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.