"Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose
per
>minute charges for your Internet service.  They contend that your usage
has or
>will hinder the operation of the telephone network.  It is my belief that
>Internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per
>minute charges.  The FCC has created an e-mail box for your comments.
>Responses must be received by February 13, 1998.  Send your comments to
>[email protected]  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.."
>
>E-mail address again is [email protected]
>This litigation will certainly affect the number of hours I spend on the
>Internet and it will be truly detrimental to a number of people who may be on
>fixed incomes....I have already voiced my opinion to the FCC and by sending
>this to you..I hope you can reach many Internet users and spread the
>word..Perhaps if enough people respond ...it won't happen....I also think we
>should contact all major news services and let them hear our voices....Please
>help spread the word and send your comments off today...
>
>If you need any ideas for your comments, I include my own below.
>
>For years the RBOCs have been milking the public through outrageous and non-
>cost-based "access charges" for long distance, tone dialing, inside wiring
>"insurance" scams etc., offering essentially no value in exchange.  Now they
>want to milk us further by charging extra for wireline dialup modem use.
This
>is another example of how the phone companies expect a return on no
>investment.  Instead of whining to the FCC for more income, they should be
>going out and GETTING income - from ISDN, ADSL, cable partnerships etc.,
where
>they WOULD be adding value to the customer's service.  
>
>Adding charges to Telco dialup access would have a severe damping effect on
>the growth of the most important advance in the history of communications
>since the invention of the telephone.  
>
>The Telcos have been very vague about the use of these new funds.  If they
use
>them for network "voice circuit bypass" improvements to handle traffic from
>dial-up facilities, they will only be discouraging migration to higher-speed
>access modalities.  If they use the funds to invest in future, high-speed
>access modalities, while their competitors are forced to go to the equity and
>debt markets to provide similar capabilities, they will have an unfair
>advantage over their future competitors.  If the FCC grants revenue
>improvements to the incumbents for this type of service, it will be
>discriminating against Telco competitors and reversing its well-established,
>pro-competitive policies of the past decade.  Telephone companies should be
>subject to the same laws of the market place as anyone else.  Let them INVEST
>in exchange for income, instead of regarding it as some kind of divine right
>that network improvements should be financed a priori out of customer
revenue.
>
>In February 1997 I contacted U S WEST for installation of an ISDN phone line.
>I have yet to hear from them; last week I sold the house where the order was
>placed, and have still to hear from my alleged "service provider" with
respect
>to my order.  If this is the kind of service we get, we should not be
expected
>to shell out extra money for the only alternative we are left with.
>
>In the past fifteen years the personal computer has seen improvements ranging
>from the hundreds to the thousands in processor power, memory, graphics
>definition, storage and so on.  During the same decade the capability for one
>computer to talk to another through dial-up Telco facilities has improved
>about four-fold, and has now reached its limit.  It is unconscionable that
the
>Telcos should expect some kind of revenue concession in exchange for
providing
>the worst and most enduring bottleneck in the history of modern technology,
>and for being so slow and uncertain in providing alternatives.  Let them
>remove the bottleneck first before they are entitled to any concessions.
>
>
>Dr. Ray W. Nettleton
>Chief Technology Officer, Formus Communications Inc.
>The Galleria Office Towers
>720 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600 North
>Denver, Colorado 80246
>(303) 504 3240 voice
>(303) 809 4223 portable
>(303) 504 3201 fax
>[email protected]

===============================================================
Keith A. Goshia                 Phone:  (303) 247-5025
Senior Regulatory Engineer              Cell:   (303) 507-0158
D-1021                                  Fax:    (303) 247-5115
Qualcomm Inc.                           Pager:  (800) 401-3175
5450 Western Ave.                       Lab:    (303) 247-5107
Boulder CO, 80301                       E-mail: [email protected]
===============================================================
What happens if you get scared half to death twice?

Reply via email to