From scjohnston@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:15:33 1997 Return-Path: scjohnston@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04885 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:15:33 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA16380; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:15:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from x2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xmaa16122; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:15:08 -0500 Received: (from scjohnston@juno.com) by x2.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KWJ25673; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:13:05 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Local telephone companies have filed a Local telephone companies proposal to charge for connect time. Message-ID: <19970213.101137.9935.0.scjohnston@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,4-6,14-15,18-20,29-30,33-34,41-42,46-51 From: scjohnston@juno.com (steven c johnston) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:13:05 EST Content-Length: 2655 FCC Proposal Review Committee: Regarding the proposal submitted to the FCC by local telephone companies requesting that they be allowed to charge consumers by the minute for Internet or other on-line usage of local telephone lines: BACKGROUND: My wife and I own a small real estate brokerage company in Falls Church, VA with fifteen agents. We provide a PC with modem for every two agents. Agents use the PC's Comm links daily to access real estate multiple listing service (MLS), on-line services, and the internet. Searching for and updating home listings on the MLS alone can require several hours of connect time per agent per day. Real estate agents and companies already pay hundreds of millions of dollars annually for telephone usage, MLS system servors, maintaining databases, etc. Allowing local telephone companies to further gouge real estate companies and agents by charging for phone line use by the minute is an outrageous proposal that should be refused emphatically. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: The electric and natural gas companies provide a delivery system infrastructure (wires and pipe) into homes and businesses. The industry trend is to decouple the product (kilowatts or natural gas) from the delivery system. That is, one company may provide the wires or pipes while another furnishes the product inserted into the system. Obviously, the company providing the delivery system has to make enough to maintain and upgrade (from time to time) the delivery system. However, they should not be allowed unfettered control over charging consumers for the amount of product received through the delivery system. Analogy: the number of times I drive up and down my street in front of my house is not going to affect the portion of my property tax allocated to street maintenance and renewal. While it is true that the telecommunications infrastructure has been based on stochastic modelling of "lines available per subscriber base", and computer use, whether its internet access from home or business data use, tends to tie up a greater number of lines for a longer period of time, it was, after all, the local telephone companies who have been encouraging families and businesses to install additional lines to gain this access, so I can't empathise with their position. A "wired" world means more wires (or wireless, as the case may be) so perhaps the local telephone companies need to use some of their profits earned through exercise of their monopoly to re-think how to best implement a modern delivery system for the future. Thank you for consideration of my comments, Steve Johnston President, Re/Max Exclusive Properties From gemar@teknetwork.com Thu Feb 13 10:16:05 1997 Return-Path: gemar@teknetwork.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04889 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:05 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA16553; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:15:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from www.teknetwork.com(204.77.185.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma016475; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:15:31 -0500 Received: from gemar (fre-01.ppp.teknetwork.com [204.77.185.11]) by www.teknetwork.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA26758 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:15:40 -0600 Message-Id: <199702131515.JAA26758@www.teknetwork.com> From: "Chad Gemar" To: Subject: per minute charges for internet services Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:16:58 -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: 849 To whom it may concern, I have just been informed that the local phone companies in my area have filed a proposal to impose per minute charges for Internet services, and They believe Internet usage has or will hinder operation of the telephone network. I don't know if the internet will hinder the telephone network, but it has worked fine so far, and I have never heard this clam before. Most people using the internet have a seperate line for their computer. The phone companies make extra money from that, so I don't think they need to charge more. The internet has helped me in my schooling, let me socialize with people from around the world, and has been a great pass time. I would hate to have to limit myself because of per minute charges, and I know others agree. Thank you for your time. Sincerely Yours Chad Gemar From lakemillsrlbc@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:16:07 1997 Return-Path: lakemillsrlbc@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04893 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:07 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA16577; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:15:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from x7.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.24) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma016373; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:15:10 -0500 Received: (from lakemillsrlbc@juno.com) by x7.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KNV05581; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:13:50 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Message-ID: <19970213.091226.4991.0.LakeMillsRLBC@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,4-5,11-14 From: lakemillsrlbc@juno.com (Wayne G Vawter) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:13:50 EST Content-Length: 676 FCC, Are there plans for the phone companies to add charges for internet use? I am always a little skeptical when I receive such a message. If this is just someones joke, please disregard the following message. As a regular internet user, I am opposed to the charge of additional cost to phone lines for internet use. By deregulation these lines have been opened to all who wish to sell their phone service. I assume based on deregulation that the phone lines belong to the paid users and not the phone companies. As internet users, we are already paying for the use of these lines, and they should be freely available for our use. Wayne G. Vawter, Lake Mills, WI From Walt@johns.minden.nv.us Thu Feb 13 10:16:11 1997 Return-Path: Walt@johns.minden.nv.us Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04897 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:11 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA16600; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:15:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from heather.greatbasin.com(140.174.194.41) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma016527; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:15:40 -0500 Received: from 207.33.38.58 (johns.minden.nv.us [207.33.38.58]) by heather.greatbasin.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id HAA15200 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:15:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3302BEA0.3108@johns.minden.nv.us> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:11:32 +0000 From: "Walter E. Johnston" Reply-To: Walt@johns.minden.nv.us X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet fee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 500 I want to say that I am totally against any per minute fee for use of the internet. I am retired and living on a fixed income and any additional cost to me for using the internet will result in my having to quit using it. Older people like myself enjoy the use of their computers and the more they can do with the computer the more they enjoy them. Please do not allow the telephone companies to have this additional charge. Thank you, Walter Johnston 2632 Fawn Fescue Ct. Minden, Nv. 89423 From rmasse@panasonic.atlanta.com Thu Feb 13 10:16:13 1997 Return-Path: rmasse@panasonic.atlanta.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04901 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:13 -0500 From: rmasse@panasonic.atlanta.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA16620; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:15:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:15:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702131515.KAA16620@gatekeeper.fcc.gov> Received: from panasonic.atlanta.com(155.229.17.18) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma016498; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:15:35 -0500 Apparently-To: Content-Length: 1822 DATA Received: from ntserver.panasonic.atlanta.com (ntserver [140.212.216.8]) by linux.panasonic.atlanta.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA04995 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:14:19 -0500 Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1619) by ntserver.panasonic.atlanta.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.9(Beta 4) for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Feb13.101100.1619.95835; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:19:25 -0500 From: rmasse@panasonic.atlanta.com (Massey, Robert) To: isp@fcc.gov ('isp@fcc.gov') Message-ID: <1997Feb13.101100.1619.95835@ntserver.panasonic.atlanta.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:19:25 -0500 Subject: I am against allowing local telephone co 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, EVEN ON LOCAL CALLS. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an email box for your comments, responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send your comments to isp@fcc.gov and tell them what you think. Every phone company is in on this one, and they are trying to sneak it in just under the wire for litigation. Let everyone you know hear this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of. isp@fcc.gov Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all our voices may be heard! John & Kim Davanzo, Battle Creek MI ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From bborges@phantom.bristol.mass.edu Thu Feb 13 10:16:45 1997 Return-Path: bborges@phantom.bristol.mass.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04905 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:45 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA16822; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from uhura.ici.net(204.97.252.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma016588; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:15:47 -0500 Received: from don_juan.ici.net (d-ma-kingston-30.ici.net [207.180.24.39]) by uhura.ici.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id JAA07593 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:36:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702131436.JAA07593@uhura.ici.net> From: "Bob Borges" To: Subject: internet access Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:46:09 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Priority: 1 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: 1371 I recently heard that all of the phone companies, nation wide, want to charge $0.10 per minute just to access the internet. I found this rather outrageous! This would cost $6 per hour. On my plan with Internet Connection Inc., I pay $19.95 for 100 hours. Luckily this is a local call for me. However, if I had to pay 10 cents per minute; I would end up paying $600.00 per month, just to access the internet!! I am a student at Bristol Community College in Fall River, MA. I am majoring in Computer Information Systems/networking. I, along with many of my fellow classmates, use the internet almost constantly searching for information and doing research. The internet was originally created for education, but now may possibly be taken away. Like I said, I am a student, and I don't have a very large income. I know that I would not be able to afford to use the internet at all. I know that I not only speak of students but also business people also. If the price to connect to the internet is jacked up (as proposed), I believe that many, if not most, people will stop using the net all together! Basically, what I'm trying to say is: If you allow this price increase, you will unavoidably, dramatically slow technological progress for the average American citizen. Thank you for your time and open mindedness, - Bob Borges - Middleboro, MA From gandalf@markquart.com Thu Feb 13 10:16:49 1997 Return-Path: gandalf@markquart.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04909 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:49 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA16854; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from computerland.discover-net.net(208.134.205.12) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma016764; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:16:16 -0500 Received: from gandalf ([208.134.196.68]) by computerland.discover-net.net (post.office MTA v1.9.3 ID# 0-12441) with ESMTP id AAA216 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:06:03 +0000 From: "Dave Shriner" To: Subject: Internet Access & Information Service Provider NOI (CC Docket No. 96-263). Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:17:14 -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 Message-ID: <19970213090602290.AAA216@gandalf> Content-Length: 1632 I was reading about the proposed access charge for internet usage of the Public switched network, and am a little surprised that it is even being considered at all. Since when is singleing out one particular user of a public service for additional usage fees thought to be an acceptible action. Although it is true there are many internet users that like to use this service for long periods of time, it is equally true that many people also do the same for telephone conversations. That is their option to do, it is after all a Public Service, and many now already pay a premium price for unlimited use. If it is truely needed to charge some additional fee either make it a universal fee charged to everyone, regardless of how they use the service for time used above a preset length of time, or have every phone company charge a premium for unlimited use. The key here is that it must affect all users equally. An internet connection doesn't use the public switch network any differently than a phone conversation. There is also another way that the duration of the connections might be reduced, and that is to improve the quality of the lines. Currently there are reasonably inexpensive (under $200) modems that can connect at speeds of 33.6 thousand bits per second, but over most exitsting phone lines the best they seem to be able to do is 24 thousand bits per second. If the phone lines were better they could relize a 50% improvement in speed and a sustantial reduction in downloading time. Thanks for the oportunity to express my feeling on this matter. I'mm sure in the end you will do the right thing. David W. Shriner From jerriem@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:17:25 1997 Return-Path: jerriem@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04913 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:17:25 -0500 From: jerriem@ix.netcom.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA17043; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:17:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017007; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:16:56 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA14374 for isp@fcc.gov; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:17:02 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:17:02 -0600 (CST) Received: from slc-ut4-02.ix.netcom.com(204.31.112.130) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma011704; Thu Feb 13 08:42:25 1997 To: isp@fcc.gov Message-Id: <19972137399511478@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Internet access charges X-Mailer: NETCOMplete v3.0, from NETCOM On-Line Communications, Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1724 To Whom it May Concern, I am writing this as a concerned "Netizen" in good standings in the Internet. I recently heard about the proposal to permit the local telephone companies to charge a per minute access charge to gain access to the internet via thier lines. I think that is unfair to the average person who spends a lot of time gaining access to parts of the world that they would normally not be able to go on an every day basis. The time that I spend on the Internet is substantial and I WOULD drop all my accounts (I have three that I am on) because I could not afford to pay the extra charges that would occur in addition to my regular fees. Why should the telephone companies charge for something that I am already paying for two different ways? I pay for local service and I pay for the permission to use a local network to use thier lines. The provider is paying the phoine companies for thier access but maybe at a discount price so that they may be able to make money on their uses. The phone companies are making money both ways but they need not add an additional charge on thier services just because people are using the internet. The companies say that the excess usage ties up thier facilities sop much that offices at times are unable to provide dial tone to regular lines. That is true, but if they built the office to meet all demands than they would not have a problem. I need to conclude this letter but again I will say that it rteally would be unfair to the average consumer to be triple charged for something that many would not have if not for the lower rates that are being charged for these days. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Jerrie Millman jerriem@ix.netcom.com From sclark@comp.uark.edu Thu Feb 13 10:18:01 1997 Return-Path: sclark@comp.uark.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04917 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:18:01 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA17208; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:17:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from comp.uark.edu(130.184.252.197) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017012; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:17:01 -0500 Received: (from sclark@localhost) by comp.uark.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) id JAA23835; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:16:57 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:16:56 -0600 (CST) From: "Shirley L. Clark" X-Sender: sclark@comp To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No. 96.263 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 826 I am opposed to telephone companies charging a per minute sercharge for internet usage. I think the phone companies are totally out of line and greedy for even suggesting a charge. They make enough money already. We installed a second line dedecated to our computer, so my local telephone is getting paid for two lines because of the internet. How many more people are doing the same thing? They are making money off of me that that they would otherwise make because of the internet. Shirley L. Clark 2247 Country Way Fayetteville, AR 72703-4216 Phone: (501) 521-9242 Fax: (501) 575-9242 From deck7@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:18:05 1997 Return-Path: deck7@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04921 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:18:05 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA17227; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:17:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from m10.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.195) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017095; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:17:18 -0500 Received: (from deck7@juno.com) by m10.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id K\I01657; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:28 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Docket No. 96-263 Message-ID: <19970213.091645.9406.0.deck7@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 6-10 From: deck7@juno.com (JAMES D WAUGH) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:28 EST Content-Length: 502 I would like to voice my concern about the proposed plans to place fees of any type on the use of the Internet. These fees (ie. taxes) would serve only to limit the use of the Internet by the Public and place an unnecessary and unjust barrier to Internet access. Free access to information is an important cornerstone of our American government. We must resist any actions which would prove to infringe on this most important right. Jim Waugh 2012 Flagstone Drive, Apt. 1502 Madison, AL 35758 From MICROSS@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:18:07 1997 Return-Path: MICROSS@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04925 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:18:07 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA17249; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:17:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot02.msn.com(204.95.110.79) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017127; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:17:21 -0500 Received: from upmajb06 ([204.95.110.89]) by upsmot02.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id HAA07947 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:14:14 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 04:08:38 UT From: "ROSELLER ANDRA" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Litigation to charge for telephone access to the internet Content-Length: 1159 Dear Sir/Madam: We are a regular internet user. I have learned that local telephone company had filed a proposal with FCC to impose per minute charges for internet service. If FCC will agree to impose per minute charges, millions and millions of household won't even strive to own a personal computer at home, as people won't be able to afford it anymore. Internet user will diminish which will hinder the world's technical progress in telecommunication. Since the internet was introduced, our entire world has changed. People learned to get access to all information and communicate to anyone, a feeling of being closer, friendlier way to other people we know, we don't know, in all walks of life around the world.This is a great feeling of independence. Please do not take it away from us. We deserve the right in the computer superhighway. Rich and poor alike. If we want to have an access to a telephone line, we can decide ourselves, if we want to have another telephone line. Do not take our right. Telephone companies should not be greedy. Please do not approve this proposal. We do not want it. We won't be able to afford. From corymbbm@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:18:09 1997 Return-Path: corymbbm@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04929 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:18:09 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA17274; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:17:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from m11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.194) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017136; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:17:23 -0500 Received: (from corymbbm@juno.com) by m11.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KHF03816; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:52 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Message-ID: <19970213.101232.10159.0.corymbbm@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5-6,8-14 From: corymbbm@juno.com (Cory A Barnett) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:52 EST Content-Length: 447 Concerning CC Docket No 96-263. I think that attaching a charge internet phone line use will seriously hinder, and most likely cause a regression in the use of internet. I am sure you realize how profitable and industry the internet has become, and is still so immature. Please consider the negative effect this will have when reveiwing this proposal. Thank you. Cory Barnett 3514 Southern Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21214 corymbbm@juno.com From fdms3@fred.net Thu Feb 13 10:18:12 1997 Return-Path: fdms3@fred.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04933 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:18:11 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA17291; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:17:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017144; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:17:24 -0500 Received: from fdms3.fred.net (fdms3.fred.net [205.252.223.207]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA21587 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:14:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <33033063.4E48@fred.net> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:51 -0500 From: Matt Dick Reply-To: fdms3@fred.net Organization: First Data Merchant Services X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: the phone companies Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 173 Dont let the high powered companies get richer. The internet is a place for people to share information. It is not just another avenue to make the phone companies richer. From sjsteve@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:18:43 1997 Return-Path: sjsteve@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04937 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:18:43 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA17475; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:18:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from m5.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.197) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017384; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:18:05 -0500 Received: (from sjsteve@juno.com) by m5.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KCL25207; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:17:15 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Phone Companies Message-ID: <19970213.080524.7423.0.sjsteve@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2,4-6 From: sjsteve@juno.com (J Stephenson) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:17:15 EST Content-Length: 289 I have great concerns regarding phone companies proposal to attach rates to the many who are using electronic communications one with another, specifically e-mail. This is nothing more than greed and a desire to control. Please don't let it happen. Sid Stephenson sjsteve@juno.com From RK0910@tntech.edu Thu Feb 13 10:18:45 1997 Return-Path: RK0910@tntech.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04941 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:18:45 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA17489; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:18:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from gemini.tntech.edu(149.149.11.7) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017331; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:17:56 -0500 Received: from tntech.edu by tntech.edu (PMDF V5.0-7 #16786) id <01IFD1H4ZDJ48WYB2U@tntech.edu> for isp@fcc.gov; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:17:28 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:17:28 -0600 (CST) From: Roy Kennedy Subject: internet charges To: isp@fcc.gov Message-id: <01IFD1H4ZDJ68WYB2U@tntech.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: 861 Greetings- I have been informed by my local chapter of AAUP that you/telephone companies are considering charging for professors use of the internet. this will diminish use of the internet. Furthermore it is poor public relations on your part.In my particualr situation, I have just bought a new house and cannot afford any more expenses, especially from government. I feel that I am doing my part in stimulating the economy with the purchase of a new home. Use of the internet is one of the few perks my job offers and is direly important to my academic endeavors. I urge you not to levy any more expense to a financially burdened household. I will not not vote for anyone that has anything to do with charging me for my time on the internet at a college faculty position. Personal use at my residence is a different matter. Sincerely, Roy Kennedy From Adpro-Inc@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:18:52 1997 Return-Path: Adpro-Inc@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04945 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:18:51 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA17569; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:18:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot02.msn.com(204.95.110.79) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017188; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:17:36 -0500 Received: from upmajb06 ([204.95.110.89]) by upsmot02.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id HAA08084 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:14:29 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:16:17 UT From: "Tony Atabaki" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: phone companies charges for Internet usage!!!!!!!!!!! Content-Length: 1405 Dear FCC We just heard the news about Telephone companies trying to receive approval from your office to start charging People using Internet minutes by minutes. Let it be known that we are totally outraged and shocked by it, it is not a secret that U.S. is among the must PRIMITIVE nations when it comes to the public and STUDENTS knowledge and EDUCATION , and since we live in a Capitalist Society and are slaved by it, it is expected from major companies and organizations to act responsibly and do what ever it takes to help younger generation and people in general to lay a better and more informed foundation for the future of this nation. Unfortunately once again bunch of not responsible are only thinking of their own pockets and bank accounts. We believe they already make more and charge people more money then they should, finding another way to take more blood from public and jeopardizing the future of our children is outrages and totally unacceptable. We trust that our government will do the right thing and not only through their proposal out Set new regulation to lower and minimize charges on phone lines restrictedly used for Internet access. Outrageously Tony and Diane Atabaki February 13th 1997 CC; Our representatives in House and Senate. From wade@apple.com Thu Feb 13 10:19:28 1997 Return-Path: wade@mail.apple.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04951 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:19:27 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA17760; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:19:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-out2.apple.com(17.254.0.51) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017675; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:18:54 -0500 Received: from scv2.apple.com (A17-128-100-120.apple.com [17.128.100.120]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id HAA67492 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:17:26 -0800 Received: from [17.127.18.218] ([17.127.18.218]) by scv2.apple.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id HAA09946 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:19:42 -0800 Message-Id: <199702131519.HAA09946@scv2.apple.com> Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:18:59 -0600 x-sender: wade@mail.apple.com x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Karen Wade To: "FCC" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Length: 1085 RE: FCC Internet Access Charge Reform CC Docket No 96-263 To whom it may concern: Please be advised that I oppose the proposal filed by local telephone companies with the FCC to allow local telephone companies to impose a per minute charge for internet service. In my opinion, internet use should be treated no different than that of regular telephone use for voice, fax, or long distance. A customer sets up their service with the local telephone company, chooses their long distance carrier, thus when the user places local calls (voice or fax) they are a part of the local service, and when they place long distance calls (voice or fax) they are charged via the long distance carrier with no subsiquent charge from the local carrier. Customers are already paying for internet usage to their local Internet Service Provider (ISP) in regards to usage - much the same as choosing a long distance carrier, and should not have additional charges imposed by the local telephone companies. Regards, Karen Wade 3220 Duval Road #1522 Austin, TX 78759 512/835-2776 From jmaravig@ontime.com Thu Feb 13 10:19:30 1997 Return-Path: jmaravig@ontime.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04955 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:19:29 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA17775; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:19:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from earth.ontime.com(206.66.56.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017470; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:18:22 -0500 Received: from JMARAVIG.ontime.com (dynamic184.ontime.com [206.66.56.184]) by earth.ontime.com (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 0-13987) with ESMTP id AAA457 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:09 -0500 From: jmaravig@ontime.com (Jeff Maraviglia) To: Subject: Internet usage Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:21:12 -0500 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 Message-ID: <19970213151609101.AAA457@JMARAVIG.ontime.com> Content-Length: 745 I feel this is not necessary. I live in the 810 code and any IP provider I call in the SAME area code is already considered a 1-810...toll call so I pay through nose beyond what I pay the IP provider already. I don't use it much anyways, but when I do, I lose a great deal of money. I feel this is another effort to squeeze extra cash because they might be losing a portion of their empire to local services. Curbing Internet usage is not going to happen regardless of what they think. There are going to be hackers and what not and die-hards that will pound it regardless, in this country and outside as well. There reasoning is weak I feel. I'm already sick of there area code methods and toll call pay structure. Thank for your time. From madoyle@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:19:32 1997 Return-Path: madoyle@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04949 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:19:23 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA17728; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:19:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.16) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017657; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:18:51 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA17090 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:18:57 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:18:57 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702131518.JAA17090@dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com> Received: from ely-oh1-20.ix.netcom.com(205.186.80.52) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma017064; Thu Feb 13 09:18:35 1997 From: madoyle@ix.netcom.com (MARGARET J. DOYLE) Subject: Re: phone charges To: isp@fcc.gov.I.object.to.being.charged.by.the.minute.for.a.local.call.to.make Content-Length: 502 getting online possible. I am already charged for local service and this appears to be double indemnity. With an extra charge beyond what it already costs me a month, it would become nearly impossible for me to use online services at all. There definitely needs to be some re-thinking here. I am sure there are many others in the position I am, and I would thank you for considering the numbers of people that would be losing this capability. Sincerely, Margaret Doyle From edale@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:20:02 1997 Return-Path: edale@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04961 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:01 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA17905; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:19:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from x11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.26) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017781; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:19:10 -0500 Received: (from edale@juno.com) by x11.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KQG13775; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:17:18 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No 96.263 Message-ID: <19970213.090951.8335.1.Edale@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 14-19 From: edale@juno.com (Elmor D McCullough) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:17:18 EST Content-Length: 1098 Please DON'T take away from persons of very modest means, a way of communicating with the outside world, by allowing the telephone companies to charge for e-mail service. If communication of any kind is involved, the telephone companies eagerly jump in to get a piece of the pie. This is historically true. It doesn't matter what the consumer (OR CONSTITUENT - we'll be watching!) want - it doesn't matter if they were involved in the process of: invention, service, education, merchandizing - No, just as long as they can add to their profits. Look at the overall annual profits of telephone companies, and be skeptical of their accounting procedures for their BIG write offs. WHY DO THEY NEED MORE?! WHY DO THEY EXPECT US TO PAY MORE SO THEY CAN MAKE MORE?! They do it because they have big lawyers, AND POWERFUL LOBBYIST, who convince our legislators to stick it to us again, and again, and again. The public is sick of Big Corporations taking the little man for a ride with the blessings of Big Government. Dale and Martha McCullough 9740 West Foster Rosemont, IL 60018 (773)992-1220 From nancwilk@firesong.com Thu Feb 13 10:20:08 1997 Return-Path: nancwilk@firesong.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04965 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:03 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA17922; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:19:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from bitterroot.net(206.26.92.3) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017786; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:19:11 -0500 Received: from default (modem16.bitterroot.net [206.26.92.65]) by mail.bitterroot.net (post.office MTA v1.9.1 ID# 0-11713) with SMTP id AAA402 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:20:25 -0700 Message-ID: <33032D73.7DE4@Firesong.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:04:19 -0700 From: nancwilk@firesong.com (FireSong Enterprises) Reply-To: NancWilk@firesong.com Organization: FireSong Publishing X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: per minute charges Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 173 Don't you DARE allow the phone companies to impose per minute charges on the internet. -- Nancy Wilkins Voice (406) 363-6872 Please visit us at http://www.firesong.com From CZDIVA@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:20:14 1997 Return-Path: CZDIVA@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04969 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:13 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA17999; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:19:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017892; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:19:39 -0500 Received: from upmajb04.msn.com ([204.95.110.81]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id GAA03182 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:20:11 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:19:13 UT From: "CLAUDIA " Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: internet usage fees Content-Length: 918 To Whom It May Concern, I can not believe that I am about to penalized for my use of the internet. I pay over twenty dollars a month for my telephone line. In addition to that I also pay a quarter everytime I call my service provider. What more do they want? I am homebound...for decades I was confined to these four walls. When I could finally afford a computer the world became accessable to me one again. I do my best to pay my bills on a settlement allowance rather than take advantage of the government resources which are already overstrained. Additional per minute fees would push this wonderful tool outside of my financial reach again. I would apply for government funds....taxing an already overtaxed system. Can you honestly say the same about the phone companies? No, I didn't think you could. Please don't allow this to happen.....don't the world away from me a second time. From LessStressPress@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:20:18 1997 Return-Path: LessStressPress@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04973 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:18 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18014; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:19:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot03.msn.com(204.95.110.85) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017867; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:19:31 -0500 Received: from upmajb06 ([204.95.110.89]) by upsmot03.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id TAA03164 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:14:12 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:11:21 UT From: "Phil Farmer" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: FW: PER MINUTE INTERNET RATES Content-Length: 1923 ---------- From: Phil Farmer[FAX:+1 (770) 271-7573] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 1997 10:01 AM To: 'isp@fcc.gov' Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Dear Sirs: I would like to state my opposition to the imposition of per minute rates by the phone companies for internet usage. I live in the metro-Atlanta area, Gwinnett County. I have not had any phone service interuption. Nor do I know of anyone who has. Please keep in mind that this is one of, if not the, fastest growing counties in the nation. The majority of people I know at least have internet capabilities. I'm not sure how intensive internet usage in this area is, but I think that it is safe to say that it is high. Yet, I have not heard of any conflicts. In regards to paying to use equipment (that has long since been paid for, with more than a little help from me:)), isn't there such a thing as over charging?? I already pay to have phone service in my house, and understand that a portion of my bill goes toward line usage and maintenance. I have a separate line in my house that we haven't paid to connect yet (we have been living with the knowledge of an impending move), and would consider it fair to be required to pay for a separate line for the use of the computer... but enough is enough. Doesn't my server also pay a portion of my bill to the phone company for phone usage? Finally, following this logic, wouldn't it be possible that the phone company or other internet users owe me for the use of my computer? To simplify, MY VOTE IS NO. If this ruling goes through, I will make every effort to minimize or eliminate my phone usage, including banding together with other internet users to find an alternative route. Thank you for going to the time and trouble to consider my viewpoint. Sincerely, Kathryn L. Farmer 4339 Silver Peak Pkwy Suwanee, GA 30174 email LESSSTRESSPRESS@msn.com phone 770-271-7573 From ae006@seorf.ohiou.edu Thu Feb 13 10:20:50 1997 Return-Path: ae006@big.seorf.ohiou.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04977 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:50 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18109; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from big.seorf.ohiou.edu(132.235.1.252) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018087; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:20:20 -0500 Received: (from ae006@localhost) by big.seorf.ohiou.edu (8.7.6/8.7.1) id KAA02610 for isp@fcc.gov; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:05:19 -0500 (EST) From: Mary Reed Message-Id: <199702131505.KAA02610@big.seorf.ohiou.edu> Subject: telephone rates To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:05:19 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 209 My comments re: telephone fee schedule according to internet use: Do not link these two! It will only discourage democratization of the internet. Perhaps this is your intent. Mary Reed ae006@seorf.ohiou.edu From LessStressPress@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:20:52 1997 Return-Path: LessStressPress@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04981 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:52 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18122; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot03.msn.com(204.95.110.85) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma017957; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:19:48 -0500 Received: from upmajb06 ([204.95.110.89]) by upsmot03.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id TAA03214 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:14:23 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:13:48 UT From: "Phil Farmer" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Content-Length: 2060 I apologize if this is a duplicate. I was concerned that I did not have the address or subject correct for you to receive this message. ---------- From: Phil Farmer[FAX:+1 (770) 271-7573] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 1997 10:01 AM To: 'isp@fcc.gov' Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Dear Sirs: I would like to state my opposition to the imposition of per minute rates by the phone companies for internet usage. I live in the metro-Atlanta area, Gwinnett County. I have not had any phone service interuption. Nor do I know of anyone who has. Please keep in mind that this is one of, if not the, fastest growing counties in the nation. The majority of people I know at least have internet capabilities. I'm not sure how intensive internet usage in this area is, but I think that it is safe to say that it is high. Yet, I have not heard of any conflicts. In regards to paying to use equipment (that has long since been paid for, with more than a little help from me:)), isn't there such a thing as over charging?? I already pay to have phone service in my house, and understand that a portion of my bill goes toward line usage and maintenance. I have a separate line in my house that we haven't paid to connect yet (we have been living with the knowledge of an impending move), and would consider it fair to be required to pay for a separate line for the use of the computer... but enough is enough. Doesn't my server also pay a portion of my bill to the phone company for phone usage? Finally, following this logic, wouldn't it be possible that the phone company or other internet users owe me for the use of my computer? To simplify, MY VOTE IS NO. If this ruling goes through, I will make every effort to minimize or eliminate my phone usage, including banding together with other internet users to find an alternative route. Thank you for going to the time and trouble to consider my viewpoint. Sincerely, Kathryn L. Farmer 4339 Silver Peak Pkwy Suwanee, GA 30174 email LESSSTRESSPRESS@msn.com phone 770-271-7573 From KevinP@isd.vsp.com Thu Feb 13 10:20:56 1997 Return-Path: KevinP@isd.vsp.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04985 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:56 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18132; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from vsp-a.vsp.com(206.152.48.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018052; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:20:06 -0500 Received: from smtp1 by mail.vsp.com ; 13 FEB 97 07:33:31 PDT Received: by smtp1 with Microsoft Mail id <33033097@smtp1>; Thu, 13 Feb 97 07:17:43 PST From: Kevin Parrish To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" Subject: Message unit charges for Internet Access via ISPs Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 07:18:00 PST Content-Type: text/plain Message-ID: <33033097@smtp1> Encoding: 24 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Content-Length: 924 Overselling one's network to ISPs should not be the fault of the end consumer. Please do not stifle this new technology by pricing it out of reach for the consumer. How will the LECs be able to distinguish a long voice call from an Internet connection? Does this mean consumers will begin paying for voice traffic by the minute, also? PLEASE, NO PER MINUTE CHARGES FOR INTERNET ISP CONNECTIONS. Kevin Hayes Parrish Vision Service Plan -- 3333 Quality Drive / \ Rancho Cordova, CA 95670/ | /-----------------__/ / / / / \ / ---- ---- |Network Architect | \ / | | | \kevinp@isd.vsp.com | \ / ---- |---- |Voice (916) 851-4544 \ \/ | | / FAX (916) 858-5507 \ ---- / \ / \------\ /----\ \ \---/ \ \ \/ From lamilford@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:21:00 1997 Return-Path: lamilford@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04989 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:21:00 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18161; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from x16.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.28) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018092; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:20:22 -0500 Received: (from lamilford@juno.com) by x16.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KwI16197; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:27 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:18:33 PST Subject: NO to ISP SURCHARGE Message-ID: <19970213.102056.4631.0.lamilford@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-9 From: lamilford@juno.com (Les A. Milford) Content-Length: 150 Gentlemen, Please do not support the proposed surcharge for internet connect. Thank-you Leslie A. Milford P.O. Box 395 Schenevus, N.Y. 12155-0395 From hamilton@Harding.edu Thu Feb 13 10:21:02 1997 Return-Path: HAMILTON@Harding.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04993 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:21:02 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18188; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from thewall.harding.edu(192.133.129.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018097; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:20:23 -0500 Received: from piggy.harding.edu ([10.1.11.5]) by thewall.harding.edu via smtpd (for gatekeeper.fcc.gov [192.104.54.1]) with SMTP; 13 Feb 1997 15:21:31 UT Received: from acs.harding.edu (acs.harding.edu) by Harding.edu (PMDF V5.0-7 #15470) id <01IFD1W4UDZM8Y5DUV@Harding.edu> for isp@fcc.gov; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:20:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from acs.harding.edu by acs.harding.edu (PMDF V5.0-7 #15469) id <01IFD1W7JJRK001F8P@acs.harding.edu> for isp@fcc.gov; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:20:57 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:20:57 -0500 (CDT) From: hamilton@Harding.edu Subject: Charges for internet use To: isp@fcc.gov Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Length: 407 Gentlemen: I am OPPOSED to any additional per minute charges being added for my intener e-mail usage. Such a charge would severely limit e-mail usage for the elderly who are on fixed incomes (like myself). E-mail is my lifeline. I would probably have to drop it if this occurred. However, I cannot imagine life with e-mail at this point in my life. Please reconsider. Thank you. Anita Hamilton From meljamo@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:21:04 1997 Return-Path: meljamo@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04997 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:21:04 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18206; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot03.msn.com(204.95.110.85) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018100; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:20:26 -0500 Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot03.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id TAA03444 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:15:07 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:18:35 UT From: "Melbourne J. Amo" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No. 96-263 Content-Length: 863 Commissioners: I object to the proposal to impose a per minute charge for Internet Service on the basis that it would be a Duplicationof charges that I currently pay to my telephone service provider, Ameritech. I have a separate telephone line and call plan 400 exclusively for my computer. In addition, in my opinion imposing a per minute charge will not decrease the access to the Internet...The problem is not in the number of persons accessing the Internet, it is the Telephone Systems do not sufficient capacity to the demand. Consider this, college and university students will be hit especially hard at a time of National about the cost of higher education...this applies equally as well to the Local and State scene as well. I urge you to decline this proposal Melbourne J. Amo 1728 Sanford Place Ann Arbor, MI 48103-5945 Email meljamo@msn.com From mahla@discover-net.net Thu Feb 13 10:21:36 1997 Return-Path: mahla@discover-net.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05001 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:21:36 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18396; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:21:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(208.134.196.20) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018356; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:21:10 -0500 Received: from mahla (pm5-102.discover-net.net [208.134.203.102]) by discover.discover-net.net (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA20379 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:19:13 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702131519.JAA20379@discover.discover-net.net> From: "Mahla" To: Subject: Internet Use Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:18:27 -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: 623 I strongly believe that a charge per minute specifically for someone using phone lines for computer communications is unfair to the consumer. It singles out one group that uses phone lines no differently than an individual using them for a "voice" call. If local telephone companies cannot handle the demand or changes in the need of service they provide they should respond by upgrading the level of service and not use the demand for a form of increasing revenues. Because of this course of action they wish to pursue, computer users may turn to other forms of data transfer options such as cable. Thank you. Mark Mahla From john_blizzard@MENTORG.COM Thu Feb 13 10:21:42 1997 Return-Path: john_blizzard@MENTORG.COM Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05005 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:21:42 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18432; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:21:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from newsgw.mentorg.com(137.202.128.5) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018154; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:20:38 -0500 Received: from naf.wv.mentorg.com by newsgw.mentorg.com (8.6.8.1/CF5.22R) id HAA14353; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:20:44 -0800 Received: from dfw.dfw.mentorg.com by naf.wv.mentorg.com (8.6.8.1/CF5.22R) id HAA20829; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:20:26 -0800 Received: from Kanawha. by dfw.dfw.mentorg.com (8.6.8.1/CF5.24H) id JAA15183; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:11:28 -0600 Received: from Kanawha by Kanawha. (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA02129; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:11:27 -0600 Sender: john_blizzard@MENTORG.COM Message-ID: <33032F1F.7037@dfw.mentorg.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:11:27 -0600 From: john blizzard X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u) 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: 613 To whom it may concern: If I understand your legal jargon, you are attempting to find a way to lessen the traffic used by Internet Service Providers. I do not think a per minute charge is the answer but updating and enhancing capability is. The impact of protectionism for the status quo will not gain anything but show that we do not allow the market place to drive our decision making process. Not to mention the benefits to the economy of additional commerce to update current systems. In short, it is my opinion that no FCC action is needed. Regards, John Blizzard 445 Monssen Dr. Dallas, TX 75224 From boredspy@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:21:48 1997 Return-Path: boredspy@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05009 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:21:48 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18460; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:21:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from x9.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.25) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018111; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:20:29 -0500 Received: (from boredspy@juno.com) by x9.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KNT15799; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:05 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: You are playing with fire. How does it feel? :) Message-ID: <19970213.071529.7118.10.BoredSpy@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.21 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,9-11 From: boredspy@juno.com (Ed Roper) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:20:05 EST Content-Length: 665 Greetings, I am writing this letter to express to you the voice of many. What you hold in your hands is fire. If you want the FCC to be hated by millions of Americans, just give the phone companies what they seek. I do mean hated... not despised, but pure unbridled hatred. Allowing them to do what they want is discrimination against modem users. If you so choose to grant them what they seek... I -will- see you in court. Happy decision making my friends :) Remember the power of the American people. It only took one to get prayer out of school, and should you allow this to happen... I guarantee there will be more than one ready to fight. Cheers, Edward Roper From lightweaverz@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:22:24 1997 Return-Path: lightweaverz@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05013 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:22:24 -0500 From: lightweaverz@juno.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18604; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:22:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from x4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.22) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018552; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:21:54 -0500 Received: (from lightweaverz@juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KSY07314; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:21:51 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Proposed per minute ISP charges by telecom companies Message-ID: <19970213.072007.2127.1.lightweaverz@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 6-10 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:21:51 EST Content-Length: 569 I wish to strongly protest the proposed imposition of a per minute charge for use of the internet. Access to the resources of the net is one of the greatest advantages our children can have. Knowledge is power, and the sharing of ideas is what has made this country the best in the world. The proposed money grab by the telecom companies is a reprehensible act which would deny access to the poorest members of our society. Schools would have to severely cut their programs were such charges imposed. I urge you to deny the request for this charge. Mary A. Chandler From h-keithley@ti.com Thu Feb 13 10:22:38 1997 Return-Path: h-keithley@ti.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05017 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:22:38 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18659; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:22:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from news.ti.com(192.94.94.33) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018520; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:21:40 -0500 Received: from dlep1.itg.ti.com ([157.170.188.20]) by gatekeep.ti.com (8.6.13) with ESMTP id JAA19104 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:21:33 -0600 Received: from cna0678251.dseg.ti.com (cna0678251.dseg.ti.com [156.117.68.76]) by dlep1.itg.ti.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA08517 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:21:01 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970213152101.2ea740aa@dlep1.itg.ti.com> X-Sender: a0678251@dlep1.itg.ti.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:21:01 -0600 To: isp@fcc.gov From: Hal Keithley Subject: Per Minute Internet Charges Content-Length: 1938 It's come to my attention, and many others, that the local telephone companies are urging the FCC to reverse an earlier (1980's) directive/law that would not allow telephone companies to charge for Internet access. I'm just an individ- ual with an opinion that uses the Internet on a regular basis. The original intent of the ruling was to make Internet access available at an affordable price to as many people as possible to encourage its' growth. Is this no longer a concern? There are people who will be kept from the Internet if this directive is reversed. The argument that Internet traffic is overloading the telephone system all over the country seems exaggerated at best. Using one occurrence in one location as justification is ridiculous, if not dishonest. What the telephone companies don't seem to want to acknowledge is the growth in revenue due to the Internet explosion. Additional phone lines to the homes/businesses, phone lines to the ISPs, Internet backbone links, and I'm sure there are many more ways in which they have benefited. Appears telephone companies are attempting to get their outdated networks upgraded with new revenues instead of the revenues that the old network has provided. Don't let them! And at the same time you will be continuing to support the original intent of the law/directive that they want you to destroy. Thank you for your time and appreciate you giving individuals a chance to voice their opinions. By the way, if this law is reversed, does that mean this e-mail would cost me money? A Concerned Citizen, Hal Keithley Regards, Hal ***************************************** * Hal Keithley * * E-mail: h-keithley@ti.com * * Phone: 997-3101 * * Fax: 997-3181 * ***************************************** From JOHN_P3@sfov1.verifone.com Thu Feb 13 10:23:14 1997 Return-Path: JOHN_P3@sfov1.verifone.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05021 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:14 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18685; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:22:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from hnlv4.verifone.com(148.5.1.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018578; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:22:02 -0500 Received: from SFOV1 by verifone.com (PMDF V4.3-7 #5449) id <01IFCTIX78KW9A4I9Y@verifone.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 05:21:11 -1000 Received: from sfov1.verifone.com by sfov1.verifone.com (PMDF V4.3-7 #5451) id <01IFCX9GZOGW001WUY@sfov1.verifone.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:21:35 PT Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:21:35 PT From: "JOHN POETSCHKE (DFW) 972-702-1849" Subject: CC Docket No. 96-263 To: isp@fcc.gov Message-id: <01IFCX9H0R1U001WUY@sfov1.verifone.com> Organization: VeriFone X-PS-Qualifiers: /FONT=Courier-Bold/LINES=66/LEFT_MARGIN=36/CALCULATE/TOP_MARGIN=36/BOTTOM_MARGIN=36 X-VMS-To: IN%"isp@fcc.gov" X-VMS-Cc: JOHN_P3 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Length: 964 To whom it may concern: I wish to voice my opposition to local telephone companies levying per minute charges or other access fees to either internet service providers or users of internet access services. It is my opinion that internet usage via the public phone network is more of a boon to the local carriers rather than a bust. Many of my colleagues have added second telephone lines to their home for computer usage only. I am considering adding a third line to my home for dedicated computer usage. My point in all of this is that the increased usage of internet services has brought about more revenues to the local carriers fueling hefty growth in their profits. I feel that it is incumbent upon the local telephone companies to reinvest more of their profits in expanding their network capacities rather than passing the expense on to internet service providers and users. Thank you, John E. Poetschke 2312 Woodhollow Mesquite, TX 75150 From baldwin@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:23:17 1997 Return-Path: baldwin@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05025 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:16 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18690; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:22:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from x2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018657; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:22:17 -0500 Received: (from baldwin@juno.com) by x2.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id K[L25673; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:21:54 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Cc: baldwin@juno.com Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:11:28 PST Subject: Per-minute charges for internet access Message-ID: <19970213.092043.3278.1.baldwin@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,4-7,9-10,13-14,17-18,21-23 From: baldwin@juno.com (Richard G Baldwin) Content-Length: 927 I recall that when I was a child, many of my relatives used to spend hours at a time talking on the telephone. When I was a teenager, I used to spend hours at a time talking on the telephone. My grandchildren still spend hours at a time talking on the telephone. I now spend hours at a time on the internet, and have paid to install an extra line for that purpose. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter whether a telephone line is being used for voice or data. The telephone company has for many years provided unlimited local service for a fixed flat rate per month. The current move to impose per-minute charges for internet access is simply a way to latch onto a popular use of the telephone to increase profits. As you may have guessed, I am firmly opposed to the imposition of per-minute charges for internet access unless those same per-minute charges are imposed on all telephone usage. Richard G. Baldwin From mx5@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:23:18 1997 Return-Path: mx5@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05029 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:18 -0500 From: mx5@ix.netcom.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18696; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:22:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018637; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:22:08 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA15374 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:22:13 -0600 (CST) Received: from lbg-va1-17.ix.netcom.com(205.186.72.49) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma012009; Thu Feb 13 08:55:56 1997 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970213095607.006a9b78@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: mx5@popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 beta 4 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:56:10 -0500 To: isp@fcc.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 407 Absolutely Not! I am totally against the per minute charge for internet access via telephone lines that is being proposed. Like Higher taxes make people move out of the area, higher connect charges will cause people to leave the Internet. Maybe the telephone companies should start their own Internet services instead of trying to destroy it for everyone. Just my opinions. Kurt Selbert Sterling, VA From srogge@discover-net.net Thu Feb 13 10:23:20 1997 Return-Path: srogge@discover-net.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05033 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:20 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18701; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:22:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(208.134.196.20) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018672; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:22:30 -0500 Received: from srogge.discover-net.net (pm5-98.discover-net.net [208.134.203.98]) by discover.discover-net.net (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA20416 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:20:34 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <330331E2.180D@discover-net.net> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:23:16 -0600 From: "S. Rogge" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: phone company charges Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 388 I am on disability and have a limited income and use the Net as a way to get out and about. I strongly urge that you do not let the phone companys raise their rates as this puts the burden eventually back down the chain to the ones who can least afford it. If this stems from the AOL debacle, then address AOL, not the whole world of ISP's. Thank you. Susan R. Rogge Poplar, Wi 54864 From meuwissd@minneapolis.ds.adp.com Thu Feb 13 10:23:25 1997 Return-Path: meuwissd@minneapolis.ds.adp.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05037 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:24 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18710; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from myst.plaza.ds.adp.com(139.126.16.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018670; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:22:30 -0500 Received: from C107647.minneapolis.ds.adp.c (ace-minn.plaza.ds.adp.com [139.126.91.1]) by myst.plaza.ds.adp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA14192 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:22:49 -0800 Received: from meuwissd.minneapolis.ds.adp.com by C107647.minneapolis.ds.adp.com (Automatic Data Processing Dealer Services/1.0) id AA12356; Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:20:49 -0600 Message-Id: <9702131520.AA12356@C107647.minneapolis.ds.adp.com> From: "Dave Meuwissen" To: Subject: Phone Charges Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:23:10 -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: 310 I do not think the phone company should charge by the minute for internet access. I fel this is just a way for the phone companis to make more money. If I dial into a local area number, the internet service is paying for the phone connections to the main location. Why should we be charged. Very unfair... From expander2@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:23:37 1997 Return-Path: expander2@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05041 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:36 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18742; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from x16.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.28) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018678; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:22:42 -0500 Received: (from expander2@juno.com) by x16.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KwP16197; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:21:30 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: FCC Docket 96-262 and NPRM(Notice of Proposed Rule Making) FCC 96-488 From: expander2@juno.com (Brian V Abbott) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:21:30 EST Message-Id: <19970213.102130.16197.0@x16.boston.juno.com> Content-Length: 745 Message-ID: <19970213.101539.3430.1.expander2@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-2,9-17 X-Status: Unsent X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 I believe it is unfair to charge additonal fees for e-mail services. The increase in fees will be passed on to the consumers and will make the internet less accessable for all. The telephone companies already make enough off of internet activities as it is. Please do not pass this proposal. Through e-mail we are able to communicate with people that we would not be able to otherwise. E-mail is a boon to the general public whos interests should be served before big big business. Sincerely, Brian Abbott and family 4D Zygmunt Dr. Storrs CT 06268 expander2@juno.com From wai@wasatch.com Thu Feb 13 10:24:09 1997 Return-Path: wai@wasatch.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05045 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:24:08 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18754; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns.wasatch.com(204.99.129.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018694; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:22:57 -0500 Received: from wai.wasatch.com by lonepeak.wasatch.com with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.29.1 #2) id m0vv301-000IVoC; Thu, 13 Feb 97 08:23 MST Message-ID: <330333B3.2AF9@wasatch.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:30:59 -0700 From: Dale Reply-To: wai@wasatch.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet charges Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 650 I am opposed to being accessed per minute access charges by telephone companies for using the internet or any other computer service. I am already paying for internet access through my ISP. And, I am paying for unlimited telephone useage. There should be no difference whether I am using my telephone for internet access, other computer useage, voice communications, or for any other legal purpose. I have residential lines and business lines. I pay the appropriate rates for each and expect to have full, unlimited use of the lines in exchange for the fees paid. To identify a specific use for special charges is inappropriate. Dale Gillilan From raweber@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:24:11 1997 Return-Path: raweber@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05049 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:24:10 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18760; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from m7.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.196) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018714; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:23:04 -0500 Received: (from raweber@juno.com) by m7.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KFK28814; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:19:58 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Message-ID: <19970213.091706.22199.0.raweber@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,8-14 From: raweber@juno.com (Richard A Weber) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:19:58 EST Content-Length: 558 To whom it may concern: My wife and I are apposed to the proposed cost increase to internet users for their phone service. How about requiring automatic disconnect features like many internet providers have built into their system so lines will not be tied up when no one actually using the service for long periods of time? A price increase under the circumstances seems to be taking advantage of "problem" more than an attempt to find a soulution to a "problem". Sincerely, Richard & Patricia Weber 2433 Laurel Hill Ct Murfreesboro, Tn 37129 From jahrman@cincom.com Thu Feb 13 10:24:13 1997 Return-Path: jahrman@cincom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05053 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:24:13 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18765; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from wormhole.cincom.com(199.18.3.4) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018750; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:23:42 -0500 Received: from dhcp6966.cincom.com by cincom.com (1.40.112.8/) id AA126947668; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:48 -0500 Received: by dhcp6966.cincom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BC1998.064A7E80@dhcp6966.cincom.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:59 -0500 Message-Id: <01BC1998.064A7E80@dhcp6966.cincom.com> From: Jim Ahrman To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" Subject: ISP Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:57 -0500 Return-Receipt-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 1944 Hello, I just wanted to comment on what the phone companies are trying to do = with ISP over the country. If ISP's want to charge a flat rate, then = they should be allowed to. Phone companies are trying to do away with = the small local ISP's across the nation so they can get all of the = Internet business, which isn't fair. They are out there advertising, = like AT&T's Fuse and others. It's ashame that the phone companies are = trying to capitalize on such a popular item like the internet. It's a = way of getting information, keeping in touch with others, getting = software products to customers and now, the phone companies what to = control it all. This isn't what the internet is about. I use a local = internet provider, I've tried AOL, and didn't like it, just for the fact = that AOL is so HUGE, you can't even talk to a human. I had to wait on = the phone for 1 hour before I got to talk to a human. With a local = service provider, I'm able to send a mail message and get a response = within a couple of hours, which is service I never got from AOL and many = other big companies. If the phone companies are basically allowed to = control the prices, who is the winner here? I can talk to a human = within 5 minutes a my service provider they are nice and friendly. If = the phone companies are allowed to do this, this would run many of the = smaller, service providers out because, the phone companies could charge = high prices to the smaller providers and keep their service at a low = price and run the small providers out of town. Please don't let this = happen and keep the internet the way it its. There is so much to learn = out there. Not only about computers, but there is web sites about = animals, Presidents... and you can keep going with the list, and the = phone companies are trying to make us pay more. Please don't let this = happen and let the internet be as is. =20 Thanks=20 Jim Ahrman From BPough@EMORY.ORG Thu Feb 13 10:24:17 1997 Return-Path: BPough@EMORY.ORG Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05057 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:24:17 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18774; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from gwmail.eushc.org(163.246.97.175) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018747; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:23:36 -0500 Received: from EUSHC-Message_Server by EMORY.ORG with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:35 -0500 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:13:10 -0500 From: Barbara Pough To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: internet telephone service charges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 1070 To Whom It May Concern: I have been informed that it is the decision of the telephone service providers in this nation to charge extra for the use of phone lines for internet usage. This is a very bad idea. The internet is used for commerce of all kinds. Allowing the telephone service providers to gouge for extra service usage would not only hamper United States commerce, but world commerce. I, for one, conduct business worldwide through the internet. If I was charged extra for internet usage, I'm afraid that my business would become nonexistent. In the telephone service provider market, it seems to be a closed arena. If I do not like my current provider, I cannot switch to another because of the monopoly in my area that my current telephone service provider has. If the phone companies are allowed to gouge, I cannot "vote with my feet" and take my business elsewhere as I can in the regular consumer market. Once again, I strongly encourage you to help prevent this sort of price gouging from taking place. Thank You for your time. Barbara Pough From kboggs@VNET.IBM.COM Thu Feb 13 10:24:19 1997 Return-Path: kboggs@VNET.IBM.COM Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05061 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:24:19 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18780; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702131523.KAA18780@gatekeeper.fcc.gov> Received: from vnet.ibm.com(199.171.26.4) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018748; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:23:41 -0500 Received: from FSHVMDC by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 2766; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:23:40 EST Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:08:45 EST From: "Boggs, Karl E. (532-9015)" To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Reactions Content-Length: 884 I really hope that the FCC will not allow local phone companies to add additional per minute charges to any ISP or other service. I have read the projections from both sides on network usage and can't understand how their increase could be justified. Personally I would be more than willing to pay a temporary surcharge if it meant that my service would be upgraded, but I continue to be unsatisfied with high rates for what I consider to be very limited services. One need only look to other industrialized countries to see striking disparities between the US and others for cost and services. What would make more sense to consumers at this point in time is enabling competition within service areas and monitoring carefully against price fixing. Please don't let the local phone companies take even more advantage of their customers. Thank you for your attention, Karl Boggs From reiszb@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:24:23 1997 Return-Path: reiszb@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05065 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:24:23 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18791; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:24:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot02.msn.com(204.95.110.79) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018751; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:23:42 -0500 Received: from upmajb04.msn.com ([204.95.110.81]) by upsmot02.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id HAA09556 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:20:35 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:18:03 UT From: "John Reisz" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet Telephone Charges Content-Length: 405 I am informed that telephone companies are lobying to charge per minute rates for internet service. I strongly oppose such propositions and will openly and actively resist any such suggestions. The internet is a valuable research tool that has become an essential part of our business and educational life. The oil company mentality to get more with less must take a back seat to the common good. From w.e.nicholson@sk.sympatico.ca Thu Feb 13 10:24:25 1997 Return-Path: w.e.nicholson@sk.sympatico.ca Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05069 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:24:25 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18797; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:24:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702131524.KAA18797@gatekeeper.fcc.gov> Received: from orion.sk.sympatico.ca(142.165.21.5) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018668; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:22:52 -0500 Received: from warrenni (alf46.sk.sympatico.ca) by orion.sk.sympatico.ca with ESMTP (1.39.111.2/16.2) id AA019067235; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:20:35 -0600 From: "Warren Nicholson" To: Subject: FCC Considering allowing charge Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:22:33 -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: 692 I am most distressed to hear that the FCC is considering allowing phone companies to allow a per minute charge for Internet use. The user is already paying foe internet use including line charges in his monthly bill to the Internet Service Provider. If the phone companies want a piece of the action they should become Internet Service Providers. Seems a bit like they have "sour grapes" syndrome. In Canada the phone companies are all involved and provide excellent ISP service with no extra fee. Sincerely; Warren Nicholson Saskatchewan and Nevada Resident Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H.L. Mencken From marshalj@minneapolis.ds.adp.com Thu Feb 13 10:24:27 1997 Return-Path: marshalj@minneapolis.ds.adp.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05073 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:24:27 -0500 From: marshalj@minneapolis.ds.adp.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18802; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:24:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from myst.plaza.ds.adp.com(139.126.16.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018683; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:22:52 -0500 Received: from C107647.minneapolis.ds.adp.c (ace-minn.plaza.ds.adp.com [139.126.91.1]) by myst.plaza.ds.adp.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA14204 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:23:13 -0800 Received: from C108547.minneapolis.ds.adp.com by C107647.minneapolis.ds.adp.com (Automatic Data Processing Dealer Services/1.0) id AA12363; Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:21:19 -0600 Received: by C108547.minneapolis.ds.adp.com (Automatic Data Processing Dealer Services/1.0) id AA17043; Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:20:56 -0600 Message-Id: <9702131520.AA17043@C108547.minneapolis.ds.adp.com> Subject: internet charge To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:20:55 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL20] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 409 are you guys kidding about this...i understand that people are using the internet irresponsibly, if someone is on like thirty minutes with no activity than logg em off..but people that are responsible should be allowed actively send and recieve messages with no charge per minute...isn't the long distance battle of the major companies bad enough, without bringing the internet into this...leave us alone!.. From lobo@meceng.coe.neu.edu Thu Feb 13 10:24:59 1997 Return-Path: lobo@meceng.coe.neu.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05077 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:24:59 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18810; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:24:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from splinter.coe.neu.edu(129.10.34.153) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018778; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:23:58 -0500 Received: (from lobo@localhost) by splinter.coe.neu.edu (8.6.11/8.6.11) id KAA02210 for isp@fcc.gov; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:19 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:19 -0500 From: "Lobo S. Strappler" Message-Id: <199702131529.KAA02210@splinter.coe.neu.edu> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet tax Content-Length: 666 Please don't infringe upon our free rights. You are infringing on the expo factos rule. I have had internet access for over 5 yrs now and don't feel it is right to change it. From jsmythe@smtplink.pjc.cc.fl.us Thu Feb 13 10:25:01 1997 Return-Path: jsmythe@smtplink.pjc.cc.fl.us Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05081 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:25:01 -0500 From: jsmythe@smtplink.pjc.cc.fl.us Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18815; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:24:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(199.78.81.179) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018808; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:24:19 -0500 Received: from smtplink.pjc.cc.fl.us (pjc.cc.fl.us [199.78.81.133]) by budo.pjc.cc.fl.us (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA13792 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:37 -0600 Received: from ccMail by smtplink.pjc.cc.fl.us (SMTPLINK V2.11.01) id AA855854732; Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:23:30 CST Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:23:30 CST Message-Id: <9701138558.AA855854732@smtplink.pjc.cc.fl.us> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: RE: Telephone Charges Content-Length: 286 I have just been made aware of the impending request from the telephone companies to exact an additional charge for users of the Internet system. I oppose this request. I would suggest it is "restraint of trade" and should be looked at as such. From susancpa@loop.com Thu Feb 13 10:25:04 1997 Return-Path: susancpa@loop.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05085 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:25:03 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18821; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:24:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from stevie.loop.net(207.211.60.71) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018758; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:23:49 -0500 Received: from default (p26.hwts14.loop.net [207.211.62.221]) by stevie.loop.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA26088 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:23:37 -0800 Message-ID: <33033285.64A4@loop.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:25:57 -0800 From: Susan Silverstein Organization: Susan Silverstein CPA, A Professional Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-GTE (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: proposed internet "access" charges Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1566 I am currently paying for a telephone line. Do I not have the right to USE that line to make calls as I see fit? I should not be penalized for making a local telephone call, just because it is lengthy or because it is by electronic transmission (i.e. modem) and not by voice. If I were to call an individual and have a two-hour conversation, for example, an interview, where I obtained information for whatever purpose, there would be no extra charge. Or, I could spend two hours getting into my car, adding pollution to the environment, going to the library where I could photocopy the needed information (again polluting the environment by the use of the chemicals in the photocopy toner, not to mention killing a tree via the waste of paper). However, if I spent the same two hours on the Internet, obtaining even more complete information from world-wide sources, I would be penalized. Where is the equity? Where is the sanity? The phone companies are complaining because,most likely, it is cutting into their profits. Perhaps instead of trying to gouge the public, again, they should look at the company's operating expenses and answer a few simple questions: 1. Are you still making a reasonable profit? [Please define "reasonable"] 2. Can you reduce expenses instead of asking for another rate increase? 3. Have you cut out the waste and inefficiencies in your operation? 4. Are your top executives' salaries and benefits in excess of $1 million per year per person? If yes, go back to questions #2 and #3. From gilgamesh4@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:25:35 1997 Return-Path: gilgamesh4@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05089 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:25:35 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18830; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:25:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from x3.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.22) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018828; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:24:58 -0500 Received: (from gilgamesh4@juno.com) by x3.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KZA11196; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:44 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: surcharge for internet access Message-ID: <19970213.091909.10279.1.gilgamesh4@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-3,11-14 From: gilgamesh4@juno.com (Jonathan d. werre) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:44 EST Content-Length: 616 Feb. 13, 1997 To whom it may concern: I was informed via e-mail by Susan W. Miller of Oaktree Net in Indianapolis of the telephone companies' attempt to charge for per minute use of the internet. Any such extra charges, I my opinion, is not a wise move. Though I understand the necessity of paying for the service, etc., such an additional and accruing charge will have a detrimental effect, I think, on the general public's use of electronic communication. It seems in the best interests of our society that we do nothing like this to hinder or deter the use of this kind of technology. Sincerely, Jon Werre From rhs1942@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:26:39 1997 Return-Path: rhs1942@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05093 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:39 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18847; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.7) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018841; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:25:49 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA17107 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:25:55 -0600 (CST) Received: from alb-nm3-23.ix.netcom.com(206.214.146.55) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma017081; Thu Feb 13 09:25:49 1997 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970213082547.00698c1c@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: rhs1942@popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:25:49 -0700 To: isp@fcc.gov From: "R.H. Springer" Subject: Telephone proposals Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 442 Please give careful thought to the proposals being made by the Telephone Companies, regarding charges for use of local facilities to connect to the Internet. This would be prohibitive for a large number of us that use the Internet . It would cause many of us to have to drop this very valuable facility. Please don't let greed , once again, destroy a wonderful step into the future ! Thank you for your attention to my plea--- R.H. Springer From L_Watson@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:26:41 1997 Return-Path: L_Watson@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05097 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:41 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18852; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot03.msn.com(204.95.110.85) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018840; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:25:47 -0500 Received: from upmajb06 ([204.95.110.89]) by upsmot03.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id TAA04977 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:20:28 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:18:56 UT From: "Lorrie Watson" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: phone charges Content-Length: 210 I heard about the possibility of per-minute charges for Internet access from local phone companies. That is NOT ACCEPTABLE!! If this is approved you will have several million irate customers on your hands! From SANCHEZ@SCSUD.CTSTATEU.EDU Thu Feb 13 10:26:45 1997 Return-Path: SANCHEZ@SCSUD.CTSTATEU.EDU Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05101 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:45 -0500 From: SANCHEZ@SCSUD.CTSTATEU.EDU Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18876; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from scsud.ctstateu.edu(149.152.40.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018843; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:25:58 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:54 -0500 (EST) To: ISP@FCC.GOV Message-Id: <970213102654.2023bd52@SCSUD.CTSTATEU.EDU> Subject: per minute internet usage Content-Length: 389 to whom it may concern, the american public pay enough for telephone usage. because the internet has become such a huge success,companies again wish to exploit us by charging us per minute on the internet as well.because of the time it takes to select web sites and downloading info, the cost to regular users would be astronomical. please do not allow these companies to exploit us!!!! From keioga@discover-net.net Thu Feb 13 10:26:47 1997 Return-Path: keioga@discover-net.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05105 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:47 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18900; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(208.134.196.20) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018844; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:26:09 -0500 Received: from default (pm1-186.discover-net.net [208.134.202.186]) by discover.discover-net.net (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA20620 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:24:12 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702131524.JAA20620@discover.discover-net.net> From: " M.Keilholz" To: Subject: per minute charges Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:28:06 -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: 744 To whom it may concern, If I am understanding your new proposal to charge per minute for internet access, I must say that neither I nor anyone I know will be using the internet again. Isn't it enough that we have to pay so much per month for our access to begin with? Some of us , including myself, must already pay a set amount each time we connect in addition to our monthly subscription. On top of that I have phone bills in the $100 range monthly and I really don't feel like I make that many calls. I am outraged enough that to add another cost to me the consumer just may cause a striking of the phone services completely!!!!! Give us a break will ya? Keioga @ discovernet From lmacbeth@fred.net Thu Feb 13 10:26:54 1997 Return-Path: lmacbeth@fred.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05109 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:49 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA18910; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018845; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:26:11 -0500 Received: from lmacbeth.fred.net (lmacbeth.fred.net [205.177.201.72]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA22304 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702131523.KAA22304@bigdog.fred.net> X-Sender: lmacbeth@fred.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: isp@fcc.gov From: lmacbeth@fred.net (Robin Hager) Subject: Telephone companies Content-Length: 569 Ok my question is what is the government going to do after spending millions to install the internet into the classrooms of elementary and secondary schools?? Are we to foot that too...as well as what we pay out of our pockets at our personal level...Ok why not tax more people...hell make it a communistic state...giving the phone company rule over us all. Come on folks wake up and smell the coffee. This is pure greed on the phone companies part...and the average citizen is going to suffer again. When is this all going to end??? Robin Hager lmacbeth@fred.net From Glenn.Solberg@pscmail.ps.net Thu Feb 13 10:27:21 1997 Return-Path: Glenn.Solberg@pscmail.ps.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05113 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:21 -0500 From: Glenn.Solberg@pscmail.ps.net Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19043; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from gateway1.ps.net(192.131.85.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019031; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:26:52 -0500 Received: by gateway1.ps.net; id JAA06712; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:27:07 -0600 (CST) Received: from dcuh029.dcu.ps.net(155.16.72.29) by gateway1.ps.net via smap (3.2) id xma006631; Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:26:57 -0600 Received: by dcuh029.dcu.ps.net (1.37.109.20/16.2) id AA063597686; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:28:06 -0600 Received: by MCI; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 9:18:00 -0600 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 9:18:00 -0600 Subject: Internet Phone Charges To: isp@fcc.gov Message-Id: X-Mailer: Worldtalk (4.1.1-p1)/MIME Content-Length: 246 Regards to Internet Phone Charges I feel that the INTERNET Connectivity charges should NOT be changed from the current set standard. A per minute SURCHARGE should not be passed. Thank you. Glenn Solberg From archangel@weblnk.net Thu Feb 13 10:27:26 1997 Return-Path: archangel@weblnk.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05117 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:25 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19052; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(208.128.129.34) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018914; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:26:36 -0500 Received: from archangel ([208.128.129.107]) by apollo.weblnk.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA12581 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:17:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702131617.LAA12581@apollo.weblnk.net> From: "Gene Cochran" To: Subject: Telephone Proposal Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:39 -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: 817 Hello, I am writing in response to the Telephone Companies proposal to begin charging a per minute rate for internet access. This, in my view, is just another way to make more money for themselves. Also, if the internet was taxing their lines so severely, why have they jumped on the band wagon themselves. What this appears to be is an effort to subtly edge out internet service providers so internet users will HAVE to go to the phone companies for internet service. Just consider this, If they charge a per minute rate to providers, what says that same rate will apply to them, since they are providing the lines FOR the service to begin with. Please, do not pass this measure. Thank you for your time and patience! Gene Cochran archangel@weblnk.net http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1808/ < From franklinsteno@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:27:27 1997 Return-Path: franklinsteno@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05121 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:27 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19057; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from x13.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.27) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma018930; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:26:38 -0500 Received: (from franklinsteno@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KFH00349; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:25:06 EST To: ISP@fcc.gov Subject: per minute rate Message-ID: <19970213.113018.7335.0.franklinsteno@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-4,8-9,12-17 From: franklinsteno@juno.com (Frank A Mucilli) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:25:06 EST Content-Length: 563 Gentlemen: I have recently learned about your per minute rate for e-mail usage and am quite appalled. I don't feel that you have any right to limit us or charge additional fees to use our systems. We have paid enough in bills and refuse to pay any more. We are paying the highest rates in the country for our phone services and this is quite a violation of our rights. Please do not impose a per-minute charge. You will cause an uproar in the US and elsewhere and may suffer great financial loss due to your greed. Sincerely, FRANK A. MUCILLI From comjv.pers@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:27:34 1997 Return-Path: comjv.pers@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05125 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:33 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19072; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from m7.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.196) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019037; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:26:53 -0500 Received: (from comjv.pers@juno.com) by m7.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KHC28814; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:12 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Docket No. 96-263 Message-ID: <19970213.092434.10782.0.comjv.pers@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-5 From: comjv.pers@juno.com (Joyce D. Vaughn) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:12 EST Content-Length: 175 I am very much opposed to a fee being attached to the internet. Thank you for your consideration to vote against any such fee. J. D. Vaughn 25 Front Street Madison, AL 35758 From hummer49@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:27:38 1997 Return-Path: hummer49@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05129 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:37 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19081; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from m8.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.196) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019041; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:26:58 -0500 Received: (from hummer49@juno.com) by m8.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KGN13362; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:44 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Increased phone rates Message-ID: <19970213.102542.11039.2.Hummer49@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3 From: hummer49@juno.com (Francis Smead) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:26:44 EST Content-Length: 226 I see that the telephone companies are trying to dig into our pockets. These folks are really greedy and don't know when to stop and enjoy the prosperity they already enjoy. NO RATE INCREASE FOR THE GREEDY PHONE COMPANIES. From JoannaGF@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:28:12 1997 Return-Path: JoannaGF@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05133 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:28:11 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19109; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot02.msn.com(204.95.110.79) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019070; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:27:12 -0500 Received: from upmajb06 ([204.95.110.89]) by upsmot02.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id HAA10826 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:24:05 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 14:08:21 UT From: "Joanna Frank" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No. 96-263 Internet Access&Information Service Provider NOI --- My original comments Content-Length: 224 Hello, I am against allowing phone companies to charge internet service providers a per-minute charge for incoming calls. Please do not allow this to pass. Joanna G. Frank 300 Riverside Drive, Apt 2F New York, NY 10025 From lagesse@ti.com Thu Feb 13 10:28:18 1997 Return-Path: lagesse@ti.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05137 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:28:18 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19123; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from news.ti.com(192.94.94.33) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019103; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:27:36 -0500 Received: from dlep1.itg.ti.com ([157.170.188.20]) by gatekeep.ti.com (8.6.13) with ESMTP id JAA20904 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:27:39 -0600 Received: from ti (a0208440.dfab.sc.ti.com [156.117.237.196]) by dlep1.itg.ti.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA10802 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:26:59 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: BeyondMail for Windows/Professional 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: isp@fcc.gov From: Mike Lagesse Subject: Telephone charges for internet access Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:26:36 -0600 X-BeyondMail-Priority: 1 Message-Id: Conversation-Id: Reply-To: Mike Lagesse X-Receipt-From-Agent: true Content-Length: 1047 FCC, I have received a message informing me that the telephone companies wish to charge for using the telephone line for internet access. I believe this will ruin the internet, AOL's increased account size when they offered the monthly rate proved that people do not want to pay per minute/hour for access to the internet. My other concerns are the charges that would occur for accessing BBS's, FAX's, computers owned by friends and to call a computer at work. Depending on how the charge would be incurred, all the above and any computer related calls I left out would be charged also. It is my opinion, the telephone companies are just trying to get more money for a service that they already charge to use (the telephone). If the message I received is a hoax, I apologize for your time. I felt the risk of it not being a hoax was worth the time to send this message. If the message is not a hoax and you have a mailing list to inform people of your decision, please add my name to it. Thank you for your time, Mike Lagesse From d-heike@students.uiuc.edu Thu Feb 13 10:28:50 1997 Return-Path: d-heike@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05141 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:28:50 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19257; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:28:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ux5.cso.uiuc.edu(128.174.5.45) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019128; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:28:02 -0500 Received: (from d-heike@localhost) by ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA24307; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:28:08 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:28:07 -0600 (CST) From: deborah kay heikes X-Sender: d-heike@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: per-minute phone charges Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 367 Communication thorugh the internet is opening the doors for everyone. I am a teacher and am concerned about students and educators having access to the educational advantages of the internet. Please do not artificially limit this access by allowing the phone companies to make an unreasonable profit by charging per mintue for internet access. Deborah Heikes From Greg.Lechner@pscmail.ps.net Thu Feb 13 10:28:52 1997 Return-Path: Greg.Lechner@pscmail.ps.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05145 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:28:52 -0500 From: Greg.Lechner@pscmail.ps.net Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19270; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:28:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from gateway1.ps.net(192.131.85.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019127; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:28:03 -0500 Received: by gateway1.ps.net; id JAA07151; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:28:11 -0600 (CST) Received: from dcuh029.dcu.ps.net(155.16.72.29) by gateway1.ps.net via smap (3.2) id xma007100; Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:28:05 -0600 Received: by dcuh029.dcu.ps.net (1.37.109.20/16.2) id AA068827755; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:29:15 -0600 Received: by MCI; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 9:20:00 -0600 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 9:20:00 -0600 Subject: Internet Charges To: ISP@fcc.gov (Receipt Notification Requested) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Worldtalk (4.1.1-p1)/MIME Content-Length: 568 Dear Government official, It has been brought to my attention that our local telephone company has given you (the FCC) a proposal to add minute charges to Internet usage. I think that this is outrageous. This means that the internet provider will charge us for our time and then on top of that the phone company will charge us again. This is not right, we pay a monthly charge for our phone service & they want to recharge us for the time. I don't think so!! Please let my voice be heard. Thanks, Greg Lechner From elbmsb@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:28:54 1997 Return-Path: elbmsb@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05149 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:28:54 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19284; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:28:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from m1.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.199) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019129; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:28:05 -0500 Received: (from elbmsb@juno.com) by m1.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KOX24982; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:28 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: I am opposed to even the thought. Message-ID: <19970213.102837.9086.4.elbmsb@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,13-17 From: elbmsb@juno.com (Brad L. Bradley) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:28 EST Content-Length: 881 Dear Sir, Aren't the Phone companies big enough and rich enough that they now to be allowed to impose on ME and other charge for the use of my phone. I am a EMAIL user. But my time spent on the phone for my email is lest than 5 minutes a day. I am not a surfer. I simply use the phone in my case to process and recieve mail from my friends and family. It take no more than 1 to 2 minutes each time I go get my email--maby twice a day. I am opposed to even the though--let those big boys do a little for the customer just to show that they appreciate US. Instead of trying to figure out how they can get more. That to me is pure greed. Please stand up for the user in a day and time when we seem to be ignored, even when we voice our oppenions and feelings. Thank you for your time and I appreciate you being there--between us and the big boys. Sincerely, Brad Bradley From dave@mad.scientist.com Thu Feb 13 10:29:00 1997 Return-Path: dave@mad.scientist.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05153 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:00 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19326; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:28:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.7) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019190; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:28:15 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA17462 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:28:21 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702131528.JAA17462@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> Received: from cin-oh2-02.ix.netcom.com(199.183.45.66) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma017448; Thu Feb 13 09:28:13 1997 From: "Dave Murphy" To: Subject: Charges for Internet use Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:28:53 -0500 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: 1179 To whom it may concern, As a phone customer and internet user , I must oppose the proposed rate system for internet usage being asked by phone companies. I am already paying for my phone access AND my internet access. For the phone companies to ask for a new rate based on a per minute usage is absurd. Me being on the internet is like being on the phone. I am taking up the same amount of line time connected to the internet as if I was talking to a friend in town. To top the situation off , I also have to pay additional charges for the internet access anyway. Is the FCC aware that some of the money I pay to my internet provider goes to paying the local telco for payment of line usage? If the FCC would like to anger persons such as myself , help end the communication revolution , by limiting the time users can afford to spend communicating over public lines and prevent access to information in impovrished areas , then I will no longer support the FCC in any matter and I will excercise my voting rights come election time! I do not appreciate the public being left out of this matter either, as the internet IS PUBLIC DOMAIN. Thoroughly upset, Dave Murphy From rkrause@invisibleinc.com Thu Feb 13 10:29:02 1997 Return-Path: rkrause@invisibleinc.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05157 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:02 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19337; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:28:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from computerland.discover-net.net(208.134.205.12) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019208; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:28:19 -0500 Received: from cland108.invisibleinc ([208.134.202.108]) by computerland.discover-net.net (post.office MTA v1.9.3 ID# 0-12441) with SMTP id AAA65 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:18:08 +0000 Message-ID: <33034DEF.662E@invisibleinc.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:22:55 -0800 From: rkrause@invisibleinc.com (Robert Krause) Organization: Invisible, inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: [Fwd: FCC Proposal] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------55ACFD9494D" Content-Length: 2213 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------55ACFD9494D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just received this alarming news from my local ISP. I am shocked and very concerned. This action will greatly reduce small business use of the Internet and allow large corporations an unfair advantage (once again). I urge you to not allow these charges to begin. They will put many small businesses out of business. Robert Krause --------------55ACFD9494D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from discover.discover-net.net ([208.134.196.20]) by computerland.discover-net.net (post.office MTA v1.9.3 ID# 0-12441) with ESMTP id AAY168 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:44:49 +0000 Received: (from akira@localhost) by discover.discover-net.net (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA23856; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:49:49 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:49:49 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702112349.RAA23856@discover.discover-net.net> From: custserv@discover-net.net To: rkrause@invisibleinc.com Subject: FCC Proposal X-Mozilla-Status: 0005 Dear Clients, We obtained the following information this morning. This message might be of your interest, so we are forwarding to all of our users. ---Forwarded message--- I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter currently under review by the FCC. Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if servers like AOL cease to give 50 free hours. The FCC has created an e-mail box for your comments, responses must be received by Feb. 13, 97. Send your comments to isp@fcc.gov and tell them what you think. EVERY phone co. is in on this one, and they are trying to SNEAK it in just under the wire for litigation. et everyone you know hear this one. ---Forwarded message end--- Thank you, DiscoverNet Staff --------------55ACFD9494D-- From elbmsb@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:29:04 1997 Return-Path: elbmsb@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05161 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:04 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19348; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:28:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from m1.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.199) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xmaa19129; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:28:20 -0500 Received: (from elbmsb@juno.com) by m1.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KOY24982; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:28 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: I oppose even the thought... Message-ID: <19970213.102837.9086.5.elbmsb@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,4-5,9-10,19-23 From: elbmsb@juno.com (Brad L. Bradley) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:28 EST Content-Length: 1136 Dear Sir, I would appreciate your attention at this time, concerning the hearing you will be granting the phone companies, on the subject of charging phone users for email service. Its time someone says no to the big boys who keep trying to charge customers for every- thing under the sun. We pay our phone bills for local and long distances, and those rates are already too high. Why should they have the right to charge us more? I use my phone to gather in my email--I do not surf--I do not stay on the phone long periods of time. If you want to charge someone, charge the internet servers. They are already charging us (those who use the net and web) high prices and now the phone companies want to charge us even more. Maybe, charging the net/web servers will cause the servers to go up on the cost and that will cut down on time use. But that isn't what the phone companies want. They do not want the servers making more money, neither do they want the time of use cut, all they want is more money--I hope you can see this. Please put a stop to the deliberate greed of the big boys. Thank You. Marilyn Bradley From Paul_G_Cummings@sbphrd.com Thu Feb 13 10:29:08 1997 Return-Path: Paul_G_Cummings@sbphrd.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05165 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:08 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19392; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:28:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from phinet.sbphrd.com(139.136.64.5) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019218; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:28:22 -0500 Received: from pho903.um.us.sbphrd.com by phinet.sbphrd.com; (5.65v3.0/1.1.8.2/06Mar95-1250PM) id AA32552; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:28:27 -0500 Received: by pho903.sbphrd.com (IBM OS/2 SENDMAIL VERSION 1.3.2)/1.0) id AA1663; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:25:07 -0800 Message-Id: <9702131825.AA1663@pho903.sbphrd.com> Received: by SB_PHARM_RD (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id E0BA0441F459CFF48525643D004DC1C9; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:25:07 EDT To: isp From: Paul G Cummings Date: 13 Feb 97 10:19:35 EDT Subject: Internet Per Minute Charges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Content-Length: 1650 To Whom It May Concern 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 agencies 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 yours, Paul G. Cummings From lclark@comp.uark.edu Thu Feb 13 10:29:40 1997 Return-Path: <@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:lclark@comp.uark.edu> Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05169 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:40 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19541; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from uafsysb.uark.edu(130.184.252.196) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019241; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:28:32 -0500 Received: from uafsysb.uark.edu by UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:26:09 CST Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970213092529.006867f4@comp.uark.edu> X-Sender: lclark@comp.uark.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:26:12 +0000 To: isp@fcc.gov From: "Lenthon B. Clark" Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 829 I am opposed to the telephone companies charging a per minute surcharge for internet usage. I think the phone companies are totally out of line and greedy for even suggesting such a charge. They make enough money already. I installed a second line dedicated to my computer. My local telephone company is getting paid for two lines into my home because of the internet. How many other people are doing the same thing? Some telephone companies do direct marketing encouraging people to install another line. Now they want to charge an additional amount above their already sufficient rate to use that line. They are making money off of me that they would otherwise not make because of the internet. Lenthon B. Clark 2247 Country Way Fayetteville, AR 72703-4216 Phone (501) 521-9242 Fax (501) 575-9242 From kattdann@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:29:42 1997 Return-Path: kattdann@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05173 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:42 -0500 From: kattdann@juno.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19550; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from x8.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.24) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019327; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:28:39 -0500 Received: (from kattdann@juno.com) by x8.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KUP00458; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:48 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Charges for Internet use Message-ID: <19970213.072518.3854.1.kattdann@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 4 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:48 EST Content-Length: 347 We have recently been notified that local phone companies have requested permission to charge for Internet use time. I would like let you know here that my husband and I think this is a poor idea. It is unequitable in that it turns what should be a public right into a privilege for those who can afford it. Please keep the airways accessible. From jarred@meceng.coe.neu.edu Thu Feb 13 10:29:44 1997 Return-Path: jarred@meceng.coe.neu.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05177 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:44 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19565; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from splinter.coe.neu.edu(129.10.34.153) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019365; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:28:46 -0500 Received: (from jarred@localhost) by splinter.coe.neu.edu (8.6.11/8.6.11) id KAA02310 for isp@fcc.gov; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:07 -0500 From: HybriD Message-Id: <199702131534.KAA02310@splinter.coe.neu.edu> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet Tax Content-Length: 55 This email is in protest of the proposed internet Tax. From k_of_c@pinenet.com Thu Feb 13 10:29:46 1997 Return-Path: k_of_c@pinenet.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05181 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:46 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19577; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from homebrew.pinenet.com(206.11.214.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019507; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:29:10 -0500 Received: from k_of_c.pinenet.com (pm1-2.pinenet.com [206.11.214.12]) by homebrew.pinenet.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA07726 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:29:15 -0600 Message-Id: <199702131529.JAA07726@homebrew.pinenet.com> From: "Shawn M. Paul" To: Subject: Isn't this just typical Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:20:08 -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: 929 I just heard of the proposal to have local telephone companies charge Internet users by the minute of use. I am on the Internet because I have a local server and I don't pay these outrageous phone bills. If this changes I will quit the Internet along with several others. Our Wonderful President Clinton wants all people to have access to the Internet but most simply can't afford it due to the fact that they don't have a local server. They can't afford the Long distance phone charge. This was my families case for a number of years. Lets give the little guy's a break for once. If this per minute fee goes through I will lose my Internet. Local Phone companies Have no right or reason for this per minute charge. I pay my phone service bill every month and now they say it just isn't enough. That's not my fault. GIVE US A BREAK, PLEASE Think about it before you go headlong into this. give us a break!!!!!!!! From j.mcnatt@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:30:48 1997 Return-Path: j.mcnatt@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05185 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:48 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19777; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from x11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.26) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019684; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:29:58 -0500 Received: (from j.mcnatt@juno.com) by x11.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KTF13775; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:40 EST To: isp@Fcc.gov Subject: New Per Minute Charges Message-ID: <19970213.102613.4951.1.J.McNatt@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,7-10 From: j.mcnatt@juno.com (Jed A. McNatt) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:40 EST Content-Length: 421 To whom it may concern: Please DONOT ALLOW this per minute charge. This is a step backwards in the advancement of communications. It's just another way for the phone companys to try to make an unfair buck and another way to discourage newcommers. Why should the phone company have the "right" to additionally charge me for the way I use my phone line THAT I AM ALREADY PAYING them for?? Jed McNatt J.McNatt@juno.com From Scottlw36@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:30:50 1997 Return-Path: Scottlw36@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05189 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:50 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19794; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019728; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:13 -0500 Received: from upmajb06 ([204.95.110.89]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id GAA06131 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:30:44 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:28:07 UT From: "Scott Ozer" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: : Extra charges: Fight NOW! Content-Length: 333 As a voter and community leader, the deregulation of phone companies has cost me nothing but more money and wasted my time, now they want to charge me extra for a phone system that has been paid for may times over! NO WAY, I DON'T WANT THIS HELP. I WILL VOTE MY POCKET BOOK IN THE NEXT TWO ELECTIONS. STOP THEM, NOW. ---------- From gking@cellmate.cb.uga.edu Thu Feb 13 10:30:52 1997 Return-Path: <@uga.cc.uga.edu:gking@cellmate.cb.uga.edu> Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05193 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:52 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19810; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu(128.192.232.5) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019687; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:00 -0500 Received: from dns1.uga.edu by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:28:56 EST Received: from cellmate.cb.uga.edu (cellmate.cb.uga.edu [128.192.13.2]) by dns1.uga.edu (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id KAA13798 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:04 -0500 From: gking@cellmate.cb.uga.edu Received: from sneezy.cb.uga.edu (sneezy.cb.uga.edu [128.192.13.15]) by cellmate.cb.uga.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3) with SMTP id KAA02206 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702131529.KAA02206@cellmate.cb.uga.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is Organization: Cellular Biology, UGA To: isp%fcc.gov@uga.cc.uga.edu Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:51 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: charges for internet service Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.32a) Content-Length: 670 I would like to say that I totally OPPOSE this idea of local phone companies charging for use of the Internet services! There can be no real reason behind these companies except to charge us a higher phone bill, etc., and profit more money, which is ridiculous in the first place considering how they are outrageously charging for usage of phone lines as it is! thank you for taking the time and reading my opinion. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Genia King, Administrative Secretary The University of Georgia Department of Cellular Biology 724 Biological Sciences Building Athens GA 30602-2607 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From vql@cauchy.aero.ufl.edu Thu Feb 13 10:30:54 1997 Return-Path: vql@cauchy.aero.ufl.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05197 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:54 -0500 From: vql@cauchy.aero.ufl.edu Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19832; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from cauchy.aero.ufl.edu(128.227.42.162) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019701; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:04 -0500 Received: by cauchy.aero.ufl.edu (5.61ufl/4.10) id AA29448; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:08 -0500 Message-Id: <9702131530.AA29448@cauchy.aero.ufl.edu> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Against phone charge for internet service Cc: vql@fcc.gov Content-Length: 955 Dear Sirs/Madams: I am against the proposal by phone companies to charge the connection of my home computer to the internet via local phone calls. I use my local phone to connect to my university everynight to transfer data. The local phone calls are charged once for unlimited phone calls, regardless of the duration of the calls. The connection to the internet via local phone should be charged as local phone calls. Thank you for your attention, ********************************************************************** Loc Vu-Quoc, Associate Professor Tel: (352) 392-6227 Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics Fax: (352) 392-7303 & Engineering Science E-mail: vu-quoc@ufl.edu P.O. Box 116250 University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 ********************************************************************** From lansdale@umich.edu Thu Feb 13 10:31:36 1997 Return-Path: lansdale@umich.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05201 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:36 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20043; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from berzerk.rs.itd.umich.edu(141.211.63.17) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019877; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:41 -0500 Received: by berzerk.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/3.0-mailhub) id KAA28847; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from lansdale@choplifter.rs.itd.umich.edu(141.211.63.90) by berzerk.rs.itd.umich.edu via smap (2.0-umich) id xma028843; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:45 -0500 Received: from localhost by choplifter.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/3.0-client) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:43 -0500 (EST) From: Metta Lansdale X-Sender: lansdale@choplifter.rs.itd.umich.edu To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: FCC rate changes In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970212170301.00d1914c@mail2.tcccom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1364 It is not justfied to be charging a per minute rate charge for use of the phone companies.. The Telephone system is a public utility and not a retail fee for service/object system. I am afraid that the phone companies are just trying to cash in on a boom in the internet use in a way that is untenable. The phone companies are able to cash in just fine and in an acceptable way by making money supplying all the additional telephone *lines* that are required by additional use. If phone companies can supply the volume and speed for transmission, then people will not need to be on the line so long - holding up lines in case they need to use them. ****************************************************************** * Metta Lansdale MLink Program and MEL * * Ann Arbor, Michigan Univ. Mich. Graduate Library * * Voice: (313)764-3903 Fax: (313)764-3916 * * * * MEL - The Michigan Electronic Library * * http://mel.lib.mi.us * * * * lansdale@umich.edu * * http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lansdale/personal.html * ****************************************************************** From MCat187@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:31:38 1997 Return-Path: MCat187@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05205 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:38 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20054; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot02.msn.com(204.95.110.79) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xmaa19885; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:43 -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 HAA11808 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:27:36 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:30:40 UT From: "Mark Catuncan" Message-Id: To: ISP@fcc.gov Subject: Internet/Phone Charges Content-Length: 525 To whom it may concern, I have recently been told about a proposal that phone companies are trying to impose additional charges per minute for internet use. I believe this is unconstitutional for I am already paying phone bills to use the phone for any reason I want. Why should I or anybody else have to pay extra to use the phone. I believe this is just a ploy so that phone companies can make that extra buck. We have enough bills to pay, so please understand where we are coming from. Thank you. Mark Catuncan From dhblake@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:31:41 1997 Return-Path: dhblake@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05209 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:40 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20071; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from x12.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.26) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019947; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:53 -0500 Received: (from dhblake@juno.com) by x12.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KUX06890; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:39 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:33:32 PST Message-ID: <19970213.093335.6639.0.dhblake@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,4-7 From: dhblake@juno.com (David H Blake) Content-Length: 202 To the FCC, Keep the internet free of charge. Do not succumb to the pressure from US phone companies in their bid to make even more money. No, No, No on internet tolls. David Blake DHBlake@juno.com From g-fish@ti.com Thu Feb 13 10:31:42 1997 Return-Path: g-fish@ti.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05213 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:42 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20086; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from news.ti.com(192.94.94.33) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019963; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:58 -0500 Received: from decp4.itg.ti.com ([156.117.50.20]) by gatekeep.ti.com (8.6.13) with ESMTP id JAA21544; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:30:27 -0600 Received: from ti (floor913.sc.ti.com [156.117.59.151]) by decp4.itg.ti.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA06518; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:29:55 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: BeyondMail for Windows/SMTP 2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: isp@fcc.gov From: Glynn Fish Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:37:49 -0800 X-BeyondMail-Priority: 1 Message-Id: Conversation-Id: Reply-To: Glynn Fish X-Receipt-From-Agent: true Content-Length: 474 This proposal will hinder the usage of the Internet. Telephone companies do not want to upgrade their telephone lines to support internet usage because they are satisfied with the status quo and do not want to give their customers what they deserve for when they already pay a monthly fee. We should challenge the telephone company to come up with a better solution than just passing the buck to the consumer. Regards, Glynn Fish 1113 Hyde Park Dr. Mckinney, Texas 75069 From wor97isd91@mecn.mass.edu Thu Feb 13 10:31:45 1997 Return-Path: WOR97ISD91@mecn.mass.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05217 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:44 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20098; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from piano.mecn.mass.edu(134.241.10.5) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma019967; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:31:00 -0500 Received: from mecn.mass.edu by mecn.mass.edu (PMDF V5.0-4 #12917) id <01IFD4AMA3SCA4PS52@mecn.mass.edu> for isp@fcc.gov; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:03 -0500 (EST) From: wor97isd91@mecn.mass.edu Subject: charging for e-mail To: isp@fcc.gov Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Length: 1410 I am a freshman in college, and, having friends across the country, I , along with millions of others use e-mail quite frequently. It is my understanding that the government would like telephone companies to start charging the people of the U.S. per minute for the use of electronic mail. I'm sure I won't be the first to tell you that there is no need for this. I live in Massachusetts, and being a college student, I don't bring in much money. Most of the people I e-mail are in Minnesota. For me to call there and talk for 1 hour costs me $10.00+. So, being a student, I must resort to a cheaper, and at this point in time FREE way of communication-e-mail. I think I can speak on behalf of college students across America when I say that this is a ridiculous way of trying to make more money. Telephone companies are already charging outrageous rates for long-distance calls, being on the internet etc.. I feel that putting a 'per-minute' fee on the use of e-mail would be robbing the pockets of the U.S. student body. If the government wants more money then they should start budgeting more responsibly instead of paying for their mistakes out of our pockets. I'm hoping that you will take thoughts of others and my own into great consideration before making a decision that will indefinately greatly upset frequent users of e-mail. Thank you for your time, A concerned student From kdhorton@fred.net Thu Feb 13 10:32:27 1997 Return-Path: kdhorton@fred.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05221 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:26 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20270; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020090; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:31:22 -0500 Received: from cyrino.fred.net (cyrino.fred.net [204.215.83.248]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA22616; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970213102932.00686c54@fred.net> X-Sender: kdhorton@fred.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 Demo (32) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:38 -0500 To: isp@fcc.gov From: Keith and Debi Horton Subject: Proposed per minute charges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1864 To Whom It May Concern: Please consider my opinion in determining whether local phone service providers should be permitted to charge customers a "per-minute" rate when utilizing the services of an Internet Service Provider (ISP). I am opposed to permitting this additional charge for several reasons: left1. Local telephone systems have already benefitted significantly from increased usage. ISP's have purchased thousands of additional phone lines to accommodate service, and many individual customers, myself included, have purchased an additional phone line to use for internet access. 2. The addition of a per-minute rate on top of existing phone service charges would pose a serious economic impact to many internet users, especially considering the investment each has already made to obtain access. 3. Schools and libraries, already straining to meet burgeoning technological growth, would suffer economic hardship or have to deny students and patrons access. 4. National goals to increase communication, information exchange and data access would suffer a serious setback. Other, more progressive nations would leave the United States behind as we enter the 21st century. 5. Local phone companies, most very successful financially, would receive "windfall" profits far in excess of normal returns. Local service users whose livelihoods are dependent upon internet access would be forced to reduce their profits to further enrich local phone companies. The exclusivity of local telephone companies denies customers competitive pricing opportunities for service. Therefore, it is the role of the Federal Communications Commission to watch out for the best interests of all American citizens when deciding on this matter. Thank you for considering my comments when making your decision. From dschimme@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:32:29 1997 Return-Path: dschimme@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05225 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:28 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20284; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020144; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:31:33 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA27955 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:31:38 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:31:38 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702131531.JAA27955@dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com> Received: from den-co10-26.ix.netcom.com(204.31.232.154) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma027920; Thu Feb 13 09:31:23 1997 X-Sender: dschimme@popd.netcruiser (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: isp@fcc.gov From: Dave Subject: FCC 96-488 Content-Length: 1042 Dear Sir/Madam, It has been widely reported recently that the proposal FCC 96-488 seeks to charge Internet Service Providers a per minute usage charge for local Internet calls. For years there have been dozens of rumors about various FCC proposals that do various horrible things to the BBS/Internet community. Most of them have turned out to be hoaxes perpetrated by pranksters or simply misunderstandings. While I have glanced at the above proposal, I don't have the time to read the entire document. So, please let me say that IF the proposal seeks to impose such a charge, I firmly believe that it would be a severe detriment to what promises to be the most significant communications revolution in the early 21st century. The Internet will inevitably change the way people communicate, as well as the way business is done worldwide. While I do believe that you cannot have a completely unregulated environment, anything that imposes such far-reaching financial burdens as surcharges should be avoided. Thank you, Dave Schimmel From asingh+@pitt.edu Thu Feb 13 10:32:31 1997 Return-Path: asingh+@pitt.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05229 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:30 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20299; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from post-ofc05.srv.cis.pitt.edu(136.142.185.10) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020172; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:31:39 -0500 Received: from sutra.cbp.pitt.edu (sutra.cbp.pitt.edu [136.142.100.81]) by post-ofc05.srv.cis.pitt.edu with SMTP (8.8.5/cispo-2.0.1.7) ID for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702131527.KAA13795@post-ofc05.srv.cis.pitt.edu> X-Sender: asingh@pop.pitt.edu 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: "Dr. Ashvani K. Singh" Content-Length: 527 Dear Sir/Madam, I was informed of FCC trying to impose per minute charge for the internet service. I think it is ridiculous to impose such charges, as it will be an extra monetary burden on someone like me with two growing kids at home, who're trying to gain knowledge from this limitless and boundaryless source of KNOWLEDGE available over the Internet. Please think twice before you decide. Ashvani K. Singh, Ph.D. Research Assistant Professor of Cell Biology & Physiology University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA 15261 From jpm23@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:33:03 1997 Return-Path: jpm23@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05233 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:02 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20419; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020267; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:32:06 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA28020 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:32:11 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:32:11 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702131532.JAA28020@dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com> Received: from phx-az26-19.ix.netcom.com(207.94.110.243) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma027959; Thu Feb 13 09:31:56 1997 From: jpm23@ix.netcom.com (John Myers) Subject: Internet Access Charges To: isp@fcc.gov Content-Length: 1358 Reference is made to the proposal to charge internet providers for access to local calls. These charges will ultimately come down to the individual using the Internet for personal and/or business uses. When we sign up with a telephone company for a telephone line to home we are guaranteed certain prices for certain services to include local area calls. When using the Internet we access only the local telephone systems; no further services are provided by the telephone companies, ergo, we should not be required to pay any additional charges when no additional services are provided by that entity. The telephone companies are just trying to "feather their own nests" at the expense of the telephone user. I assume that the charters of the telephone companies provide the requirement that they provide service at reasonable prices and that they make a reasonable profit. The stock prices of the companies reflect that they make more than a reasonable profit. Increased prices for these services would force many people to stop using the Internet, a valuable and interesting tool for many. I, personally, primarily use e-mail and only on rare occasions delve into the WWW. I must explain that I only use the Internet for personl reasons. John P. Myers, Jr. 4239 East Rancho Tierra Drive Cave Creek, Arizon 85331 (602) 585-3532 From Scott_Byrum@mhsmail.git.gulfaero.com Thu Feb 13 10:33:05 1997 Return-Path: Scott_Byrum@mhsmail.git.gulfaero.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05237 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:05 -0500 From: Scott_Byrum@mhsmail.git.gulfaero.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20447; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from rottweiler.gulfaero.com(134.216.26.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020327; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:32:17 -0500 Received: from rottweiler.gulfaero.com (root@localhost) by rottweiler.gulfaero.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA08735 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mhsmail.git.gulfaero.com ([134.216.200.240]) by rottweiler.gulfaero.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA08729 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702131532.KAA08729@rottweiler.gulfaero.com> X-Nvlenv-01Date-Posted: 13-Feb-1997 10:27:45 -0500; at Mail.GAC Date: 13 Feb 97 10:17:53 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Content-Length: 373 Scott Byrum 119 East 61st Street, Apt. A Savannah, GA 31405 This is the most preposterous proposal I have ever heard of in my life. This is just another example of a company that has exclusive local service trying to bully its customers. If there were another local company I would switch service. I do not agree with this at all. And I work in the industry!!!!!!! From anne@rclink.net Thu Feb 13 10:33:51 1997 Return-Path: anne@rclink.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05241 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:51 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20618; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(207.41.47.7) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020476; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:32:51 -0500 Received: from lizard (race-leom1-a07.rclink.net [207.41.47.39]) by leomsys.rclink.net (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6) with SMTP id PAA21577 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:27:52 GMT Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:27:52 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970213104141.12cf6f26@rclink.net> X-Sender: anne@rclink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: isp@fcc.gov From: "Anne O'Connor" Subject: phone surcharges Content-Length: 158 Just to let you know that I am opposed to per minute charges imposed by phone companies. What next? Will everyone be forces to have metered local service? From abkar@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:33:53 1997 Return-Path: abkar@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05245 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:53 -0500 From: abkar@juno.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20633; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from x3.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.22) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020513; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:33:01 -0500 Received: (from abkar@juno.com) by x3.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id K\Y11196; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:14 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Local Charges for the Internet Message-ID: <19970213.103303.11846.0.abkar@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,3-5,9,12,14-18 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:14 EST Content-Length: 811 Gentlepersons: It has come to my attention that local telephone companies have sought approval to charge per minute rates for internet access on telephone lines. As a customer, I am opposed to this plan for the following reasons: 1. A per minute charge would in effect be a private tax on commerce. It may become a tariff, preventing persons from using this means of commerce, choosing to do a means by which the only tax is imposed by the government. 2. In our area, Ameritech wants to go to a flat rate of 15 cents per minute for all local calls. Hey, can we pay them for anything else? Price gouging, pure and simple. 3. In those jobs that require a phone, I am compelled already to have a telephone. How much more am I required to pay for this thing? Thank you for your kind attention, Andrew A. Kar From LCNMackay@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:33:55 1997 Return-Path: LCNMackay@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05249 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:55 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20644; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot03.msn.com(204.95.110.85) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020520; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:33:06 -0500 Received: from upmajb04.msn.com ([204.95.110.81]) by upsmot03.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id TAA07029 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:27:46 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:33:11 UT From: "LCN Mackay" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: No extra charges! Content-Length: 225 I for one would be one that would no longer be able to use the internet if you add an extra charge on to what I already pay! In voicing my opinion I would ask you not to do this! Thanks you Cheryl Mackay lcnmackay@msn.com From sburg@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:33:57 1997 Return-Path: sburg@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05253 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:57 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20651; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from m11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.194) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020544; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:33:15 -0500 Received: (from sburg@juno.com) by m11.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KLP03816; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:15 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Charging for Internet Access Message-ID: <19970213.103303.17766.1.sburg@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1 From: sburg@juno.com (Steven J. Burg) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:15 EST Content-Length: 96 Please don't raise the charges for internet access or I will have to drop my internet service. From bigrex@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:34:29 1997 Return-Path: bigrex@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05257 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:29 -0500 From: bigrex@juno.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20746; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from x14.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.27) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020571; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:33:23 -0500 Received: (from bigrex@juno.com) by x14.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KWC09325; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:37 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet Message-ID: <19970213.083157.11095.1.bigrex@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,8-12 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:37 EST Content-Length: 602 I received a message that said that your are reviewing a petition to allow local phone companies to charge a fee for intenet users. I object. This is simply an attempt to make more money for the local phone companies. In addition if they win this ruling how will they distinguish internet users from FAX users or how will recreational users be charged compaired to business users. And once a local company is allowed to charge a by the minute rate for local use on one tyoe of call the door is open for by the minute charges. I object. Cordell Rich 1965 West 3590 south West Valley City, UT 84119 From pkm1@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:34:31 1997 Return-Path: pkm1@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05261 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:31 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20756; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from x6.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.23) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020576; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:33:23 -0500 Received: (from pkm1@juno.com) by x6.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KYW05825; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:22 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: per minute charges on internet service Message-ID: <19970213.083145.6903.5.pkm1@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-2,6-7,11-12,14-20 From: pkm1@juno.com (Mr. Patrick K. Mulvey) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:22 EST Content-Length: 827 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This proposal really upsets me, we in Texas are already paying throught the nose to make interstate long distance calls, if passed this will only add to my thoughts about cutting back on the phone services that I already have with the local phone providers. I realize that you probably hear it all, here in El Paso in the last two months my gas utility bill has quadrupled and to tell you the truth I'm tired of it, seems like everytime you turn around someone else is trying to take advantage of the honest people in this world. If this bill is passed, I personally will not support these companies, I will cancel my internet service agreement and do without it. Thank you for your time and efforts in supporting the public. Catherine J. Cornilles 15356 Mineral Court Horizon City, Texas 79927 From tssykes@dobson.ozarks.edu Thu Feb 13 10:34:33 1997 Return-Path: tssykes@dobson.ozarks.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05265 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:33 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20768; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from dobson.ozarks.edu(150.208.212.40) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020628; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:33:32 -0500 Received: from localhost (tssykes@localhost) by dobson.ozarks.edu (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id JAA10031 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:31:49 -0600 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:31:49 -0600 (CST) From: "Tim-bo S. Sykes" To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: "CC Docket No. 96-263" (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-Length: 2346 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:42:19 -0500 (EST) From: BSSyk@aol.com To: isp@fcc.gov Cc: TWCOPE@aol.com, kpcope@juno.com, tssykes@dobson.ozarks.edu Subject: "CC Docket No. 96-263" It is my understanding that the FCC is considering allowing internet users = to be charged a per minute rate for the connection to their internet service provider (CC Docket No 96-263). I want to voice my opposition. I feel that it is not in the best interest of the public to allow the telephone industry to charge it=92= s customers twice for the same call. Customers already pay to have a telephone in their homes and/or business. N= ow the telephone industry wants to charge it=92s customers again when they cal= l an internet service provider. The connection to the phone companies line is already being paid by someone, either the internet service provider or the customer. This would be "double dipping" so to speak. While the telephone companies may argue that the increase in usage will hinder the telephone network, I would argue that the telephone companies want to increase revenu= e by exploiting the new trend in their medium. The fact is, more and more people are using the internet for educational research, and business. President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been very big supporters of internet access. In the president=92s State of the U= nion Address, he spoke of seeing that everyone was able to connect to the internet. He continued saying that it will give students in rural areas, suburban areas and inner city areas the same access to information. If this request is allowed to become reality, you can forget about the majority of those whom the Preside= nt and Vice-President referred to. The local telephone companies see this as an opportunity. If the telephone companies are allowed to charge a per minute fee for connection to the internet, internet use will be diminished. The internet will have been degraded from = an educational tool to a toy for those wealthy enough to afford the exorbitant and redundant fees. The big loser in the long run will be the average citizen trying to keep pace with the information revolution. Please rule o= n the side of the people and not big business. Sincerely, Robert R. Sykes, M.D. 1501 Westbrook, P. O. Box 929 Nashville, Arkansas 71852 From mkgpr@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:34:37 1997 Return-Path: mkgpr@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05269 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:37 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20793; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.16) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020640; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:33:33 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA21028 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:33:33 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:33:33 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702131533.JAA21028@dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com> Received: from unknown(205.186.81.214) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma021017; Thu Feb 13 09:33:22 1997 From: mkgpr@ix.netcom.com (MICHAEL TIPPETT) Subject: charging for what!?! To: isp@fcc.gov Content-Length: 743 Well, i'll bet you've got a good idea what i'm going to say. It is none of your business what I do with the phone line connected to my home- I will use my voice or my modem, whichever I please. You know darn well what would happen if this was announced on the news for everyone to hear. You would be exposed for what you really are- greedy. You also know that the major internet providers have lots of money tied up in this too- you have taken on a big fight, with more than just the consumers. And if you do succeed, you can bet someone else will find a way to provide it for free and take your business away. Consumers have a way of doing that sort of thing, you know. I hope you fail in this. Sincerely, Michael J. Tippett From dey2@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:34:39 1997 Return-Path: dey2@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05273 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:39 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20803; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from m9.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.195) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020723; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:34:00 -0500 Received: (from dey2@juno.com) by m9.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KJH29710; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:00 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Docket No. 96-263 Message-ID: <19970213.093339.9438.0.dey2@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1,4-10 From: dey2@juno.com (Beth Yell) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:00 EST Content-Length: 359 I want to express my complete contempt for the idea of imposing fees for the internet use. If Mr. Clinton is in fact placing education as his #1 priority and truly agrees that free access to information is necessary in a free society then he should bring the full power of the Executive Branch of Government to bare on the FCC. Respectfully, Dorothy Yell From SKT@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:35:21 1997 Return-Path: SKT@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05277 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:21 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21008; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020848; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:34:29 -0500 Received: from upmajb04.msn.com ([204.95.110.81]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id GAA07431 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:34:55 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 14:21:49 UT From: "Steve Thomas" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Per minute phone charges Content-Length: 354 Dear Sir or Madame, As an Internet user, I am concerned about the proposal to impose per minute charges for Internet service. Quite often, I use the Internet for educational purposes. An additional charge for this service would be a hindrance. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Steve Thomas 825 Pontiac Ave. 12102 Cranston, RI 02910 From martind@communique.net Thu Feb 13 10:35:23 1997 Return-Path: martind@communique.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05281 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:23 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21020; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from tetsuo.communique.net(204.27.65.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020862; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:34:31 -0500 Received: from LOCALNAME (125.sli2.Communique.Net [204.27.122.125]) by tetsuo.communique.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA52432 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:34:36 -0600 Message-ID: <33035D5A.3346@communique.net> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:28:42 -0800 From: dancing on the wind X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: per minute phone charges for internet users Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 700 We are against per minute line charges the phone companies are trying to impose on users of online services. Why should we be charged more for a public utility just because of how we use our phone service. Will this charge be levied against businesses for using one of the greatest communication tools available? Are schools going to be penalized as well for one of the greatest learning tools of the twentieth century? Or is this just an attack against private users? Is the next step greater electric bills because we use a computer? Rule against the phone companies! signed, Martin & Mary Dawson 435 Tanglewood Drive Slidell, LA 70458 email: martind@communique.net SweetAlessa@juno.com From BJHelms@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:35:25 1997 Return-Path: BJHelms@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05285 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:25 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21029; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot02.msn.com(204.95.110.79) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma020882; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:34:37 -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 HAA13036 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:31:30 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:36:14 UT From: "Barbara Helms" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Phone Companies and the Internet Content-Length: 678 I have recently become aware of the phone companies' request to impose per minutes charges for internet services. It is my understanding that they are attempting to get this through quietly without making it public. Phone companies have created a monster and now want to make the public pay for it over and over and over again. A service has been created, marketed and swamped the public and we should at least have a voice in increasing the cost. Companies like AOL and MSN have already made things more difficult for their customers by making it more and more difficult to access the service, perhaps the phone companies should talk to them about additional charges. From Hineline@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:36:06 1997 Return-Path: Hineline@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05289 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:05 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21125; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot02.msn.com(204.95.110.79) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma021016; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:35:04 -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 HAA13286 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:31:55 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:09:19 UT From: "Merry Hineline" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Content-Length: 1666 Merry Hineline 16899 Whispering Oaks Lane Ramona, Ca. 92065 Dear FCC, I am writing to you in response to the efforts by the telephone companies' pressure to have you grant them permission to charge consumers a per minute rate for internet usage. They contend that they are losing revenue because most internet users dial up with a local phone number. That contention is a load of crap. Internet use has created the demand for more telephone lines. Who pays for those lines? Each internet service provider company. In turn they collect fees from us for the use of the telephone lines. The internet alone is not responsible for the increase in telephone lines. Fax machines, pagers, cellular phones account for a larger demand from the phone companies than the internet. I believe the phone companies are concentrating on internet users is because of the time spent using the internet. Most Americans spend 50 to 100 hours online each month. Now, if we were spending that much time on our cellular phones, the phone companies would be screaming at you for a rate increase. The bottom line is this: the telephone companies are not losing any revenue, far from it. They are just looking for a way to start charging for local phone calls. If you think that they will only charge for local internet lines, you are mistaken. They will find a way to translate permission to charge for using local internet phone lines, to charging for ALL calls. I worked for Ma Bell from 1976 to 1981 and I believe I am qualified to predict what the phone companies are really trying to do. I have rambled, I apologize. Sincerely, Merry Hineline From eveanna@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:36:12 1997 Return-Path: eveanna@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05293 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:11 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21162; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from m11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.194) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma021053; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:35:15 -0500 Received: (from eveanna@juno.com) by m11.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KMC03816; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:18 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Proposed New FCC Regulations Message-ID: <19970213.073925.7895.2.Eveanna@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-4,8-9,12-16 From: eveanna@juno.com (Anne I McKenrick) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:18 EST Content-Length: 586 Gentlemen: I understand you are having a hearing allowing local phone companies to charge per minute for time internet users spend on-line. PLEASE do not allow this. There are many people (ill, house-bound, etc.) whose whole world is the friends they have on the internet. Don't deprive them of this source of contact in their lives. Many would not be able to afford this extra cost. Added to that, each year the telephone company finds new ways to charge us more for doing less for us. It must stop somewhere. Let it be here and let it be now. Thank you. Anne I. McKenrick From dgibson@fred.net Thu Feb 13 10:36:14 1997 Return-Path: dgibson@fred.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05297 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:13 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21176; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma021071; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:35:23 -0500 Received: from doug.epicgames ([208.212.53.42]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA23141 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970213153616.00676aa8@fred.net> X-Sender: dgibson@fred.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:16 -0500 To: isp@fcc.gov From: Doug Gibson Subject: Re: Fw: Phone charges for internet access Content-Length: 3133 Hello to whoever gets to read all of these fun emails: I must say that I'm strictly opposed to any effort to impose per/time charges on internet access.=20 There are several reasons why I would have to say that the phone companies' complaints are basically meaningless whining, and several bad effects that such a law would create: 1) Most people who use the Internet are not online for THAT long.=20 2) Many people (such as myself) get an extra phone line for online usage. *If* someone is online so much, they usually cannot afford to miss several hours worth of phone calls. Obviously, someone with 2 phone lines is already paying for the extra line, and it's _very unlikely_ that they are using *so* much bandwidth on _both_ lines *ALL* of the time to warrant these complaints from the phone company. Imposing this kind of fee on Internet usage will greatly decrease the use of the Internet by the general public and also severely hurt the thousands of online-entrepenuers out there. It's just like the US to start moving backward just when Europe is starting to move ahead (removing phone charges for local calls). Let's not let this stupid shit happen! If the phone companies want to raise overall costs of their services to cover costs, then that would be acceptable to me. They can fight it out in the as an issue of industry competition, not isolating ISP-users who already pay for both their phone services AND ISP services (and the ISP's already pay for their lines!). Anyway, I'm at work and don't have time to make too good a thought out argument. Obviously, the phone company is making money off of me while I'm NOT USING EITHER of my phone lines for these 40+ hours a week! My 2=A2 worth. -Doug Gibson At 11:37 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you wrote: >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:56:34 -0600 >> From: Mitch Turitz >> To: AUTOCAT@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU >> Subject: SERIOUS BUSINESS (fwd) >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 22:32:00 -0500 (EST) >> From: AShadwick@aol.com >> Subject: SERIOUS BUSINESS >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were >> required to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an >> email box for your comments, responses must be received by February >> 13, 1997. >>=20 >> 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 litigation. Let everyone you know here this >> one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of. >>=20 >> isp@fcc.gov >>=20 >> Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all >> our voices may be heard! >>=20 >>=20 >> ----- End Included Message ----- >>=20 From derwin@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:36:46 1997 Return-Path: derwin@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05301 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:45 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21309; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma021223; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:36:03 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA28312; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:36:03 -0600 (CST) Received: from chl-nj3-09.ix.netcom.com(205.184.11.105) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma028301; Thu Feb 13 09:35:36 1997 Message-ID: <33035E26.7C76@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:06 -0800 From: Derwin Bell Reply-To: derwin@ix.netcom.com Organization: MFS TransTech X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Telephone connect charges Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 891 Hello, Please do not let the phone companies charge the ISP's for access time. Access to the internet and hence to information is a right of which every American should be able to take advantage. Internet access is no longer simply a privilege, instead, this access to information is as necessary as the free library system. To be an American with all of the rights and responsibilities involved requires the ability to remain informed on many topics. The mass media can not be trusted to provide the information that Americans require to be "good Americans". A citizen must have the ability to study information to form opinions on which to base their behavior and actions. Access to the internet provides that most basic of American dreams, a totally non-discriminatory access to information. Please do not put a price tag on our right to be Americans. Sincerely, Derwin Bell From rgrussin@cornerstone.com Thu Feb 13 10:36:48 1997 Return-Path: rgrussin@cornerstone.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05305 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:47 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21318; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from gate.cornerstone.com(204.163.136.3) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma021098; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:35:38 -0500 Received: from warpcore.cornerstone.com by gate.cornerstone.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA02659; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:37:35 -0800 Received: from mailpc.cornerstone.com by warpcore.cornerstone.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA12892; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:39:38 -0800 Received: from ccMail by mailpc.cornerstone.com (SMTPLINK V2.11.01) id AA855848534; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:34:24 PST Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:34:24 PST From: "Rodney Grussing" Message-Id: <9701138558.AA855848534@mailpc.cornerstone.com> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: no additional phone charges Content-Length: 259 put me down for a big fat no way on per minute charges from the phone companies. they are just trying to jump on the band wagon. don't they have enough of a monopoly already. This will spell the end of the internet as we know it. greed ruins everything! From cj@range.carson-city.nv.us Thu Feb 13 10:36:50 1997 Return-Path: cj@range.carson-city.nv.us Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05309 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:49 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21328; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from heather.greatbasin.com(140.174.194.41) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma021155; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:35:50 -0500 Received: from [206.14.171.213] (RANGE.carson-city.nv.us [206.14.171.213]) by heather.greatbasin.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id HAA18762 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:35:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:35:52 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: PRANGE@mail.greatbasin.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: isp@fcc.gov From: cj@range.carson-city.nv.us (C.J. Hadley) Subject: phone charges Content-Length: 472 FCC: Do not let the phone companies double dip by charging the internet providers and then charging, again, the people who pay the internet providers for the service. This would simply be doubly charging for the same service. It should be illegal. Thank you. C. J. Hadley, 43 Bellevue Road, Carson City, NV. 89704 . 702-884-2200. RANGE Magazine The Cowboy Spirit on America's Outback 702-884-2200 702-884-2213 FAX C.J. Hadley, Publisher "Cutting A Swath To The Truth" From omamarie@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:37:22 1997 Return-Path: omamarie@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05313 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:37:21 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21421; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:37:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from x13.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.27) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma021334; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:36:29 -0500 Received: (from omamarie@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KIE00349; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:31 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Message-ID: <19970213.092853.6854.2.omamarie@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-7 From: omamarie@juno.com (Marie Driscoll) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:31 EST Content-Length: 191 We are not in favor of imposed per minute charges for internet services by our local telephone company. Respectfully, Marie & John Driscoll 400 S.W. Marion Lane Lee's Summit, MO 64081-2316 From huggies@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:37:33 1997 Return-Path: huggies@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05317 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:37:32 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21494; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:37:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from x9.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.25) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma021367; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:36:40 -0500 Received: (from huggies@juno.com) by x9.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KTM15799; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:49 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: phone companies Message-ID: <19970213.072107.4375.6.HUGGIES@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 8-11 From: huggies@juno.com (Frank P Velasco) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:49 EST Content-Length: 674 I don't like the idea of phone companies wanting to charge per minute for the usage of time online. The president said in his speach he wants every home to be linked to the system, yet phone companies want to take controle and charge high rates to use on-line systems. IT really bothers me that some day many people may not even be able to use the phone because rates are too high. I know families already that restrict thier calls becasue they can barely afford a four dollar phone bill. If the phone companie is already able to handle all the conections then i don't see why they are now comeing out with saying that they can't handle it. Sincerely Frank Velasco From a_to_z@slip.net Thu Feb 13 10:38:06 1997 Return-Path: a_to_z@slip.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05321 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:06 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21659; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ferret.slip.net(207.171.193.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma021516; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:37:15 -0500 Received: from 106542 [207.171.198.38] by ferret with smtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0vv3Dr-0007EG-00; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:37:19 -0800 Message-ID: <330334E2.5890@slip.net> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:36:02 -0800 From: Dave Gutierrez Reply-To: a_to_z@slip.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: (no subject) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1029 To whom it may concern: Thank you for taking the time to read my opinion. I have recently been made aware that the local phone company's have requested that you impose a per minute charge for internet access. I think that the local phone companies are being greedy, they say that they are afraid that the phone lines would be tied up do to the mass amounts of people logging onto the internet. As of now I have not heard of that happening. I feel that it is just a ploy to be able to raise the rates on local phone access. I think that if this happens what we know of the internet today would diminsh because if people have to pay by the minute of internet access, then most people would probably no longer log on. I for one am against this because I feel that internet users will be for large business and the people who have nothing better to do with their money. I hope you think of the so called middle class people when you render your decision. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Dave Gutierrez a_to_z@slip.net From jsouza@ici.net Thu Feb 13 10:38:08 1997 Return-Path: jsouza@ici.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05325 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:08 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21683; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:37:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from uhura.ici.net(204.97.252.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma021536; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:37:19 -0500 Received: from ws00.ici.net ([208.3.239.100]) by uhura.ici.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id KAA15915; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970213153628.006c4c74@ici.net> X-Sender: jsouza@ici.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:28 -0500 To: isp@fcc.gov From: Joe Souza Content-Length: 742 I am very upset and complexed by the move to drain more money from the consumer. It seems that every time something grows in popularity, and a service becomes utilized someone wants to increase the pocket lining. The phone companies have a network that has been overpriced for years and the current competition shows that. I and many others in the educational community will find this move unsupportive of the concepts being touted ny the current administrations. If my opinion counts, count it against this move. Joe Souza ------------------------------------------------------ May you live in interesting times - Chinese Curse Be Well Joe ------------------------------------------------------ From vervis1@carthage.edu Thu Feb 13 10:38:40 1997 Return-Path: vervis1@carthage.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05329 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:40 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21779; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from dial.wiscnet.net(144.92.88.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma021635; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:37:43 -0500 Received: from grace.carthage.edu by gomer.wiscnet.net; id JAA25188; 8.6.9W/50; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:37:48 -0600 Received: by grace.carthage.edu; Thu, 13 Feb 97 9:50:00 CST Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 9:39:54 CST Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: From: "Catherine Vervisch, SEWAP" Subject: Internet charges Content-Length: 836 Dear FCC, I just found out that my local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for internet service. If this were to go into effect, this would greatly hamper my and other people's use of the internet. It takes time to learn one's way around the internet. Even for a person more familiar with the internet, it takes time to find the information for, for example, a research/class project. I discovered that the internet has a wealth of information that a university professor, a business person, a high school or grade school student could use. It is an amazing educational tool! I am, as a result, adamantly opposed to the phone company's proposal. Maybe, they should put more money into long-term research into expanding the telephone network! Sincerely, Catherine Vervisch From IELLENDER@cajunnet.com Thu Feb 13 10:38:49 1997 Return-Path: IELLENDER@cajunnet2.cajunnet.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05335 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:49 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21855; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from cajunnet2.cajunnet.com(206.251.162.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma021763; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:38:18 -0500 Received: from iellender.cajunnet.com (cajun07-port89.cajunnet.com [206.251.162.223]) by cajunnet2.cajunnet.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA04770 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:38:16 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3303350C.7FF5@MAIL.CAJUNNET.COM> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:36:44 -0600 From: IRENE ELLENDER Reply-To: IELLENDER@cajunnet.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: NO MODEM TAX!!! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 598 NO WAY, an additional fee for internet use is absolutely a no win situation. It will virtually halt the use of the internet in all of our schools and home situations where it's use is the most profitable for the education of our young people. Internet does not burden the phone company anymore than it demands that they provide quality line service...something they have been avoiding for years. There is no extra service demand on the phone since when the internet is being used the phone or voice line is not and vice versa. DO NOT SUPPORT THIS FEE. Irene Ellender po box 262 Bourg, la 70343 From Stephen.Saxton@GSC.GTE.Com Thu Feb 13 10:38:52 1997 Return-Path: Stephen.Saxton@GSC.GTE.Com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05333 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:44 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21824; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(131.131.251.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma021752; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:38:15 -0500 Return-receipt-to: Stephen.Saxton@GSC.GTE.Com Received: from chnt10.infoserv.chnt.gtegsc.com ("port 4557"@chnt10.infoserv.chnt.gtegsc.com) by Sonnet.GSC.GTE.Com (PMDF V5.0-6 #17886) id <01IFD4LSBPYQ000082@Sonnet.GSC.GTE.Com> for isp@fcc.gov; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by chnt10.infoserv.chnt.gtegsc.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5) id <01BC199A.19B87BF0@chnt10.infoserv.chnt.gtegsc.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:49 -0500 From: "Saxton, Stephen" Subject: Phone Company Charges! To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 371 I am totally against allowing any Phone Company to start imposing/charging by the minute phone charges for Internet Access. I am now paying a flat fee for unlimited access to local calls, and for the amount of calls & time I spend on the phone I feel that it is too much. I also wish that I could have a choice in who my local phone company is. Thank you Steve Saxton From coffeysf@musc.edu Thu Feb 13 10:39:24 1997 Return-Path: coffeysf@musc.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05341 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:39:24 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21975; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:39:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from revere.musc.edu(128.23.203.10) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma021771; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:38:21 -0500 Received: from atrium.musc.edu (atrium.musc.edu [128.23.203.11]) by revere.musc.edu (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id KAA25645 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by atrium.musc.edu (sendmail 8.6.12) id KAA23652; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:08 -0500 (EST) From: Scott F Coffey To: isp@fcc.gov Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 201 Clearly this attempt by some of the phone companies to levy a per minute charge for internet use should be stopped. Please register that I am against this proposed practice. Scott F. Coffey, Ph.D. From rwrink@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:39:28 1997 Return-Path: rwrink@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05345 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:39:28 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21992; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:39:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from x11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.26) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma021957; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:38:56 -0500 Received: (from rwrink@juno.com) by x11.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KYG13775; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:23 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: PHONE CHARGES INTERNET Message-ID: <19970213.103744.9790.0.rwrink@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5-9 From: rwrink@juno.com (Russell W Rink) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:23 EST Content-Length: 310 FCC I wish to protest the phone companys' proposal to charge internet users. Since being on the internet I have added a phone line dedicated solely for use by my computer. My server, GTE, is thus profiting from my use of the internet. Russell W. Rink 824 Cincy St. Venice, FL 34284 94l-484-9322 From kcauq@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:40:00 1997 Return-Path: kcauq@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05349 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:00 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22111; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:39:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma022017; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:39:17 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA28493 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:39:22 -0600 (CST) Received: from ont-ca4-20.ix.netcom.com(204.30.71.148) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma028485; Thu Feb 13 09:39:00 1997 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1956 21:35:26 +0000 From: Samuel Day Fassbinder Reply-To: kcauq@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E (Macintosh; U; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Phone Company proposal to charge consumers for Internet Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 406 alert@washdc.smart.net wrote: > > > Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC in > Washington, DC that would impose PER MINUTE CHARGES when you use the > Internet. I am not interested in paying my phone company more money for Internet service. I am not interested in voting for politicians who let the phone companies slip this by the consumers Sincerely Samuel Day Fassbinder From Rose4256@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:40:34 1997 Return-Path: Rose4256@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05353 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:34 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22241; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma022120; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:39:40 -0500 Received: from upmajb06 ([204.95.110.89]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id GAA09048 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:40:11 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 13:54:05 UT From: "Raymond Keffer, Jr" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet phone rates Content-Length: 333 I am writing to request that you disapprove the phone companies' plan to add a per minute phone charge for the use of the internet. It's enough that we already are paying the bill to have the extra lines to use it - not to mention that most people must call a long distance access number to even get on. THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!! From specitrt@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:40:36 1997 Return-Path: specitrt@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05357 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:36 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22260; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot03.msn.com(204.95.110.85) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma022143; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:39:50 -0500 Received: from upmajb04.msn.com ([204.95.110.81]) by upsmot03.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id TAA08973 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:34:31 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:44:17 UT From: "Roger Cormier" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: charge for internet use Content-Length: 532 I am opposed to an additional charge by individual phone companies for internet use. The revenue derived from the additional telephone lines requested by many users of the internet should more than offset additional costs. This primarily affects small individuals who, in many cases, are stretching to pay the $20 per month for getting on the internet. If there are truly costs involved which are not covered by the additional telephone lines, work it out with the internet access providers instead of with the little guy. From fiferjane@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:41:14 1997 Return-Path: fiferjane@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05361 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:14 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22419; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from m8.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.196) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma022320; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:40:30 -0500 Received: (from fiferjane@juno.com) by m8.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KKP13362; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:13 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: RE: proposal for internet charges Message-ID: <19970213.103420.11694.3.FIFERJANE@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 5-6,13-21 From: fiferjane@juno.com (JANE N LAW BAKER) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:13 EST Content-Length: 976 I am opposed to the concept of initiating a per minute charge for Internet usage. Users already pay a per minute charge to their local, and sometimes long distance, telephone carriers to access the Internet. In addition, users are also paying a monthly fee (either flat rate, per minute/hour or a combination of both) to their Internet provider for access to the "net." By imposing an additional charge for access to the Internet, the telephone companies are undermining the growth of technology, limiting an avenure of free trade and hampering the search for knowledge and information. Surely this measure is in opposition to goals set forth by President Clinton in his State of the Union address to INCREASE access to the Internet by all Americans, to make this learning tool MORE accessible to students and researchers. Please add my opinion to others voicing their opposition to this measure. Respectfully, Jane N. Law Baker 2 Riversedge Drive Milford, NH 03055 From l.smith@nt.research-int.com Thu Feb 13 10:41:27 1997 Return-Path: l.smith@nt.research-int.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05365 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:24 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22502; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from quay.mail.pipex.net(158.43.128.34) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma022358; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:40:50 -0500 Received: (qmail 27179 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1997 15:40:44 -0000 Received: from mailhost.research-int.com (194.33.52.253) by quay.mail.pipex.net with SMTP; 13 Feb 1997 15:40:43 -0000 Received: from nt by mailhost.research-int.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA00176; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:23:53 GMT Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1277) by nt (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.7 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Feb13.102200.1277.195; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:34:30 GMT From: l.smith@nt.research-int.com (CRRI - Smith, Lisa) To: isp@fcc.gov (fcc) Message-ID: <1997Feb13.102200.1277.195@nt> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:34:30 GMT Subject: Internet costs Content-Length: 1115 Comments regarding following matter: >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. This at the very least needs further exposure and discussion among affected parties. Such an imposed per-minute charge would drastically slow down Internet usage, which may have some benefits, but also must be considered carefully so as not to impede the remarkable communication expansion and possibilities created by the Internet. I urge you to give this subject the high attention it deserves and not allow it to be rushed through the legislative process. Thank you. From ab4lg@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:41:57 1997 Return-Path: ab4lg@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05369 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:56 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22703; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from m1.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.199) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xmaa22382; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:41:06 -0500 Received: (from ab4lg@juno.com) by m1.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KTS24982; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:39:55 EST To: ISP@FCC.GOV Subject: TELCO Tariffs for Internet usage Message-ID: <19970213.104653.9014.0.ab4lg@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-2,4-5,18-19,23-24,30-31,39-40,44-45,54-58 From: ab4lg@juno.com (Richard N Booth) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:39:55 EST Content-Length: 3121 Arrogance and corporate greed! Please enter my opposition to the imposition of an additional telephone tariff for internet service. If tariff is approved, FCC should recognize and close loophole which allows a local telephone company to act as an internet service provider on a monthly fee basis in order to circumvent long distance service charges. This is being done now by Horry Telephone Co-operative, Conway, South Carolina. This co-op charges a flat-rate, monthly service fee for unlimited internet service with no long distance Tariffs. This procedure, if continued, will allow local telephone companies to circumvent any tariff as might be imposed and, further, act as a deterrent to competition to rates in the future by allowing local telephone companies to undercut service rates. Local telephone companies would have the unfair, competitive advantage by being able to avoid the payment of Tariffs which would not be an advantage enjoyed by individual Internet subscribers except where 1-800 number access was provided. Additionally, existing and future Internet subscribers not having access to 1-800 number access already pay long distance Tariffs for Internet service. Allowing an additional tariff constitutes a method for the telephone companies to double-dip. Telephone companies are public service utilities which hold their licenses of convenience in public trust; not for the purpose of perpetuating a monopoly. For those entities to argue that Internet usage will diminish in the face of additional Tariffs flies in the face of the advancement of technology currently being promoted by our congressional leadership. The telephone company major players have expended, and continue to spend, hundreds of millions of dollars on inane, infantile advertising; the monies, or a least a portion of which, could be utilized to expand telephone network capacity. Moreover, these same telephone companies utilize their same telephone networks to solicit (uninvited and unrequested) customer changes in long distance providers; evening luring changes with discounts. The amount of these discounts could be better devoted to expanding the telephone networks. The addition of another tariff would result in an additional sum in taxes to be paid by the public. Government is already large enough. If this is a scheme to help reduce the deficit, it surely is an underhanded method of raising taxes. General Telephone Company of the Southeast has presently pending before the South Carolina Public Service Commission a petition to be classified as a rural service provider; the purpose of which is to prevent competition by other telephone service providers within its markets. General Telephone is not a rural provider. For years this entity thumbed its nose at its local customers by continuing to promote long distance Tariffs between Conway, South Carolina, and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. General Telephone held the franchise for telephone service in both communities located only fourteen (14) miles apart. Richard N. Booth 6250 Highway 701 North Conway, South Carolina 29526 From sfeld@umd5.umd.edu Thu Feb 13 10:42:03 1997 Return-Path: sfeld@umd5.umd.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05373 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:02 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22759; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from umd5.umd.edu(128.8.10.5) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma022675; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:41:31 -0500 Received: from marple.umd.edu (marple.umd.edu [128.8.10.50]) by umd5.umd.edu(8.6.13/95Sep13) with ESMTP id KAA13379; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:31 -0500 Received: from localhost by marple.umd.edu with SMTP id KAA24701; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:27 -0500 (EST) From: Feld - Samuel X-Sender: sfeld@marple.umd.edu To: isp@fcc.gov Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 235 T o whom it may concern, Please do not increase the already too heavy burden on teachers and schools by agreeing to extra phone charges. The increase will in the end diminish the access of knowledge by students and teachers alike-SF From highlander@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:42:35 1997 Return-Path: highlander@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05377 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:34 -0500 From: highlander@juno.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22962; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from x1.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma022751; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:41:40 -0500 Received: (from highlander@juno.com) by x1.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KME22967; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:06 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:58 EST Subject: Imposed Charges to ISP Message-ID: <19970213.104459.4431.0.highlander@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,10-11,19-20,23-26 Content-Length: 1297 Sir: If phone companies are allowed to charge per-minute access to the internet, then I can guarentee you that it will cause more problems than you can handle. Hackers will be defrauding thses phone companies for one, No one will want internet anymore, and phone companies will LOSE CUSTOMERS. I, being a customer for 21 years with at&t, and my parents being costomers of at&t for 10 more... I would LEAVE AT&T for a company who doesn't charge internet access. These BIG TIME COMPANIES will lose money more than make it, or people will not be interested in interent sevice. I for one, am very upset at these companies trying to get their greedy hands into our hard working dollars. I work my ass off for the money I make, which is very little, and here the internet is my only reprive after a hard day work. I do NOT, and WILL Not want or have this internet, nor will I care for it if we, the consumers have to pay more for it's access. For another thing, the companies say it ties up their lines or some sort... what is the difference between TALKING on the phone, and accessing the internet using the phone. i do hope that you, the Federal Communications Commission, in your wisdon, will DENY The phone Companies this new way of robbing the American Public. Sincerely, Richard E. Rice From madunajski@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:42:39 1997 Return-Path: madunajski@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05381 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:38 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22990; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from x16.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.28) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma022769; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:41:43 -0500 Received: (from madunajski@juno.com) by x16.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id K}Z16197; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:17 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: FCC Charges for the Internet Message-ID: <19970213.104132.10358.1.madunajski@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.14 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,8-9,11-13 From: madunajski@juno.com (Michele A Dunajski-Haines) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:17 EST Content-Length: 659 I think this is an outrage and a horrible misuse of the capitalistic system. I have not had any problems making long distance or local calls since the internet came into being. I think that this is just somebody's way of trying to scarf up profits. We should be concerned about the wonderful advance in communication that the internet is, not whether or not it can be manipulated to be available only to the rich - and at the same time, make people richer. The riches to be gained are in knowledge, not in money. For heavens sake, let us believe that something can be done for the good of all instead of just a few for a change. Thank you in advance. From steveli@uiuc.edu Thu Feb 13 10:42:47 1997 Return-Path: steveli@uiuc.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05385 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:46 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23056; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ux5.cso.uiuc.edu(128.174.5.45) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma022860; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:41:59 -0500 Received: from shrapnel (crh0865.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.192.131]) by ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA29000 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:42:04 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3301E49F.5633@uiuc.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:41:19 -0600 From: steveli X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: charging for internet access Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 292 the internet is a place for people to access information whenever it is needed, call it a global library if you will. To impose a price on those who wish to gather knowledge is ridiculous. the internet has been around for years now without complaint, why should the fees start now?! steve From jtheiss@umd5.umd.edu Thu Feb 13 10:43:21 1997 Return-Path: jtheiss@umd5.umd.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05389 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:21 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23206; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from umd5.umd.edu(128.8.10.5) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma023180; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:42:53 -0500 Received: from tracy.umd.edu (tracy.umd.edu [128.8.10.51]) by umd5.umd.edu(8.6.13/95Sep13) with ESMTP id KAA00513; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:00 -0500 Received: from localhost by tracy.umd.edu with SMTP id KAA09832; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:59 -0500 (EST) From: Theiss - Judy X-Sender: jtheiss@tracy.umd.edu To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: email phone charges Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1113 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to register my outrage at the very idea of phone companies charging email users per minute for their usage of the internet. Not only would this severely cut down on internet usage, but it would be a catastrophe for the vast numbers of people in diverse businesses, cultural enterprises, universities, research institutions etc who have come to depend on internet access as an integral part of their work. Profits and cultural productivity of all kinds are threatened by such a move which is clearly motivated by the greed of phone companies who see an opportunity to make huge amounts of money by taking advantage of our society's deepening dependence on the internet for daily life and work. This is a key area for the FCC to regulate in order to protect our freedoms of communication so vital to our freedoms of speech and to the economic and cultural well-being of our country. I urge the FCC to prevent the such a massive manipulation for profit of one of our most, soon probably the most, important form of communication we have, the Internet. Sincerely, Janet Theiss From revmlowe@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:43:25 1997 Return-Path: revmlowe@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05393 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:25 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23236; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from m9.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.195) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma023096; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:42:31 -0500 Received: (from revmlowe@juno.com) by m9.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KMP29710; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:18 EST To: isp@FCC.gov Subject: Phone Companies charging per minute for internet usage. Message-ID: <19970213.094310.7367.0.RevMLowe@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 8-11 From: revmlowe@juno.com (Matt Lowe) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:18 EST Content-Length: 634 I have received information that suggests that phone companies are planning to charge per minute rates for internet usage. I was wondering how ethical that would be since they are already charging for the phone line installation, per month usage, and customer service. It seems as though service to customers has again fallen prey to the monster of greed. If these phone companies are having trouble making money maybe they should poll their customers and net providers about usage and ask how they think they this problem should be handled. Instead of sneaking behind the consumer's back to increase their profits. Matt Lowe From jmattson@discover-net.net Thu Feb 13 10:43:27 1997 Return-Path: jmattson@discover-net.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05397 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:27 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23249; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(208.134.196.20) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma023138; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:42:38 -0500 Received: from [208.134.202.249] (pm4-249.discover-net.net [208.134.202.249]) by discover.discover-net.net (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA21341 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:40:38 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:40:38 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: jmattson@discover-net.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: isp@fcc.gov From: jmattson@discover-net.net (James E. Mattson) Subject: internet access Content-Length: 528 It is our understanding that our local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for our internet service. We want to register our request with you to not grant the local telephone companies this request. If these new charges are implemented, we believe internet usage will greatly decline and even become impossible for many. If usage is indeed a problem to local phone companies, there must be another answer. Sincerely, James & Mary Ellen Mattson 139 Second Street Chetek, WI 54728 From ret1sam@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:43:29 1997 Return-Path: ret1sam@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05401 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:29 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23261; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from x1.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma023194; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:42:57 -0500 Received: (from ret1sam@juno.com) by x1.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KMW22967; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:13 EST To: ISP@fcc.gov Subject: Access fees Message-ID: <19970213.083953.10366.1.ret1sam@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1,4-5,7-8,10-13 From: ret1sam@juno.com (Samuel F Femia) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:13 EST Content-Length: 493 I am writing you to complain about the proposed access fee that will be imposed on the ISP groups. This fee would put a hardship on me as I am retired and use the internet for access to the outside world and I could not afford additional charges for using this service. I think this would be an injustice the millions of internet users, who are on fixed incomes. I ask the hearing committee to reject this ploy by the telephone companies to increase their profits. Respectfully Sam Femia From ricka@coop.com Thu Feb 13 10:44:03 1997 Return-Path: ricka@coop.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05405 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:03 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23415; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(204.157.153.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma023391; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:43:34 -0500 Received: from ccird.UUCP (Ucoop@localhost) by freeside.fc.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with UUCP id JAA11653 for fcc.gov!isp; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:12:29 -0600 Received: from ricka.coop.com by ccird.coop.com id aa21099; 13 Feb 97 9:08 CST Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970213151107.0091c348@ccird.coop.com> X-Sender: ricka@ccird.coop.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:11:07 -0600 To: isp@fcc.gov From: Rick Alan Subject: Local Internet Access Content-Length: 204 Just wanted to express my opinion that it's none of the phone company's business what my intentions are when I call a local Internet Service Provider -- it's a local call, period. Rick Alan Lakeway, TX From thooper@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:44:05 1997 Return-Path: thooper@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05409 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:05 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23434; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from x11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.26) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma023300; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:43:17 -0500 Received: (from thooper@juno.com) by x11.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id K[J13775; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:42 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Message-ID: <19970213.104027.4303.1.THOOPER@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5-6,9-10,12-18 From: thooper@juno.com (Thomas E. Hooper) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:42 EST Content-Length: 601 Gentlemen, It seems to me that we are already paying taxes, both State & Federal for using the telephones as it is. Further, the telephone companies seem to be able to give more and more cut rates to grab more business from their competitors. It appears that "here we go again" finding something else to tax. Many E-Mail users dial local numbers to use the service and not making toll calls. Wish I was more articulate on this subject. Just became aware of this February 12 and wish to make my vote for NO to tax known. Thank you, Thomas E. Hooper 27 Northfield Road Enfield, CT 06082-4214 From StieglerMEM@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:44:44 1997 Return-Path: StieglerMEM@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05413 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:43 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23641; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot03.msn.com(204.95.110.85) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma023457; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:43:47 -0500 Received: from upmajb04.msn.com ([204.95.110.81]) by upsmot03.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id TAA10087; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:38:26 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:37:52 UT From: "Michael Stiegler" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Cc: "George Stiegler & Ronda" , "Senator Barbara Boxer" , "Senator Dianne Feinstein" Subject: per minute charge by local telephone co's Content-Length: 376 Please do not allow the local telephone companies to charge a per minute fee for access to the Internet. The charge of the local service should cover any voice or data line. I feel the telephone companies see this as a cash cow. Where they can raise prices without increasing service. This should not be allowed period. Thank you M. Stiegler A very concerned citizen! From patty-larry@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:44:45 1997 Return-Path: patty-larry@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05417 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:45 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23661; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from x4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.22) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma023505; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:43:56 -0500 Received: (from patty-larry@juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id K^J07314; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:19 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: phone charges Message-ID: <19970212.073754.7223.0.Patty-Larry@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 10-11 From: patty-larry@juno.com (Laurence H. Bennett) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:19 EST Content-Length: 795 I would like to comment on the suggested telephone company charge for internet usage. I really think that the phone bills are high enough as it is. I can see that the more people use the internet, the more usage the telephone system will get. If higher rates are needed to cover the cost, I think that charging the internet providers a higher rate would work better. It seems to me that by charging the individual phone user for the time that they are on the net, would create a huge bureaucratic nightmare, costing the consumer more and not improving anything except the phone company's profits. I realize that everyone wants a piece of the internet pie, but the phone co. is already being paid for the use of their lines. I think that one piece of pie is enough. Laurence H. Bennett From netdata@fred.net Thu Feb 13 10:44:51 1997 Return-Path: netdata@fred.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05421 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:51 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23689; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma023597; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:44:15 -0500 Received: from Netdata.fred.net (netdata.fred.net [205.252.219.139]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA23941 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970213154442.00672814@fred.net> X-Sender: netdata@fred.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:42 -0500 To: isp@fcc.gov From: "Michael \"Doc\" Clay" Subject: Phone Charges Content-Length: 367 I understand this is the email address to forward my concern about internet access phone charges. I am opposed to the idea of per minute charges for internet access. Although I do not connect for long periods of time, I wanted to express my concerns about changing phone services. Thank you, Michael Clay Michael "Doc" Clay NetData Services Email:netdata@fred.net From mclimo@ici.net Thu Feb 13 10:44:53 1997 Return-Path: mclimo@ici.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05425 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:53 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23706; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from uhura.ici.net(204.97.252.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma023613; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:44:17 -0500 Received: from d-ma-mansfield-8.ici.net (d-ma-mansfield-8.ici.net [207.180.8.17]) by uhura.ici.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id KAA17283 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702131540.KAA17283@uhura.ici.net> X-Sender: mclimo@mail X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: isp@fcc.gov From: mclimo@ici.net (Steve Thibodeau) Subject: p/min rates Content-Length: 1243 Dear Sirs: I'm writing in responce to upcoming proposal filed by local telephone companies to impose a Per Minute Rate for internet useage. I am strongly opposed to this potential charge. I feel that any per minute charge for internet service is completly unfair. Everyone who uses the internet is already paying fees to Internet Providers for access and as consumers we shop around to find the best deal. If this fee were to be imposed, it would be imposible for Internet Providers not to have to pass these charges to their users. Thus causing the consumers to have to stop using the internet all together. I have learned to use the internet to obtain important information as well as the use of e-mail has become essential for me to remain in touch with family, friends, and business associates. With the changes in telecommunications and local phone companies offering Internet access, I also feel that this will create a Monopoly situation for the phone companies to be the only Internet Providers that could offer unlimited access without a Per Minute Rate. Again, I am strongly opposed to this proposal and would like to see it turned down. Thank You, Steven A. Thibodeau 10 Brookside Rd. Mansfield, MA 02048 mclimo@ici.net From John_Edinger@notesgw.hns.com Thu Feb 13 10:45:59 1997 Return-Path: John_Edinger@notesgw.hns.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05429 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:45:59 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23964; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:45:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ngw2.hns.com(139.85.177.38) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma023886; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:45:21 -0500 Received: by ngw2.hns.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20847; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:53 -0500 Message-Id: <199702131546.KAA20847@ngw2.hns.com> Received: by HNS (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id 18E1838C7A33042F8525643D0054EF15; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:53 EST To: isp From: John Edinger/HNS Date: 13 Feb 97 10:42:42 EST Subject: Re: Internet Access & ISP NOI : CC Docket No. 96-263 This is not a copy of formal comments. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Content-Length: 1423 I oppose charging per minute fees for Internet access when making a local telephone call. For as long as I can remember, the phone companies have charged for the unlimited use of the phone line for communications (voice, fax, computer, whatever) and it would greatly hinder a great many businesses for them to change to a per minute fee just for Internet access. My local phone company already offers a per call phone usage account for those that make few calls. I would not be against them offering a new option, but I am against them taking away current features. If a per minute fee were allowed, Internet use would greatly diminish since the fees would make it prohibitively expensive for many individuals and businesses. It would end up restricted trade between businesses who use the Internet for customer and vendor ordering and provide it as an easier way to provide customer services. If their customers can no longer afford Internet access, they could no longer use this function and may end up making fewer purchases from these companies. That would not be good for the economy. Ideally, Internet access would be free, just like the public library system. But the next best system is the one we have now. Please keep the local telephone companies from restricting this use with per minute fees. Thank you. John Edinger 19930 Gateshead Circle Germantown, MD 20876 jedinger@hns.com From DCExpert@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:46:33 1997 Return-Path: DCExpert@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05433 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:33 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24107; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024088; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:08 -0500 Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id GAA10918 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:46:39 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:43:18 UT From: "Craig Wells" Message-Id: To: "FCC" Subject: Proposal by Local Telephone Companies to Charge for Internet Usage Content-Length: 88 PLEASE! STOP METERED RATE LITIGATION!!! Thanking you in advance for your support. From crzqbn@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:47:05 1997 Return-Path: crzqbn@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05441 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:05 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24185; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from m15.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.192) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024114; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:14 -0500 Received: (from crzqbn@juno.com) by m15.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KVW10935; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:45:12 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Phone Fees Message-ID: <19970213.074452.9486.2.crzqbn@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 9-16 From: crzqbn@juno.com (Rick Rivero) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:45:12 EST Content-Length: 728 I just received a message from a friend that stated that the phone companies are trying to impose a fee for per minute internet use. I think thats crazy! Everything is getting like the cable companies where they charge for everything and give crappy service. I oppose the fee because we already pay 19.95 per month and am able to let my wife and kids use it fro educational and recreational use. Th phone comanies complain that it will hinder their service. Well, their job is phone service and to be at the service of the people. I don't think we should be paying for a service that we are already paying for in the form of phone bill. We already don't get what we pay for. Thanks for your attention. Rick Rivero From lepley@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:47:08 1997 Return-Path: lepley@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05445 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:07 -0500 From: lepley@juno.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24196; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from m3.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024174; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:40 -0500 Received: (from lepley@juno.com) by m3.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KWN20028; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:56 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: stop the madness Message-ID: <19970213.104059.9942.0.lepley@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-3,7 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:56 EST Content-Length: 376 re: this backdoor scheme to raise phone rates by placing a surcharge on internet usage WHAT a LOAD of bullshit. The phone companies are already bleeding the public dry with enormous profits through such low-overhead services as cellular phones and cable television. Don't let these greedheads smack a secret tax on the technology millions of Americans enjoy and learn from. From rparge@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:47:09 1997 Return-Path: rparge@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05449 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:09 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24209; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024117; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:18 -0500 Received: from upmajb04.msn.com ([204.95.110.81]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id GAA10996 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:46:49 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:43:07 UT From: "Rick Pargeter" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Measured Service Content-Length: 468 The phone companies have always wanted to foist measured local service upon us consumers, and this is just another attempt to get this implemented. Measured service is available in our area. Unlimited service is an option and is charged a premium rate. Turn this proposal back. It's bad for the customer, and will further ruin the already messed up phone system we have in this country, which was the finest in the world until the mandated government break up. From islinsun@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:47:12 1997 Return-Path: islinsun@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05453 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:11 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24233; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024123; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:21 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA21497 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:46:27 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:46:27 -0600 (CST) Received: from nas-nh3-49.ix.netcom.com(207.93.163.113) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma021415; Thu Feb 13 09:45:33 1997 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970213104608.44bf2456@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: islinsun@popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: isp@fcc.gov From: Donna Subject: Internet Usage fees Content-Length: 336 UNFAIR UNJUST if my daughter can spend hours on the phone talking to her friends it is discriminatory to levy what amounts to a fine or a tax on my internet usage. Please defeat this unjust proposition! Donna Braman Islands in the Sun Donna Braman, Cr. Photog. 215 Main Street Salem, NH 03079 Tel# 603-898-8088 Fax# 603-898-2917 From mdgreene@mis.net Thu Feb 13 10:47:14 1997 Return-Path: mdgreene@mis.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05457 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:13 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24246; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhost.mis.net(204.68.227.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024158; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:35 -0500 Received: from home.mis.net (carin18.mis.net [206.28.44.187]) by MIS.Net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA00837 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:12 -0500 Message-Id: <199702131550.KAA00837@MIS.Net> X-Sender: mdgreene@pop.mis.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: Cindy Greene Subject: FYI per minute line charges Content-Length: 1705 Dear FCC, I am a regular internet user and I am concerned about the proposal by the phone companies to impose per minute charges to internet users. We home school our children and we use the internet as part of their education and I 'm sure our usage will increase over the next few years as colleges and universities make more and more available to home school families. Because of home schooling we are a one income family and have to stretch our resources more than most two incomes families and so this extra charge would be an even greater hardship on us. I believe that if you allow phone companies to charge a per minute line charge internet usage will decrease. We live in eastern Kentucky, a relatively poor area of the US. Most of the local people here do not have big incomes. If they can afford a computor and internet service they could never afford to pay additional costs, such as per line charges, to receive internet service. Many of these people are uneducated and would be some of the people to receive the biggest benefit from internet services. I do not believe that internet usage will hinder the operation of the telephone network. Our network server recently had to add more lines so that they could accomadate all the users in our rural area. When the internet server's lines were full we were not able to access the internet. The internet use did not affect the ability of the community to use phone lines either local or long distance. My family and I hope that you look carefully at this proposal before you make any decision that will directly affect millions of internet users all across the United States. Sincerely, Cindra Greene mdgreene@mis.net From vicalt@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:47:50 1997 Return-Path: vicalt@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05463 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:49 -0500 From: vicalt@juno.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24399; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from x2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024230; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:51 -0500 Received: (from vicalt@juno.com) by x2.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KgQ25673; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:45:44 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:49 PST Subject: jcmc4@juno.com (judy l conley): E-Mail Message-ID: <19970213.104349.11078.1.vicalt@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-30 Content-Length: 864 --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- From: jcmc4@juno.com (judy l conley) To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: E-Mail Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:31:40 EST Message-ID: <19961101.040505.5031.10.jcmc4@juno.com> Dear One Please Please do not let the telephone companies get in on charging for E-mail. I think they make enough money. I do not even have an internet company because I cannot afford it. I have established so many wonderful friendships and become closer to all my family members who all live out of state through E-mail. Let the Americans enjoy one thing that someone does not have to make money on. The rich will get richer and then there is the poor. I hope you are led my your heart and not your head . God Bless America and you too Yours truly Judy Conley --VAA26366.855628394/m11.boston.juno.com-- --------- End forwarded message ---------- From wjhud@digicity.net Thu Feb 13 10:47:54 1997 Return-Path: wjhud@digicity.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05467 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:53 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24427; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from livewire.digicity.net(207.212.96.10) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024349; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:47:14 -0500 Received: from ip115.dialup-1.digicity.net (ip115.dialup-1.digicity.net [207.212.98.115]) by livewire.digicity.net (8.8.3/8.8.31) with SMTP id HAA26621 for < isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:47:19 -0800 (PST) To: isp@fcc.gov (Federal Communications Commission) Subject: CC Docket No. 96-263 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:49:49 GMT Message-ID: From: wjhud@digicity.net (William J. Hudspeth, Ph.D.) Return-Receipt-To: wjhud@digicity.net (William J. Hudspeth, Ph.D.) X-Mailer: Quarterdeck Message Center [2.00] Content-Length: 5024 Secretary, Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 I am writing to you as a concerned citizen, in an effort to curtail a potential problem. I hear the phone companies are requesting that additional "per minute" charges be levied against Internet users, citing that our Internet usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. I believe you would be ill-advised to support such a movement, and I will list my reasons for your consideration. #1- As telephone users, we have a right to use our telephones in any manner we see fit; as long as we do not break any laws while doing so. I realize the phone companies are attempting to create legislation to prevent the use of the Internet without additional charges, but at the current time, I am not aware of any laws we are breaking while using the phone to "dial-up" an Internet Service Provider. We are merely using technology to our advantage, which is something the phone companies have been doing for a long time. #2- Current Internet access charges are in-line with other communication facility charges. There are conventions in place to use the Internet for advertising. Just as our air waves are polluted with advertisements to assist in defraying the costs associated with broadcasting, these same opportunities are available through the Internet. As the Internet comes closer to integration with other broadcasting media, new opportunities will arise for commerce and taxation. The phone companies will have every opportunity to exploit these newfound advertising and marketing venues. They will not suffer losses created by these technologies, they will discover new ways to profit from them, ays that do NOT require unnecessary legislation or additional fees for Internet "access". #3- In many cases, the people using the Internet are already paying for additional phone service. They are adding additional phone lines, and this means profits for the phone companies. #4- The quality and availability of telephone service will dictate the public's willingness to pay for it. The technologies used to communicate over the Internet are clearly taking advantage of the existing capabilities offered by telephone networks. Rather than finding ways to increase the charges for use of existing technologies, the phone companies need to occupy themselves with taking the lead on development of "new and better" technologies. Most people, even when the opportunity to use an Internet telephone exists, will not rely on it for their sole communications tool. Just as the invention of the fax machine created new communications opportunities, so has the Internet. When the fax machine was invented, did the US Postal Service lobby for legislation to "tax" fax usage, in an attempt to replace lost revenues? And if they did, were they successful? Or, did they step-up their efforts to provide a different, "higher quality" delivery system? #5- Perhaps most importantly, telephone companies are currently taking every step possible to enter new markets, markets they intend to dominate, in an effort to increase their profits. In a free-market economy, they have every right to do so. They also have a responsibility to act in a manner that is in the best interest of the public. Adding additional charges for Internet use will further inhibit access to the world's knowledge base. This is in no way in the public's best interest. There is already a distance between the "classes" as it were, and a segment of the population that is prevented from enjoying the benefits of access to knowledge due to their economic and/or educational condition. They are already at a clear disadvantage. Do not further hamper their chances at gaining social, economic, and educational equality by making Internet access more unreachable to this segment of the population. #6- Local telephone companies, especially Pacific Bell, have courted Internet Service Providers with a fee structure that would assure the success of the Internet. Moreover, PacBell courted end user's with a competitve fee structure that has made PacBell one of the largest ISPs in the country. Now that the public is invested and dependent, PacBell wants the FCC to believe that they were unable to predict the success of the Internet that PacBell now claims has overburdened the infrastructure of the telephone system. Since PacBell has aggressively positioned itself in all the strategic profit-making niches of the Internet venture, it cannot be viewed as a passive victim of circumstance. Rather, PacBell's past actions and current claims coalesce into a picture that looks, smells and tastes like fraud. Is it? In closing; I am a concerned, taxpaying citizen of the United States of America. I urge you to resist any attempts by the phone and telecommunications companies to impose new legislation and/or collect additional fees for Internet usage. Thank you, William J. Hudspeth, Ph.D. 16 Edan Avenue - Stockton, CA - 95207 From ronald.call@m.cues.k12.ut.us Thu Feb 13 10:48:28 1997 Return-Path: ronald.call@m.cues.k12.ut.us Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05475 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:28 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24549; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from svc.cues.k12.ut.us(205.120.117.15) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024407; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:47:30 -0500 Received: from [205.120.67.19] by svc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA11020; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:41:18 -0700 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:41:18 -0700 X-Sender: cu6033rc@m.cues.k12.ut.us Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: isp@fcc.gov From: ronald.call@m.cues.k12.ut.us (Ronald Call) Subject: per minute charges for internet Content-Length: 692 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a high school teacher from rural Utah and have just heard about the proposal by telephone companies to charge additional per minute charges for internet access. This would be devestating for my students. Here in rural Utah we have no nearby college or university libraries that my students can get to. Many of my students use the internet as their major source for finding information. Yet much of the time spent on internet is in the early morning or later afternoon hours when telephone lines are less busy. Please do not impose additional per minute charges for intenet access. It will be a knife to the heart of education. Thank you. Ron Call From gin_meyer@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:48:30 1997 Return-Path: gin_meyer@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05479 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:30 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24567; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot02.msn.com(204.95.110.79) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024391; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:47:28 -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 HAA17085 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:44:21 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:46:17 UT From: "Virginia Meyer" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Content-Length: 890 My name is Virginia Meyer I live at 449 Valley Hi Circle in Colorado Springs, CO. 80910 and I have been made aware that the FCC is looking into a proposal from the phone company to charge per minute usage of on-lines services. I firmly believe that this is a violation of our rights and a criminal way for the phone companies to get richer. We pay a flat fee to our on-line service provider that ensures us of unlimited usage. If the phone companies want to try to attach extra fees for this usage they should try to get them from the providers. The big corporate lawyers would probably make short work of this outrage! Picking on the little guy who innocently uses these services is just adding insult to our pocketbooks! I urge you to look into this matter and put a stop to it! Thank you,. Virginia Meyer gin_meyer@msn.com 449 Valley Hi Circle Colorado Springs, CO 80910 From holzheim@meol.mass.edu Thu Feb 13 10:48:32 1997 Return-Path: holzheim@meol.mass.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05483 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:32 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24582; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from meol.mass.edu(134.241.27.23) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024486; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:47:50 -0500 Received: by meol.mass.edu; id AA18325; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:24 -0500 (EST) From: Diane Holzheimer To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: proposed new phone company charges Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 383 I understand that telephone companies are proposing to charge for the use of the internet now. I would like to go on record as being AGAINST their right to do that! They have no right to cash in on this. They have no business charging people anything. Please put a stop to this nonsense immediately. Thank You. Diane Holzheimer and From cfpinc@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:48:34 1997 Return-Path: cfpinc@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05487 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:34 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24598; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from x1.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024512; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:47:59 -0500 Received: (from cfpinc@juno.com) by x1.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KOC22967; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:45:22 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:16:51 PST Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Message-ID: <19970213.094348.15702.10.cfpinc@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,7-8,10-16 From: cfpinc@juno.com (Harold Templeton) Content-Length: 695 I don't know if all the buzz on the internet is true, but my vote is against local telephone company per minute charges for phone access to the "net." Telephone companies exist for the purpose of making a profit. For too long, they and other utilities have depended on Government interference to provide that profit. It is time for everyone (including the private citizen) to stand up on their own two feet. Telephone companies need to view increased traffic as an opportunity to explore, not an excuse to increase rates. Harold Templeton 1406 Oak Avenue Round Lake Beach, IL 60073 cfpinc@juno.com (checked every day) haroldt@iwc.net (for large messages, attachments, checked once a week) From emo_p@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:48:36 1997 Return-Path: emo_p@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05491 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:36 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24610; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from x11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.26) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024515; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:48:00 -0500 Received: (from emo_p@juno.com) by x11.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id K]D13775; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:59 EST To: isp@fcc.gov, Alan_Wallace%MISSION_CRITICAL_SOFTWARE@notes.worldcom.com Subject: internet surcharges Message-ID: <19970213.084806.17399.1.emo_p@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5-6,9-15 From: emo_p@juno.com (Emo J Pentermann) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:59 EST Content-Length: 491 Dear Sir/Madam: The quality of telephone service from our local provider (US WEST) borders on a Federal Crime. It feel at times like I live in a 3rd world country. These people have a monopoly and funnel all their profits into foreign projects, while leaving their home base stranded. Do not allow Internet surcharges, which will further monopolize their position. They are already overcharging Internet providers for Internet access. Deregulation is the key word here. Thank you. E.P. From greene@calv4.cray.com Thu Feb 13 10:49:08 1997 Return-Path: greene@calv4.cray.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05496 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:08 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24737; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from timbuk.cray.com(128.162.19.7) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024628; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:48:19 -0500 Received: from calv4.cray.com (greene@calv4.cray.com [128.162.44.25]) by timbuk.cray.com (8.8.4/CRI-gate-8-2.11) with SMTP id JAA07711 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:48:26 -0600 (CST) Received: by calv4.cray.com (SMI-8.6/CRI-5.13) id KAA17399; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:24 -0500 From: "Dorian D. Greene" Message-Id: <9702131048.ZM17388@calv4.cray.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:22 -0500 X-Mailer: Z-Mail Lite (3.2.0 5jul94) To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Telephone Company Internet Charges Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 463 To Whom It May Concern, I understand that local telephone services are contemplating assessing per minute charges for Internet use conducted over their phone systems. I would like to register a strong protest against such charges. Use of the Internet over local networks should not be restricted by such charges. Such fees are unwarranted both as a restriction on speech and as an unjustified profit levied without a comensurate service. Dorian D. Greene From ariprime@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:49:40 1997 Return-Path: ariprime@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05500 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:40 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24869; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from m3.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024761; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:48:51 -0500 Received: (from ariprime@juno.com) by m3.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KYL20028; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:22 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Awwww,c'mon.... Message-ID: <19970213.104738.10054.15.ariprime@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-7,10-14 From: ariprime@juno.com (Arianne S Norton) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:22 EST Content-Length: 447 We pay for phone service, we pay for metropolitan phone service to get our philly computer lines, we pay for our online services....enough is enough!!!! I am sick and tired of having to pay, pay pay. What the phone companies are proposing are nonsense fees. If these rates go through, I will be among the first to get rid of my metro phone service and the phone company will lose more of their customers. We pay, and we pay enough Ari Norton From linnvm@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:49:42 1997 Return-Path: linnvm@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05504 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:42 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24899; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from x1.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024834; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:49:09 -0500 Received: (from linnvm@juno.com) by x1.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KPH22967; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:32 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Proposed per-minute charge for Internet users Message-ID: <19970213.104731.5239.9.linnvm@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 5,7 From: linnvm@juno.com (Veronica & Matthew Linn) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:32 EST Content-Length: 544 I am one of thousands of Internet users AGAINST THE PROPOSED PER-MINUTE CHARGE. We are already paying a fee to access the Internet. Why should we pay on top of that an extra 4 to 40 cents per minute charge? Are you penalizing technology and development? This is outrageous!!! Local calls would cost less. Guess what, computer users could boycott this decision -- if taken -- by not using the Internet or the telephone. We will have to go back to the beginning of the century and start writing letters more often. SO MUCH FOR PROGRESS!!! From dianamc@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:49:46 1997 Return-Path: dianamc@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05508 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:46 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24938; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from m4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024850; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:49:17 -0500 Received: (from dianamc@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id K[T24646; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:47 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Phone charges Message-ID: <19970213.104721.10303.4.DianaMc@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2 From: dianamc@juno.com (Diana E E McLean) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:47 EST Content-Length: 217 I strongly object to the phone co. being able to charge extra.I would not be able to use my E-mail if that happened. I am already paying local charges to the phone co. Please don't add any extra charges. Diana McLean From flog@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:50:18 1997 Return-Path: flog@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05512 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:18 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA25099; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from x1.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xmaa24834; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:49:25 -0500 Received: (from flog@juno.com) by x1.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KPO22967; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:33 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:48:21 PST Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Message-ID: <19970213.094821.11950.0.FLOG@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,12,15-21 From: flog@juno.com (FREDERICK R. FOYE) Content-Length: 1199 This msg is in regards to the request by the telephone companies to impose a per minute fee for users of the internet. The telephone companies are stating that the internet users have or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. I believe that this is a unfounded statement by these companies and that it is just another ploy to rip off the consumer to enrich their (telephone companies) stockholders. These companies already charge for everything under the sun. How many telephone companies have lost money or filed for bankruptcy in recent years? I would be very surprised if there have been any in this country. I already pay a Customer line charge of $3.50 per month, a 911 Service Fee of .55, Federal Tax @ 3%, Texas Poison Control Surcharge .04,Texas 9-1-1 Surcharge .04, Other Taxes $1.75. The telephone companies need to cut out the fat in their organizations, get competitive, and provide the service at a reasonable price. The days of being a government protected monopoly, hopefully are gone. Again, I oppose this request from the telephone companies. Thank You for your consideration of this request. Frederick R. Foye 25503 Yellow Pine Circle Spring, Texas 77380 From gflinza@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:50:26 1997 Return-Path: gflinza@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05516 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:26 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA25179; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from x2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma024984; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:49:29 -0500 Received: (from gflinza@juno.com) by x2.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KiO25673; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:01 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: no more costs for internet Message-ID: <19970213.104149.3982.0.GFLinza@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2 From: gflinza@juno.com (Guy F. Linza) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:01 EST Content-Length: 118 I want to express my very strong objections toany proposal to increase the costs for using Internet. GFLinza@juno.com From carolgmann@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:51:00 1997 Return-Path: carolgmann@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05521 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:51:00 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA25411; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from m4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xmaa24850; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:50:12 -0500 Received: (from carolgmann@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id K[Q24646; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:46 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Charging fee by phone companies Message-ID: <19970213.104628.6918.0.carolgmann@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,6-7 From: carolgmann@juno.com (Carol G. Mann) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:46 EST Content-Length: 440 To Whom It May Concern I am against permitting the phone companies to charge for Internet connections. They are just seeing a golden goose in getting more money from their customers. This may preclude some people from having access because they cannot afford the additional expenses. In a time when our President wants the school systems to come up to speed in computers this may hinder schools from providing this service. Carol Mann From grobison1@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:51:02 1997 Return-Path: grobison1@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05525 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:51:02 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA25421; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from m7.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.196) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma025218; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:50:13 -0500 Received: (from grobison1@juno.com) by m7.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KOW28814; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:10 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Cc: lapple1@aol.com, lburris@smartnet.net, bobcar1@juno.com, pgooch3@juno.com, 74517.3331@CompuServe.COM, amontgom@smartnet.net, wrobert@dialnet.net, rext9138@smartnet.net Subject: Internet charge Message-ID: <19970213.094013.7327.0.grobison1@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,6-7,10-11,14-15,17-20,22-24 From: grobison1@juno.com (gene robison) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:10 EST Content-Length: 1076 I protest the proposal filed by the regional bell companies to impose a per minute charge for internet service. I am a user of the internet. I pay my monthly telephone fee and want to continue to use the phone lines to call whoever I please. I understand some companies are lobbying for rates as high as $1 per minute. I am sure Mr. Gore does not approve of this proposal nor President Clinton. The regional phone companies have no right to set charges based on the different people and businesses I choose to call. If they do, where will it stop. The imposition of these surcharges will restrict the freedom and rights of every individual in America plus placing an economic restriction on the economy. Eight or ten companies have no right to have this much power of censorship or control over the freedom of the individual. They are making plenty of money now. Look at their financial results. I am telling my friends about this bill and asking them to email you their feelings at isp@fcc.gov if they agree with the above comments. Gene Robison grobison1@juno.com From almoreel@cyberg8t.com Thu Feb 13 10:51:36 1997 Return-Path: almoreel@cyberg8t.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05529 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:51:36 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA25567; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:51:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from key.cyberg8t.com(204.137.200.40) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma025502; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:50:58 -0500 Received: from host17.cyberg8t.com (host17.cyberg8t.com [206.85.247.76]) by key.cyberg8t.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA02206 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:50:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:50:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <3.0.16.19970213075100.2c4729e8@cyberg8t.com> X-Sender: almoreel@cyberg8t.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16) To: isp@fcc.gov From: Steve Fischer Subject: PER MIN. CHARGE INCREASE Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 455 PLEASE FOR ALL OF THOSE WHO USE THE INTERNET DO NOT ALLOW THE PHONE CO'S WHO ALREADY MAKE BILLIONS OF PROFIT EVERY YEAR TO START CHARGING BY THE MINUTE I OPERATE FORM A BUSINESS PHONE SO I ALREADY AM BEING CHARGED "BY THE MINUTE" AND A SECOND CHARGE WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO HANDLE I BELIEVE THAT THE FCC STILL WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY AND WE WANT SOME RELIEF SO THAT WE CAN BUILD OUR BUSINESSES INSTEAD OF CLOSING THEM THANK YOU STEVE FISCHER From gross@homebrew.pinenet.com Thu Feb 13 10:52:08 1997 Return-Path: gross@homebrew.pinenet.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05533 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:52:08 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA25765; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:51:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from homebrew.pinenet.com(206.11.214.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma025600; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:51:22 -0500 Received: from gross.pinenet.com (pm1-22.pinenet.com [206.11.214.32]) by homebrew.pinenet.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA07878 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:51:26 -0600 Message-ID: <330338CC.5559@mail.pinenet.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:52:45 -0600 From: "Dell M. Gross" Reply-To: gross@homebrew.pinenet.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No. 96-263 Not copy of formal comments. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 508 Local telephone companys should not be allowed to charge extra for internet access by the end user. The introduction of other phone companys and the price war that follows is a clear indication of the price gouging that has gone on for years. It is time that the average user get some value for the money that they have spent over the years. So please don't be seduced by the phone companys slick laywers and their sweet nothings and say no to any price increase. Dell Gross 405 7th St. Pine City, MN 55063 From sherrman@discover-net.net Thu Feb 13 10:52:45 1997 Return-Path: sherrman@discover-net.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05537 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:52:44 -0500 From: sherrman@discover-net.net Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA25956; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:52:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(208.134.196.20) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma025775; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:51:49 -0500 Received: from [208.134.202.237] (pm4-237.discover-net.net [208.134.202.237]) by discover.discover-net.net (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA21746 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:49:51 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:49:51 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: FCC and Internet Content-Length: 945 Dear FCC, I am writing to protest the per minute charge for internet use currently being proposed by the phone companies. I feel this would devastate the educational opportunities this service provides for students both young and old. This is a resource that is extremely important for the future of our children and society. It allows people to communicate globally and correspond globally. This fosters an interest in world society and affairs that seems to be largely lacking in many young people today. For a better world, we need to feel more connected as people. The internet has opened avenues to my children. They have been in contact and written and recieved mail from such diverse places as Australia, Norway, New Zealand, Korea. If the price were to be per minute, I know that it would prohibit our use. Please keep this resource available to my children and myself. Thank you, Sheri Herrman 1538 15th St. Barron, WI54812 From ewm611@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:53:31 1997 Return-Path: ewm611@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05541 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:30 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26164; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma025995; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:52:32 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA29431 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:52:37 -0600 (CST) Received: from det-mi6-23.ix.netcom.com(199.183.194.215) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma029404; Thu Feb 13 09:52:22 1997 Message-ID: <33036103.32AB@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:19 -0800 From: "E. Marshall" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-NC250 (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Charges for local calls Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1198 To Whom it May Concern, I recently received news of a proposal to allow phone companies to charge internet users for local phone calls to ISPs. This is an outrage! With the way the telephone companies currently operate, most phone users have no choice as to who handles their local phone service. Giving these local monopolies power to charge based on the type of communication someone is using is a way to further subjugate the people to the all-powerful corporation. Before the FCC decides to give more power to the telephone companies, it should think about giving power back to the people by deregulating the local phone companies to encourage competition so the average user can decide whether s/he wants to be charged to call locally to use the internet or anything else. If this proposal goes through, will we be charged for faxing documents for business or personal use? Will educational institutions have to stop offering internet access due to escalating prices? How much will I have to pay in the future to voice my opinion on such violations of public will? This is ludicrous. Erik Marshall 33573 Pardo Garden City, MI 48135 (313) 422-1262 ewm611@ix.netcom.com From bj.peterson@m.cues.k12.ut.us Thu Feb 13 10:53:45 1997 Return-Path: bj.peterson@m.cues.k12.ut.us Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05545 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:45 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26247; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from svc.cues.k12.ut.us(205.120.117.15) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma026059; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:52:48 -0500 Received: from [205.120.1.72] by svc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA11545; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:46:30 -0700 X-Sender: cu8993bp@m.cues.k12.ut.us Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:51:43 -0700 To: isp@fcc.gov From: "B.J. Peterson" Subject: Phone company charges for Internet time Content-Length: 1309 It sounds to me that the phone companies are just trying to find new ways to make you pay more for a service that you are already paying for. The phone companies make money on the circuits that they provide to the Internet providers. Many of the phone companies offer internet services, so they make money on the Internet in that way. They also make money off the phone service they provide to your home. In my opinion, when you pay them for a phone service, you should be able to use that phone service any way you would like (whether it be data or voice). When you make a local call, you're not charged to make that call. When you make a long distance call, you are charged for that call. If I call local to my ISP, it is the same thing as if I were calling my friend down the street. I am using one line and one service, I don't think that it matters whether or not I send Data or Voice (it is not the phone companies business). -- B.J. Peterson Help Desk Support Specialist Voice: (801) 896-9297 fax: (801) 896-4767 Email: mailto:bj.peterson@m.cues.k12.ut.us http: http://www.cues.k12.ut.us ftp: ftp://ftp.cues.k12.ut.us ++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++ Lack of PLANNING on your part does not justify an EMERGENCY on my part. From wdmcclen@ingr.com Thu Feb 13 10:53:50 1997 Return-Path: wdmcclen@ingr.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05549 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:49 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26269; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from hq15.pcmail.ingr.com(129.135.251.243) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma026108; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:52:59 -0500 Received: by hq15.pcmail.ingr.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC1993.B5F1A250@hq15.pcmail.ingr.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:53:06 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Mcclendon, Bill (William D)" To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" Subject: Proposed Internet usage charges Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:52:40 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 86 TEXT Content-Length: 3712 FCC Representative, Let me express my opposition to the recent effort by telephone companies to increase rates for Internet access. I work in the computer industry. But I am also a home Internet users. Technically, there is no basis for their concern over "system overload" by Internet users. While most individual users will never use a telephone line for Internet access for more than an hour at a time some will use it more. No matter the duration, this is usually at the expense of actual voice calls. There is no extra wear and tear on the switching equipment when computers communicate instead of people. It doesn't take more power, or more time, to handle a 1 hour modem connection to the Internet than it does to handle a 1 hour voice conversation. The concerns of loss of service due to full capacity use are valid. My home town of Huntsville, Alabama is a good example. All switches in our local calling area are now digital. Switch to switch, our phone transmissions are all digital, the equipment cannot recognize whether a call is to a person, or a computer. In fact, I believe that the phone company would have to ADD capability to identify calls from my home to the switch as Internet. They would have to do this for EVERY switch facility in the country. Interesting, they would have to ADD equipment or software to charge for a service which does not require additions currently. By the way, there is no way to tell if I am dialing a FAX machine, another computer directly in my calling area, or an Internet connection except by the number I dial. If my logic is correct, they would only charge for calls to specific numbers. Moreover, most heavy home users, like Internet Service Providers (ISP's), have additional line(s) added. These added lines cost no more to install and service than a second line for my children, regardless of the usage time. Will the phone company attempt to access surcharges for the capacity required for my children? In reviewing the studies presented so far by Bell Atlantic, I have several conclusions and quite a few questions. Conclusions are: The assertion that switching systems are reaching peak is obviously true, within this sample. The assertion that "all lines are busy" is more frequent a may affect 911 calls is true, within this sample. However, I was under the impression that 911 calls receive priority switching over all other calls. If true, this implies the risk is much smaller. Questions that arise are as follows: What is the impact of the timeframe (i.e. these peaks occur late in the evening, when switches are traditionally quiet)? Why is there no statement that ISP's using T1 lines can only use T1 switches? Why is there no statement that ISP's using ISDN lines can only use ISDN switches? Why is there no statement that ISDN lines are only available in a small fraction of the country and require entire facilities? Why is there no statement about the cost of adding these facilities in order to switch ISP's to this type of service? What is the impact of ISP service in smaller areas such as 100,000 to 500,000 people and NOT Washington DC? I submit that the phone companies have legitimate points, and also hidden motives. Let's get this all up front. Let's ACTUALLY talk about the need to provide 21st century high speed digital communications. I support charging higher rates to ISP's, IN THOSE AREAS WHERE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY IS CLEARLY NEEDED. I do NOT support charging higher rates to ALL ISP's! W. D. (Bill) McClendon Project Manager - Digital Media Home of the Studio Z Intergraph Corp. wdmcclen@ingr.com (205) 730-3539 (voice) (205) 730-8300 (fax) http://www.intergraph.com/visual/visual.stm From ozbo1st@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:53:51 1997 Return-Path: ozbo1st@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05553 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:51 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26276; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from x4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.22) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma026109; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:52:59 -0500 Received: (from ozbo1st@juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KcN07314; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:03 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Per minute telephone charges. Message-ID: <19970213.104858.13142.0.ozbo1st@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-2 From: ozbo1st@juno.com (Richard X Zubris) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:03 EST Content-Length: 125 I strongly object to the proposal to charge per minute fees for internet access by the telephone companies. Richard Zubris From patriciaf@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:53:55 1997 Return-Path: patriciaf@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05557 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:55 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26295; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from x7.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.24) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma026133; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:53:05 -0500 Received: (from patriciaf@juno.com) by x7.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id K^U05581; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:52:58 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Message-ID: <19970213.104703.12398.1.patriciaf@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 5-7 From: patriciaf@juno.com (patricia j frushour) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:52:58 EST Content-Length: 424 I really don't know how to start this letter. How can the phone companies decide that local usage by using computers is any different than a person making a personal phone conversation? How can greed be allowed to affect so many people who could not afford to communicate with distant relatives and friends. Please register my complaint against imposing per minute fees on e-mail access numbers. Thank you. P. Frushour From grievan@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:54:27 1997 Return-Path: grievan@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05561 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:27 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26447; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.7) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma026208; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:53:17 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA20786 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:53:17 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:53:17 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702131553.JAA20786@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> Received: from spr-ma3-17.ix.netcom.com(205.184.172.113) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma020742; Thu Feb 13 09:52:44 1997 From: grievan@ix.netcom.com (Evelyn Griggs Schoolcraft) Subject: CC Docket No. 96-263 To: isp@fcc.gov Content-Length: 2900 I am appalled to learn that telephone companies now are attempting to destroy usage of the Internet. Already we must pay servers $19.95 per month for such usage, and I'm certain these servers already are paying telephone companies huge sums for such use. Why must we pay twice for the same service? My telephone bill per month already is huge. I never have trouble calling out or making numerous long distance calls, so I doubt their contention that Internet usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. As with any business, if you need more equipment, you add it. Undoubtedly if they choose to add more lines or whatever is needed, the cost of same will be added to our telephone bills. Why must they also attach what is already being paid for by the server? I'm sure servers' costs must already be astronomical. With new equipment, the telephone companies would increase fees to the server and get back more money in that manner, too. Why should the user be PENALIZED and CHARGED TWICE for usage of the Internet? If the greed of telephone companies forces paying of per minute fees to the Internet, I'm sure servers "will go down the tubes" for I, for one, will be unable to pay such costs. All of my acquaintances, both young and old, are in the same predicament, yet my grandchildren, and others like them, use the Internet to find information needed to complete their homework. It's bad enough to already pay large sums to the telephone companies providing service to me. We have to pay TWO companies per month for use of ONE telephone. It will be a great detriment to our society, stamp out educational use by our children, and once again force us, the United States of American, that great land of the free and the brave, to take a back seat to other nations, many of which are already ahead of us in education and industry. I feel sad that the greed of corporations in our country in setting up facilities outside the U. S. already has made us a "service" country rather than the great industrial nation which brought us to prosperity. Downsizing has hurt thousands of our citizens while their CEO's stash away sums needed by no individual, for no person is worth such money. I'm 71 years of age and have seen much change in my lifetime. Are you being coerced by the telephone companies? Stand firm. IF YOU KEEP THE WELFARE OF YOUR CITIZENS AT HEART-- we, who, like you as individuals, PAY THE TAXES AND FOOT THE BILLS the politicans pass so lightly -- YOU WILL TURN DOWN the request of telephone companies to add a per-minute charge to us for Internet Service, a double charge which will add to corporate coffers, add hardship to people already stressed out paying costs, and put many more United States citizens out of work. EVELYN G. SCHOOLCRAFT (MRS. ROBERT B.) 210 EAST LONGMEADOW ROAD HAMPDEN, MA 01036 From sheila.mcclune@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:54:29 1997 Return-Path: sheila.mcclune@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05565 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:29 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26458; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from x4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.22) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xmaa26109; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:53:34 -0500 Received: (from sheila.mcclune@juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KcH07314; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:01 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:49:27 PST Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Message-ID: <19970213.085525.-23865.0.sheila.mcclune@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 6-7,10-17 From: sheila.mcclune@juno.com (Sheila K McClune) Content-Length: 791 I wanted to voice my opposition to additional per minute charges for Internet services. I am already paying both the telephone company and the Internet Service Provider for these services. Since I correspond mainly via e-mail, I make very few voice calls, and the small amount of time I spend online downloading and uploading my e-mail (an average of five minutes per day) does not seem to me to be a significant burden to the telephone system. Also, many people who make extensive use of Internet services have installed a second phone line for just this purpose, so they are ALREADY paying for the additional telephone services they use. Thank you very much for you attention. Sheila McClune 1275 South Birch Street #502 Denver, Colorado 80222 sheila.mcclune@juno.com mcclunes@aol.com From jb16@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:54:31 1997 Return-Path: jb16@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05569 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:31 -0500 From: jb16@juno.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26468; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from x13.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.27) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma026203; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:53:17 -0500 Received: (from jb16@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KPX00349; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:52:29 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Cc: Docket@staff.juno.com, #@staff.juno.com, 96-263@juno.com Subject: Please do not seperate our family again Message-ID: <19970213.105214.10118.5.jb16@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1,7 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:52:29 EST Content-Length: 488 Your docket #96-263 We are Jerry and Norma Bashover living at 6325 Timberlakes way Delray Beach,Fl. 33484 My family like thousands of others have seperated over three states and my grandchildren are off to college in other states. For the first time since we have all separated free email has brought us together again as a family. We are in touch with them as if they lived next door. With the stress on family why break us up again by putting a price on email and educational internet. From toddtyler@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:54:35 1997 Return-Path: toddtyler@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05573 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:35 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26486; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from m4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma026306; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:53:36 -0500 Received: (from toddtyler@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id K\T24646; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:54 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Re:CC Docket No 96-263 Message-ID: <19970213.095017.3958.2.toddtyler@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-7,10-21 From: toddtyler@juno.com (Todd T Young) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:54 EST Content-Length: 715 Tyler Young 807 E. 21st Street Odessa, TX 79761 (915) 337-5313 e-mail: toddtyler@juno.com Dear Sirs: Along with millions of others, I think that it is unconscionable that telephone companies are petitioning the FCC to impose charges for internet connections. This is just another example of arrogant corporations who can't stand the internet being accessible to everyone without corporations profitting from it. The net is an information highway that should be open to everyone without penalties and unnecessary charges, and these charges will be penalties to all of us who now use and depend upon the net for research and communication. I urge the FCC to deny this petition. Respectfully, Tyler Young From ransan@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:54:39 1997 Return-Path: ransan@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05577 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:39 -0500 From: ransan@juno.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26513; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from x2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma026410; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:53:57 -0500 Received: (from ransan@juno.com) by x2.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KjS25673; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:15 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:52:49 PST Message-ID: <19970213.095250.6950.0.ransan@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,8-14 Content-Length: 540 Dear Representatives of the FCC I wish to make known that I find the complaint the telephone companies is unfounded. Does not the Internet provide more business instead of less? They will ultimately profit after improvements are made. Many businesses go through these transitions, why should the telephone company be given "special privileges?" Please consider the many users of the Internet and the profit they bring to telephone companies before ruling. Thank you. Randy M. Koppen ransan@juno.com 411 Bailey St Jackson, MN 56143 From rlwilkes@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:55:13 1997 Return-Path: rlwilkes@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05581 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:55:13 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26626; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from m11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.194) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma026576; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:54:36 -0500 Received: (from rlwilkes@juno.com) by m11.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KSH03816; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:55 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Per minute charge for internet users Message-ID: <19970213.105425.18543.0.rlwilkes@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,11,14 From: rlwilkes@juno.com (Ronald L Wilkes) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:55 EST Content-Length: 885 Dear FCC, I have just been made aware of the local phone companies attempt to implement a per minute charge to all users of the internet. This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. It is discriminatory and out and out greedy. How can the phone companies justify a per minute charge for a LOCAL CALL, This just proves that greed and self interest are all these companies are about. I, for one, am sick of this crap. Every time something good comes about there are always vultures ready to feed off the public. WHY MUST WE, THE AVERAGE CITIZEN, HAVE TO ALWAYS BEAR THE EXPENSE OF THE MONEY GRUBBING FEW WHO JUST WANT TO CAPITALIZE ON TECHNOLOGY THAT THEY HAVE NOTHING TO WITH . You cannot allow this to happen. The people of this country deserve a break. A local call is just that "a local call"and to charge certain people for that call is discriminatory and possibly illegal. From sscccrh@wsfa.com Thu Feb 13 10:55:15 1997 Return-Path: sscccrh@wsfa.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05585 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:55:15 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26631; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from hobbes.traveller.com(204.199.139.242) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma026473; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:54:11 -0500 Received: from PC_sscccrh@wsfa.com (dyn_16.mgm.tis.net [206.26.185.16]) by mail.wsfa.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA57252 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:54:16 -0600 Message-ID: Priority: Normal To: isp@fcc.gov MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Cathi Hunt Subject: Internet per minute charges Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:57:24 PST Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 387 I understand that the FCC is considering allowing per-minute charges on Internet use by telephone companies. This will tremendously hinder growth and slow down what is a burgeoning way to transfer information. The telephone companies have posted record profits for many years now and they do not need additional income which is sure to kill the internet. DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN! From mmanley@digitalenterprises.com Thu Feb 13 10:55:17 1997 Return-Path: mmanley@digitalenterprises.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05589 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:55:17 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26645; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp.internex.net(199.2.14.12) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma026474; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:54:12 -0500 Received: from de.digitalenterprises.com ([207.88.209.18]) by custmail.Internex.NET (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA23061 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:53:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [153.34.191.87] ([153.35.234.99]) by de.digitalenterprises.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.0) with SMTP id AAA132 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:55:10 -0800 Message-ID: <33033B67.81C@digitalenterprises.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:08:05 -0800 From: mmanley@digitalenterprises.com (Mike Manley) Reply-To: mmanley@digitalenterprises.com Organization: Digital Enterprises, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) 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: 891 To whom it may concern: It is my beleif that the internet will be diminished as a low cost and valuable tool for all segments of the population if per minute charges are allowed to be levied by the phone companies. Please do NOT allow this to happen. Just to have on-line capability is an expense to the user and a profit to the phone companies. -- ------------------------------------------------------ * Computer-based Training * Interactive Communication * Java and Shockwave Development * Graphic Design/Marketing * Web Page Design/Marketing Michael Manley, Executive Vice President, Digital Enterprises, Inc. 15460 Willow Dr. Los Gatos, CA 95032 Email: mmanley@digitalenterprises.com Web Site: http://www.digitalenterprises.com ------------------------------------------------------ Phone: 408-448-5354 Fax: 408-448-3058 ------------------------------------------------------ From gryphun@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:55:53 1997 Return-Path: gryphun@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05593 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:55:53 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26799; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:55:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from x11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.26) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma026726; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:55:18 -0500 Received: (from gryphun@juno.com) by x11.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id K_V13775; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:18 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:58:29 PST Subject: phone charges Message-ID: <19970213.075829.14343.0.GRYPHUN@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 7 From: gryphun@juno.com (Patricia H Griffin) Content-Length: 542 The proposal by the phone companies to add extra fees for use of the internet is unreasonable and greedy. We pay regular fees which are returning all of them large profits. I am a stockholder in several telecommunications firms and appreciate the dividends received, but do not feel this is a proper way to increase those dividends. The phone companies are spending millions of dollars in advertising to try to draw customers from their competitors. That money would be better spent enlarging their capacity to cope with the growth in usage. From GrayE2108@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:57:40 1997 Return-Path: GrayE2108@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05597 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:57:40 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27259; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:57:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027124; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:56:51 -0500 Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id GAA14167 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:57:22 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:48:23 UT From: "Erik Gray" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Docket Number 96-263--Phone Companies and Internet Usasge Content-Length: 548 To Whom it May Concern: I AM FURIOUS!!!! The telephone companiesa already have a vast system of compensation, why do they have to get their fingers in on the Internet?? It's silly--the only reason the phone companies are complaining about Internet access is the fact that they don't have their greedy little fingers in this particular pie. STOP THIS INSANITY FROM GOING FURTHER!!!!! Please respond at GrayE2108@msn.com. I would very much like to follow this little piece of so-called litigation. Erik M .Gray Fayetteville, NC From btkelly1@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:57:50 1997 Return-Path: btkelly1@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05601 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:57:50 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27323; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:57:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from m15.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.192) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027242; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:57:16 -0500 Received: (from btkelly1@juno.com) by m15.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id K[S10935; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:56:39 EST To: isp@FCC.GOV Subject: Proposed Charges Message-ID: <19970213.105215.11910.0.btkelly1@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1,4-5,7-8 From: btkelly1@juno.com (Barbara T Kelly) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:56:39 EST Content-Length: 400 My home-based business, so far, has cost me more money than it is making for me. The free E-Mail Service to which I have recently subscribed is the one Oasis in a desert of bills, taxes and fees that this small-business owner must constantly endure. I pay 3 bills each month to the telephone company - Personal line, business line and Computer line. I really don't see why I need to pay more. From jmikee@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:58:24 1997 Return-Path: jmikee@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05605 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:24 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27491; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from x16.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.28) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027341; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:57:30 -0500 Received: (from jmikee@juno.com) by x16.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KEZ16197; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:57:03 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Extra charges. Message-ID: <19970213.075532.16215.0.jmikee@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3 From: jmikee@juno.com (John M. Enriquez) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:57:03 EST Content-Length: 236 I believe the FCC should be wary when telephone companies try to raise rates. For most internet users, the telephone access is more costly than the internet access, due to a shortage of local access number by some internet carriers. From sjones@aig.vialink.com Thu Feb 13 10:58:33 1997 Return-Path: sjones@aig.vialink.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05609 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:30 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27515; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from unknown(205.132.37.36) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027445; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:57:58 -0500 Received: from joness (joness.vialink.com [205.132.32.229]) by aiginet1.vialink.com (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP id AAA140 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:58:01 -0600 Message-ID: <33033A03.405@aig.vialink.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:57:55 -0600 From: "Steven F. Jones" Reply-To: sjones@aig.vialink.com Organization: Applied Intelligence Group X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (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: 268 I oppose the imposition of additional per minute charges by my local phone company for internet use. I believe that the fee I pay to my internet provider is more than sufficient. Steven F. Jones 11739 Springhollow Road Oklahoma City, OK 73120-4624 fearnot@flash.net From rhalley@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:59:02 1997 Return-Path: rhalley@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05613 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:02 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27602; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from x6.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.23) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027487; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:58:02 -0500 Received: (from rhalley@juno.com) by x6.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KeD05825; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:57:04 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:53 est Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Message-ID: <19970213.104517.4911.0.RHalley@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-6,8-10,12-18 From: rhalley@juno.com (Robert W Halley) Content-Length: 722 I wish to go on record as opposing any special charges by telephone companies for use of their lines to transmit and receive data by digital means.( i.e E-mail, Faxes or other developing technologies) Attempting to tax these data systems will lay the burden of identifying and collecting on the local telephone company and have the benefits totally accrue to those scheduled to receive the tax...i.e. the Federal Government and one of it's branches. It is disappointing to me that this effort has received so little publicity by the FCC. Typically, Proposed Rule Making announcements allow a reasonable time for comment by those that will be affected. Robert W. Halley 114 Red Bird Lane Terrace Park, Ohio 45174 From rusty@stratos.net Thu Feb 13 10:59:06 1997 Return-Path: rusty@stratos.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05617 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:06 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27622; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from home.stratos.net(207.25.199.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027473; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:58:01 -0500 Received: from JOHN ([207.25.199.220]) by atlas.stratos.net (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP id AAA265 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:56:23 -0500 Message-ID: <33033A09.537F@stratos.net> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:01 -0500 From: rusty@stratos.net (rusty) Reply-To: rusty@stratos.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet and local phones Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 403 If it were not for the internet, the phone company would be getting half the business from me that they are now. I'm a residential phone user, and I have put in a second line for internet access. I'm on a fixed monthly budget (disabled), and the internet is the one of the only forms of entertainment I can afford. Please do not allow the local phone companies to gouge us more than they already do! From sherry_christensen@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:59:08 1997 Return-Path: sherry_christensen@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05621 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:08 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27633; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot03.msn.com(204.95.110.85) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027495; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:58:04 -0500 Received: from upmajb04.msn.com ([204.95.110.81]) by upsmot03.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id TAA14291 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:52:46 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:46:04 UT From: "Ken Christensen" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Phone Charges for Internet access Content-Length: 229 Charging for local phone calls just because the line is being used to access the internet sounds like an excuess by the phone company to pad their pockets. I am not in favor of that. Please count my vote against this plan. From rev_aynne@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:59:42 1997 Return-Path: rev_aynne@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05625 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:42 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27763; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from m2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.199) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027665; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:59:03 -0500 Received: (from rev_aynne@juno.com) by m2.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KfQ00375; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:28 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: We already pay enough for our phone bills and for Internet Message-ID: <19970213.105322.13631.1.Rev_Aynne@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,7-12 From: rev_aynne@juno.com (Reverend Aynne P Morison) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:28 EST Content-Length: 542 To allow the local phone company to add charges for internet service will not only limit the time some use, it would cut off many students who don't have the extra money to give the phone company. We are paying quite enough now for the service. The local phone company is making more than enough to cover this use, especially since it is mostly local calls and for those of us who do not have a local node, we are already paying long distance per minute charges. Enough is Enough. No More Charges! Reverend Aynne P. Morison Manassas, VA From drmel@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:59:44 1997 Return-Path: drmel@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05629 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:44 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27784; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from x7.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.24) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027732; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:59:15 -0500 Received: (from drmel@juno.com) by x7.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KaZ05581; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:30 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet Telephone Charges Message-ID: <19970213.110416.2543.1.DRMel@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5-11 From: drmel@juno.com (David R. Melchior) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:30 EST Content-Length: 362 Sirs: It is my understanding that GTE and other telephone companies have requested that they charge local computer users for Internet access. Please know that I STRONGLY OBJECT to this. We are already paying too much for what is now a necessity of life, namely telephone service. Sincerely, David Melchior 245 Brighton Ct. Englewood, FL 34223 DRMel@juno.com From wd5fhg@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:00:16 1997 Return-Path: wd5fhg@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05635 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:16 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27877; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from x3.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.22) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027855; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:59:49 -0500 Received: (from wd5fhg@juno.com) by x3.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KiK11196; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:22 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Proposed telco internet charges. Message-ID: <19970213.095627.12310.0.WD5FHG@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,4-6 From: wd5fhg@juno.com (JOSEPH L SHEINBERG) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:22 EST Content-Length: 373 It's not enough that we pay for the telephone line, but the phone companies in their inimitable and greedy ways want to charge us extra for using them for oyther that voice. I have a separate line besides my home phone, for the computer & I don't think you should allow the phone companies to milk us further. Sincerely, J. L. Sheinberg WD5FHG@Juno.COM I'm also a ham. From odavis@fred.net Thu Feb 13 11:00:18 1997 Return-Path: odavis@fred.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05639 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:18 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27887; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027747; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:59:19 -0500 Received: from [205.252.212.196] (odavis.fred.net [205.252.212.196]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA25247 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:56:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:36 +0100 To: isp@fcc.gov From: odavis@fred.net (Owen Davis) Content-Length: 182 I am writing to inform you that I am opposed to the phone company receiving an additional charge for internet use. Should we have to pay an additional charge for a fax? Owen Davis From tdelnort@ici.net Thu Feb 13 11:00:24 1997 Return-Path: tdelnort@ici.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05644 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:24 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA27925; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from uhura.ici.net(204.97.252.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027755; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:59:20 -0500 Received: from 207.180.8.50 (d-ma-mansfield-84.ici.net [207.180.8.93]) by uhura.ici.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id KAA19650 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:55:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <330337C3.6E8C@ici.net> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:49:04 -0500 From: "B. Dorf" Reply-To: tdelnort@ici.net Organization: TDN Environmental X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet Service >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. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 856 I have been informed that my local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for my internet service. They contend that my usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. I strongly oppose the imposition of such special charges for internet service. My time spent on the internet, through local access lines, is much less than many "conversation" calls placed by other people. Singling out one user type would be an extremely unfortunate precedent. Telephone service is available at fixed rates and what the paid user does with that service is up to them. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Barbara Dorf Tejas del Norte Environmental 1 Sagamore Road Attleboro, Massachusetts 02703 USA Telephone: 508-226-3368 FAX: 508-226-3368 E-mail: tdelnort@ici.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From pbesser@svcam.amd.com Thu Feb 13 11:00:28 1997 Return-Path: pbesser@svcam.amd.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05648 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:28 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA27945; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from amdext.amd.com(139.95.251.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027805; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:59:30 -0500 Received: from amdint.amd.com (amdint.amd.com [139.95.250.1]) by amdext.amd.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/AMD) with ESMTP id HAA18303 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:59:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from CAEIS2 (caeis2.amd.com [139.95.1.2]) by amdint.amd.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/AMD) with SMTP id HAA15041 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:59:34 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702131559.HAA15041@amdint.amd.com> Received: from CAEIS2 via Pony Express VMS Mail FPI (v9.5.0-moe002); Thu, 13 Feb 97 07:58:43 PST Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 07:58:43 PST From: APD THIN FILMS To: svcam::wins@"@amd:isp@fcc.gov".fcc.gov Cc: pbesser@caeis2.amd.com Subject: Per minute charges by local phone companies for internet access. X-Vms-To: SVCAM::WINS%"@amd:isp@fcc.gov" X-Vms-Cc: PBESSER Content-Length: 1081 Dear Sirs: It is my understanding that the FCC is currently reviewing a plan that would allow my local telephone company to impose per minute charges for internet service. It is also my understanding that the local phone companies justify these charges by contending that my usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per minute charges. In addition, I believe that this is a case where the phone companies are trying to double-charge me. I already pay the phone company a flat rate for local phone service, regardless of the length of my phone call. So I believe that I am already paying the local phone company for access. The option offered by my local phone company is to pay for every call on a per minute basis, in which case, again, I would already be paying. To ask me to pay a special fee just because I am calling a specific number is outrageous. I STRONGLY URGE YOU NOT TO ALLOW THIS LEGISLATION TO PASS. Regards, Dr. Paul Besser From TDFord@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 11:00:36 1997 Return-Path: TDFord@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05652 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:36 -0500 From: TDFord@ix.netcom.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28003; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.7) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027867; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:59:53 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA22399 for isp@fcc.gov; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:59:58 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:59:58 -0600 (CST) Received: from man-nh1-09.ix.netcom.com(205.187.216.41) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma022376; Thu Feb 13 09:59:43 1997 To: isp@fcc.gov Message-Id: <1997213105239541@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Say NO to the phone Co. X-Mailer: NETCOMplete v3.20, from NETCOM On-Line Communications, Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1699 > >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, Netcom), 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, > > Todd Ford > > > From BobJudyT@msn.com Thu Feb 13 11:01:08 1997 Return-Path: BobJudyT@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05656 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:08 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28140; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027978; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:12 -0500 Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id HAA15249 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:00:43 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:52:09 UT From: "bobjudyt " Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Access fees to ISP's Content-Length: 367 If the FCC allows phone companies to begin charging isp's for each minute of phone usage, there won't be very many homes in the country connected by the year 2000 as the President and Vice President would like. It sounds like computer use in the home would be meant only for the affluent. If this happens, I can assure you that we will quit using the internet. From bart@bnl3.com Thu Feb 13 11:01:10 1997 Return-Path: bart@bnl3.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05660 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:10 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28156; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from bnl3.com(206.103.41.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027906; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:01 -0500 Received: from nemo (nemo.bnl3.com [206.103.41.3]) by bnl2.bnl3.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA32586 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:00:37 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970213075711.00a23100@206.103.41.2> X-Sender: bart@206.103.41.2 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:03:11 -0800 To: isp@fcc.gov From: "Bart N. Locanthi" Subject: RE: Docket No. 96-263 (original) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 1666 i am very familiar with usage charges on isp access, given that our home network has been bridged to the internet via isdn for a few years, and in our region, gte charges for isdn by the minute. when every minute counts, and the first minute usually counts more than the rest, it becomes very important to set the drop time on one's modem or router to avoid excessive first-minute charges. mine is currently set to 150 seconds, or 2.5 minutes, for exactly this reason. anything less, and taking say 1.5 minutes to respond to email could invoke an extra first-minute charge. since isdn connections come up in less than 5 seconds, this seems to me a complete waste. i would rather my router drop the connection when it isn't being used, but the rate structure forces me to play this stupid game, and more, all in the interest of minimizing usage charge. i used to work for at&t bell laboratories and am very familiar with the digital switched network and its currently mostly analog terminae in the home. i see nothing wrong with charging more for digital service, because resources *are* being consumed to support long-term connections. BUT, 1) connect times are artificially long now, and 2) i want to know in advance what my local service charges are going to be. that is, *i* want my local digital service to be like a subscription, which is the way my tv and print magazines work. please DO NOT let bell-head telcos get a free ride on this issue. time and again they have chosen not to think, but simply to insist that their dumb ways of doing things be subsidized. bart locanthi 8456 sw charlotte drive beaverton or 97007 503/591-9385 bart@bnl3.com From lorettajcrawford@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:01:12 1997 Return-Path: lorettajcrawford@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05664 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:12 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28165; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from m4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma027966; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:14 -0500 Received: (from lorettajcrawford@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KaD24646; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:28 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: surcharges Message-ID: <19970213.110032.6862.2.lorettajcrawford@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-2,6-10 From: lorettajcrawford@juno.com (Loretta J. Crawford) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:28 EST Content-Length: 349 To Whom it may concern: I have recently heard of doings by the telephone industry to surcharge our e-mail usage. I think this is very wrong. I already pay for online usage and any additional charges should be deemed duplicate and not allowed. Please do not pass any legislation pro this surcharge. It is very wrong. lorettajcrawford@juno.com From jserran1@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 11:01:15 1997 Return-Path: jserran1@popd.netcruiser Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05668 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:14 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28175; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028008; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:17 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA25135 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:00:23 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702131600.KAA25135@dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com> Received: from sfo-ca36-05.ix.netcom.com(205.184.159.229) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma025075; Thu Feb 13 09:59:54 1997 Subject: Charges for Internet Use Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 08:05:05 -0800 From: To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Length: 573 To whom it may concern: If local charges are added to monthly fee for internet use, people will connect with less frequency. Some people may even disconnect their services from home and begin to use it at work or at educational institutions. Do not add regional charges to those already being paid through ISP's. Juana Serrano ================================================= If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down, all alone together women ought to be able to turn it rightside up again. --Sojourner Truth, 1797-1883 From voxh@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 11:01:19 1997 Return-Path: voxh@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05672 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:18 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28201; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028007; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:17 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA29887 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:00:23 -0600 (CST) Received: from unknown(199.183.41.177) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma029830; Thu Feb 13 09:59:59 1997 Message-ID: <33033AD7.63C7@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:27 -0500 From: Allan Heinberg Reply-To: voxh@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; 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: 541 Hi, I'm an internet user who accesses the net for both business and personal reasons. I'm writing to oppose the potential per minute charges being discussed in relation to internet access. My daily internet usage impedes Brooklyn/New York phone access just exactly as much as my daily local calls do -- no more, no less. To add an additional charge per minute to internet calls will severely restrict its usage and, I'm afraid, will effectively kill it. Thanks for your time. Best, Allan Heinberg 719 Eighth AV #3D Brooklyn, NY 11215 From jpaul@ici.net Thu Feb 13 11:01:21 1997 Return-Path: jpaul@ici.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05676 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:20 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28211; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from uhura.ici.net(204.97.252.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028049; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:28 -0500 Received: from d-ma-boston-22.ici.net (d-ma-boston-22.ici.net [207.180.17.31]) by uhura.ici.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id KAA19870 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:56:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:56:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970213110059.36ff5e7c@ici.net> X-Sender: jpaul@ici.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: isp@fcc.gov From: "J.P. Alberino" Subject: I am in protest of NYNEX internet charges Content-Length: 598 To whom it may concern: I am a system consultant whom uses the internet daily as a part of my system toolbox to maintain and recieve the latest technical information and software. I do not believe that NYNEX has the right to differentiate between internet LOCAL calls and local NON-INTERNET noncharged phone calls. It should not matter weither the initial local call connects you down the street or to Hong Kong over the internet. "I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT NYNEX SHOULD INFRINGE ON THE USAGE OF THE INTERNET, AND BE ALLOWED TO CHARGE ANY TYPE OF FEE TO THE END-USER... Thank you Joseph Alberino From samba@sdt.com Thu Feb 13 11:01:23 1997 Return-Path: samba@sdt.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05680 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:22 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28219; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from sdt.com(199.100.49.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028063; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:29 -0500 Received: by world (5.0) id AA05725; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:00:17 +0600 Received: from aadt.sdt.com(144.9.149.25) by world via smap (V1.3) id sma005496; Thu Feb 13 09:59:36 1997 Received: from topgun (topgun.sdt.com) by aadt.sdt.com (4.1/SUN-2.0hub) id AA23137; Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:37:32 CST Received: by topgun (5.61) id AA09020; Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:30:56 -0600 Message-Id: <9702131530.AA09020@topgun> Subject: Increase in the per minute cost To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 9:30:55 CST From: samba X-Mailer: Elm [version 2.1 PL0] Content-Length: 60 Please do not increase the per minute telephone cost -samba From bornagn2@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:01:27 1997 Return-Path: bornagn2@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05684 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:26 -0500 From: bornagn2@juno.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28239; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from x12.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.26) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028118; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:44 -0500 Received: (from bornagn2@juno.com) by x12.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KbT06890; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:31 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:26 PST Subject: Please defend us ! Message-ID: <19970213.110128.3526.0.BornAgn2@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-4,7-8,10-11,13-16,20-21,23-24,26,28 Content-Length: 1264 It has come to my attention that the phone services are trying to get permission to charge a fee for the use of the internet. We already pay a phone bill that is too high for most people. If I choose to use my line for one purpose... and you choose to use your line for another purpose... what gives them the right to charge me an extra fee for my choice of use ? This is another example of companies trying to tap into the wallets of the people in an underhanded and back door kind of a way. I already pay for the privilege to use this phone line.... it is mine to use... as I choose. I do not have a voice in this matter... unless you speak out for me. The internet use is only going to keep on growing in the coming years, as you know very well. Now is the time to let the phone companies know that they can not try to tap into this lucrative market by double charging people for the use of the phones. PLEASE..... speak out for us all...... PLEASE..... stand up for our rights..... PLEASE.... stop this proposal in it's tracks... NOW ! Thank you for your time... and we will be watching to see how you handle this one. Scott F. Rabideau Sr. From pastor_ed@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:02:03 1997 Return-Path: pastor_ed@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05688 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:03 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28383; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from x4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.22) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028236; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:01:05 -0500 Received: (from pastor_ed@juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KfO07314; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:31 EST To: F.C.C.@juno.com Cc: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:44 PST Subject: Mail Delivery Subsystem : Returned mail: User unknown Message-ID: <19970213.105853.7967.2.pastor_ed@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-105 From: pastor_ed@juno.com (Ed Yearack) Content-Length: 3413 --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- From: Mail Delivery Subsystem To: pastor_ed@juno.com Subject: Returned mail: User unknown Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:41:49 -0500 Message-ID: <199702130541.AAA25406@x4.boston.juno.com> This is a MIME-encapsulated message --AAA25406.855812509/x4.boston.juno.com The original message was received at Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:39:18 -0500 from pastor_ed@juno.com ----- The following addresses had delivery problems ----- F.C.C.@juno.com (unrecoverable error) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 F.C.C.@juno.com... User unknown ----- Original message follows ----- --AAA25406.855812509/x4.boston.juno.com Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: (from pastor_ed@juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id AXM29003; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:39:18 EST To: F.C.C.@juno.com Cc: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:38:10 PST Subject: Mail Delivery Subsystem : Returned mail: User unknown Message-ID: <19970213.003819.7967.2.pastor_ed@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-63 From: pastor_ed@juno.com (Ed Yearack) --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- From: Mail Delivery Subsystem To: pastor_ed@juno.com Subject: Returned mail: User unknown Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:02:08 -0500 Message-ID: <199702130302.VAB20911@x4.boston.juno.com> This is a MIME-encapsulated message --VAB20911.855802928/x4.boston.juno.com The original message was received at Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:59:24 -0500 from pastor_ed@juno.com ----- The following addresses had delivery problems ----- F.C.C.@juno.com (unrecoverable error) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 F.C.C.@juno.com... User unknown ----- Original message follows ----- --VAB20911.855802928/x4.boston.juno.com Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: (from pastor_ed@juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id VRC29003; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:59:24 EST To: F.C.C.@juno.com Cc: isp@fcc.gov Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:58:22 PST Subject: Telephone Co. Message-ID: <19970212.215831.7967.8.pastor_ed@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3,5,9,11,13,17-22 From: pastor_ed@juno.com (Ed Yearack) Dear Sirs: I am appalled with the action of the phone companies bargaining to try and weasel out more money from the consumers! I find it absolutely ridiculous that they would try and sneak such a thing under the guise that internet traffic is clogging the lines. Isn't it a fact that every internet user is also a phone company customer and already pays their phone bill locally and their phone bill long distance! this is crazy to ask for another charge on top of their already exorbitant rates. It is obviously just another plea to gain revenues that they already are getting paid for handsomely. Just ask yourselves; what good is internet without the phone lines in the first place? And really, the internet is already bringing the phone companies business not the other way around! TO BE ON INTERNET, YOU MUST BE A PAYING, PHONE COMPANY CUSTOMER & IF YOUR NOT, THEN YOUR INTERNET IS ABOUT AS USEFUL AS A BOAT ANCHOR! Sincerely, Ed Yearack Internet user Hundred bucks a month, phone company customer. --VAB20911.855802928/x4.boston.juno.com-- --------- End forwarded message ---------- --AAA25406.855812509/x4.boston.juno.com-- --------- End forwarded message ---------- From amkillian@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:02:05 1997 Return-Path: amkillian@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05692 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:05 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28401; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from m3.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028237; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:01:05 -0500 Received: (from amkillian@juno.com) by m3.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LaG20028; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:23 EST To: FCC@juno.com, isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet use charge by local phone companies Message-ID: <19970213.105750.20614.1.amkillian@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,4-5,7,9 From: amkillian@juno.com (Ann M Killian) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:23 EST Content-Length: 482 To Whom It May Concern: Local phone companies should not be allowed to charge for internet use time. Whether it is my computer or a person using the phone should be immaterial to them. My basic service should cover my computer, also. Thank You. Yours truly, Ann Killian From kedwards@traveller.com Thu Feb 13 11:02:09 1997 Return-Path: kedwards@traveller.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05696 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:09 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28437; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from cyclone.traveller.com(198.49.103.156) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028264; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:01:16 -0500 Received: by cyclone.traveller.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA54800 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:46:55 -0600 Message-ID: <33033CA6.75AC@traveller.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:09:10 -0600 From: Kathy Edwards Reply-To: kedwards@traveller.com Organization: Traveller Information Services X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Per Minute Charges for Internet Usage Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 194 I writing to let you know that I am strongly opposed to phone companies imposing a per minute charge for internet usage. Please make sure they are not allowed to do it. Thanks, Kathleen Edwards From hoperumpca@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:02:11 1997 Return-Path: hoperumpca@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05700 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:11 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28459; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from m8.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.196) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028308; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:01:26 -0500 Received: (from hoperumpca@juno.com) by m8.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KSH13362; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:12 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Cc: president@whitehouse.gov Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Message-ID: <19970213.075803.9798.1.HopeRumpca@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,6,8-14 From: hoperumpca@juno.com (Hope Rumpca) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:12 EST Content-Length: 541 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to express my concern over the per minute charge for dial up internet service. I believe very strongly that it is wrong and would hinder rather than help the internet industry. I also see it as another means of driving small business' into extinction. I believe it is a biased idea that would only benefit the phone companies. Please reconsider a per minute charge. A monopoly does not permit growth. Hope Rumpca 394 Madrona Ave. S. Salem, OR 97302-5650 (503) 391-4793 email: HopeRumpca@juno.com From donnavh@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:02:13 1997 Return-Path: donnavh@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05704 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:13 -0500 From: donnavh@juno.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28474; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from x13.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.27) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028153; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:49 -0500 Received: (from donnavh@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id KTC00349; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:57 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: "Daniel M. Thompson" : PLEASE DON'T IGNORE Message-ID: <19970213.111201.4967.3.donnavh@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 17-18,39-62 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:57 EST Content-Length: 3495 I received the following forwarded message. I don't know what the phone company is trying to do, but the e-mail and Internet has been such a blessing and fun thing for us all I ask that you will not let them impose charges that would stop or add to the expense of e-mail or Internet. My phone bill per month is quite extravagant as I have 2 children, a sister, and others out of state. I continue to use the phone often, but having this cheaper form of communication has been wonderful for me. As far as I am concerned the phone company is hurting as people are not so dependent on them as they once were--perhaps their "gravy" days are over. Please do not let them impose a fee that would hinder us from using the e-mail that we had grown to love. I have had to pay "big bucks" to use their service, now I receive at least 2 calls a week trying to give me offers of cheaper rates. If that was possible, why didn't they do it in the first place instead of waiting til they had a little competition to make them bring their prices down. I actually do not understand all that is involved, but I hope you tell them to keep their "mitts" off of the Internet service. Thanks for listening. Donna Vander Hart, Runnells, IA--------- Begin forwarded message ---------- From: "Daniel M. Thompson" To: ddjjLJ@juno.com, 74114.170@CompuServe.COM, dlind@usa.ibeuce.com.br,dennis1216@juno.com, donnavh@juno.com, rstuart@neumedia.net,EWEBE954@wpo.bju.edu, BuntP@aol.com, pennwood@juno.com,fredrick@netbiz.net, Harry_Shearer@HSB.Com, JWEBE272@wpo.bju.edu,paint6846@aol.com, jnorris@websurfer.net, mccoyj@ed.concord.wvnet.edu,long@aob.pradeshta.net, jrlytle@iafrica.com, needgrace@aol.com,jduff@grfn.org, jawillis@sprynet.com, 107766.2756@CompuServe.COM,yamacom@sec.secrel.com.br, Yamacom@cecrel.com.br,Leigh.Robinson@pixie.co.za, mnicholas@acc7.ac.cc.md.us,mlounsbr@crato.netcariri.com.br, liu197827@hknet.com,trozzo_md@academ.wvwc.edu, moody@teenmania.org,paul@soncrest.giant.net, rk.miller@auckland.ac.nz,thompson@magnum.wpe.com, rddurst@ix.netcom.com,rothwell@connexus.apana.org.au, KBeckley@maf.org, blockard@netbiz.net,sblasc80@usurp.calvin.edu, 103120.1054@CompuServe.COM,104744.1722@CompuServe.COM, timbecky@usa.ibeuce.com.br,vbjones@aol.com, 105147.1062@CompuServe.COM,davehall@usa.ibeuce.com.br, DanDJJ@aol.com, brian@usa.ibevce.com.br,dale@ihug.co.nz, 106122.2750@CompuServe.COM, cloibel@netbiz.net,73661.2534@CompuServe.COM, bmbarnes@secollege.edu, wwc3@juno.com,s1063271@cedarville.edu Subject: PLEASE DON'T IGNORE Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:14:34 -0800 Message-ID: <33035A09.1EAA@miworld.net> >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 litiagation. Let everyone you know here >this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of. > > isp@fcc.gov > > Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all > our voices may be heard! --------- End forwarded message ---------- From axyz@msn.com Thu Feb 13 11:02:45 1997 Return-Path: axyz@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05708 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:45 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28572; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot03.msn.com(204.95.110.85) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028376; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:01:41 -0500 Received: from upmajb06 ([204.95.110.89]) by upsmot03.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id TAA15219 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:56:22 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 16:05:25 UT From: "Richard Jackson" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Telephone Rates Content-Length: 107 I do not agree with the phone companies proposal to charge a per minute rate for the use of the Internet From blaakso@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 11:02:53 1997 Return-Path: blaakso@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05712 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:53 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28614; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028432; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:01:48 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA25340 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:01:54 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702131601.KAA25340@dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com> Received: from grn-sc3-04.ix.netcom.com(205.184.144.100) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma025279; Thu Feb 13 10:01:33 1997 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:02:36 -0500 From: "Brenda J. Laakso" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: NO! to charges per minute for internet service Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 453 We now have this incredible communications tool that can be afforded by many people in the US. Usage of it has promoted unprecedented communications among people from all over the world--unprecedented throughout the history of humankind--don't limit its usage to only those who can really afford it just because others want to increase their profits off its usage. NO! to allowing telephone companies to charge by the minute for using the internet!!! From bitikofl@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:03:25 1997 Return-Path: bitikofl@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05716 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:25 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28762; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from x16.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.28) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028588; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:02:28 -0500 Received: (from bitikofl@juno.com) by x16.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LGV16197; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:16 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: phone line charges for internet access Message-ID: <19970213.095924.15239.1.bitikofl@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.14 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3-7 From: bitikofl@juno.com (Lauren G. Bitikofer) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:16 EST Content-Length: 288 I understand that the phone companies have petitioned to be able to access a per minute charge specifically for internet access. If this is true, please record this comment as AGAINST such specific line charges. We should pay for phone use as we do now. Thank you Lauren Bitikofer From qrenee@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:03:27 1997 Return-Path: qrenee@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05720 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:27 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28768; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from x8.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.24) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028605; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:02:31 -0500 Received: (from qrenee@juno.com) by x8.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LcS00458; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:06 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Message-ID: <19970213.085917.5439.0.qrenee@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3-10 From: qrenee@juno.com (Renee L Rogers) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:06 EST Content-Length: 297 I recently heard of the proposal that is under review by the FCC to charge additional minutes by the local telephone companies for internet use. I am VERY MUCH OPPOSED to this proposal!!!! Please do NOT pass this proposal. Thank You, Renee Rogers 50 Marseille Ct. Danville, Ca 94506 From tlwilson@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:03:29 1997 Return-Path: tlwilson@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05724 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:29 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28777; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from m2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.199) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028678; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:02:42 -0500 Received: (from tlwilson@juno.com) by m2.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LhK00375; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:43 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Phone lines Message-ID: <19970212.230056.7031.1.tlwilson@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-6 From: tlwilson@juno.com (Teri L Wilson) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:43 EST Content-Length: 254 I do not agree with the proposal to attach extra fees to the isp lines. If you are aiming at Internet providers then charge them and allow them to pass it on to THEIR consumers. Do not attack all of us with extra phone charges. Thank you Teri Wilson From kimberly_orr@mailzone.com Thu Feb 13 11:03:31 1997 Return-Path: kimberly_orr@mailzone.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05728 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:31 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28796; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028714; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:02:51 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA25538 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:02:58 -0600 (CST) Received: from hou-tx3-07.ix.netcom.com(204.30.68.103) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma025495; Thu Feb 13 10:02:46 1997 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970213095724.006796e4@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: kimorr@popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 beta 7 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:57:24 -0800 To: isp@fcc.gov From: Kimberly Orr Subject: local telephone internet surcharge... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 841 Dear FCC: I am outraged!!! Don't allow it! To allow local telephone companies to tack on an internet usage fee to local telephone service borders on hindering free speech! The internet is a marvelous and powerful tool. Adding such a charge will also slow the progress of this tool. There will also be fewer customers for telephone companies trying to compete with big internet service providers. All around, I can't see HOW this charge would benefit any customer!!! I beg you, DO NOT ALLOW LOCAL TELEPHONE COMPANIES TO CRIPPLE THE INTERNET! Respectfully, Kimberly Orr Godspeed, Kimberly Orr Forever e-mail: kimberly_orr@mailzone.com Home page: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/1159/ Other pages of association: http://www.hgo.com http://members.aol.com/dadbond/wmama.html (in memory of my Grandmother--"weemama") From toddandjamie@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:04:05 1997 Return-Path: toddandjamie@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05732 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:05 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28930; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from m15.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.192) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028824; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:03:16 -0500 Received: (from toddandjamie@juno.com) by m15.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id L^B10935; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:54 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Message-ID: <19970213.095923.10886.6.ToddandJamie@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,9-14 From: toddandjamie@juno.com (Todd C Hoffman) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:54 EST Content-Length: 619 To Whom It May Concern: I am sure that you understand that any extra charges applied to an already hefty phone bill will make many like myself scrap the internet. I will not put up with paying extra for something I already pay for. When I signed with my local phone company it was (first of all because it was the only one I am allowed to sign on with) it was to use the phone lines not restricted to a voice handset. I signed to have the rights to use the phone line period, and when I am on the internet that is exactly what I am doing. Trying To Get My Money's Worth, Todd Hoffman 546 Aspen Drive Leeds, AL 35094 From kdenton@ingr.com Thu Feb 13 11:04:07 1997 Return-Path: kdenton@ingr.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05736 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:07 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28939; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from hq15.pcmail.ingr.com(129.135.251.243) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma028894; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:03:35 -0500 Received: by hq15.pcmail.ingr.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC1995.312B6400@hq15.pcmail.ingr.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:03:42 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Denton, Keith" To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" Subject: FCC Billing Plans for Net Use: E-mail FCC by 2/13/97 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:03:00 -0600 Return-Receipt-To: X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 57 TEXT Content-Length: 1894 Keith Denton Manager, Global Engineering Technology Center 134 Merchant Street Cincinnati, OH 45246 513-326-6883 513-326-6849 (fax) kdenton@ingr.com MAILSTOP: OHCINN Check Intergraph out at http://www.intergraph.com Sir or Madam, NO, to changing the current policy on internet usage of existing phone lines. There must be other alternatives to what the telco's are requesting. Thank you, Keith Denton kdenton@ingr.com > >===========Forwarded Message============================= >FYI, >Just thought you might want to know about this incase you want to do >something about it... > important. please read and respond to the enclosed address! > > >> Subject: FW: FCC Billing Plans for Net Use: E-mail FCC >> by 2/13/97 I am writing you this to inform you of a very >> important matter currently under review by the FCC. Your >> local telephone company has filed a proposal with the >> FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet >> service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the >> operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that >> internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay >> additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an >> email box for your comments, responses must be received >> by February 13, 1997. Send your comments to >> isp@fcc.gov and tell them what you think. Every phone >> company is in on this one, and they are trying to sneak it in >> just under the wire for litiagation. Let everyone you know >> here this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can >> think of. isp@fcc.gov Please forward this email to all your >> friends on the internet so all our voices may be heard! >> >> >> I would like to thank dwalton@isoc.net for finding this >> information and bringing it to our attention so we could >> pass it along to you. >> >> >> John > >The Internet is the Rebirth of Democracy in America! > > > From robanion@fred.net Thu Feb 13 11:04:41 1997 Return-Path: robanion@fred.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05740 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:41 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29090; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma029016; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:04:02 -0500 Received: from robanion.fred.net (robanion.fred.net [205.252.220.67]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA25882 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <33033B4E.6524@fred.net> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:26 -0500 From: robanion Organization: FredNet - Frederick, Md. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Proposed per minute internet charges Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1018 To WHom It May Concern; I just want to voice my opinion that I am against any proposal for local phone companies to impose charges for internet service over local phone lines. The local telephone companies contend that internet usage is/will hinder the operation of the telephone network. If this is the case, why are they always advertising to add an additional phone line to your residence? There are numerous children that spend hours of time on the phone speaking to their friends while watching TV. This is also a burden on the 'system' but if the subscription for the line is unlimited usage, then they could stay on the line 24 hours a day and still not incur any additional cost. I find that more time is spent on the phone by my children than I am connected to my ISP. The local companies should re-evaluate their service plans if they find that usage is more than the system can handle. Otherwise they need to invest in expansion of the system. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Roy G. O'Banion From k7pzx@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:04:43 1997 Return-Path: k7pzx@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05744 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:43 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29098; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from m8.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.196) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma029021; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:04:06 -0500 Received: (from k7pzx@juno.com) by m8.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LUR13362; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:29 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:01:56 PST Subject: Re: Phone Charge's. Message-ID: <19970213.090157.4286.0.k7pzx@juno.com> References: <199702130706.XAA02452@m6.sprynet.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3,5 From: k7pzx@juno.com (kenneth h jackson) Content-Length: 352 I would like to file a objection to additional charge's of any kind for use computer communication on telephone. We already pay,for use.I am a amateur radio operator,some of my phone use is emergency communication's,E:mail. They already have a monopoly,on who's service we can subscribe to. Thank you for the opportunity to express my objections's. From Michael_James_McConkey@msn.com Thu Feb 13 11:05:22 1997 Return-Path: Michael_James_McConkey@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05748 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:21 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29267; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot02.msn.com(204.95.110.79) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma029107; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:04:24 -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 IAA22234 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:01:11 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 16:00:55 UT From: "Michael McConkey" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Local Telephone Internet Charges Content-Length: 512 Please do NOT support anything like a local charge for Internet access. A local call is a local call and they are "free". Each of us already pays for this service and the local phone company does not loose money. Of course they perform terrible maintenance with poor quality of technical work and often "break" our phone service in the process of "fixing" something else. Keep them out of the Internet, and internet access. Make them simply leave well enough alone. Michael McConkey Savannah, GA From mismith@fred.net Thu Feb 13 11:05:26 1997 Return-Path: mismith@fred.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05752 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:25 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29299; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma029130; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:04:31 -0500 Received: from sys_mike_nt (mismith.fred.net [205.252.223.12]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA25920 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970213110205.0091d850@mail.fred.net> X-Sender: mismith@mail.fred.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:07 -0500 To: isp@fcc.gov From: MIke Smith Subject: ISP per minute charge Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Length: 256 Dear Sir/Madam, I allready pay my ISP to provide a service, and I allready pay the phone company for a telephone line and its use. Any other charges would simply be crazy and unfare. Sincerly, mismith@fred.net Michael D. Smith From tlwilson@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:05:32 1997 Return-Path: tlwilson@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05756 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:32 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29363; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from m2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.199) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma029178; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:04:45 -0500 Received: (from tlwilson@juno.com) by m2.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LiO00375; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:55 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Phone lines Message-ID: <19970212.230257.6543.3.tlwilson@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-6 From: tlwilson@juno.com (Teri L Wilson) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:55 EST Content-Length: 254 I do not agree with the proposal to attach extra fees to the isp lines. If you are aiming at Internet providers then charge them and allow them to pass it on to THEIR consumers. Do not attack all of us with extra phone charges. Thank you Teri Wilson From Tal_Elam@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 11:06:06 1997 Return-Path: Tal_Elam@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05760 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:05 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29576; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.16) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma029264; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:05:01 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA27073 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:05:06 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702131605.KAA27073@dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com> Received: from tul-ok1-01.ix.netcom.com(204.31.234.33) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma027064; Thu Feb 13 10:04:42 1997 From: "Talmadge Elam" To: Subject: Charges for local internet usage Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:06:07 -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: 718 While I am no opposed to a company charging for it's services, I am very opposed to a charge on a local call to the internet. This will hinder or destroy the internet as we know it. Most peaple who use the internet, or will in the future, use it as a recreation. If the internet proves usfull or interesting the tend to find more and better uses for it. If a charge for call by the telephone provider is inposed on top of the charge the internet provider sends, most if not all casual users will stop. Many jobs, and much revinue will be lost to various regions or markets. It will hinder more than help. Another way can be found. Make them find it. Talmadge W. Elam Recreational Internet User Tulsa OK. From mehayes@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:06:12 1997 Return-Path: mehayes@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05764 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:12 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29612; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from x2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma029509; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:05:37 -0500 Received: (from mehayes@juno.com) by x2.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LpV25673; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:19 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:32 PST Message-ID: <19970213.110035.10095.1.mehayes@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5,7,13 From: mehayes@juno.com (MaryEllen Hayes) Content-Length: 778 Dear FCC Council, Please do not let the phone companies charge us a fee of any kind to use our internet service which most of us already have to pay for, (some of us are already poor)!! The use of internet services does not in any way hinder the operation of the telephone network, besides, if the internet causes a hinderance to the telephone network why are the companies trying to charge a fee instead of do away with it altogether?! We just got on the internet, if the phone companies charge us a fee to use it, we would not be able to. It would be extremely expensive for everybody on the internet for these greedy phone companies to get away with this, and they will be limiting or completely taking away the access of the internet for many families including us. From ginron@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 11:06:46 1997 Return-Path: ginron@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05768 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:46 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29724; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma029665; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:06:09 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA00343 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:06:15 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:06:15 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199702131606.KAA00343@dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com> Received: from san-tx1-17.ix.netcom.com(204.31.238.49) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma000214; Thu Feb 13 10:04:54 1997 From: ginron@ix.netcom.com (VIRGINIA LEE NOKES) Subject: CC Docket No. 96-263 To: isp@fcc.gov Content-Length: 286 In my opinion, the telephone company has been adding charge after charge over the years. telephone charges have gone sky high. where will it end? Now they want their cut on email. Please don't yield to their every demand. Ginny Nokes 454 Buerger Lane Seguin, Texas 78155 From dcornell@email.gc.cuny.edu Thu Feb 13 11:06:48 1997 Return-Path: dcornell@email.gc.cuny.edu Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05772 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:48 -0500 From: dcornell@email.gc.cuny.edu Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29742; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from gaudi.gc.cuny.edu(146.96.64.20) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma029689; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:06:17 -0500 Received: from broadway.gc.cuny.edu (broadway.gc.cuny.edu) by GAUDI.GC.CUNY.EDU (PMDF V5.0-6 #18284) id <01IFD5KWHPDS009INR@GAUDI.GC.CUNY.EDU> for isp@fcc.gov; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (dcornell@localhost) by broadway.gc.cuny.edu (8.8.5/ankDU-96) with SMTP id LAA19539 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: NO to Internet Phone charges!!! X-Sender: dcornell@broadway.gc.cuny.edu To: isp@fcc.gov Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-Length: 659 dear FCC I am so strongly opposed to the notion of phone companies making even more money off the only free space of information left in this country!!!!! If such a policy is permitted, you will turn the internet over to the wealthy and destroy the ability of poor and working people to educate themselves. What good is the much touted "universal access" if it is unaffordable -- about as much good as cake during the French Revolution! Has Marie Antoinette been reincarnated as the FCC???? PLEASE CONSIDER THE PLEAS OF THE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT ACCESS THE NET THROUGH THEIR CORPORATE SITES AT HIGH PAYING JOBS!!!! Thank you. Daniell Cornell From kerby@mediaproducers.com Thu Feb 13 11:07:20 1997 Return-Path: kerby@mediaproducers.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05776 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:20 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29838; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns.wavefront.com(204.73.244.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma029721; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:06:25 -0500 Received: from 207.146.201.37 by wavefront.wavefront.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1.R931202) id KAA16334; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:05:30 -0600 Message-ID: <33033C1E.25DE@mediaproducers.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:06:55 -0600 From: Kerby Armand X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: No more charges!!! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 884 To whom it may concern: Do not charge for internet access concerning the following: " [quote] Your local telephone company has filed a proposal >with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service whether >or not you are on a local server. The telephone companies contend that your >usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. They want >compensation now for what they perceive to be costs in the future for more >equipment in order to handle normal telephone calls as well as internet >access. It is my belief that the internet will not be used to its full >potential if users were required to pay additional per minute charges. "[unquote} It is also my belief that this stifles my freedom. You do not have the right to impose charges on things that are alreaddy paid for! Thank you very much kerby armand karmand@wavefront.com 371-0073 From Greg_Loynd@dbna.com Thu Feb 13 11:07:28 1997 Return-Path: Greg_Loynd@dbna.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05780 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:24 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29863; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from inferno.dbna.com(204.242.48.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma029753; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:06:31 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dbfire.dbna.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id LAA17360 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from dbrelay1.admin.nyc.dbna.com(165.250.195.68) by dbfire via smap (V1.3) id sma017325; Thu Feb 13 11:04:48 1997 Received: from ccmailgw1.gateway.nyc.dbna.com (ccmailgw1.gateway.nyc.dbna.com [165.250.68.29]) by dbrelay1.admin.nyc.dbna.com (8.7.5/8.7.3/FW/Revision: 1.3) with SMTP id LAA23740 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:46 -0500 Received: from ccMail by ccmailgw1.gateway.nyc.dbna.com (IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 (Gold Candidate Beta) Enterprise) id 0004AB0B; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:05:54 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:51:42 -0500 Message-ID: <0004AB0B.1501@ccmailgw1.gateway.nyc.dbna.com> Return-receipt-to: Greg_Loynd@ccmailgw.gateway.nyc.dbna.com (Greg Loynd) From: Greg_Loynd@dbna.com (Greg Loynd) Subject: per minute usage charge for internet users To: isp@fcc.gov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Content-Length: 593 Please vote NO on the telephone companies' request for per minute usage charges for internet users. The "current" phone system network already has more than the capacity to handle a 1000% increase in internet users, while still providing the same level of service for their phone customers. Their claim that internet use can or may affect the network is ridiculous, and is nothing more than a new idea to reap additional profits for a new market niche (one that they put forth no effort, funds, marketing, etc. to attract). From shakeman@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 11:08:06 1997 Return-Path: shakeman@ix.netcom.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05784 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:06 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00119; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma029890; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:07:11 -0500 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA26329; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:07:13 -0600 (CST) Received: from oma-ne2-17.ix.netcom.com(204.31.248.81) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma026242; Thu Feb 13 10:06:03 1997 Message-ID: <33033B18.37FF@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:02:32 -0600 From: "Larry L. Miller" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Per Minute Charge for Internet Service Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 11 NO WAY!!!! From milret@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:08:12 1997 Return-Path: milret@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05788 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:12 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00143; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from x5.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.23) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma029920; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:07:21 -0500 Received: (from milret@juno.com) by x5.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LjP06357; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:30 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:07:14 PST Subject: telephone company additional charges for internet time Message-ID: <19970213.100715.2662.2.milret@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3 From: milret@juno.com (Rodney-lee J. Guidry) Content-Length: 262 .i totally disagree withthis proposal of the telephone companies. This is just another wayto extract additional monies from the public and the government. It works well just as it is. don't fix it if it ain't broke. tell them that they make enough money now. From edcrutchfield@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:08:14 1997 Return-Path: edcrutchfield@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05792 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:14 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00153; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from x8.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.24) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma029946; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:07:27 -0500 Received: (from edcrutchfield@juno.com) by x8.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LfJ00458; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:29 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: internet usage as a proposed income item for local phone companies Message-ID: <19970213.111103.12142.0.edcrutchfield@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2,7 From: edcrutchfield@juno.com (EDWARD CRUTCHFIELD) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:29 EST Content-Length: 367 don't understand why the FCC is taking under consideration of the above subject,when the satellite system and usage was paid for by individual tax payers and not subsidized by the profit making telephone companies. please advise if my assumptions are unfounded ed crutchfield "e-mail address" edcrutchfield@juno.com From The_McCoys@msn.com Thu Feb 13 11:09:06 1997 Return-Path: The_McCoys@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05796 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:09:06 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00399; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma000147; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:07:53 -0500 Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id HAA17455 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:08:17 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 16:00:56 UT From: "John & Terrie McCoy" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Telephone companies charging for internet time Content-Length: 217 isp@fcc.gov PLEASE DON'T SELL THIS IDEAL DOWN THE DRAIN- LET CORPORATE CUSTOMERS FINANCE THE CAPACITY, THE PUBLIC INDIVIDUALS CAN'T AFFORD ANY MORE RESTRAINST ON TRULY DEMOCRATIC DISCOURSE!! John & terrie mccoy From jelincicsr@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:09:12 1997 Return-Path: jelincicsr@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05800 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:09:12 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00434; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from m5.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.197) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma000279; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:08:18 -0500 Received: (from jelincicsr@juno.com) by m5.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LUP25207; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:41 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: no minute charges Message-ID: <19970213.080330.8279.0.jelincicsr@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,5-6,10-12 From: jelincicsr@juno.com (Joesph J Jelincic) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:41 EST Content-Length: 551 Gentlemen: E mail has become a great part of our family life. It keeps us in contact with our grown children all over the us , and has created a very special relationship with our grandchildren. They never thought of picking up a pen and writing Grandma a letter, but the internet is no effort for them. Do not limit their enthusiasms by minute charges. The telephone companies are constantly looking for ways to increase their profits, and I feel the consumer has done its share of enhancing their profits . You must say 'No". Clara Jelincic From ryahola1@ti.com Thu Feb 13 11:09:18 1997 Return-Path: ryahola1@ti.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05804 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:09:18 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00481; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from news.ti.com(192.94.94.33) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma029994; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:07:42 -0500 Received: from robin.itg.ti.com ([172.25.2.75]) by gatekeep.ti.com (8.6.13) with ESMTP id KAA29988 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:07:46 -0600 Received: from dsks52.itg.ti.com (dsks52.itg.ti.com [172.25.2.79]) by robin.itg.ti.com (8.7.3/8.6.11) with SMTP id KAA03023 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:07:10 -0600 (CST) Received: from ti (cids4.itg.ti.com [172.25.50.161]) by dsks52.itg.ti.com (TI SMTPMail MTA v1.0.8.3) with SMTP id NKQGATBK; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:06:49 -0600 (Central Standard Time) X-Mailer: BeyondMail for Windows/Professional 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: isp@fcc.gov From: "Robyn B. Yahola 575-3555" Subject: Raise in rates... Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:06:26 -0600 X-BeyondMail-Priority: 1 Message-Id: Conversation-Id: Reply-To: "Robyn B. Yahola 575-3555" X-Receipt-From-Agent: true Content-Length: 636 You should NOT allow the phone companies to charge access fees to the internet service providers. I believe that in many instances the ISPs rent time on some phone lines and that is where some of the monthly charge to customers comes from. The phone companies are basically fleecing the people of America as it is. Don't allow them to cap off people's access to information. This could have major repercussions, not only on businesses, but also on educational facilities as well. If America is to remain on top in World Economics, we need to be able to access information quickly and easily. The internet has fulfilled that need. From RoshanMathew@msn.com Thu Feb 13 11:09:53 1997 Return-Path: RoshanMathew@msn.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05808 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:09:52 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00752; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:09:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma000418; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:08:49 -0500 Received: from upmajb06 ([204.95.110.89]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id HAA17805 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:09:20 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 16:03:56 UT From: "Roshan Mathew" Message-Id: To: isp@fcc.gov Content-Length: 601 CC Docket No 96-263 Please do not allow phone companies to charge for internet access. If they need to change their infrastructure to support higher volume that is evolution, and it should have been done before. But to start charging for what should and has been free is just another tactic to whittle away at the American consumer and line already deep pockets. Sincerely Roshan Mathew p.s. Handling internet service is just another cost of doing business and staying current, no need to pull and AOL and whine about doing good business. Roshan Mathew 202 Canyon Point Waco, Tx 76712 From dear6@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:10:11 1997 Return-Path: dear6@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05812 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:10 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00845; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:09:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from m13.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.193) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma000647; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:09:13 -0500 Received: (from dear6@juno.com) by m13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id L]C17766; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:46 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Don't impose charges,please! Message-ID: <19970213.105354.5383.4.DEAR6@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2 From: dear6@juno.com (Sara L Dear) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:46 EST Content-Length: 217 internet is the greatest invention as a mode of communication since the invention of the telephone. Please do not impose any charges of internet users! It will diminish internet use! We can't afford it! Please don't! From johnts@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:10:23 1997 Return-Path: johnts@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05816 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:22 -0500 From: johnts@juno.com Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00918; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from m13.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.193) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xmaa00647; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:09:26 -0500 Received: (from johnts@juno.com) by m13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id L]D17766; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:47 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: phone charges to use the internet Message-ID: <19970213.091257.3182.12.johnts@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 4 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:47 EST Content-Length: 305 WE ALREADY PAY FOR THE PHONE LINES WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO PAY EXTRA FOR WHAT WE USE IT FOR. THE PHONE COMPANYS ARE ALREADY MAKING ALOUGHT MORE MONEY FROM ALL THE NEW LINES THEY ARE PUTTING IN. SOMEDAY ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE IT EXTRA TO CALL OUR GIRLFRIENDS OR BOYFRIENDS JUST BECAUSE WE DO IT ALOUGHT : ( From joanne.james@born.com Thu Feb 13 11:10:55 1997 Return-Path: joanne.james@born.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05820 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:54 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01018; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from mpsexch.born.com(206.10.205.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma000727; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:09:29 -0500 Received: by mpsexch.born.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5) id <01BC1996.6F7DB770@mpsexch.born.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:12:36 -0600 Message-ID: From: Joanne James To: "'Fcc'" Subject: Internet charges Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:12:35 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 Encoding: 8 TEXT Content-Length: 438 I am sending this e-mail to express my disapproval of the recently filed proposal by my local telephone company to impose per minute charges for my internet service. They fail to recognized the additional revenue it has also regenerated for them in terms of additional service lines, etc... Please inform me if there is any additional actions I can take to help prevent this proprosal from becoming a reality. Thanks for listening!! From tots@fred.net Thu Feb 13 11:11:02 1997 Return-Path: tots@fred.net Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05824 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:01 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01052; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma000950; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:10:11 -0500 Received: from 205.177.202.62 (tots.fred.net [205.177.202.62]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA26400 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <33032FAF.16C1@fred.net> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:13:58 -0400 From: Tina X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: internet charges Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 369 I feel that it unfair for the phone companies to charge an internet user by the minute. Isn't enough that we are paying once for that service? Everyone wants a piece of the action. For many of us we have already paid to get a second line into our homes that we would not otherwise have. If there would be an addtional charge a lot of people would drop the service. From ricksb_ne@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:11:05 1997 Return-Path: ricksb_ne@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05828 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:05 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01084; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from m4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma000982; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:10:22 -0500 Received: (from ricksb_ne@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LdM24646; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:56 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Internet charges Message-ID: <19970213.110801.8726.0.RicksB_NE@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,6-7,10-12 From: ricksb_ne@juno.com (Betty R Ricks) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:56 EST Content-Length: 527 To Whom It May Concern: The idea of telephone companies charging for internet access is ludicrous. We pay a monthly charge for unlimited use of the telephone lines, without restriction. It is enough that we pay an internet provider for the service, without having to also pay local telepohone companies. If anyone should pay the local telephone companies (and I don't think they should), it would have to be the internet providers. They are the ones furnishing the service for which the consumer pays. Dr. Betty R. Ricks From charles_kettering@lord.com Thu Feb 13 11:11:37 1997 Return-Path: charles_kettering@lord.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05832 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:37 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01247; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from apum1.mpd.lord.com(152.50.20.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma001013; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:10:36 -0500 Received: by apum1.mpd.lord.com (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA13626; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:27 -0500 Date: 13 Feb 97 11:06:04 +0000 From: Charles Kettering Subject: Internet Charges Per Minute To: isp fcc Message-Id: <970213.110604@lord.com> X-Mailer: QM-Internet Gateway 1.0 X-Priority: 4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Length: 1208 To whom it may concern, It has just been brought to my attention that all local telephone = companies have petitioned the FCC to be allowed to impose per minute = charges for Internet Services. The contention is that my usage has or = will hinder the operation of the telephone network. The fact is that my = Internet Services is a local phone call and any Internet Service not in my = area is a long distance phone call. I want to ask, will the telephone = company add additional charges to both local and long distance phone calls,= to which all evidence points to that it costs no more that $0.07 a minute = anywhere in the U.S.. I also want to contend that my local call to an = Internet Service, which lasts an hour, no more hinders the telephone = network than any other one hour call. If the FCC allows charges per = minute to be added to local calls for Internet Service, I fear of what = this would do to schools and education budgets around the country. What = of retired persons or persons with a disability with a need for these = services but a limited budget. I ask you at the FCC to please not allow = the telephone company this additional charge. = Sincerely, Charles E. Kettering From kemarquis@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:11:39 1997 Return-Path: kemarquis@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05836 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:39 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01262; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from m13.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.193) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma001081; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:10:44 -0500 Received: (from kemarquis@juno.com) by m13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id L[E17766; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:37 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: per minute charges for internet access Message-ID: <19970213.100248.11919.0.kemarquis@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 4-5,16-17,22-23,25-29 From: kemarquis@juno.com (Kendra E Marquis) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:37 EST Content-Length: 1500 It was brought to my attention today that you are currently reviewing and issue that will greatly affect myself, my friend and my family. This is the issue of per minute charges for Internet services, imposed by the telephone company. I feel this would be a tremendous disservice to the millions of internet users today. Recently AOL, the carrier I personally use, provided a service of unlimited usage for a flat rate. I, like thousands of others, chose to take advantage of this service. Not only is AOL a way to meet others, but it also provides educational benefits to my children, help on-line with homework, computer experience, and educational games for the computer. I also use AOL for business purposes. I am able to contact the naval reserve officers thru out the USA that I deal with through my work. My husband, a naval reservist as well, is able to communicate with his unit and the detachments even when not drilling, provide naval educational material to those people, as well as find out the latest in naval reservist news. As you can see, we use the internet for more than just entertainment, mind you we do have our fun time on-line as well. To allow an additional charge for internet access would not only place a financial burden on my family, it would also go against the service I agreed to pay for with AOL. please consider these issues when making you decision, an consider the impact it would have on families, friends and businesses alike V/R Kendra E. Marquis From dlbreese@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:11:41 1997 Return-Path: dlbreese@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05840 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:41 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01278; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from m9.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.195) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma001100; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:10:48 -0500 Received: (from dlbreese@juno.com) by m9.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LXK29710; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:20 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Re: Per minute charges for Internet Message-ID: <19970213.111058.7079.0.dlbreese@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-3,5,7,10,12,14,16,18,20,22-23,25,27-32 From: dlbreese@juno.com (David L Breese) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:20 EST Content-Length: 1112 Feb. 13, 1997 - - 10:40 a.m. To whom it may concern: As a free e-mail user and a hopeful Internet user, I am in complete opposition to the proposal with the FCC by local telephone companies to impose a " per minute" charge for Internet service. Since we already pay a monthly charge to the phone company for the lines to our homes or offices, that means we would be paying double for any time on the Internet. Our phone charges are not lowered when we do not use it very much, and if we were to use the phone, local calls, that is, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, we would not be charged anything above the normal monthly service rate, and it would be the same usage whether it was the use of a telephone or a computer, and said usage, as I have already said, is paid for by your monthly service charges, whatever those charges are. Therefore, I do not see how the phone company or FCC can legally impose this "per minute" charge without incurring the wrath and/or possible lawsuits of an avalanche of unhappy Internet users. Once again, I cannot state it strongly enough, I AM OPPOSED! Marilyn Breese From SBunsick@eia.doe.gov Thu Feb 13 11:12:23 1997 Return-Path: SBunsick@eia.doe.gov Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05844 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:12:23 -0500 From: SBunsick@eia.doe.gov Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01444; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:12:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailperson.eia.doe.gov(198.76.0.15) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma001326; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:11:32 -0500 Received: from smtp.eia.doe.gov by mailperson.eia.doe.gov id AA841; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:55 EST Received: from ccMail by smtp.eia.doe.gov (SMTPLINK V2.11 PreRelease 4) id AA855859999; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:51:24 EST Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:51:24 EST Message-Id: <9701138558.AA855859999@smtp.eia.doe.gov> To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: CC Docket No 96-263 Content-Length: 1831 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 agencies 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, Susan M. Bunsick 1104 Meurilee Lane Silver Spring, MD 20901 From mproctor1@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:12:25 1997 Return-Path: mproctor1@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05848 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:12:25 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01460; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:12:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from x18.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.29) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma001370; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:11:46 -0500 Received: (from mproctor1@juno.com) by x18.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LKJ16896; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:38 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:08:37 PST Subject: Phone Companies Proposal Message-ID: <19970213.090842.5415.4.mproctor1@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2,6-11 From: mproctor1@juno.com (MICHAEL J PROCTOR) Content-Length: 471 Dear Sir, I strongly disagree with the proposal that a special charge be made for the use of internet/email type phone communications. I do not believe it is warranted. In addition it will set a president that would open the door for additional charges for any type of local "lengthy" phone use ( shut ins, volunteers checking on parents and elderly, etc). DO NOT APPROVE. Michael J. Proctor Lt Col U.S. Army, Retired 4405 Ridgecrest Dr. Colo Sprgs, CO 80918-4325 From warrenway@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:13:03 1997 Return-Path: warrenway@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05852 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:13:03 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01601; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:12:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from x6.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.23) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma001484; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:12:11 -0500 Received: (from warrenway@juno.com) by x6.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LlF05825; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:12:15 EST To: ISP@FCC.GOV Subject: Comments Message-ID: <19970213.110615.4551.0.WARRENWAY@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5-12 From: warrenway@juno.com (Warren Way) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:12:15 EST Content-Length: 312 Gentlemen, Please do not further encumber the government with allowing the phone companies to add additional charges for internet connection. That would just make another government agency necessary to police the phone companies. Thank you, S. Warren Way 392 Jefferson Rd. Newark, Ohio 43055 (614) 366 - 1512 From jonathan@pharmacop.com Thu Feb 13 11:13:37 1997 Return-Path: jonathan@pharmacop.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05856 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:13:37 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01760; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:13:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhost.pharmacop.com(207.242.229.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma001567; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:12:44 -0500 Received: from MAIL ([198.138.202.1]) by pharmacop.bbnplanet.net via smtpd (for gatekeeper1.fcc.gov [192.104.54.1]) with SMTP; 13 Feb 1997 11:10:30 UT Received: from jonathan-719r9 ([198.138.202.171]) by mail.pharmacop.com (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 100-30135U510) with SMTP id AAA168; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:13:45 -0500 Message-ID: <3302F6F6.7AB1@pharmacop.com> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:50 +0000 From: jonathan@pharmacop.com (Jonathan Sheward) Organization: Pharmacopeia, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: Per Minute Internet Access Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 689 To whom it may concern, Recently I have heard about a plan to allow phone companies to charge on a per minute basis for internet access. I am strongly against this. I feel that the phone companies are doing very well and we do not need to add to the already healthy profits of these companies. I would also like to know how the phone company would know that a person is calling an internet provider. This certainly could be a case of invasion of privacy purely for the profits of a greedy monopoly. Thank you for providing this e-mail box. I hope that someone will carefully consider the consequences of this decision and take in mind the consumers point of view. Jonathan Sheward From tkbrown@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:14:15 1997 Return-Path: tkbrown@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05860 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:14:15 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01927; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:13:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from x10.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.25) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma001840; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:13:28 -0500 Received: (from tkbrown@juno.com) by x10.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LbV14771; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:57 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: FCC REGS Message-ID: <19970213.111539.21318.0.TKBrown@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 5-6,9-16 From: tkbrown@juno.com (Tracy K Brown) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:57 EST Content-Length: 645 NO! Are you asking the consumers to pay for their usage of phones twice? Is this another infringement of the people's right of freedom of speech and information? To make people pay to use the internet is wrong! Most of us are already paying an outrageous phone bill because of no local access which is already caused because of the phone companies' inability to or lack of enthusiasim in giving them out. If phone companies want to stay in the game they need to come off of their gilded behinds and increase the amount of phone coverage and service. Tracy K Brown TKBrown@juno.com TKTREKKER@aol.com 2079 Co. Rd. 237 Roanoke, AL 36274 From escully@wti.org Thu Feb 13 11:14:18 1997 Return-Path: escully@wti.org Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05864 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:14:17 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01943; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:13:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from wti.org(199.245.25.10) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma001881; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:13:42 -0500 Received: from mary.wti.org (mary.wti.org [199.245.25.104]) by server.wti.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA06611 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:30:44 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970213161710.0070bf40@wti.org> X-Sender: escully@wti.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:17:10 -0500 To: isp@fcc.gov From: Ellen Scully Content-Length: 1102 I am writing to express my concern over the proposal filed by local telephone companies with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service. The Internet is used over local telephone lines which is paid for by the consumer through monthly telephone charges. I do not understand the need for an additional fee to continue to provide a service that has always been provided. I believe that this is an attempt to unfarily capitalize on an important new business tool that many companies and organizations now need to remain competitive. The imposition of additional charges would impose an unnecessary cost to doing business which we can not afford. I urge you to reject the phone company proposal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ellen Scully, Associate Director for Learning Systems Work & Technology Institute Direct: 202/833-7111 1775 K Street, NW, Suite 630 Fax: 202/833-1424 Washington, DC 20006-1502 E-mail: EScully@wti.org ----------------------------------------------------------------- From hberner@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:14:22 1997 Return-Path: hberner@juno.com Received: from gatekeeper.fcc.gov (firewall-user@internet.fcc.gov [165.135.0.254]) by www2.fcc.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05868 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:14:21 -0500 Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01967; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:14:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from x15.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.28) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2) id xma001922; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:13:52 -0500 Received: (from hberner@juno.com) by x15.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id LIG01576; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:55 EST To: isp@fcc.gov Subject: 1,000 times....NO !! Message-ID: <19970210.202955.7271.3.hberner@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,8 From: hberner@juno.com (h. d. berner) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:55 EST Content-Length: 500 To whom it concerns: NO, NO, No to charging by the minute for internet service. Must everything be ruined for us? I have a chronic illness and the internet is a very vital part of my life. I have gained much knowledge and many deep friendships thur this means and I hate that for some people MONEY is the answer to all. IT IS NOT. Keep your hands off of our internet time and charges ! WASH. D.C. has enough money...now how about a little compassion for us? Where would you be without us??