3.923 no threat to networks from the FCC (100)

Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca)
Wed, 10 Jan 90 20:41:17 EST

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 923. Wednesday, 10 Jan 1990.

(1) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 07:32:59 EST (34 lines)
From: "Dana Cartwright, Syracuse Univ, 315-443-4504" <DECARTWR@SUVM>

(2) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 08:04:00 EST (47 lines)
From: K.C.Cameron@exeter.ac.uk
Subject: Re: 3.917 networks threatened? (103)

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 07:32:59 EST
From: "Dana Cartwright, Syracuse Univ, 315-443-4504" <DECARTWR@SUVM>

The posting regarding the attempt of the FCC to impose a surcharge on
modem users is probably entirely bogus. Apparently this is an "urban
legend" which has been circulating electronically for a number of
months. You might consider the source of the information:

"Jim Eason of KGO newstalk radio (San Francisco, Ca) commented on
the proposal during his afternoon radio program during which, he
said he learned of the new regulation in an article in the New
York Times."

Would any of you accept an entry like that in a bibliography?

Aside from that, the author of this "FCC Scare" has his technical facts
all wrong. Again I quote:

"Calls placed using modems
require no special telephone company equipment, and users of
modems pay the phone company for use of the network in the form
of a monthly bill. In short, a modem call is the same as a voice
call and therefore should not be subject to any additional regulation."

This is utterly false. Modem users have been getting a free ride for
years. Most voice conversations are quite short, and have long periods
of silence within them (I say "long" from the standpoint of
computers--the pauses between words in human conversation are quite
substantial). The telephone company has designed its equipment, and
sets its prices, based on human speech and calling habits. Modem
traffic imposes a very different, more substantial, load on the
switching equipment. Some day we are going to be asked to pay for this!

Meanwhile, feel free *not* to write to the FCC!
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------51----
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 08:04:00 EST
From: K.C.Cameron@exeter.ac.uk
Subject: Re: 3.917 networks threatened? (103)

>From Lois Buwalda <LOIS@EARN.UCF1VM>
Date Tue, 9 Jan 90 18:20:58 EST
Sender Discussions about Literature <LITERARY@EARN.UCF1VM>

[Several people have sent me this posting. My thanks to all on behalf of
all. --W.M.]

>Please read the following forwarded message and act on it as soon as possible.
>The bureaucrats are at it again.

Whoops! Everyone, please hold on before you bury the FCC in letters.
That note apparently was an old one from 1987 which was never deleted
from several bulletin boards. I've included some more info on this that
was posted to another list at our site. :-)


------------------------------- enclosure --------------------------------

NOTE: It appears that recent messages about FCC charges
for modem usage are antiquated rumors concerning a controversial
proposal that the FCC pu aside in late 1987.

Old messages about this issue, however, were never removed
from certain BBSs, and new readers assume that the issue
is still current. This leads to wasted energies for concerned
computer users who write & call the FCC, not to mention the
time taken up by FCC staff.

I have spoken today to FCC staff attorney Regina Harrison, who
states that indeed the FCC is not planning to reconsider this

and ask them to remove any outstanding/outdated messages on
BBSs or elsewhere about this, until such time as the issue
might become real again, if ever.

Thank you.

Roger Burns
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Washington, DC