Unsubstantiated Rumor

Their page said
   Comment Date: January 29, 1997 new!
   Reply Comment Date: February 14, 1997 new!
when I checked just now. Where did you get the dates you mentioned? -S.

The detailed background info on this issue can be found on
Page 1 of WebWeek, Jan 20, 1997.
"ISPs Could Owe New Fees To Telcos if FCC Gives its OK".
FCC has an email box at
for ISPs and consumers to send informal comments. The deadline is
Feb 21, and March 24 is the dead for replies to comments.

FCC will post the comments at

Hong Chen 408-567-3800 (tel)
hchen@aimnet.net 408-567-0990 (fax)

  What appears below is an unsubstantiated rumor, but some rumors are true...
>Return-Path: bbb@acm.org
>Date: Sat, 8 Feb 97 16:41:22 EST
>To: fnc@web1.hpc.org, lsn@hpcc.gov
>From: "Bruce B. Bottomley" <bbb@acm.org>
>Subject: Fw: Telephone charges for Internet
>Does anybody know if there's truth in this one? The concept doesn't sound
>extraordinarily unlikely given the info we received from the FCC rep at FNC
>a few months back about central office loading, allocation of costs and
>revenues, etc., but the lack of publicity associated with this--if true--is
>a bit surprising.
>>Subject: Fwd: Telephone charges for Internet
>>>I am writing you this to inform you
>>>of a very important matter currently under review by the FCC. Your local
>>>telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute
>>>charges for your internet service. They contend that your usage has or will
>>>hinder the operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that
>>>internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per
>>>minute charges. The FCC has created an email box for your comments,
>>>responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send your comments to
>>>isp@fcc.gov and tell them what you think. Every phone company is
>>>in on this one, and they are trying to sneak it in just under the wire for
>>>litigation. Let everyone you know hear this one. Get the e-mail address to
>>>everyone you can think of.

m: Josh Hall <jwhall@noc.digex.net>

I got the date from WebWeek, jan 20th. I am sure that
the one you provided should be the right one as it
comes off from FCC's home page.

Thanks for the update.

Hong Chen 408-567-3800 (tel)
hchen@aimnet.net 408-567-0990 (fax)

If your company is going to play the regulatory game, don't bother with
filing informal comments. Learn the procedures for filing proper
FORMAL comments with the FCC. Some basic info is available here
http://www.fcc.gov/getinfo.html and the explanation of how to file
a formal comment is here

While the FCC will take some note of informal comments, they are more like
signatures on a petition, easy to do and only worth something when they
come in bulk. So to have any significant impact on the FCC, take some time
and play the game their way. Just about everything of interest to an ISP
will come up in the Common Carrier Bureau http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/

Also note that you don't need to hire a lawyer in order to file formal
comments, you just need to be able to follow instructions accurately
and write clearly.

Note that the Reply-To is set to com-priv@lists.psi.com because that's
where non operational issues like this should really be discussed.

Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com

Perhaps this is not contributing significantly to the S/N ratio on the
operational mailing list and not without a potential to interrupt the non
progress that some are making in their mission to establish interplanetary
name services - read on.

I'd like to thank Hong and Simona for pointing out the deadline for comments
to the FCC and take a moment of your time to plead to the technically minded
for a serious contribution to how the regulatory laws regarding
interconnection between our networks are about to be written.

A few data points rather than a policy diatribe:

a) The "free peering" relationship is directly analogous to a "bill &
keep" interconnection relationship between traditional telephone companies.

b) Under the Communications Act of 1934 As amended by the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 ("Act"), "telecommunications carriers" are under obligation to
interconnect "with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications
carriers..." (Act, Sec. 251 (a) (1)

c) The term "telecommunications", as used in the Act means "the transmission,
between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's
choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent
and received" Act, Section 3 (43)

Like it or not, the FCC is now obligated to translate this into regulations
that will surely be litigated and enforced. It's just my guess but more than
a few of us have an interest in the outcome of the first round of regulations
in this area. We have just a few weeks to file something meaningful. To be
sure, those with interests that may not exactly coincide with your own will
file comments.

Whole Earth Networks will be filling formal comments utilizing specialized
legal counsel. I'd encourage others to do so. It is true that numbers count
when regulatory bodies get around to doing their knitting. To date, we ISP's
in haven't paid much attention to this telco regulatory stuff and it could
cost us real big if we don't take a serious interest in what these folks are
about to draft.


David S. Holub
President CTO
Whole Earth Networks
(Hooked and The WELL)