Date:         Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:58:22 -0800
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         Tonya Pope <galba@premier.net>
Subject:      Re: More on the FCC Info.....PLZ EMAIL isp@fcc.gov to tell them how you feel.

Well, I'm not going to copy the message because if you're like me,
you've received it 8 or 9 times already (worse than the internet virus
hoax).

Sorry about non VW or VRML content, but ...  

how many bothered to actually read what the FCC was doing?  Or did you
just read the email and take it at face value.  If you read through the
proceedings to where they ACTUALLY talk about the internet, (paragraph
331 on) you'll see that this is a GOOD thing that they are asking.

1)  They ARE NOT proposing per minute line charges.  Quite the opposite
actually.  They want to STOP mandating per-minute long distance charges
and go to flat rates in most instances because usage is not a cost
factor for the telephone companies.  They have to maintain the line
whether it's used 24 hours a day or 4 minutes.

2)  This entire proceeding was recommending changes in interstate
(primarily) and local mandated rates imposed by the government so that
local providers could LOWER their rates once competition sets in.  The
rates imposed by the feds is HIGHER than necessary.  It's complicated,
but I DID read the FCC proceeding so I understand it.  I just don't want
to take 330+ paragraphs to explain it.  Amongst other things, interstate
charges are inflated to more than actual costs so that local service can
be cheap and below actual costs.

3)  The ONLY thing they want to possibly in the future do about internet
service is to find out HOW THE PHONE COMPANIES CAN IMPROVE SERVICE! 
They want to be able to have special lines and such so that maybe we can
get better (i.e. faster) connections.  The current phone lines are
designed for VOICE, not data.  They are looking for suggestions as to
ways that internet access can be IMPROVED!!!

Please people, read all the facts before you load up a mailbox.
Tonya
>      312.  We ask whether, after we complete reform of access charges as contemplated in this
> proceeding, we should consider any additional actions relating to interstate information services
> and the Internet.  We therefore initiate this Notice of Inquiry, with a separate pleading cycle, to
> address these issues.  Based on the record in response to this Notice of Inquiry, and the decisions
> we make in the Access Reform Report and Order, we will determine whether to make proposals
> in this area in a subsequent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
> 
>      313.  Many of the concerns now being raised about switch congestion caused by Internet
> usage arise because virtually all residential users today connect to the Internet -- a packet-
> switched data network -- through incumbent LEC switching facilities designed for circuit-
> switched voice calls.  The end-to-end dedicated channels created by circuit switches are
> unnecessary and even inefficient when used to connect an end user to an ISP.  We seek comment
> on how our rules can most effectively create incentives for the deployment of services and
> facilities to allow more efficient transport of data traffic to and from end users.  We invite parties
> to identify means of addressing the congestion concerns raised by incumbent LECs, for example
> by deploying hardware to route data traffic around incumbent LEC switches, or by installing new
> high-bandwidth access technologies such as asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) or
> wireless solutions.  
>