service. Between them these companies are making profits that would boggle the mind of the average citizen. Surely they can find a way to avoid passing the cost to the already over-burdened consumer. Allowing a per minute surcharge would create a strong disincentive for internet use. Please remember that many of the people who use the internet are college students who are already financially strapped. Also, the young people need access to the internet to gain skills that will allow them to be competitive in our ever more fast-paced world. A per minute surcharge would put the internet out of reach for a large number of our students and children. This disincentive is in direct conflict with the public policy of the White House which has stated that it wants to see internet access in every home! I know you will give a lot of thought to this proposal and, in the end, I am sure you will decide to do the right thing and decide not to permit this surcharge. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Jason D. Fields, AVANTGUARD@aol.com From cgh3rd@stlnet.com Wed Feb 19 11:44:54 1997 Return-Path: cgh3rd@stlnet.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16589 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:44:53 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12540; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:44:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from home.stlnet.com(204.233.136.5) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012535; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:44:53 -0500 Received: from smdksbcr (Dialin4-52.stlnet.com [206.52.7.162]) by home.stlnet.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA20395 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:44:31 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702191644.KAA20395@home.stlnet.com> From: "Chuck Hill" To: Subject: Phone Companies are trying to scam you!!! Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:42:06 -0600 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 364 Leave the Internet alone!!! The Phone Companies don't seem to have any problem creating their own online services to help "bog" down the system more. It is all about them making more money. I guess customers adding more phone lines, and joining their ISPs is not enough for them. Please listen to us!!! Chuck Hill 4359 Southview Way Dr. St. Louis, MO. 63129 From KEYS@tenn.gw.utk.edu Wed Feb 19 11:45:40 1997 Return-Path: KEYS@tenn.gw.utk.edu Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16595 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:45:24 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12559; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:45:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from gw.utk.edu(198.78.220.15) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012550; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:45:20 -0500 Received: from HUB4-Message_Server by gw.utk.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:44:08 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:33:19 -0500 From: Steve Keys To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet Usage Charge Proposal Content-Length: 1267 As the manager of an ever expanding voice network I can see the reasoning behind the proposal from the LEC's in wanting to add the additional charge. Internet usage has caused the voice network to have to double in capacity without a way to recoup there costs. Eventually either the persons using the access will have pay for usage or everyone as a whole will have increased communications bills whether we use the Internet or not. I have never objected to paying for the services that I use, however, I do not think that paying an extra fee so that others can spends hours tying up the voice network is in the best interest for consumers. The Internet can no longer be considered a free resource for everything. The Local and Inter Exchange carries have built and expanded this service. Without the Telephone Companies there would be no Internet. I do not believe the charges that are proposed should be outrageous, however, I do believe these companies should be allowed to see a return on the massive investments. Therefore I would support a charge for the access. The Internet has been billed as the next Industrial Revolution, if we could not have charged for the goods and services provided there would never have been a first one. Thank You for your time. From toddh@primenet.com Wed Feb 19 11:45:54 1997 Return-Path: toddh@primenet.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16599 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:45:54 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12584; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:45:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.5.108) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012575; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:45:44 -0500 Received: from primenet.com (root@mailhost01.primenet.com [206.165.5.52]) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA26596 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:45:24 -0700 (MST) Received: from 204.245.21.81 (ip21-081.phx.primenet.com [204.245.21.81]) by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA07622 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:45:17 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <330ACC7A.693C@primenet.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:48:43 +0000 From: * Reply-To: toddh@primenet.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: NO Keep ISP's flat rate Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 533 C'mon! Aren't the phone companies making enough money? If you allow them to charge Internet Service Providers on a pay by minute rate, you will pave the road for the internet and it's information and entertainment and small and large business to become a thing for the upper echelon only, thus beginning a life as serfs for a lot of us out here who are just trying to make it. I know I sound a little dramatic here, but I really want you to think of me, also, and if it weren't for the 'net my life wouldn't work. Thanks, Todd From E111416@aol.com Wed Feb 19 11:45:56 1997 Return-Path: E111416@aol.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16603 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:45:55 -0500 From: E111416@aol.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12586; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:45:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from emout17.mx.aol.com(198.81.11.43) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012577; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:45:47 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout17.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA00420; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:45:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:45:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219114519_1514544720@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: ACCESS@fcc.gov cc: Hugh_B3@ix.netcom.com, WTownsend@prodigy.com, mall@ix.netcom.com, letters@link.freedom.com, letters@latimes.com, chukabee@tso.cin.ix.net, tnews@link.freedom.com, ad973@freenet.uchsc.edu, david_janes@fws.gov, JunghansMT@aol.com, rmoberly@ionet.net, David.Haldane@latimes.com, saharmon@uci.edu, isp@fcc.gov Subject: Additional INTERNET Charges - Docket No.96-262 Content-Length: 621 STOP this insane request by local phone companies for more monies ! They are are allready adequately compensated as allowed by the CA State Utilities Com-mission. On top of that, they are installing more wiring and are keeping ahead of load; all paid for by the user. NOW !, tell us why Pac Bell charges $3.50/mo for "Charges Imposed by the Federal Communications Commission: Access For Interstate Calling"; when the "modem dial" is to local numbers, NEVER an "Interstate #". I am sure that the AOL's pay adequate taxes, where this charge to us smacks of "double taxation" Chris E EMA, Santa Ana CA E111416@aol.com From EricDiD@aol.com Wed Feb 19 11:46:56 1997 Return-Path: EricDiD@aol.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16607 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:46:56 -0500 From: EricDiD@aol.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12631; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:47:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from emout01.mx.aol.com(198.81.11.92) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012621; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:46:44 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA12243 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:46:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:46:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219114622_378766927@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Docket No. 96-263, The Best Things In Life Are Still FREE Content-Length: 1324 February _18, 1997 Eric DiDomenico 14401 Northslope Street Centreville, VA 20120-4150 Federal Communications Commission Re: Docket No. 96-263 Proposed On-line Access Fees Dear Commissioners; I am AGAINST allowing the Local Exchange Carriers to charge metered rates for on-line internet access. Once again, the greedy monopolies have gotten you to do their bidding for them. The per-minute fees requested by several of the regional phone companies would simply generate windfall profits for those carriers, and once again reward poorly managed monopolies at the expense of the consuming public. Most of the better managed regional telephone companies maintain systems with adequate capacity to handle additional local traffic accountable to internet usage. But, fairness is hardly ever an issue. The comfortable bureaucracy seems too anxious to permit additional rates, taxes, and fees. Perhaps if we keep penalizing americans for their creativity, we can stiffle even the internet. The individual consumer is already paying for unlimited local services through their local telephone companies. It should not make any difference to the regional carriers, if this service is being used for extensive voice communication, or for internet data transmissions. Respectfully, Eric DiDomenico From MMeloney68@aol.com Wed Feb 19 11:47:57 1997 Return-Path: MMeloney68@aol.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16611 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:47:56 -0500 From: MMeloney68@aol.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12664; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:48:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from emout01.mx.aol.com(198.81.11.92) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012653; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:47:32 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA12824 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:47:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:47:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219114711_-1742568241@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet charges by telephone companies Content-Length: 815 I have been informed that telephone companies nationwide are attempting to collect a fee from internet users on a per minute basis, in addition to the fee we currently pay to have access to the internet. I STRONGLY OPPOSE their attempt and suggest to you that, if this were to happen, the internet would become another tool accessible by only those who are fortunate enough to be able to afford the bill. And, once again, the poor in this country who could not afford to pay the bill would suffer the consequences. The poor or lower-middle class who may have received a used computer which had been donated, would find the door slammed in their faces again because of the high fees which would be incurred as a result of using the computer. Thank you for your interest. Melissa K. Scott MMeloney68@aol.com From yvette-joe@juno.com Wed Feb 19 11:48:27 1997 Return-Path: yvette-joe@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16615 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:48:26 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12683; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:48:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from m10.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.195) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012676; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:48:12 -0500 Received: (from yvette-joe@juno.com) by m10.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LzA03750; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:47:03 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: cc Docket No 96-263 Message-ID: <19970219.115051.6934.1.Yvette-Joe@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-3,5-6,16 From: yvette-joe@juno.com (Yvette M Frusciante) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:47:03 EST Content-Length: 871 FROM: Yvette Frusciante 401 S Sunset Drive Winston-Salem, NC 27103 RE: Local telephone companies filing proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for internet service. My vote is a big fat NO!! I'm just geting ready to go on line & the only reason I can afford it is because there IS NOT a per minute usage. If this were imposed it would limit the usage to only those with an unlimited budget. Why should technology only be available to those who CAN afford it & forget about the rest of us. There's already enough of a division of classes as is. Should the children suffer. Should they not all have equal opportunity to be exposed to all the internet has to offer. If the internet service is local then it shouldn't cost anymore than what I pay to have a phone line in my house. Isn't it just about the same thing??? From WenzA@SourceSvc.com Wed Feb 19 11:48:57 1997 Return-Path: WenzA@SourceSvc.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16619 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:48:57 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12714; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:49:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from intex.intex.net(204.255.96.10) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012703; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:48:43 -0500 Received: from SSCIMC.intex.net ([204.255.102.66]) by intex.intex.net (8.8.3/4.1.4) with SMTP id KAA09180 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:48:21 -0600 (CST) Received: by SSCIMC.intex.net with Microsoft Exchange (IMC 4.0.838.14) id <01BC1E52.AF9DD7C0@SSCIMC.intex.net>; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:50:14 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Wenz, Alex" To: "'smtp:isp@fcc.gov'" Subject: Per minute charges Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:50:00 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.838.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 276 I am totally against the phone companies changing their rates. It never ceases to amaze me that the minute an organization realizes that the consumer is using a service as it was intended (local calls for an unlimited time) the consumer gets screwed. Alex Wenz 619-552-0300 From johnson_phil@msmail.muohio.edu Wed Feb 19 11:52:59 1997 Return-Path: <@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU:johnson_phil@msmail.muohio.edu> Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16625 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:52:59 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12858; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:53:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from miamiu.acs.muohio.edu(134.53.7.2) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012849; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:52:46 -0500 Received: from msmail.muohio.edu by MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:51:51 EST Message-ID: Date: 19 Feb 1997 11:37:30 -0500 From: "Johnson Phil" Return-Receipt-To: "Johnson Phil" Subject: CC Docket No. 96-263 To: isp@fcc.gov X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-MS 3.0.2 Content-Length: 541 This letter is to protest the proposed additional per minute charges requested by the telephone companies. It is my belief that Internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per minute charges. Your agency is supposed to protect consumers not the telephone company. It could hurt or destroy many small business' as well as children in schools it will hurt all Americans the only beneficiaries would be the telephone companies." Signed, Phillip J. Johnson 158 Kelly Dr. Oxford, OH 45056 From JRHORN2@monsanto.com Wed Feb 19 11:53:00 1997 Return-Path: JRHORN2@monsanto.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16623 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:52:58 -0500 From: JRHORN2@monsanto.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12856; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:53:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from gatekeeper2.monsanto.com(199.89.234.124) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012850; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:52:45 -0500 Received: by monsanto.com; id KAA23608; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:55:13 -0600 Received: from tin.monsanto.com(164.144.230.51) by gatekeeper2.monsanto.com via smap (3.2) id xma022701; Wed, 19 Feb 97 10:53:52 -0600 Received: from monlms.monsanto.com by tin (5.65/Monsanto1.11) id AA00819; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:50:51 -0600 X400-Originator: JRHORN2@MONSANTO.COM X400-Recipients: isp@fcc.gov X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=MONSANTO/ADMD=MCI/C=US/;0030400002607969000002] X400-Content-Type: P2-1988 (22) Message-Id: <0030400002607969000002*@MHS> To: "isp(a)fcc.gov" Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:50:45 -0600 Content-Length: 2876 ---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes --------------------------- From: JAMES RYAN HORN Date: 2/19/97 7:39AM To: JAMES RYAN HORN Subject: FCC Internet Access Charge Reform ---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes --------------------------- From: horn@pop.flash.net at INTERNET Date: 2/18/97 8:04PM To: JAMES RYAN HORN at MONCHB01 Subject: FCC Internet Access Charge Reform ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Per-minute charges is not the way to go, FCC! We are in the middle of a revolution, do not stifle the growth. Supply and demand will create the infrastructure necessary for both phone and internet service to co-exist. I would much rather have my flat rate increased as opposed to a per-minute charge assessed. The internet is trending towards a "constant connection" technology. The per-minute initiative will do nothing but hurt this development and delay progress to this information revolution that will affect every one of us. James Ryan Horn jrhorn2@ccmail.monsanto.com horn@flash.net 8181 Fannin, #1021 Houston, TX 77054 ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: FCC Internet Access Charge Reform Author: JAMES RYAN HORN at MONCHB01 Date: 2/19/97 7:39 AM Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:00:00 -0600 From: FlashNet Communications Organization: FlashNet Communications Subject: FCC Internet Access Charge Reform Dear FlashNet customer, We are 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 our 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. Alert everyone in your addressbook, and most importantly the subject line should have "CC Docket No 96-263". FULL NAME AND ADDRESS SHOULD ACCOMPANY THE EMAIL otherwise it will be deleted. Again, the email to FCC is isp@fcc.gov More information can be found at the FCC website: http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all our voices may be heard. Thanks for your time. ****************************************** M. Scott Leslie President - FlashNet Communications a division of WebSite Management Co., Inc. ****************************************** From Dustin.Gilbert@mailbox.leusd.k12.ca.us Wed Feb 19 11:57:01 1997 Return-Path: Dustin.Gilbert@mailbox.leusd.k12.ca.us Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16631 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:57:00 -0500 From: Dustin.Gilbert@mailbox.leusd.k12.ca.us Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12974; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:57:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702191657.LAA12974@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov> Received: from rcoe.rcoe.k12.ca.us(158.61.157.132) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012949; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:56:37 -0500 Received: from mailbox.leusd.k12.ca.us ([158.61.152.152]) by rcoe.rcoe.k12.ca.us with SMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA280300971; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:49:31 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:53:56 -0500 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: more charges Content-Length: 269 now I just started on this internet thing and well I have been having a lot of fun talking to my cousins and that type of stuff. I think that it is bull if we have to pay more money for something that we are already paying enough money for. Thanks for listening. From RedRster@aol.com Wed Feb 19 11:57:02 1997 Return-Path: RedRster@aol.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16635 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:57:01 -0500 From: RedRster@aol.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA12972; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:57:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from emout07.mx.aol.com(198.81.11.22) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma012964; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:56:48 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA19526 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:56:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:56:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219115622_2027402719@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: internet charges Content-Length: 377 It has come to my attention that the various telephone companies are trying to charge per minute fees for internet usage. This is Crap. They are just trying to cash in on another potential profit area, without having to spend an extra dime to justify it. The internet is just fine the way it is, the only true value for the dollar still existing in the US. Regards, Ed From dmosher@garnet.Eng.Sun.COM Wed Feb 19 11:58:03 1997 Return-Path: dmosher@garnet.Eng.Sun.COM Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA16639 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:58:02 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id LAA13024; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:58:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from venus.sun.com(192.9.25.5) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013022; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:58:04 -0500 Received: from Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.25]) by venus.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id IAA04658 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:57:43 -0800 Received: from garnet.eng.sun.com by Eng.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3) id IAA02666; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:57:41 -0800 Received: from mosher.eng.sun.com by garnet.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA02438; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:57:40 -0800 Received: by mosher.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA00742; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:57:49 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:57:49 -0800 From: dmosher@garnet.Eng.Sun.COM (David Mosher) Message-Id: <199702191657.IAA00742@mosher.eng.sun.com> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Billing by the minute for local calls to ISP providers X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Content-Length: 332 I disagree with allowing the local telephone companies to bill for this. In order for an ISP to be viable they already pay for a high speed from the phone company so these costs are already being passed onto the customers. Local telephone companies didn't think ahead and now they want the public to bail them out. Just say no. From Brian_Shrock@qmailgw.gar.esys.com Wed Feb 19 12:00:03 1997 Return-Path: Brian_Shrock@qmailgw.gar.esys.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16646 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:00:03 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13077; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:00:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from zeus.esy.com(162.36.5.11) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013068; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:59:42 -0500 Received: by firewall.gar.esys.com; id KAA10333; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:58:26 -0600 Received: from gar.esys.com(162.36.1.11) by firewall.gar.esys.com via smap (3.2) id xma010315; Wed, 19 Feb 97 10:58:18 -0600 Received: from qmailgw by gar.esys.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA19560; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:58:25 -0600 Message-Id: Date: 19 Feb 1997 10:52:38 -0600 From: "Brian Shrock" Subject: Internet Access Fees To: "FCC Internet Fees" X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 4.0.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; Name="Message Body" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 6225 REGARDING Internet Access Fees To Whom It May Concern: Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion. For your information, I = have never subscribed to any internet service. I do intend to in the = future, but for no more than $100/yr. Getting a second phone line for = that purpose is not out of the question, but otherwise is not even a = remote consideration. Because I am a consumer and prefer to get more for my money, I am biased. = With that in mind, I am listing below reasons I believe the proposed = access fee, fair or not, will have negative impacts, would be = inconsistent, and is a bad idea. Quotes are from an article on the = Internet by Michelle V. Rafter from Thursday February 6 10:02 AM EST. "In 1995, local phone companies spent a total of $245 million adding 6 = million residential phone lines used primarily for Internet access, but reaped $1.4 billion in revenue on those lines..." * The phone companies are making substantial money selling all these = extra phone lines (which customers pay for continually regardless of = use). Just what effect has the internet boom had on phone company = profits? "Pacific Bell, for example, says Internet surfers use its phone lines an = average of 45 minutes a day -- more than twice the amount the network was = built to handle." * If phone companies lines were designed to handle averages of 22 = minutes or less per day, like Pacific Bell), it seems to me they might = already need upgrading, and certainly would soon, given steadily growing = communication patterns. * Why haven't the phone companies asked for a teenager tax? I'm sure = this group averages more than 22 minutes a day on the lines! "But why should phone companies pick up all the costs when Internet service providers will benefit, too, says Pacific Bell spokesman Bob Deward." * It is the consumers who are picking up the costs (through extra phone = lines), and who would inherit any new costs. And it is the consumers who = benefit now. * "If Internet traffic was such a threat, phone companies wouldn't be exac= erbating the problem by jumping into the Internet access business = themselves, providers say." "If, for example, Internet providers passed through an access fee of 1 = cent a minute, a subscriber spending 10 hours online a month would pay an = extra $6 -- hardly a deterrent, said David Goodtree, an analyst with = Forrester Research in Cambridge, Mass." * If charging by the minute won't decrease usage, why are providers like = AOL giving up on charging by the hour? Why is CompuServe's market share = so small? * For the typical $20/month provider fee, a 1 cent/minute charge equates = to a 30% increase in cost for a minimal 10 hours of connect time (which = would be less than half of the 45 minutes/day reported by Pacific Bell). = And for people like me, who won't pay more than $100/yr for a provider, = that extra $6/mo. is a 70%+ increase in cost, for less value. I have a = family of 4, meaning either each member would be limited to 2.5 hours per = month for that price, or the cost would rise even more. No way I'm = buying that. This would be a major deterrent. * I suspect if families must become time conscious and budget their = internet connections, children will be the first to limited or denied = access. " 'Cable TV rates have doubled in the last three or four years, we got = nothing more for it, but cable subscribership didn't go down because of = it,' Goodtree said." * I include this in case people actually try to compare these two = disjoint groups. Forgive me, but somehow I think the average IQ (or use = of it) of internet users is likely well above that of cable-TV = subscribers as a whole (consider the internet origins), and therefore = they will be more discriminating than to just pay more for the same or = less without cutting back or quitting. And again, often it may be childre= n who get cut back first. * Additionally, this could hurt companies that advertise on the = internet, and those supported by advertising. People are a lot less = likely to check out advertisers if they know they will be paying by the = minute to do so. I foresee a very negative domino effect. * If additional fees are not avoided altogether, perhaps they should = only be levied on "excess time" used by an individual beyond a given = amount, such as 20 hours/month. But then why include only the internet co= nnected? * Additional fees cannot have a positive impact, except possibly for = phone company profits, and I'm not sure about that. So the only question = is, how great would the negative impact be? * Finally, can you say "Luxury Tax"? In summary, I believe that the phone companies would eventually have to = upgrade their systems anyway, that the internet boom is not a threat, but = a serendipity for them to pay for those upgrades and provide nice = residual profits as well. Any additional internet access fees would land = on the consumer, regardless of where they were levied. I believe such = fees would have significant and widespread negative consequences, and = could have no redeeming value. If phone companies are already profiting = from the situation, it makes no sense to even consider moves that could = only damage it. Therefore, I urge the FCC to reject the proposed = additional internet fees and maintain the status quo. This seems to be a = win-win situation for everybody. Thank you, -- Brian D. Shrock =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Brian D. Shrock Brian_Shrock@qmailgw.esy.com Sr. Software Engineer 972-205-8487 Raytheon E-Systems "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." --Mark Twain =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D From jpl8@juno.com Wed Feb 19 12:00:04 1997 Return-Path: jpl8@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16650 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:00:04 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13083; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:00:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from m7.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.196) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013071; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:00:07 -0500 Received: (from jpl8@juno.com) by m7.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LmX19722; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:56:09 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Re: CC Docket No 96-263 Message-ID: <19970219.105756.3350.2.jpl8@juno.com> References: <199702181557.HAA25496@m1.sprynet.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-12,14,16-21,23,25-32,35,38-47 From: jpl8@juno.com (John Paul M Leofsky) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:56:09 EST Content-Length: 1259 Send it to: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Include your name and address. Thanks to everyone who is fighting against this preposterous matter. Timothy ********* Dear Internet customer, We are 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 our 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. John Paul Leofsky 1524 Westminster Drive Montgomery, AL 36117 Dear Friends, I oppose the proposal by telephone companies to charge internet access by the minute. This pricing structure will discriminate most against people with few resources. The enormous telephone companies enjoy protections from free market capitalism - we will all be better served by more competition not special protections of narrow interest profits. Sincerely, jpleofsky From dmason@Uwohali.Com Wed Feb 19 12:00:40 1997 Return-Path: dmason@Uwohali.Com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16654 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:00:35 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13103; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:00:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from gateway.uwohali.com(205.139.141.224) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013099; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:00:31 -0500 Received: from Uwohali1.Uwohali.Com (uwohali1.uwohali.com [205.139.141.1]) by gateway.uwohali.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA00599 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:01:21 -0600 Received: from UWOHALI1/MAILQ by Uwohali1.Uwohali.Com (Mercury 1.13); Wed, 19 Feb 97 10:58:11 -0500 Received: from MAILQ by UWOHALI1 (Mercury 1.13); Wed, 19 Feb 97 10:57:46 -0500 From: "Dona Mason" Organization: Uwohali, Incorporated To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:57:37 CST Subject: Internet Charging Legislation Reply-to: dmason@Uwohali.Com X-Confirm-Reading-To: dmason@uwohali.com X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <4F3C7AD5B3E@Uwohali1.Uwohali.Com> Content-Length: 1322 It was passed to me that you are considering the following legislation: >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. I am very much against this charge. Computerized households are the future. If the local telephone company doesn't have enough bandwidth to support what is needed, they will be out of business. They must increase their lines now, but not at the expense of the future, but at basic rate increases. They always say that the basic rate is a flat rate, but now change that, I don't think so. They will do to us what long distance has done and it is NOT in their best interest. The charge per minute will hold the future back or spawn work arounds that will not facilitate the future. Please vote this legislation down. Dona Mason, registered voter 2105 Villaret Dr Huntsville Al 35803 the become computer literate and purchase computers, *************************************************** From: Dona Mason Uwohali in Huntsville, AL System Analyst on MLRS Automation Initiative Huntsville CALS Interest Group (HCIG) Director Phone (205) 837-4482 From bsampson@flash.net Wed Feb 19 12:01:05 1997 Return-Path: gbarham@flash.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16658 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:01:05 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13117; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:01:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from centurion.flash.net(206.149.24.19) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013110; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:00:48 -0500 Received: (from gbarham@localhost) by flash.net (8.8.5/8.7.5) id LAA12490; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:00:59 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702191700.LAA12490@flash.net> From: "Robert L. Sampson" To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:53:17 -0600 Subject: CC docket No 96-263 cc: arevalo_c@hccs.cc.tx.us Content-Length: 1069 I strongly oppose the local telephone companies charging customers for Internet access. Internet usage has had a very positive effect on the economy and is educational and entertaining for the users. This plan would: a. Seriously curtail Internet usage which would drastically effect sales and service that Internet usage has created. b. Discourage computer sales and new Internet subscribers. c. Deny access to those that are unable to afford the luxury that this would become. The elderly and the working families would be unable to use this new and wonderful creation. Telephone customers pay their telephone bills and now the telephone companies have found a way to charge for local calls that the Internet offers. My Internet access is a local call and I do not expect to pay long distance charges as well as a monthly telephone bill. The telephone companies charge for every feature they can think of and now they want to charge for Internet assess which is not even their idea. Robert L. Sampson 1716 Norfolk #22 Houston, Texas 77098 Robert L. Sampso From ozark.doug@worldnet.att.net Wed Feb 19 12:01:07 1997 Return-Path: ozark.doug@worldnet.att.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16662 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:01:06 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13123; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:01:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhost.worldnet.att.net(204.127.131.3) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013113; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:01:07 -0500 Received: from LOCALNAME ([207.116.68.211]) by mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with SMTP id AAA15770 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 16:57:59 +0000 X-Sender: ozark.doug@postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: isp@fcc.gov From: Douglas Walker Subject: per minute charge for internet usage Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 16:57:59 +0000 Message-ID: <19970219165757.AAA15770@LOCALNAME> Content-Length: 1398 To whom it may concern: Upon hearing notice of the local thelephone companies wanting to charge a per minute fee for internet usage seems to me to be singling out a group of people and bashing them. Not unlike the KKK singling out blacks. This is truly discrimination. We currently have the highest of telephone charges here in Northern Illinois. In fact, we pay a toll for all calls, even the local ones. Plus this per call charge for local calls also applies to long distance. So not only do we pay long distance charges, but we also pay local charges on long distance. Toll free numbers, in Northern Illinois do not exist, we pay a toll for every call we make. Some calls we are double and triple billed for. My usage of the internet is primarily for E-mail. Anyone who knows anything about the system knows that E-Mailing takes less time to transfer your message than by any other medium. We actual use less telephone time than if we were talking with our contact. People who do faxing of documents and computer networking over the telephone lines will by far tie up more services than anyone else. If there are not enough curcuits to handle all of the telephone calls, put in more curcuits. We as the consumer have by far paid for additional services. We keep paying more for our telephone as it is, yet we get less and less for our dollar. Internet and E-Mail Subscriber From nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov Wed Feb 19 12:02:06 1997 Return-Path: nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16666 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:02:05 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13148; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:02:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from exodus.content.earthlink.net(206.250.94.3) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013142; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:01:53 -0500 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by exodus (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) id JAA08482 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:01:32 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:01:32 -0800 From: nobody@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (SVR4 nobody uid) Message-Id: <199702191701.JAA08482@exodus> To: isp@fcc.gov Reply-To: webadmin@cactuspetes.com Subject: Form Data from 206.26.230.12 Content-Length: 985 Date: Wed Feb 19 09:01:32 PST 1997 = 1761 3rd Ave E city = Twin Falls comments = I am the web admin. for a corprate web site and Intranet service. Charging a EXTRA fee for modem usage is contrary to everything the internet is based on. Also I belive the Telco's are making enough money on the internet already, ours is also our provider, and we buy seperate lines for each modem every month. I think that we should be looking at other ways to access the net instead of charging more to the user. email = webadmin@cactuspetes.com name = Scott Robinson regarding = FCC Docket #96-263 state = ID statement = I understand the FCC has tentatively concluded that providers of information services (including Internet service providers) should not be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess on long-distance carriers. I agree that Internet Service Providers should not be subject to the interstate access charges. zipcode = 83301 From mbacall@msn.com Wed Feb 19 12:02:36 1997 Return-Path: mbacall@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16670 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:02:36 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13174; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:02:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot02.msn.com(204.95.110.79) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013164; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:02:31 -0500 Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot02.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id IAA00628 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:58:54 -0800 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 16:56:06 UT From: "Michael Bacall" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: proposed per minute charge for Internet service Content-Length: 534 February 19, 1997 Dear FCC isp@fcc.gov I understand local telephone companies are filing proposals with the FCC to impose per minute charges for Internet service. I question whether Pac Bell is concerned about the telephone network or loss of revenue due to competition from services offered over the net. Please reject these proposals and guarantee the public's access to the net at reasonable rate. Thank you, Michael Bacall, Esq. Mbacall@msn.com 4330 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 230 San Diego, CA 92122 (619) 546-8197 From tuley@flash.net Wed Feb 19 12:03:06 1997 Return-Path: tuley@flash.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16674 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:03:06 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13190; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:03:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from endeavor.flash.net(208.194.223.40) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013186; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:02:44 -0500 Received: from LOCALNAME (pm20-120.flash.net [208.194.194.120]) by endeavor (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA15067 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:59:45 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <330B4E39.7284@flash.net> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:02:17 -0800 From: Tuley Home Reply-To: tuley@flash.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet charges Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 883 Please, do not begin to issue phone charges for internet use. I know many missionaries on the field that cannot afford phone charges and find being able to make contact with the states via E-Mail a tremendous source of strength and encouragement. I have family members in other places that we communicate with other more now...due to internet activity. Being a marriage and family trained counselor, I am so excited about a means of bringing extended families closer together again after decades of scattering the support group through mobility in our society. Internet communication does that while still allowing families to live where they need to. Please, consider these folks needs and the great potential to enrich our society with no Internet charges. Thank you. Sincerely, Virginia Tuley tuley@flash.net 3200 Covert Ave. Fort Worth, Texas 76133-1718 (817) 927-7962 From rcollins@arinc.com Wed Feb 19 12:03:36 1997 Return-Path: rcollins@arinc.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16678 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:03:36 -0500 From: rcollins@arinc.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13214; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:03:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from interlock.arinc.com(144.243.4.2) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013204; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:03:25 -0500 Received: from ccmail.arinc.com ([144.243.35.242]) by interlock.arinc.com with SMTP id <27744>; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:02:01 -0500 Received: from ccMail by ccmail.arinc.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 Enterprise) id 0001A3BB; Wed, 19 Feb 97 11:56:09 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:50:39 -0500 Message-ID: <0001A3BB.3227@ccmail.arinc.com> Subject: Local Phone Charges To: isp@fcc.gov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Content-Length: 668 It has come to my attention that several local telephone companies have petitioned the FCC for permission to charge Internet Users by the minute for LOCAL dial-up telephone service. This would affect every Internet User, including those using AOL dial-up. I would like to ask for a minute of your time to consider what you are being asked to do. What these local telephone companies are asking you to do is unfair to the consumer. I speak on the behalf of many when I ask that this petition be put in it's proper place... the trash! Thank you for your time, Richard S. Collins From SCLEP@aol.com Wed Feb 19 12:04:07 1997 Return-Path: SCLEP@aol.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16686 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:04:07 -0500 From: SCLEP@aol.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13245; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:04:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from emout12.mx.aol.com(198.81.11.38) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013235; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:04:08 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout12.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA19778 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:03:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:03:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219120347_751602922@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: ISP charges Content-Length: 25 To whom it may concern, From mmsi@glasnet.ru Wed Feb 19 12:04:22 1997 Return-Path: mmsi@glasnet.ru Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16682 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:04:06 -0500 From: mmsi@glasnet.ru Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13241; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:04:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from eagle.glas.apc.org(193.124.5.49) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013230; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:03:51 -0500 Received: from ppp302.glas.apc.org(really [193.124.5.43]) by eagle.glasnet.ru via sendmail with smtp id for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 20:05:25 +0300 (WSU) (Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #4 built 1996-Dec-30) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 20:05:25 +0300 (WSU) Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970219200345.2e07931e@pop-win.glas.apc.org> X-Sender: mmsi@pop-win.glas.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_856411425==_" To: isp@fcc.gov Cc: weckc001@tc.umn.edu X-Attachments: C:\E_MAIL\BOX\ISP.TXT; Content-Length: 650 --=====================_856411425==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" --=====================_856411425==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Greetings, from Moscow / MMSI But we have 2 basic problems at INTERNET: - Large cost ISP in Russia (about 3 $ per hour) - Bad telephone lines in Moscow Our ISP is GlasNet. Thank to you for your help. Best regards, Alexandre Airapetov, Coordinator by an educational programs, Division of Medical Computer Science and Management, Moscow Medical Stomatological Inst 20, Delegatskaya, Moscow, 103473, Russia email mmsi@glas.apc.org --=====================_856411425==_-- From markn@cameron.edu Wed Feb 19 12:04:39 1997 Return-Path: markn@cameron.edu Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16690 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:04:38 -0500 From: markn@cameron.edu Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13276; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:04:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from shakaree.cameron.edu(164.58.112.6) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013271; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:04:36 -0500 Received: from cuok.cameron.edu ([164.58.112.125]) by shakaree.cameron.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA17444 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:54:18 -0600 Message-Id: <199702191754.LAA17444@shakaree.cameron.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:04:48 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Comments On Telephone Company Proposal With the FCC to Impose a Return-receipt-to: markn@cameron.edu Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Content-Length: 1913 As a consumer I am concerned about the proposal which some telephone companies are making to charge a fee for access to the internet on a per minute basis. As the Director of Telecommunications at Cameron University I know the impact that internet access has had on our switch and that the impact could become a problem for all telephone companies. They are used to having many short conversations on their networks and not the long sessions which are required for internet use. I think the major factor that the telephone companies need to consider is the fact that most consumers are ordering and paying for a second telephone line to take care of internet service. I also think the telephone companies are making profit on the many other services they are offering and that adding a fee for LOCAL access to the internet is not fair. The FCC must protect the average consumers right to have access to the internet and keep the cost low on the internet will not grow and provide the services that it has the potential to provide. If the telephone company believes it needs to charge for more to build a better switching system then they need to find some method other than taxing those who are helping them by purchasing additional services. My second line for the internet service is costing me $20 a month or $240 a year and the telephone company already had the lines in the ground and had no expense in hooking me up, except a 10 min. visit by a local telephone line man. The will have my $240 to use to build their future network. The telephone company needs to stop being greedy and start helping to make the internet a major part of the daily life of the average consumer. Mark Norman Cameron University Director of Broadcasting 2800 West Gore markn@cameron.edu Lawton, OK 73505 405-581-2425 Office 405-581-5571 Fax From Sirjeffer@aol.com Wed Feb 19 12:05:09 1997 Return-Path: Sirjeffer@aol.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16694 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:05:08 -0500 From: Sirjeffer@aol.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13293; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:05:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from emout12.mx.aol.com(198.81.11.38) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013288; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:05:02 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout12.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA20444 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:04:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:04:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219120441_-1675599631@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Fwd: Returned mail: User unknown Content-Length: 1875 --------------------- Forwarded message: From: MAILER-DAEMON@aol.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) To: Sirjeffer@aol.com Date: 97-02-17 13:07:01 EST The original message was received at Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:06:31 -0500 (EST) from root@localhost ----- The following addresses have delivery notifications ----- isp.fcc.gov (unrecoverable error) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 isp.fcc.gov... User unknown ----- Original message follows ----- Return-Path: Sirjeffer@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout24.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id NAA07556 for isp.fcc.gov; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:06:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:06:31 -0500 (EST) From: Sirjeffer@aol.com Message-ID: <970217121648_785829710@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: isp.fcc.gov Subject: Phone Company Charges Fcc: Allowing the phone company to regulate access charges to users on the internet is wrong. They already charge ISP's for access and that means they would be making profits from both ends. The internet was started as a free enterprise system, what our country was built on and allowing a private institution (or public company) to come in and say we have to regulate this, is wrong. It directly goes against the President's move to get everyone connected. It will effect schools who can't afford anything, families who can't even afford their monthly bills and limit the growth of intelligence of our country, all in the name of profits. Please don't allow this to happen. Thank you. P.S. What if the Air Quality Control folks started charging you for the amount of air space your home took up, or what you breathe. While is sound ludicrous, their argument would be much the same as the phone compnay..."We have to montior this because otherwise it will eventually get all used up, and we won't be able to have enough to go around. A From Sirjeffer@aol.com Wed Feb 19 12:05:39 1997 Return-Path: Sirjeffer@aol.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16698 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:05:39 -0500 From: Sirjeffer@aol.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13318; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:05:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from emout16.mx.aol.com(198.81.11.42) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013291; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:05:14 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA07972 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:04:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:04:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219120452_-1206733583@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Thanks for listening Content-Length: 1896 Thanks for listening! --------------------- Forwarded message: From: MAILER-DAEMON@aol.com (Mail Delivery Subsystem) To: Sirjeffer@aol.com Date: 97-02-17 13:07:01 EST The original message was received at Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:06:31 -0500 (EST) from root@localhost ----- The following addresses have delivery notifications ----- isp.fcc.gov (unrecoverable error) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 isp.fcc.gov... User unknown ----- Original message follows ----- Return-Path: Sirjeffer@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout24.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id NAA07556 for isp.fcc.gov; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:06:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:06:31 -0500 (EST) From: Sirjeffer@aol.com Message-ID: <970217121648_785829710@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: isp.fcc.gov Subject: Phone Company Charges Fcc: Allowing the phone company to regulate access charges to users on the internet is wrong. They already charge ISP's for access and that means they would be making profits from both ends. The internet was started as a free enterprise system, what our country was built on and allowing a private institution (or public company) to come in and say we have to regulate this, is wrong. It directly goes against the President's move to get everyone connected. It will effect schools who can't afford anything, families who can't even afford their monthly bills and limit the growth of intelligence of our country, all in the name of profits. Please don't allow this to happen. Thank you. P.S. What if the Air Quality Control folks started charging you for the amount of air space your home took up, or what you breathe. While is sound ludicrous, their argument would be much the same as the phone compnay..."We have to montior this because otherwise it will eventually get all used up, and we won't be able to have enough to go around. A From seb@schof.Colorado.EDU Wed Feb 19 12:06:47 1997 Return-Path: seb@schof.Colorado.EDU Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16702 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:06:39 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13361; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:06:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from schof.colorado.edu(128.138.200.20) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013357; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:06:31 -0500 Received: from [128.138.105.84] (itp84.Colorado.EDU [128.138.105.84]) by schof.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5/Unixops/Hesiod/(SDM)) with SMTP id KAA28982 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:05:53 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:05:53 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: seb@schof.colorado.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: isp@fcc.gov From: seb@schof.Colorado.EDU (Stan Bush) Subject: RBOC per-minute usage charges for Internet access Content-Length: 1308 To whom it may concern: It is my understanding that many of the RBOCs are requesting permission to charge by the minute for local circuit-switched connections. This will probably include voice although they are requesting it for relief from long-holding time Internet access users. In my opinion this is not justified. It is true that Internet access and connections to services such as Compuserve and AOL tend to have very long holding times which were not anticipated in the design and implementation of the circuit switches. But it is also true that the public network should be moving toward support of packet switching. Packet switching is a part of the ISDN plan and is part of all the ADSL schemes I have seen. The RBOCs should get into the modern world and implement packet switching. Then it would be possible for them to make some money as Internet Access Providers themselves. Per-minute charges are not appropriate for data services and it would be particularly unfortunate if the RBOCs were allowed to use this smoke screen to institute per-minute charges on telephone calls in the base-rate area that exists today. Stanley E. Bush Director, Telecommunication Systems Laboratory Interdisciplinary Telecommunicatons Program University of Colorado at Boulder Campus Box 530 Boulder, CO 80309 From EAM6602@ssu.edu Wed Feb 19 12:07:11 1997 Return-Path: EAM6602@ssu.edu Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16706 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:07:11 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13398; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:07:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from csin.ssu.edu(131.118.47.1) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013394; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:07:06 -0500 Received: from ITS-Message_Server by ssu.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:03:28 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:51:21 -0500 From: Eric Myers To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Phone companies Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 468 The phone companies get to much money to begin with. To pass this legislation would seriosly decrease usage of the internet. It is expensive enough to get on. ie; Buying a computer and paying for Access. The phone company is just trying to cut in on the action. Take a look at some of the ridiculaous charges they already get away with. It would take millions of americans off the internet, and how can that be good for the country! Eric Myers College Student From lundy@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Wed Feb 19 12:07:42 1997 Return-Path: LUNDY@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16710 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:07:41 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13423; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:07:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from madder.ccit.arizona.edu(128.196.120.13) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013420; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:07:34 -0500 Received: from CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU by CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU (PMDF V5.0-6 #2381) id <01IFLH9DOU1S8WXILC@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU> for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:07:00 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:07:00 -0700 (MST) From: lundy@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Imposed Access Fees To: isp@fcc.gov Message-id: X-Envelope-to: isp@fcc.gov MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Length: 2097 I am an educator at a major university. We rely on the internet to delivery the highest technical education we can. If we are charged for this service, it will not be used. We do not recieve enough money to cover supplies such as photocopies, textbooks, etc. We put our course syllabi on the internet and provide articles electronically. If that is gone, we won't be able to afford the quality of education we are striving for in efforts to compete globally with other nations. I would employ you to you read books on education, societal factors affecting education and the technological impact on education. If we cave in to greed and let these folks charge, we're going to be in deep trouble as a nation. The only way they should be allowed to charge is if they provide the serve free to the educational systems and the military, and/or increase via contribution to national higher educational institutions. They do not need to charge for this service - it does not strain their phone systems! Trust me, I go to school, teach and study my buns off for a living! I would caution reading statistics provided by the phone companies - these are easy to scew in directions to benefit their profit margins! They hire overly education people like myself to make these projects that are borderline true and in the best interest of their organization! Ensure you too have these bookworms to help you decipher the crap from the reality before imposing such a tremendous strain on the American population. Once you let them charge one cent, they will find ways to wage it higher in the coming years. Also - keep an eye on those within your organization with hidden agendas. The phone companies will pay a lot of money to see something like this imposed! Trust me when I say they don't need the money (there's not damage to the system requiring compensation). Not all roads have tolls - the phone companies don't need to impose one on the information superhighway! -Gina Lundy, AA, BA2, M.Ed., Ed.D Assitant Professor of Aerospace Studies University of Arizona From rvon@apeleon.net Wed Feb 19 12:08:11 1997 Return-Path: rvon@shell.apeleon.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16714 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:08:11 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13437; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:08:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from apeleon.net(206.29.222.4) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013430; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:07:54 -0500 Received: from Default (s19.cs00.Io.apeleon.net [206.29.222.52]) by shell.apeleon.net (8.8.4/8.6.10) with SMTP id KAA28527; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:06:06 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199702191706.KAA28527@shell.apeleon.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Vincent O'Neil" Organization: mail.apeleon.net To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:06:06 +0000 Subject: Internet rate hike Reply-to: rvon@apeleon.net CC: sandmt@highfiber.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.30) Content-Length: 733 To whom it may concern; If you raise the rates on my modem line, you will be hurting me in more ways than one. I am disabled and rely on a small pension to live. The computer is my main source of contact with the outside world. I depend on it like a friend. If my rate goes up, I may not be able to afford this link. PLEASE, do not allow this to happen. Additionally, the phone company will then force others to use their Internet services, thus creating a monoply and sending many ISP's out of business. This is NOT fair! PLEASE, do not allow this to happen. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Vincent O'Neil 4640 South 475 West Ogden, Utah 84405 :) Vince O'Neil voneil@rvon.com http://www.rvon.com From wp@sonic.net Wed Feb 19 12:08:42 1997 Return-Path: wp@sonic.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16718 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:08:42 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13453; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:08:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from sub.sonic.net(208.201.224.8) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013445; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:08:45 -0500 Received: from wp.ppp (d135.pm4.sonic.net [208.201.229.135]) by sub.sonic.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA17186 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:08:24 -0800 Message-ID: <330B340C.2A05@sonic.net> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:10:36 -0800 From: William Pinkus Reply-To: wp@sonic.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Proposal for per minute charge for internet use Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 974 > "I understand local telephone companies are filing proposals with > the FCC to impose per minute charges for internet service. They contend that > customer usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. > The truth is that the phone company is in a panic that the internet is > becoming a competitor, i.e., make a local call to internet then use the > internet to have voice mail to anywhere in the world at minimal > cost---undercutting the phone company profits. The phone companies > technology is outdated and will be replaced by internet type connections. > The only question is when. If they win the public loses. It seems that > the FCC is in a position to foster the future or safeguard the past. I hope > you will look forward to what can be rather than protect what will become > antiquated technology. Please reject these proposals and guarantee the > public's access to this new medium. > Yours truly, William Pinkus> From gordelida@juno.com Wed Feb 19 12:09:12 1997 Return-Path: gordelida@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16722 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:09:12 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13468; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:09:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from m5.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.197) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013463; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:08:53 -0500 Received: (from gordelida@juno.com) by m5.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id MqD24562; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:08:18 EST To: isp@fcc.gov (FCC) Subject: New internet phone charges Message-ID: <19970219.110503.11430.1.GordElida@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-7 From: gordelida@juno.com (Gordon R Barnett) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:08:18 EST Content-Length: 236 I added an additional phone line in my home to handle my internet phone requirements and the phone company receives payments monthly now for my internet use. The have already made a profit on my use of the internet. Gordon Barnett From JThreadgill@mail.sanjuan.edu Wed Feb 19 12:10:12 1997 Return-Path: JThreadgill@mail.sanjuan.edu Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16727 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:10:12 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13488; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:10:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from bashful2.sanjuan.edu(136.235.14.4) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013484; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:10:00 -0500 Received: from mail.sanjuan.edu ([136.235.1.11]) by bashful2.sanjuan.edu via smtpd (for gatekeeper2.fcc.gov [192.104.54.4]) with SMTP; 19 Feb 1997 17:10:22 UT Received: from SJ-Message_Server by mail.sanjuan.edu with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:05:30 -0800 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:07:10 -0800 From: Judy Threadgill To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet Access Charge Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 127 Please provide me with any information you might have regarding Internet access charge legislation (bill number, author, etc.) From cmaster1@tuelectric.com Wed Feb 19 12:11:42 1997 Return-Path: cmaster1@tuelectric.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16732 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:11:42 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13535; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:11:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns.tuelectric.com(204.251.119.66) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013531; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:11:29 -0500 Received: from rpc17518 (ns.tuelectric.com [146.61.102.20]) by ns.tuelectric.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA34259 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:14:50 -0600 Message-ID: <330ADF97.2D4B@tuelectric.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:10:15 +0000 From: CC Masters Reply-To: cmaster1@tuelectric.com Organization: TEXAS Utilities X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 391 Access to information is important to all Americans. It is my belief that per minute charges for internet access is unreasonable and will seriously limit information access to all internet users. Please do not allow the local carriers to take this away from us. -- "Most of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." - Thomas Edison From kraemer@insync.net Wed Feb 19 12:11:45 1997 Return-Path: kraemer@insync.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16733 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:11:42 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13533; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:11:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(206.222.163.150) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013530; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:11:21 -0500 Received: by GODZILLA with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1389.3) id <01BC1E55.690749B0@GODZILLA>; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:09:44 -0600 Message-ID: <01D117CCEB89D01183B800AA00BC76690A16@GODZILLA> From: tim kraemer To: "Aaron (E-mail)" , "Al Reyes (E-mail)" , "Angela Johnson (E-mail)" , "Catherine Manville (E-mail)" , "Dan Carr (E-mail)" , "dave and judy (E-mail)" , "David Bonds (E-mail)" , "David Neal (E-mail)" , "Don Grey (E-mail)" , "Dylan Hayes (E-mail)" , "edwin and lesley (E-mail)" , "'Florante and Cheryl Galvez' (E-mail)" , "'Glenn \"mr. cool\" Warner' (E-mail)" , "Huong Charles (E-mail)" , "Jay Thomas (E-mail)" , "Jeffrey Maloy Jones (E-mail)" , "Jeffrey Maloy Jones (E-mail 2)" , "Jerry Wolski (E-mail)" , "Joe \"qspy\" Powell (E-mail)" , "John Ross (E-mail)" , "John Ross (E-mail 2)" , "John Serrano (E-mail)" , "Katherine (E-mail)" , "Lee Pham (E-mail)" , "Michael Goldsberry (E-mail)" , "Miss Sheila (E-mail)" , "Mr. Davis \"the quake man!\" (E-mail)" , "Nilo man (E-mail)" , "Noel Serrano (E-mail)" , "Phil Parker (E-mail)" , "Pinky (E-mail)" , "Roland Dunkerly (E-mail)" , "Ronan Greg (E-mail)" , "Ronan Greg (E-mail 2)" , "Sean Martin (E-mail)" , "Sean Martin (E-mail 2)" , "Sharlla Nunez (E-mail)" , "Sieu Nguyen (E-mail)" , "steve gibson (Scary's Quakeholio) (E-mail)" , "Tammy Bryson (E-mail)" , "Tommy Huong (E-mail)" , "Tommy Mcclain (E-mail)" , "wade man (E-mail)" Cc: "'isp@fcc.gov'" Subject: Please help me!!!!! Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:09:41 -0600 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1389.3) Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 705 If I only ask you for one favor in 1997, this is it...... Southwestern Bell and the other Bells have decided that they are not making enough cash on the internet. They want the internet providers to pay a "special" connect fee for people using the internet. Southwestern Bell is a provider too and naturally will NOT charge itself this fee! The FCC is asking for your opinion on this RIGHT NOW.. Please use the mail link below or send an email to: isp@fcc.gov and tell them you think that extra fee's for the internet is the biggest bunch of crap you have ever heard! click on this link: mailto:isp@fcc.gov I really appreiciate you taking the time to kick this one in the butt. Thanks kraemer From mbowman@turbonet.com Wed Feb 19 12:12:12 1997 Return-Path: mbowman@turbonet.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16739 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:12:12 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13552; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:12:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from cypher.turbonet.com(204.188.48.1) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013543; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:11:54 -0500 Received: from [204.188.48.236] by cypher.turbonet.com (NTMail 3.01.03) id ga246876; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:11:27 +0000 Message-ID: Priority: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 To: isp@fcc.gov MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Mike & Mary Bowman" Subject: surcharges Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 09:05:21 PST Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1483 Today I was provided with your address, and even though this is a few days past the stated closing date for comments regarding surcharges purposed by local internet service providers, I want to be heard even though I may not be counted. Sometimes businesses or individuals find themselves behind the power curve instead of leading it. I believe this is the case with the telephone companies and internet access. The implication is that the local telephone companies are being left out in the cold as far as fees are concerned which is more than a little bit hard to swallow. My local server pays line fees and keeps his equipment updated to attempt to accomodate the increased demand. He also takes the brunt of complaints when something goes awry and people can't log-on. I would think the telephone companies would welcome an opportunity to sell additional service without the headaches of dealing with mega-thousands of customers when something goes wrong. Yes, the fees the provicers are paying for the use of the lines are probably less than if those fees were being billed to individual users, but I would think the administration costs are also much lower. If the telephone companies are authorized to charge individual line time, are they also going to be required to provide the personnel to handle the calls from individuals to maintain individual accounts. It seems to be the telephone companies have a pretty good deal right now and they don't even know it! MB From brydon@chaos.ph.utexas.edu Wed Feb 19 12:12:13 1997 Return-Path: brydon@chaos.ph.utexas.edu Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16743 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:12:13 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13550; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:12:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from chaos.ph.utexas.edu(128.83.131.3) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013542; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:11:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (brydon@localhost) by chaos.ph.utexas.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA15177 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:07:41 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:07:41 -0600 (CST) From: David Brydon To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: No per-minute internet phone charges Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 579 Greetings. I have lived in Spain and Argentina where local phone calls are charged per minute. Cheap and easy communication is a vital part of a healthy society. The internet is so important to the communication base. For these reasons, I urge you to reject phone companies' bid for per-minute charges for internet access. Thank you. Sincerely, David --------------------------------- David Brydon (505) 665 1180 (O) (505) 662 7087 (H) email: brydon@lanl.gov brydon@physics.utexas.edu mail:CNLS, MS B258, LANL, Los Alamos, NM 87545 --------------------------------- From masonna@lams.losalamos.k12.nm.us Wed Feb 19 12:13:13 1997 Return-Path: masonna@lams.losalamos.k12.nm.us Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16747 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:12 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13604; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from lams.lams.losalamos.k12.nm.us(198.59.99.1) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013592; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:12:56 -0500 Received: from [198.59.99.109] (mac109.lams.losalamos.k12.nm.us [198.59.99.109]) by lams.LAMS.LosAlamos.k12.nm.us (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA19762 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:12:31 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:12:35 -0700 To: isp@fcc.gov From: masonna@lams.losalamos.k12.nm.us (Nathan Mason) Content-Length: 501 I do not think that it is a good idea to CHARGE by the minute. i many people will stop getting the internet h H H Y Y ! # ## # H H Y Y ! # # # # HHHHH Y ! # # # # H H Y ! # # ## H H Y *** *** Nathan Mason :0) From masonna@lams.losalamos.k12.nm.us Wed Feb 19 12:13:14 1997 Return-Path: masonna@lams.losalamos.k12.nm.us Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16754 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:13 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13611; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from lams.lams.losalamos.k12.nm.us(198.59.99.1) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013596; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:13:09 -0500 Received: from [198.59.99.109] (mac109.lams.losalamos.k12.nm.us [198.59.99.109]) by lams.LAMS.LosAlamos.k12.nm.us (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA19768 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:12:40 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:12:42 -0700 To: isp@fcc.gov From: masonna@lams.losalamos.k12.nm.us (Nathan Mason) Content-Length: 501 I do not think that it is a good idea to CHARGE by the minute. i many people will stop getting the internet h H H Y Y ! # ## # H H Y Y ! # # # # HHHHH Y ! # # # # H H Y ! # # ## H H Y *** *** Nathan Mason :0) From dec@hopper.unh.edu Wed Feb 19 12:13:14 1997 Return-Path: dec@hopper.unh.edu Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16757 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:13 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13612; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from unh.edu(132.177.132.50) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013595; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:13:07 -0500 Received: from kng513.unh.edu by unh.edu with SMTP id AA06056 (5.67b+/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:12:33 -0500 Received: from localhost (dec@localhost) by kng513.unh.edu (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id MAA04537 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:11:08 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: kng513.unh.edu: dec owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:11:08 -0500 (EST) From: "Dan Chapman (Sparky)" X-Sender: dec@kng513.unh.edu To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Telephone charges Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 540 Dear Sir I understand the phone company wanting to get some money for all the local service calls being generated by internet use. I feel that if this happens that internet usage will be dramatically reduced. I know that as a student I will no longer be able to afford to be on the internet if there is a charge for local calls. I also feel that this charge will be hard to regulate and ALL calls (internet or just plain local calls will end up costing money. That is what the monthly service charge is for. Sincerely Dan Chapman From Thespias1@aol.com Wed Feb 19 12:13:14 1997 Return-Path: Thespias1@aol.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16756 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:14 -0500 From: Thespias1@aol.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13602; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from emout03.mx.aol.com(198.81.11.94) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013599; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:13:14 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout03.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA28753 for isp@fcc.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:12:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:12:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970219121254_1049885015@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Phone charges for Internet use Content-Length: 286 I strongly oppose the proposal by telephone companies to impose a per-minute charge on Internet services. Such a move would be extremely detrimental to current use and continued growth of this valuable communications resource. Claudia Capos From kraemer@insync.net Wed Feb 19 12:13:15 1997 Return-Path: kraemer@insync.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16767 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:15 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13631; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(206.222.163.150) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013597; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:13:14 -0500 Received: by GODZILLA with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1389.3) id <01BC1E55.C2B38690@GODZILLA>; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:12:14 -0600 Message-ID: <01D117CCEB89D01183B800AA00BC76690A17@GODZILLA> From: tim kraemer To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" Subject: rboc access fee's Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:12:13 -0600 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1389.3) Content-Type: text/plain Content-Length: 252 Access fees for RBOC's is the biggest bunch of B.S. I have ever heard. The Bells are in serious need of hardcore regulation by the FCC. We will never have competition for phone service unless you guys do something about the Bells. Thanks kraemer From masonna@lams.losalamos.k12.nm.us Wed Feb 19 12:13:14 1997 Return-Path: masonna@lams.losalamos.k12.nm.us Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16755 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:14 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13608; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from lams.lams.losalamos.k12.nm.us(198.59.99.1) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013594; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:12:59 -0500 Received: from [198.59.99.109] (mac109.lams.losalamos.k12.nm.us [198.59.99.109]) by lams.LAMS.LosAlamos.k12.nm.us (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA19765 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:12:36 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:12:39 -0700 To: isp@fcc.gov From: masonna@lams.losalamos.k12.nm.us (Nathan Mason) Content-Length: 501 I do not think that it is a good idea to CHARGE by the minute. i many people will stop getting the internet h H H Y Y ! # ## # H H Y Y ! # # # # HHHHH Y ! # # # # H H Y ! # # ## H H Y *** *** Nathan Mason :0) From coondm@gemstate.net Wed Feb 19 12:13:45 1997 Return-Path: coondm@gemstate.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16771 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:45 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13650; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702191713.MAA13650@gatekeeper2.fcc.gov> Received: from mail.gemstate.net(208.128.143.5) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013644; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:13:24 -0500 Received: from [208.128.143.18] by mail.gemstate.net (SMTPD32-3.02) id A5D2BAF01F8; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:18:10 -0700 X-Sender: coondm@mail.gemstate.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:13:00 -0700 To: isp@fcc.gov From: Don Coon Content-Length: 543 I am voicing my opion regarding the Telephone companies proposal to charge internet providers with a charge . This Proposal is out of line . Many of the usesrs of the internet have add to put in an extra phone .I know in my case . it costs $15.00 a month . If this proposal is allowed to pass . It will be the end of the internet. i for one will cancel my internet membership is this is allowed to pass. The phone companies are just using this to fatten their pockets . -- Registered ICC User check out http://www.usefulware.com/~jfoltz From husker@daci.com Wed Feb 19 12:13:46 1997 Return-Path: husker@daci.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16775 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:46 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13654; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:13:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(207.15.196.45) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013646; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:13:36 -0500 Received: from jfd14.daci.com (jfd14.daci.com [207.15.199.14]) by smtp.daci.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id MAA24228 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:14:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by jfd14.daci.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC1E5E.6DD891C0@jfd14.daci.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:14:17 -0500 Message-ID: <01BC1E5E.6DD891C0@jfd14.daci.com> From: "David A. Grachek" To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" Subject: per minute charges Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:06:48 -0500 Return-Receipt-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 725 Dear Sirs, This matter of per minute charges is merely a matter of a way to = seperate people from their money. This Internet system that has been = established enables kids of all ages to explore and learn more about the = world around them. By charging more for the time, the kids will not be = allowed to use the system and their learning will be diminished. = Please, you cannot impose capitalism on our kids' learning by taking = away this database of knowledge from them. =20 I firmly believe that this is just another way for a larger corporation = to fatten their wallets at the expense of my child's education. I would = like to hear your thoughts on this matter. Thank you, David A. Grachek husker@daci.com From jeff_megy@om.cv.hp.com Wed Feb 19 12:14:15 1997 Return-Path: jeff_megy@om.cv.hp.com Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16779 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:14:15 -0500 From: jeff_megy@om.cv.hp.com Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13669; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:14:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from hp-cv.cv.hp.com(15.255.72.17) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013665; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:14:07 -0500 Received: from hp-pcd.cv.hp.com (hp-pcd.cv.hp.com [15.0.200.33]) by hp-cv.cv.hp.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id XAA25848 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:41:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from by hp-pcd.cv.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.16/15.5+IOS 3.22+OM+CV 1.0) id AA195973280; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:41:20 -0800 X-Openmail-Hops: 2 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 97 23:40:47 -0800 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Phone companies want to bill for Internet use To: isp@fcc.gov Content-Length: 3303 Item Subject: Phone companies want to bill for Internet use I am a taxpayer and responsible parent, I do not see the future of capitalizing on the use of the internet from a utilities standpoint. If this is the type of legislation that we will have to fight in order to keep the internet what it is today, then I will consistently vote against candidates and government in hopes of reducing the utilities power to capture the consumer dollar. Leave the internet alone and allow the utilities to prove the competency for normal telephone service first; which I believe, they have not. -Concerned Patriot ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Phone companies want to bill for Internet use Author: Robert Moline at Non-HP-Corvallis,om2 Date: 2/10/97 10:09 PM ---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes --------------------------- From: Dennis Wyman at HFCCM9 Date: 2/10/97 6:51AM To: Steven Pollock at HFCCM13 To: Bob A Crepps at HFCCM13 *To: Viqar Shamim at ccNotes *To: Jay Feire *To: Jim Kennedy at HFCCM1 *To: Ron Wagoner at HFCCM1 *To: Jerry W Parson at HFCCM1 *To: David Foote at HFCCM1 *To: William Morris at HFCCM16 Subject: Phone companies want to bill for Internet use ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YIKES! ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Phone companies want to bill for Internet use Author: Dennis Wyman at HFCCM9 Date: 2/10/97 6:51 AM >From: David and Jill Bearss >Subject: Phone companies want to bill for Internet use > >>From: Bruce.Bacon@radisys.com >>X-Lotus-FromDomain: RADISYS_CORPORATION >>To: bbacon@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu, 106605.3627@compuserve.com, >> gcbacon@roadrunner.com, bearss@e-cafe.com, jbender8@ix.netcom.com, >> Boedecker.Bear@tci.com, Jim_Bowker@mail.fws.gov, rexh@mcn.net, >> Harley@ee.montana.edu, gmobley@ibm.net, DanM@ee.montana.edu, >> cxpalm3@uswest.com, tanthony@aracnet.com, >> Joakim.Walstam@era-a.ericsson.se, ptrevith@poci.amis.com, >> wthompson@mcn.net >>Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 15:04:47 -0700 >>Subject: Phone companies want to bill for Internet use >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Bruce Bacon@RADISYS_CORPORATION >>02/07/97 03:04 PM According to people in the know, they are trying to sneak this one through congress in some obscure bill so no one will find out until it's too late... 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. 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 herethis 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! From Tammy_Bruns@everett.wednet.edu Wed Feb 19 12:14:45 1997 Return-Path: Tammy_Bruns@everett.wednet.edu Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16784 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:14:45 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13680; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:14:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(168.212.224.15) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013667; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:14:38 -0500 Received: from internet ([168.212.224.8]) by mail.everett.wednet.edu (Netscape Mail Server v2.01) with SMTP id AAA73 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:15:41 -0800 From: Tammy_Bruns@everett.wednet.edu (Tammy Bruns) Sender: Tammy_Bruns@everett.wednet.edu To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:15:29 -0800 Subject: paying by the minute Message-ID: Organization: Everett School District - For District Business Only MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-ID: X-Gateway: NASTA Gate 1.17 for FirstClass(R) Content-Length: 352 I am not surprized that you have come up with yet another way to make the rich richer - but I also believe that this idea of paying by the minute is outrageous..... for those of us who have teaching jobs and use the internet as a teaching tool and research area, this is an outrage - please do what is necessary to stop this tammy bruns math teacher From robertm@portage.net Wed Feb 19 12:14:50 1997 Return-Path: robertm@portage.net Received: from gatekeeper2.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet2.fcc.gov [165.135.0.253]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16787 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:14:46 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov; id MAA13682; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:14:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from pinky.junction.net(199.166.227.12) by gatekeeper2.fcc.gov via smap (V3.1.1) id xma013674; Wed, 19 Feb 97 12:14:41 -0500 Received: from megamach.portage.net (megamach.portage.net [204.112.250.1]) by pinky.junction.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA30011 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:13:51 -0800 Received: from robertm.portage.net (portage-pm1-s9.portage.net [204.112.250.137]) by megamach.portage.net (8.6.5/8.6.6) with SMTP id LAA15758 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:16:58 -0600 Message-ID: <330B51B1.542F@portage.net> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:17:05 -0800 From: "Robert B. McLaughlin" Reply-To: robertm@portage.net Organization: McLaughlin Two-Way Radio X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Re: Greed of phone companies References: <199702111745.MAA29487@vixa.voyager.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2096 Robert E. Robison wrote: > > The phone companies are at it again. They are trying to add a per > minute charge on to Internet users. Send a letter to the FCC > informing them of your opinion on this matter. And also to your > Senator and Representative. > > Send to: isp@fcc.gov > > I am writing in response to the proposal made by telephone providers > to > the FCC. I do not think it is in the best interest of the general > public, > nor is it in the best interest of the economy of the United States. > The > proposed "per-minute" charge scheme would be highly damaging to the > fledgling economy developing across the computer networks in this > country. > > It would also be harmful to researchers, students, and government > agencies > across the country and world-wide. If per-minute charges are allowed > to > be initiated, the effect would be a reduction of consumer interest, > and a > stagnation of academic progress and communications. > > I urge you to deny the proposal as it would deny many people the right > to > fast communications, as they would no longer be able to afford the > charges. Many non-profit organizations and research groups would have > a > much more restricted access to this indispensable mode of > communication. > > I urge you to do what is right for the general public of the United > States, and for its many invaluable organizations. Please do not > grant > telephone providers' proposal as it is a monopolistic measure and > would > contribute to the rapid decline of services involved with the > internet. > You should consider how much economic damage this proposal will do to > local access providers, major access providers (e.g. AOL), and > universities as these groups attempt to develop and improve the > communications and services provided on the internet. They would be > hard > pressed to deal with this new burden. Thank you for your time and > consideration. > > Sincerely, Robert B. McLaughlin > > (put your name here)