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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov.>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:15:40 -0600
Message-Id: <199702131515.JAA26758@www.teknetwork.com>
From: "Chad Gemar" <gemar@teknetwork.com>
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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" <Walt@johns.minden.nv.us>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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: <isp@www2.fcc.gov>
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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:36:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199702131436.JAA07593@uhura.ici.net>
From: "Bob Borges" <bborges@phantom.bristol.mass.edu>
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:06:03 +0000
From: "Dave Shriner" <gandalf@markquart.com>
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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" <sclark@comp.uark.edu>
X-Sender: sclark@comp
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: CC Docket No. 96.263
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970213090731.17456A-100000@comp>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:14:14 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 04:08:38 UT
From: "ROSELLER ANDRA" <MICROSS@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL06.199702131516390358@msn.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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 <fdms3@fred.net>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <RK0910@tntech.edu>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:14:29 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:16:17 UT
From: "Tony Atabaki" <Adpro-Inc@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL01.199702131516330458@msn.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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 <wade@apple.com>
To: "FCC" <isp@fcc.gov>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>;
          Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:16:09 -0500
From: jmaravig@ontime.com (Jeff Maraviglia)
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>;
          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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:20:11 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:19:13 UT
From: "CLAUDIA " <CZDIVA@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL02.199702131518070706@msn.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:14:12 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:11:21 UT
From: "Phil Farmer" <LessStressPress@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL05.199702131513530640@msn.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <ae006@seorf.ohiou.edu>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:14:23 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:13:48 UT
From: "Phil Farmer" <LessStressPress@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL05.199702131516190520@msn.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <KevinP@isd.vsp.com>
To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" <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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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: <Pine.PMDF.3.91.970213091836.66409A-100000@acs.harding.edu>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:15:07 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:18:35 UT
From: "Melbourne J. Amo" <meljamo@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL06.199702131519170265@msn.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:19:13 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199702131519.JAA20379@discover.discover-net.net>
From: "Mahla" <mahla@discover-net.net>
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <john_blizzard@MENTORG.COM>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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 <h-keithley@ti.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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" <JOHN_P3@sfov1.verifone.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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" <srogge@discover-net.net>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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" <meuwissd@minneapolis.ds.adp.com>
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <wai@wasatch.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <jahrman@cincom.com>
To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: ISP
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:23:57 -0500
Return-Receipt-To: <jahrman@cincom.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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: <s302ea03.034@EMORY.ORG>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:13:10 -0500
From: Barbara Pough <BPough@EMORY.ORG>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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)" <kboggs@VNET.IBM.COM>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:20:35 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:18:03 UT
From: "John Reisz" <reiszb@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL07.199702131520030548@msn.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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" <w.e.nicholson@sk.sympatico.ca>
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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" <lobo@meceng.coe.neu.edu>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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 <susancpa@loop.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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" <rhs1942@ix.netcom.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:20:28 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:18:56 UT
From: "Lorrie Watson" <L_Watson@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL05.199702131524280924@msn.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:24:12 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199702131524.JAA20620@discover.discover-net.net>
From: " M.Keilholz" <keioga@discover-net.net>
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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: <M783551.018.js7ll.1.970213152717Z.CC-MAIL*/O=CCMAIL/PRMD=PSC/ADMD=MCI/C=US/@MHS>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:17:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199702131617.LAA12581@apollo.weblnk.net>
From: "Gene Cochran" <archangel@weblnk.net>
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
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/
  <IXOYE><

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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:24:05 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 14:08:21 UT
From: "Joanna Frank" <JoannaGF@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL04.199702131521090438@msn.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>; 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 <lagesse@ti.com>
Subject: Telephone charges for internet access
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:26:36 -0600
X-BeyondMail-Priority: 1
Message-Id: <BMSMTP8558461794a0208440@dlep1.itg.ti.com>
Conversation-Id: <BMSMTP8558461795a0208440@dlep1.itg.ti.com>
Reply-To: Mike Lagesse <lagesse@ti.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <d-heike@students.uiuc.edu>
X-Sender: d-heike@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: per-minute phone charges
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.970213092452.20381A@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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: <M783614.001.jsb30.1.970213152814Z.CC-MAIL*/O=CCMAIL/PRMD=PSC/ADMD=MCI/C=US/@MHS>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov.>; 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" <dave@mad.scientist.com>
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>;
          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: <akira@discover.discover-net.net>
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 <rkrause@invisibleinc.com>;
          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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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 <isp@fcc.gov>
From: Paul G Cummings <Paul_G_Cummings@sbphrd.com>
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 <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; 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" <lclark@comp.uark.edu>
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.  They make enough money already.  I installed a second line dedicated to my computer.  My local telephone company is getting paid for two lines into my home because of the internet.  How many other people are doing the same thing?  Some telephone companies do direct marketing encouraging people to install another line.  Now they want to charge an additional amount above their already sufficient rate to use that line.  They are making money off of me that they would otherwise not make because of the internet.

<bigger>Lenthon B. Clark

2247 Country Way

Fayetteville, AR 72703-4216

Phone (501) 521-9242

Fax (501) 575-9242</bigger>

From kattdann@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:29:42 1997
Return-Path: kattdann@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 KAA05173 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:42 -0500
From: kattdann@juno.com
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19550; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x8.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.24) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma019327; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:28:39 -0500
Received: (from kattdann@juno.com) by x8.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KUP00458; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:48 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Charges for Internet use
Message-ID: <19970213.072518.3854.1.kattdann@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 4
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:48 EST
Content-Length: 347

We have recently been notified that local phone companies have requested
permission to charge for Internet use time.  I would like let you know
here that my husband and I think this is a poor idea.  It is unequitable
in that it turns what should be a public right into a privilege for those
who can afford it.  Please keep the airways accessible.

From jarred@meceng.coe.neu.edu Thu Feb 13 10:29:44 1997
Return-Path: jarred@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 KAA05177 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:44 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19565; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from splinter.coe.neu.edu(129.10.34.153) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma019365; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:28:46 -0500
Received: (from jarred@localhost) by splinter.coe.neu.edu (8.6.11/8.6.11) id KAA02310 for isp@fcc.gov; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:07 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:07 -0500
From: HybriD <jarred@meceng.coe.neu.edu>
Message-Id: <199702131534.KAA02310@splinter.coe.neu.edu>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Internet Tax
Content-Length: 55

This email is in protest of the proposed internet Tax.

From k_of_c@pinenet.com Thu Feb 13 10:29:46 1997
Return-Path: k_of_c@pinenet.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 KAA05181 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:46 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19577; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from homebrew.pinenet.com(206.11.214.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma019507; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:29:10 -0500
Received: from k_of_c.pinenet.com (pm1-2.pinenet.com [206.11.214.12]) by homebrew.pinenet.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA07726 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:29:15 -0600
Message-Id: <199702131529.JAA07726@homebrew.pinenet.com>
From: "Shawn M. Paul" <k_of_c@pinenet.com>
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: Isn't this just typical
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:20:08 -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: 929

I just heard of the proposal to have local telephone companies charge
Internet users by the minute of use.  
I am on the Internet because I have a local server and I don't pay these
outrageous phone bills.  If this changes I will quit the Internet along
with several others.  Our Wonderful President Clinton wants all people to
have access to the Internet but most simply can't afford it due to the fact
that they don't have a local server.  They can't afford the Long distance
phone charge.  This was my families case for a number of years.  
Lets give the little guy's a break for once.  If this per minute fee goes
through I will lose my Internet.
Local Phone companies Have no right or reason for this per minute charge. 
I pay my phone service bill every month and now they say it just isn't
enough.  That's not my fault.  

GIVE US A BREAK,  PLEASE
Think about it before you go headlong into this.  give us a break!!!!!!!!

From j.mcnatt@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:30:48 1997
Return-Path: j.mcnatt@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 KAA05185 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:48 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19777; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.26) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma019684; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:29:58 -0500
Received: (from j.mcnatt@juno.com) by x11.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KTF13775; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:40 EST
To: isp@Fcc.gov
Subject: New Per Minute Charges
Message-ID: <19970213.102613.4951.1.J.McNatt@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,7-10
From: j.mcnatt@juno.com (Jed A. McNatt)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:40 EST
Content-Length: 421

To whom it may concern:

Please DONOT ALLOW this per minute charge.  This is a step backwards in
the advancement of communications.  It's just another way for the phone
companys to try to make an unfair buck and another way to discourage
newcommers.  Why should the phone company have the "right" to
additionally charge me for the way I use my phone line THAT I AM ALREADY
PAYING them for??

Jed McNatt
J.McNatt@juno.com

From Scottlw36@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:30:50 1997
Return-Path: Scottlw36@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 KAA05189 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:50 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19794; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma019728; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:13 -0500
Received: from upmajb06 ([204.95.110.89]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id GAA06131 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:30:44 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:28:07 UT
From: "Scott Ozer" <Scottlw36@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL08.199702131529430519@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: : Extra charges: Fight NOW!
Content-Length: 333

As a voter and community leader, the deregulation of phone companies has cost 
me nothing but more money and wasted my time, now they want to charge me extra 
for a phone system that has been paid for may times over! NO WAY, I DON'T WANT 
THIS HELP. I WILL VOTE MY POCKET BOOK IN THE NEXT TWO ELECTIONS. STOP THEM, 
NOW.

----------

From gking@cellmate.cb.uga.edu Thu Feb 13 10:30:52 1997
Return-Path: <@uga.cc.uga.edu:gking@cellmate.cb.uga.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 KAA05193 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:52 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19810; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu(128.192.232.5) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma019687; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:00 -0500
Received: from dns1.uga.edu by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with TCP;
   Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:28:56 EST
Received: from cellmate.cb.uga.edu (cellmate.cb.uga.edu [128.192.13.2]) by dns1.uga.edu (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id KAA13798 for <isp%fcc.gov@uga.cc.uga.edu>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:04 -0500
From: gking@cellmate.cb.uga.edu
Received: from sneezy.cb.uga.edu (sneezy.cb.uga.edu [128.192.13.15]) by cellmate.cb.uga.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3) with SMTP id KAA02206 for <isp%fcc.gov@uga.cc.uga.edu>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199702131529.KAA02206@cellmate.cb.uga.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <gking@cellmate.cb.uga.edu>
Organization: Cellular Biology, UGA
To: isp%fcc.gov@uga.cc.uga.edu
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:51 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: charges for internet service
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.32a)
Content-Length: 670

I would like to say that I totally OPPOSE this idea of local phone 
companies charging for use of the Internet services!
There can be no real reason behind these companies except to charge 
us a higher phone bill, etc., and profit more money, which is 
ridiculous in the first place considering how they are outrageously 
charging for usage of phone lines as it is!
thank you for taking the time and reading my opinion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Genia King, Administrative Secretary
The University of Georgia
Department of Cellular Biology
724 Biological Sciences Building
Athens GA  30602-2607
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From vql@cauchy.aero.ufl.edu Thu Feb 13 10:30:54 1997
Return-Path: vql@cauchy.aero.ufl.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 KAA05197 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:54 -0500
From: vql@cauchy.aero.ufl.edu
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA19832; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cauchy.aero.ufl.edu(128.227.42.162) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma019701; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:04 -0500
Received:  by cauchy.aero.ufl.edu (5.61ufl/4.10)
	id AA29448; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:08 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:08 -0500
Message-Id: <9702131530.AA29448@cauchy.aero.ufl.edu>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Against phone charge for internet service
Cc: vql@fcc.gov
Content-Length: 955


Dear Sirs/Madams:

I am against the proposal by phone companies to charge the connection
of my home computer to the internet via local phone calls.  I use my
local phone to connect to my university everynight to transfer data.
The local phone calls are charged once for unlimited phone calls,
regardless of the duration of the calls.  The connection to the
internet via local phone should be charged as local phone calls.

Thank you for your attention,

**********************************************************************
   Loc Vu-Quoc, Associate Professor      Tel: (352) 392-6227          
   Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics      Fax: (352) 392-7303          
      & Engineering Science              E-mail: vu-quoc@ufl.edu      
   P.O. Box 116250                                                    
   University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611                       
**********************************************************************




From lansdale@umich.edu Thu Feb 13 10:31:36 1997
Return-Path: lansdale@umich.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 KAA05201 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:36 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20043; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from berzerk.rs.itd.umich.edu(141.211.63.17) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma019877; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:41 -0500
Received: by berzerk.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/3.0-mailhub)
	id KAA28847; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lansdale@choplifter.rs.itd.umich.edu(141.211.63.90) by berzerk.rs.itd.umich.edu via smap (2.0-umich)
	id xma028843; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:45 -0500
Received: from localhost by choplifter.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/3.0-client)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:30:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Metta Lansdale <lansdale@umich.edu>
X-Sender: lansdale@choplifter.rs.itd.umich.edu
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject:  FCC rate changes
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970212170301.00d1914c@mail2.tcccom.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970213102606.13215F-100000@choplifter.rs.itd.umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1364


It is not justfied to be charging a per minute rate charge for use of the
phone companies..  The Telephone system is a public utility and not a
retail fee for service/object system.  I am afraid that the phone
companies are just trying to cash in on a boom in the internet use in a
way that is untenable.  The phone companies are able to cash in just fine
and in an acceptable way by making money supplying all the additional
telephone *lines* that are required by additional use.  If phone companies
can supply the volume and speed for transmission, then people will not
need to be on the line so long - holding up lines in case they need to use
them. 

******************************************************************
* Metta Lansdale                    MLink Program and MEL	 *	
* Ann Arbor, Michigan               Univ. Mich. Graduate Library *
* Voice: (313)764-3903              Fax:   (313)764-3916         * 
*                                                                *
*               MEL - The Michigan Electronic Library            *
*                         http://mel.lib.mi.us                   *
*                                                                *
*			lansdale@umich.edu                       *
*	http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lansdale/personal.html    *
******************************************************************


From MCat187@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:31:38 1997
Return-Path: MCat187@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 KAA05205 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:38 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20054; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot02.msn.com(204.95.110.79) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xmaa19885; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:43 -0500
Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot02.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id HAA11808 for <ISP@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:27:36 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:30:40 UT
From: "Mark Catuncan" <MCat187@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL06.199702131528440331@msn.com>
To: ISP@fcc.gov
Subject: Internet/Phone Charges
Content-Length: 525

To whom it may concern,
	I have recently been told about a proposal that phone companies are trying to 
impose additional charges per minute for internet use. I believe this is 
unconstitutional for I am already paying phone bills to use the phone for any 
reason I want. Why should I or anybody else have to pay extra to use the 
phone. I believe this is just a ploy so that phone companies can make that 
extra buck. We have enough bills to pay, so please understand where we are 
coming from. Thank you.
				Mark Catuncan

From dhblake@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:31:41 1997
Return-Path: dhblake@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 KAA05209 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:40 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20071; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x12.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.26) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma019947; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:53 -0500
Received: (from dhblake@juno.com) by x12.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KUX06890; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:39 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:33:32 PST
Message-ID: <19970213.093335.6639.0.dhblake@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,4-7
From: dhblake@juno.com (David H Blake)
Content-Length: 202

To the FCC,

Keep the internet free of charge.  Do not succumb to the pressure from US
phone companies in their bid to make even more money.  No, No, No on
internet tolls.

David Blake
DHBlake@juno.com

From g-fish@ti.com Thu Feb 13 10:31:42 1997
Return-Path: g-fish@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 KAA05213 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:42 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20086; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from news.ti.com(192.94.94.33) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma019963; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:30:58 -0500
Received: from decp4.itg.ti.com ([156.117.50.20]) by gatekeep.ti.com (8.6.13) with ESMTP id JAA21544; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:30:27 -0600
Received: from ti (floor913.sc.ti.com [156.117.59.151])
	by decp4.itg.ti.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA06518;
	Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:29:55 -0600 (CST)
X-Mailer: BeyondMail for Windows/SMTP 2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: Glynn Fish <g-fish@ti.com>
Subject: CC Docket No 96-263
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:37:49 -0800
X-BeyondMail-Priority: 1
Message-Id: <BMSMTP85585526116a0175492@decmail.itg.ti.com>
Conversation-Id: <BMSMTP85585526117a0175492@decmail.itg.ti.com>
Reply-To: Glynn Fish <g-fish@ti.com>
X-Receipt-From-Agent: true
Content-Length: 474

This proposal will hinder the usage of the Internet.
Telephone companies do not want to upgrade their
telephone lines to support internet usage because they
are satisfied with the status quo and do not want
to give their customers what they deserve for
when they already pay a monthly fee.  We
should challenge the telephone company to come
up with a better solution than just passing
the buck to the consumer.


Regards,
Glynn Fish
1113 Hyde Park Dr.
Mckinney, Texas 75069

From wor97isd91@mecn.mass.edu Thu Feb 13 10:31:45 1997
Return-Path: WOR97ISD91@mecn.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 KAA05217 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:44 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20098; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from piano.mecn.mass.edu(134.241.10.5) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma019967; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:31:00 -0500
Received: from mecn.mass.edu by mecn.mass.edu (PMDF V5.0-4 #12917)
 id <01IFD4AMA3SCA4PS52@mecn.mass.edu> for isp@fcc.gov; Thu,
 13 Feb 1997 10:29:03 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:03 -0500 (EST)
From: wor97isd91@mecn.mass.edu
Subject: charging for e-mail
To: isp@fcc.gov
Message-id: <Pine.PMDF.3.91.970213101142.612583094C-100000@mecn.mass.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-Length: 1410

I am a freshman in college, and, having friends across the country, I , 
along with millions of others use e-mail quite frequently. It is my 
understanding that the government would like telephone companies to start 
charging the people of the U.S. per minute for the use of electronic mail.
I'm sure I won't be the first to tell you that there is no need for this.
I live in Massachusetts, and being a college student, I don't bring in 
much money. Most of the people I e-mail are in Minnesota. For me to call 
there and talk for 1 hour costs me $10.00+. So, being a student, I must 
resort to a cheaper, and at this point in time FREE way of 
communication-e-mail. I think I can speak on behalf of college students 
across America when I say that this is a ridiculous way of trying to make 
more money. Telephone companies are already charging outrageous rates for 
long-distance calls, being on the internet etc.. I feel that putting a 
'per-minute' fee on the use of e-mail would be robbing the pockets of the 
U.S. student body. If the government wants more money then they should 
start budgeting more responsibly instead of paying for their mistakes out 
of our pockets. 
I'm hoping that you will take thoughts of others and my own into great 
consideration before making a decision that will indefinately greatly 
upset frequent users of e-mail.  Thank you for your time,
				     A concerned student


From kdhorton@fred.net Thu Feb 13 10:32:27 1997
Return-Path: kdhorton@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 KAA05221 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:26 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20270; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020090; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:31:22 -0500
Received: from cyrino.fred.net (cyrino.fred.net [204.215.83.248]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA22616; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970213102932.00686c54@fred.net>
X-Sender: kdhorton@fred.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 Demo (32)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:29:38 -0500
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: Keith and Debi Horton <kdhorton@fred.net>
Subject: Proposed per minute charges
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 1864

To Whom It May Concern:


	Please consider my opinion in determining whether local phone service
providers should be permitted to charge customers a "per-minute" rate
when utilizing the services of an Internet Service Provider (ISP).  I am
opposed to permitting this additional charge for several reasons:


<paraindent><param>left</param>1. Local telephone systems have already
benefitted significantly from increased usage.  ISP's have purchased
thousands of additional phone lines to accommodate service, and many
individual customers, myself included, have purchased an additional phone
line to use for internet access.


2. The addition of a per-minute rate on top of existing phone service
charges would pose a serious economic impact to many internet users,
especially considering the investment each has already made to obtain
access.


3. Schools and libraries, already straining to meet burgeoning
technological growth, would suffer economic hardship or have to deny
students and patrons access.


4. National goals to increase communication, information exchange and
data access would suffer a serious setback.  Other, more progressive
nations would leave the United States behind as we enter the 21st
century.


5. Local phone companies, most very successful financially, would receive
"windfall" profits far in excess of normal returns.  Local service users
whose livelihoods are dependent upon internet access would be forced to
reduce their profits to further enrich local phone companies.


</paraindent>	The exclusivity of local telephone companies denies
customers competitive pricing opportunities for service.  Therefore, it
is the role of the Federal Communications Commission to watch out for the
best interests of all American citizens when deciding on this matter.  


	Thank you for considering my comments when making your decision.






From dschimme@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:32:29 1997
Return-Path: dschimme@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 KAA05225 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:28 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20284; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020144; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:31:33 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id JAA27955 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:31:38 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:31:38 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199702131531.JAA27955@dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com>
Received: from den-co10-26.ix.netcom.com(204.31.232.154) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma027920; Thu Feb 13 09:31:23 1997
X-Sender: dschimme@popd.netcruiser (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: Dave <dschimme@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: FCC 96-488
Content-Length: 1042

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has been widely reported recently that the proposal FCC 96-488 seeks to
charge Internet Service Providers a per minute usage charge for local
Internet calls. 

For years there have been dozens of rumors about various FCC proposals that
do various horrible things to the BBS/Internet community. Most of them have
turned out to be hoaxes perpetrated by pranksters or simply misunderstandings.

While I have glanced at the above proposal, I don't have the time to read
the entire document. So, please let me say that IF the proposal seeks to
impose such a charge, I firmly believe that it would be a severe detriment
to what promises to be the most significant communications revolution in the
early 21st century. The Internet will inevitably change the way people
communicate, as well as the way business is done worldwide. 

While I do believe that you cannot have a completely unregulated
environment, anything that imposes such far-reaching financial burdens as
surcharges should be avoided. 

Thank you,

Dave Schimmel


From asingh+@pitt.edu Thu Feb 13 10:32:31 1997
Return-Path: asingh+@pitt.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 KAA05229 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:30 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20299; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from post-ofc05.srv.cis.pitt.edu(136.142.185.10) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020172; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:31:39 -0500
Received: from sutra.cbp.pitt.edu (sutra.cbp.pitt.edu [136.142.100.81])
          by post-ofc05.srv.cis.pitt.edu with SMTP (8.8.5/cispo-2.0.1.7)
          ID <KAA13795@post-ofc05.srv.cis.pitt.edu> for <isp@fcc.gov>;
          Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:38 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:27:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199702131527.KAA13795@post-ofc05.srv.cis.pitt.edu>
X-Sender: asingh@pop.pitt.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: "Dr. Ashvani K. Singh" <asingh+@pitt.edu>
Content-Length: 527

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was informed of FCC trying to impose per minute charge for the internet
service.  I think it is ridiculous to impose such charges, as it will be an
extra monetary burden on someone like me with two growing kids at home,
who're trying to gain knowledge from this limitless and boundaryless source
of KNOWLEDGE available over the Internet. 

Please think twice before you decide.

Ashvani K. Singh, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor
of Cell Biology & Physiology
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15261


From jpm23@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:33:03 1997
Return-Path: jpm23@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 KAA05233 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:02 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20419; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020267; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:32:06 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id JAA28020 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:32:11 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:32:11 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199702131532.JAA28020@dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com>
Received: from phx-az26-19.ix.netcom.com(207.94.110.243) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma027959; Thu Feb 13 09:31:56 1997
From: jpm23@ix.netcom.com (John Myers)
Subject: Internet Access Charges
To: isp@fcc.gov
Content-Length: 1358

Reference is made to the proposal to charge internet providers for 
access to local calls.

These charges will ultimately come down to the individual using the 
Internet for personal and/or business uses.  When we sign up with a 
telephone company for a telephone line to home we are guaranteed 
certain prices for certain services to include local area calls.  When 
using the Internet we access only the local telephone systems; no 
further services are provided by the telephone companies, ergo, we 
should not be required to pay any additional charges when no additional 
services are provided by that entity.

The telephone companies are just trying to "feather their own nests" at 
the expense of the telephone user.

I assume that the charters of the telephone companies provide the 
requirement that they provide service at reasonable prices and that 
they make a reasonable profit.  The stock prices of the companies 
reflect that they make more than a reasonable profit.

Increased prices for these services would force many people to stop 
using the Internet, a valuable and interesting tool for many.  I, 
personally, primarily use e-mail and only on rare occasions delve into 
the WWW.  I must explain that I only use the Internet for personl 
reasons.

John P. Myers, Jr.
4239 East Rancho Tierra Drive
Cave Creek, Arizon 85331
(602) 585-3532



From Scott_Byrum@mhsmail.git.gulfaero.com Thu Feb 13 10:33:05 1997
Return-Path: Scott_Byrum@mhsmail.git.gulfaero.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 KAA05237 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:05 -0500
From: Scott_Byrum@mhsmail.git.gulfaero.com
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20447; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rottweiler.gulfaero.com(134.216.26.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020327; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:32:17 -0500
Received: from rottweiler.gulfaero.com (root@localhost) by rottweiler.gulfaero.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA08735 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mhsmail.git.gulfaero.com ([134.216.200.240]) by rottweiler.gulfaero.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA08729 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199702131532.KAA08729@rottweiler.gulfaero.com>
X-Nvlenv-01Date-Posted: 13-Feb-1997 10:27:45 -0500; at Mail.GAC
Date: 13 Feb 97 10:17:53 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: CC Docket No 96-263
Content-Length: 373

Scott Byrum
119 East 61st Street, Apt. A
Savannah, GA 31405

This is the most preposterous proposal I have ever heard of in my life. 
 This is just another example of a company that has exclusive local 
service trying to bully its customers.  If there were another local 
company I would switch service.  I do not agree with this at all.

And I work in the industry!!!!!!!

From anne@rclink.net Thu Feb 13 10:33:51 1997
Return-Path: anne@rclink.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 KAA05241 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:51 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20618; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from unknown(207.41.47.7) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020476; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:32:51 -0500
Received: from lizard (race-leom1-a07.rclink.net [207.41.47.39]) by leomsys.rclink.net (8.6.8.1/SCA-6.6)  with SMTP
	id PAA21577 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:27:52 GMT
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:27:52 GMT
Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970213104141.12cf6f26@rclink.net>
X-Sender: anne@rclink.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: "Anne O'Connor" <anne@rclink.net>
Subject: phone surcharges
Content-Length: 158

Just to let you know that I am opposed to per minute charges imposed by
phone companies.  What next?  Will everyone be forces to have metered local
service?


From abkar@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:33:53 1997
Return-Path: abkar@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 KAA05245 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:53 -0500
From: abkar@juno.com
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20633; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x3.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.22) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020513; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:33:01 -0500
Received: (from abkar@juno.com) by x3.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id K\Y11196; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:14 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Local Charges for the Internet
Message-ID: <19970213.103303.11846.0.abkar@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,3-5,9,12,14-18
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:31:14 EST
Content-Length: 811

Gentlepersons:
It has come to my attention that local telephone companies have sought
approval to charge per minute rates for internet access on telephone
lines.

As a customer, I am opposed to this plan for the following reasons:
1. A per minute charge would in effect be a private tax on commerce.  It
may become a tariff, preventing persons from using this means of
commerce, choosing to do a means by which the only tax is imposed by the
government.
2. In our area, Ameritech wants to go to a flat rate of 15 cents per
minute for all local calls.  Hey, can we pay them for anything else? 
Price gouging, pure and simple.
3. In those jobs that require a phone, I am compelled already to have a
telephone.  How much more am I required to pay for this thing?

Thank you for your kind attention,

Andrew A. Kar

From LCNMackay@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:33:55 1997
Return-Path: LCNMackay@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 KAA05249 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:55 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20644; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot03.msn.com(204.95.110.85) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020520; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:33:06 -0500
Received: from upmajb04.msn.com ([204.95.110.81]) by upsmot03.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id TAA07029 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:27:46 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:33:11 UT
From: "LCN Mackay" <LCNMackay@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL05.199702131532380278@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: No extra charges!
Content-Length: 225

I for one would be one that would no longer be able to use the internet if you 
add an extra charge on to what I already pay!  In voicing my opinion I would 
ask you not to do this!
Thanks you
Cheryl Mackay
lcnmackay@msn.com

From sburg@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:33:57 1997
Return-Path: sburg@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 KAA05253 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:57 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20651; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.194) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020544; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:33:15 -0500
Received: (from sburg@juno.com) by m11.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KLP03816; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:15 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Charging for Internet Access
Message-ID: <19970213.103303.17766.1.sburg@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1
From: sburg@juno.com (Steven J. Burg)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:15 EST
Content-Length: 96

Please don't raise the charges for internet access or I will have to drop
my internet service. 

From bigrex@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:34:29 1997
Return-Path: bigrex@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 KAA05257 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:29 -0500
From: bigrex@juno.com
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20746; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x14.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.27) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020571; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:33:23 -0500
Received: (from bigrex@juno.com) by x14.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KWC09325; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:37 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Internet
Message-ID: <19970213.083157.11095.1.bigrex@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,8-12
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:37 EST
Content-Length: 602

I received a message that said that your are reviewing a petition to
allow local phone companies to charge a fee for intenet users.  
I object.
This is simply an attempt to make more money for the local phone
companies.  In addition if they win this ruling how will they distinguish
internet users from FAX users or how will recreational users be charged
compaired to business users.  And once a local company is allowed to
charge a by the minute rate for local use on one tyoe of call the door is
open for by the minute charges.
I object.
Cordell Rich
1965 West 3590 south
West Valley City, UT  84119

From pkm1@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:34:31 1997
Return-Path: pkm1@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 KAA05261 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:31 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20756; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x6.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.23) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020576; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:33:23 -0500
Received: (from pkm1@juno.com) by x6.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KYW05825; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:22 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: per minute charges on internet service
Message-ID: <19970213.083145.6903.5.pkm1@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-2,6-7,11-12,14-20
From: pkm1@juno.com (Mr. Patrick K. Mulvey)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:22 EST
Content-Length: 827


TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This proposal really upsets me, we in Texas are already paying throught
the nose to make interstate long distance calls,  if passed this will
only add to my thoughts about cutting back on the phone services that I
already have with the local phone providers.

I realize that you probably hear it all, here in El Paso in the last two
months my gas utility bill has quadrupled and to tell you the truth I'm
tired of it, seems like everytime you turn around someone else is trying
to take advantage of the honest people in this world.

If this bill is passed, I personally will not support these companies, I
will cancel my internet service agreement and do without it.

Thank you for your time and efforts in supporting the public.

Catherine J. Cornilles
15356 Mineral Court
Horizon City, Texas  79927

From tssykes@dobson.ozarks.edu Thu Feb 13 10:34:33 1997
Return-Path: tssykes@dobson.ozarks.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 KAA05265 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:33 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20768; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dobson.ozarks.edu(150.208.212.40) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020628; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:33:32 -0500
Received: from localhost (tssykes@localhost)
          by dobson.ozarks.edu (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id JAA10031 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:31:49 -0600
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:31:49 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim-bo S. Sykes" <tssykes@dobson.ozarks.edu>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: "CC Docket No. 96-263" (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970213093129.9923A-100000@dobson.ozarks.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Content-Length: 2346



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:42:19 -0500 (EST)
From: BSSyk@aol.com
To: isp@fcc.gov
Cc: TWCOPE@aol.com, kpcope@juno.com, tssykes@dobson.ozarks.edu
Subject: "CC Docket No. 96-263"

It is my understanding that the FCC is considering allowing internet users =
to
be
charged a per minute rate for the connection to their internet service
provider
(CC Docket No 96-263). I want to voice my opposition. I feel that it is not
in the
best interest of the public to allow the telephone industry to charge it=92=
s
customers
twice for the same call.

Customers already pay to have a telephone in their homes and/or business. N=
ow
the telephone industry wants to charge it=92s customers again when they cal=
l an
internet service provider. The connection to the phone companies line is
already being paid by someone, either the internet service provider or the
customer.  This would be "double dipping" so to speak. While the telephone
companies may argue that the increase in usage will hinder the telephone
network, I would argue that the telephone companies want to increase revenu=
e
by exploiting the new trend in their medium.

The fact is, more and more people are using the internet for educational
research, and business. President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been
very big supporters of internet access. In the president=92s State of the U=
nion
Address, he spoke of seeing that everyone was able to connect to the
internet. He
continued saying that it will give students in rural areas, suburban areas
and inner
city areas the same access to information. If this request is allowed to
become reality, you can forget about the majority of those whom the Preside=
nt
and Vice-President referred to.

The local telephone companies see this as an opportunity. If the telephone
companies are allowed to charge a per minute fee for connection to the
internet,
internet use will be diminished. The internet will have been degraded from =
an
educational tool to a toy for those wealthy enough to afford the exorbitant
and redundant fees.  The big loser in the long run will be the average
citizen trying to keep pace with the information revolution.  Please rule o=
n
the side of the people and not big business.

Sincerely,

Robert R. Sykes, M.D.
1501 Westbrook, P. O. Box 929
Nashville, Arkansas 71852



From mkgpr@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:34:37 1997
Return-Path: mkgpr@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 KAA05269 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:37 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20793; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.16) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020640; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:33:33 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id JAA21028 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:33:33 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:33:33 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199702131533.JAA21028@dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com>
Received: from unknown(205.186.81.214) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma021017; Thu Feb 13 09:33:22 1997
From: mkgpr@ix.netcom.com (MICHAEL TIPPETT)
Subject: charging for what!?!
To: isp@fcc.gov
Content-Length: 743

Well, i'll bet you've got a good idea what i'm going to say.  It is 
none of your business what I do with the phone line connected to my 
home- I will use my voice or my modem, whichever I please.  You know 
darn well what would happen if this was announced on the news for 
everyone to hear.  You would be exposed for what you really are- 
greedy.  You also know that the major internet providers have lots of 
money tied up in this too- you have taken on a big fight, with more 
than just the consumers.  And if you do succeed, you can bet someone 
else will find a way to provide it for free and take your business 
away.  Consumers have a way of doing that sort of thing, you know.
I hope you fail in this.

Sincerely, 
Michael J. Tippett

From dey2@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:34:39 1997
Return-Path: dey2@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 KAA05273 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:39 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA20803; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m9.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.195) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020723; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:34:00 -0500
Received: (from dey2@juno.com) by m9.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KJH29710; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:00 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Docket No. 96-263
Message-ID: <19970213.093339.9438.0.dey2@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1,4-10
From: dey2@juno.com (Beth Yell)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:00 EST
Content-Length: 359

I want to express my complete contempt for the idea of imposing fees for
the internet
use.  If Mr. Clinton is in fact placing education as his #1 priority and
truly agrees that free access to information is necessary in a free
society then he should bring the full
power of the Executive Branch of Government to bare on the FCC.

Respectfully,


Dorothy Yell

From SKT@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:35:21 1997
Return-Path: SKT@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 KAA05277 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:21 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21008; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020848; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:34:29 -0500
Received: from upmajb04.msn.com ([204.95.110.81]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id GAA07431 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:34:55 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 14:21:49 UT
From: "Steve Thomas" <SKT@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL08.199702131531140189@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Per minute phone charges
Content-Length: 354

Dear Sir or Madame,

As an Internet user, I am concerned about the proposal to impose per minute 
charges for Internet service. Quite often, I use the Internet for educational 
purposes.  An additional charge for this service would be a hindrance.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Steve Thomas
825 Pontiac Ave. 12102
Cranston, RI 02910

From martind@communique.net Thu Feb 13 10:35:23 1997
Return-Path: martind@communique.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 KAA05281 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:23 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21020; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tetsuo.communique.net(204.27.65.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020862; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:34:31 -0500
Received: from LOCALNAME (125.sli2.Communique.Net [204.27.122.125]) by tetsuo.communique.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA52432 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:34:36 -0600
Message-ID: <33035D5A.3346@communique.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:28:42 -0800
From: dancing on the wind <martind@communique.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: per minute phone charges for internet users
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 700

We are against per minute line charges the phone companies are trying to
impose on users of online services.  Why should we be charged more for a
public utility just because of how we use our phone service.  Will this
charge be levied against businesses for using one of the greatest
communication tools available?  Are schools going to be penalized as
well for one of the greatest learning tools of the twentieth century? 
Or is this just an attack against private users?  Is the next step
greater electric bills because we use a computer?  Rule against the
phone companies!

signed,

Martin & Mary Dawson
435 Tanglewood Drive
Slidell, LA  70458

email:	martind@communique.net
	SweetAlessa@juno.com

From BJHelms@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:35:25 1997
Return-Path: BJHelms@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 KAA05285 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:25 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21029; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot02.msn.com(204.95.110.79) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma020882; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:34:37 -0500
Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot02.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id HAA13036 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:31:30 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:36:14 UT
From: "Barbara Helms" <BJHelms@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL01.199702131533420698@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Phone Companies and the Internet
Content-Length: 678

I have recently become aware of the phone companies' request to impose per 
minutes charges for internet services. It is my understanding that they are 
attempting to get this through quietly without making it public. Phone 
companies have created a monster and now want to make the public pay for it 
over and over and over again.  A service has been created, marketed and 
swamped the public and we should at least have a voice in increasing the cost. 
Companies like AOL and MSN have already made things more difficult for their 
customers by making it more and more difficult to access the service, perhaps 
the phone companies should talk to them about additional charges.

From Hineline@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:36:06 1997
Return-Path: Hineline@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 KAA05289 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:05 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21125; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot02.msn.com(204.95.110.79) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma021016; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:35:04 -0500
Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot02.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id HAA13286 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:31:55 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:09:19 UT
From: "Merry Hineline" <Hineline@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL03.199702131511390620@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: CC  Docket No 96-263
Content-Length: 1666

Merry Hineline
16899 Whispering Oaks Lane
Ramona, Ca.  92065

Dear FCC,

I am writing to you in response to the efforts by the telephone companies' 
pressure to have you grant them permission to charge consumers a per minute 
rate for internet usage.  They contend that they are losing revenue because 
most internet users dial up with a local phone number.  That contention is a 
load of crap.  Internet use has created the demand for more telephone lines.  
Who pays for those lines?  Each internet service provider company.  In turn 
they collect fees from us for the use of the telephone lines.  

The internet alone is not responsible for the increase in telephone lines.  
Fax machines, pagers, cellular phones account for a larger demand from the 
phone companies than the internet.  I believe the phone companies are 
concentrating on internet users is because of the time spent using the 
internet.  Most Americans spend 50 to 100 hours online each month.  Now, if we 
were spending that much time on our cellular phones, the phone companies would 
be screaming at you for a rate increase.

The bottom line is this: the telephone companies are not losing any revenue, 
far from it.  They are just looking for a way to start charging for local 
phone calls.  If you think that they will only charge for local internet 
lines, you are mistaken.  They will find a way to translate permission to 
charge for using local internet phone lines, to charging for ALL calls.  I 
worked for Ma Bell from 1976 to 1981 and I believe I am qualified to predict 
what the phone companies are really trying to do.  

I have rambled, I apologize.

Sincerely,

Merry Hineline

From eveanna@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:36:12 1997
Return-Path: eveanna@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 KAA05293 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:11 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21162; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.194) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma021053; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:35:15 -0500
Received: (from eveanna@juno.com) by m11.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KMC03816; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:18 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Proposed New FCC Regulations
Message-ID: <19970213.073925.7895.2.Eveanna@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-4,8-9,12-16
From: eveanna@juno.com (Anne I McKenrick)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:18 EST
Content-Length: 586

Gentlemen:

I understand you are having a hearing allowing local phone companies to
charge per minute for time internet users spend on-line.  

PLEASE do not allow this.  There are many people (ill, house-bound, etc.)
whose whole world is the friends they have on the internet.  Don't
deprive them of this source of contact in their lives.  Many would not be
able to afford this extra cost.

Added to that, each year the telephone company finds new ways to charge
us more for doing less for us.  It must stop somewhere.  Let it be here
and let it be now.

Thank you.

Anne I. McKenrick

From dgibson@fred.net Thu Feb 13 10:36:14 1997
Return-Path: dgibson@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 KAA05297 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:13 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21176; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma021071; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:35:23 -0500
Received: from doug.epicgames ([208.212.53.42]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA23141 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970213153616.00676aa8@fred.net>
X-Sender: dgibson@fred.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:16 -0500
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: Doug Gibson <dgibson@fred.net>
Subject: Re: Fw: Phone charges for internet access
Content-Length: 3133

Hello to whoever gets to read all of these fun emails:

I must say that I'm strictly opposed to any effort to impose per/time
charges on internet access.=20

There are several reasons why I would have to say that the phone companies'
complaints are basically meaningless whining, and several bad effects that
such a law would create:

1) Most people who use the Internet are not online for THAT long.=20

2) Many people (such as myself) get an extra phone line for online usage.
*If* someone is online so much, they usually cannot afford to miss several
hours worth of phone calls. Obviously, someone with 2 phone lines is already
paying for the extra line, and it's _very unlikely_ that they are using *so*
much bandwidth on _both_ lines *ALL* of the time to warrant these complaints
from the phone company.

Imposing this kind of fee on Internet usage will greatly decrease the use of
the Internet by the general public and also severely hurt the thousands of
online-entrepenuers out there.

It's just like the US to start moving backward just when Europe is starting
to move ahead (removing phone charges for local calls). Let's not let this
stupid shit happen!

If the phone companies want to raise overall costs of their services to
cover costs, then that would be acceptable to me. They can fight it out in
the as an issue of industry competition, not isolating ISP-users who already
pay for both their phone services AND ISP services (and the ISP's already
pay for their lines!).

Anyway, I'm at work and don't have time to make too good a thought out
argument. Obviously, the phone company is making money off of me while I'm
NOT USING EITHER of my phone lines for these 40+ hours a week!

My 2=A2 worth.

-Doug Gibson


At 11:37 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:56:34 -0600
>> From: Mitch Turitz <turitz@sfsu.edu>
>> To: AUTOCAT@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU
>> Subject: SERIOUS BUSINESS (fwd)
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 22:32:00 -0500 (EST)
>> From: AShadwick@aol.com
>> Subject: SERIOUS BUSINESS
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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 here this
>> one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of.
>>=20
>> isp@fcc.gov
>>=20
>>  Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all
>> our voices may be heard!
>>=20
>>=20
>> ----- End Included Message -----
>>=20


From derwin@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:36:46 1997
Return-Path: derwin@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 KAA05301 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:45 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21309; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma021223; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:36:03 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id JAA28312; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:36:03 -0600 (CST)
Received: from chl-nj3-09.ix.netcom.com(205.184.11.105) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma028301; Thu Feb 13 09:35:36 1997
Message-ID: <33035E26.7C76@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:32:06 -0800
From: Derwin Bell <derwin@ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: derwin@ix.netcom.com
Organization: MFS TransTech
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Telephone connect charges
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 891

Hello,

Please do not let the phone companies charge the ISP's for access time. 
Access to the internet and hence to information is a right of which
every American should be able to take advantage.  Internet access is no
longer simply a privilege, instead, this access to information is as
necessary as the free library system.  

To be an American with all of the rights and responsibilities involved
requires the ability to remain informed on many topics.  The mass media
can not be trusted to provide the information that Americans require to
be "good Americans".  A citizen must have the ability to study
information to form opinions on which to base their behavior and
actions. 

Access to the internet provides that most basic of American dreams, a
totally non-discriminatory access to information.

Please do not put a price tag on our right to be Americans.

Sincerely,

Derwin Bell

From rgrussin@cornerstone.com Thu Feb 13 10:36:48 1997
Return-Path: rgrussin@cornerstone.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 KAA05305 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:47 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21318; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from gate.cornerstone.com(204.163.136.3) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma021098; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:35:38 -0500
Received: from warpcore.cornerstone.com by gate.cornerstone.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id HAA02659; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:37:35 -0800
Received: from mailpc.cornerstone.com by warpcore.cornerstone.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id HAA12892; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:39:38 -0800
Received: from ccMail by mailpc.cornerstone.com (SMTPLINK V2.11.01)
	id AA855848534; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:34:24 PST
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:34:24 PST
From: "Rodney Grussing" <rgrussin@cornerstone.com>
Message-Id: <9701138558.AA855848534@mailpc.cornerstone.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: no additional phone charges
Content-Length: 259

put me down for a big fat no way on per minute charges from the phone companies.
they are just trying to jump on the band wagon.  don't they have enough of a
monopoly already.  This will spell the end of the internet as we know it.

greed ruins everything! 


From cj@range.carson-city.nv.us Thu Feb 13 10:36:50 1997
Return-Path: cj@range.carson-city.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 KAA05309 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:49 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21328; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from heather.greatbasin.com(140.174.194.41) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma021155; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:35:50 -0500
Received: from [206.14.171.213] (RANGE.carson-city.nv.us [206.14.171.213])
          by heather.greatbasin.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id HAA18762 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:35:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: PRANGE@mail.greatbasin.net
Message-Id: <v01540b0eaf2873dd1b78@[206.14.171.213]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: cj@range.carson-city.nv.us (C.J. Hadley)
Subject: phone charges
Content-Length: 472

FCC:
Do not let the phone companies double dip by charging the internet
providers and then charging, again, the people who pay the internet
providers for the service. This would simply be doubly charging for the
same service. It should be illegal. Thank you.
C. J. Hadley, 43 Bellevue Road, Carson City, NV. 89704 . 702-884-2200.

RANGE Magazine
The Cowboy Spirit on America's Outback
702-884-2200
702-884-2213 FAX

C.J. Hadley, Publisher
"Cutting A Swath To The Truth"



From omamarie@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:37:22 1997
Return-Path: omamarie@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 KAA05313 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:37:21 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21421; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:37:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x13.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.27) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma021334; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:36:29 -0500
Received: (from omamarie@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KIE00349; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:31 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: CC Docket No 96-263
Message-ID: <19970213.092853.6854.2.omamarie@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-7
From: omamarie@juno.com (Marie Driscoll)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:31 EST
Content-Length: 191

We are not in favor of imposed per minute charges for internet services
by our local telephone company.
Respectfully,

Marie & John Driscoll
400 S.W. Marion Lane
Lee's Summit, MO 64081-2316


From huggies@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:37:33 1997
Return-Path: huggies@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 KAA05317 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:37:32 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21494; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:37:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x9.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.25) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma021367; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:36:40 -0500
Received: (from huggies@juno.com) by x9.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KTM15799; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:49 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: phone companies
Message-ID: <19970213.072107.4375.6.HUGGIES@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 8-11
From: huggies@juno.com (Frank P Velasco)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:49 EST
Content-Length: 674

I don't like the idea of phone companies wanting to charge per minute for
the usage of time online.  The president said in his speach he wants
every home to be linked to the system,  yet phone companies want to take
controle and charge high rates to use on-line systems.  IT really bothers
me that some day many people may not even be able to use the phone
because rates are too high.  I know families already that restrict thier
calls becasue they can barely afford a four dollar phone bill.  If the
phone companie is already able to handle all the conections then i don't
see why they are now comeing out with saying that they can't handle it.  

Sincerely 
Frank Velasco

From a_to_z@slip.net Thu Feb 13 10:38:06 1997
Return-Path: a_to_z@slip.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 KAA05321 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:06 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21659; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:37:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ferret.slip.net(207.171.193.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma021516; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:37:15 -0500
Received: from 106542 [207.171.198.38] 
	by ferret with smtp (Exim 0.57 #1)
	id 0vv3Dr-0007EG-00; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:37:19 -0800
Message-ID: <330334E2.5890@slip.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:36:02 -0800
From: Dave Gutierrez <a_to_z@slip.net>
Reply-To: a_to_z@slip.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: (no subject)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1029

To whom it may concern:
  Thank you for taking the time to read my opinion. I have recently been
made aware that the local phone company's have requested that you impose
a per minute charge for internet access. I think that the local phone
companies are being greedy, they say that they are afraid that the phone
lines would be tied up do to the mass amounts of people logging onto the
internet. As of now I have not heard of that happening. I feel that it
is just a ploy to be able to raise the rates on local phone access. I
think that if this happens what we know of the internet today would
diminsh because if people have to pay by the minute of internet access,
then most people would probably no longer log on. I for one am against
this because I feel that internet users will be for large business and
the people who have nothing better to do with their money. I hope you
think of the so called middle class people when you render your
decision. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Dave Gutierrez
a_to_z@slip.net

From jsouza@ici.net Thu Feb 13 10:38:08 1997
Return-Path: jsouza@ici.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 KAA05325 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:08 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21683; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:37:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from uhura.ici.net(204.97.252.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma021536; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:37:19 -0500
Received: from ws00.ici.net ([208.3.239.100])
          by uhura.ici.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id KAA15915; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:33:46 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970213153628.006c4c74@ici.net>
X-Sender: jsouza@ici.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:36:28 -0500
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: Joe Souza <jsouza@ici.net>
Content-Length: 742

I am very upset and complexed by the move to drain more money from the
consumer. It seems that every time something grows in popularity, and a
service becomes utilized someone wants to increase the pocket lining. The
phone companies have a network that has been overpriced for years and the
current competition shows that.

I and many others in the educational community will find this move
unsupportive of the concepts being touted ny the current administrations. If
my opinion counts, count it against this move.

Joe Souza

      ------------------------------------------------------
         May you live in interesting times - Chinese Curse

        Be Well
            Joe
      ------------------------------------------------------


From vervis1@carthage.edu Thu Feb 13 10:38:40 1997
Return-Path: vervis1@carthage.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 KAA05329 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:40 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21779; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dial.wiscnet.net(144.92.88.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma021635; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:37:43 -0500
Received: from grace.carthage.edu by gomer.wiscnet.net;
          id JAA25188; 8.6.9W/50; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:37:48 -0600
Received: by grace.carthage.edu; Thu, 13 Feb 97 9:50:00 CST
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 9:39:54 CST
Message-ID: <vines.A0v7+bUn+nA@grace.carthage.edu>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
From: "Catherine Vervisch, SEWAP" <vervis1@carthage.edu>
Subject: Internet charges
Content-Length: 836

Dear FCC,
I just found out that my local telephone company has filed a proposal with 
the FCC to impose per minute charges for internet service.  If this were to 
go into effect, this would greatly hamper my and other people's use of the 
internet.  It takes time to learn one's way around the internet.  Even for a 
person more familiar with the internet, it takes time to find the information 
for, for example, a research/class project.  I discovered that the internet 
has a wealth of information that a university professor, a business person, a 
high school or grade school student could use.  It is an amazing educational 
tool!  I am, as a result, adamantly opposed to the phone company's proposal.  
Maybe, they should put more money into long-term research into expanding the 
telephone network!
Sincerely,
Catherine Vervisch

From IELLENDER@cajunnet.com Thu Feb 13 10:38:49 1997
Return-Path: IELLENDER@cajunnet2.cajunnet.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 KAA05335 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:49 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21855; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cajunnet2.cajunnet.com(206.251.162.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma021763; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:38:18 -0500
Received: from iellender.cajunnet.com (cajun07-port89.cajunnet.com [206.251.162.223]) by cajunnet2.cajunnet.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA04770 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:38:16 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <3303350C.7FF5@MAIL.CAJUNNET.COM>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:36:44 -0600
From: IRENE ELLENDER <IELLENDER@cajunnet.com>
Reply-To: IELLENDER@cajunnet.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: NO MODEM TAX!!!
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 598

NO WAY, an additional fee for internet use is absolutely a no win
situation.  It will virtually halt the use of the internet in all of our
schools and home situations where it's use is the most profitable for
the education of our young people.  
Internet does not burden the phone company anymore than it demands that
they provide quality line service...something they have been avoiding
for years. 
There is no extra service demand on the phone since when the internet is
being used the phone or voice line is not and vice versa.
DO NOT SUPPORT THIS FEE.
Irene Ellender
po box 262
Bourg, la 70343

From Stephen.Saxton@GSC.GTE.Com Thu Feb 13 10:38:52 1997
Return-Path: Stephen.Saxton@GSC.GTE.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 KAA05333 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:44 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21824; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from unknown(131.131.251.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma021752; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:38:15 -0500
Return-receipt-to: Stephen.Saxton@GSC.GTE.Com
Received: from chnt10.infoserv.chnt.gtegsc.com
 ("port 4557"@chnt10.infoserv.chnt.gtegsc.com)
 by Sonnet.GSC.GTE.Com (PMDF V5.0-6 #17886)
 id <01IFD4LSBPYQ000082@Sonnet.GSC.GTE.Com> for isp@fcc.gov; Thu,
 13 Feb 1997 10:38:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by chnt10.infoserv.chnt.gtegsc.com with SMTP
 (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5)
 id <01BC199A.19B87BF0@chnt10.infoserv.chnt.gtegsc.com>; Thu,
 13 Feb 1997 10:38:50 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:49 -0500
From: "Saxton, Stephen" <Stephen.Saxton@GSC.GTE.Com>
Subject: Phone Company Charges!
To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" <isp@fcc.gov>
Message-id: 
 <c=US%a=_%p=GTE%l=CHNT10-970213153849Z-20341@chnt10.infoserv.chnt.gtegsc.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 371

I am totally against allowing any Phone Company to start
imposing/charging by the minute phone charges for Internet Access.  I am
now paying a flat fee for unlimited access to local calls, and for the
amount of calls & time I spend on the phone I feel that it is too much.

I also wish that I could have a choice in who my local phone company is.

Thank you
Steve Saxton

From coffeysf@musc.edu Thu Feb 13 10:39:24 1997
Return-Path: coffeysf@musc.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 KAA05341 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:39:24 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21975; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:39:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from revere.musc.edu(128.23.203.10) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma021771; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:38:21 -0500
Received: from atrium.musc.edu (atrium.musc.edu [128.23.203.11]) by revere.musc.edu (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id KAA25645 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by atrium.musc.edu (sendmail 8.6.12) id KAA23652; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:10 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott F Coffey <coffeysf@musc.edu>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.95.970213102947.23004C-100000@atrium.musc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 201

Clearly this attempt by some of the phone companies to levy a per minute
charge for internet use should be stopped. Please register that I am
against this proposed practice. 


Scott F. Coffey, Ph.D.


From rwrink@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:39:28 1997
Return-Path: rwrink@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 KAA05345 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:39:28 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA21992; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:39:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.26) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma021957; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:38:56 -0500
Received: (from rwrink@juno.com) by x11.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KYG13775; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:23 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: PHONE CHARGES INTERNET
Message-ID: <19970213.103744.9790.0.rwrink@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5-9
From: rwrink@juno.com (Russell W Rink)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:23 EST
Content-Length: 310

FCC

I wish to protest the phone companys' proposal to charge internet users. 
Since being on the internet I have added a phone line dedicated solely
for use by my computer.  My server, GTE, is thus profiting from my use of
the internet.
			Russell W. Rink
			824 Cincy St.
			Venice, FL 34284
			94l-484-9322

From kcauq@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:40:00 1997
Return-Path: kcauq@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 KAA05349 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:00 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22111; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:39:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma022017; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:39:17 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id JAA28493 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:39:22 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ont-ca4-20.ix.netcom.com(204.30.71.148) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma028485; Thu Feb 13 09:39:00 1997
Message-ID: <E6E62F1E.4AAE@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1956 21:35:26 +0000
From: Samuel Day Fassbinder <kcauq@ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: kcauq@ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E (Macintosh; U; 68K)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Phone Company proposal to charge consumers for Internet
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 406

alert@washdc.smart.net wrote:
> 
> 
> Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC in
> Washington, DC that would impose PER MINUTE CHARGES when you use the
> Internet. 

I am not interested in paying my phone company more money for Internet 
service.  I am not interested in voting for politicians who let the 
phone companies slip this by the consumers

Sincerely
Samuel Day Fassbinder

From Rose4256@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:40:34 1997
Return-Path: Rose4256@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 KAA05353 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:34 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22241; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma022120; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:39:40 -0500
Received: from upmajb06 ([204.95.110.89]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id GAA09048 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:40:11 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 13:54:05 UT
From: "Raymond Keffer, Jr" <Rose4256@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL07.199702131538570479@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Internet phone rates
Content-Length: 333

I am writing to request that you disapprove the phone companies' plan to add a 
per minute phone charge for the use of the internet.  It's enough that we 
already are paying the bill to have the extra lines to use it -  not to 
mention that most people must call a long distance access number to even get 
on.  THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!

From specitrt@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:40:36 1997
Return-Path: specitrt@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 KAA05357 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:36 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22260; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot03.msn.com(204.95.110.85) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma022143; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:39:50 -0500
Received: from upmajb04.msn.com ([204.95.110.81]) by upsmot03.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id TAA08973 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:34:31 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:44:17 UT
From: "Roger Cormier" <specitrt@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL08.199702131537430959@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: charge for internet use
Content-Length: 532

I am opposed to an additional charge by individual phone companies for 
internet use.  The revenue derived from the additional telephone lines 
requested by many users of the internet should more than offset additional 
costs.

This primarily affects small individuals who, in many cases, are stretching to 
pay the $20 per month for getting on the internet.  If there are truly costs 
involved which are not covered by the additional telephone lines, work it out 
with the internet access providers instead of with the little guy.

From fiferjane@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:41:14 1997
Return-Path: fiferjane@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 KAA05361 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:14 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22419; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m8.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.196) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma022320; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:40:30 -0500
Received: (from fiferjane@juno.com) by m8.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KKP13362; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:13 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: RE:  proposal for internet charges
Message-ID: <19970213.103420.11694.3.FIFERJANE@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 5-6,13-21
From: fiferjane@juno.com (JANE N LAW BAKER)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:38:13 EST
Content-Length: 976

I am opposed to the concept of initiating a per minute charge for
Internet usage.  Users already pay a per minute charge to their local,
and sometimes long distance, telephone carriers to access the Internet. 
In addition, users are also paying a monthly fee (either flat rate, per
minute/hour or a combination of both) to their Internet provider for
access to the "net." 

By imposing an additional charge for access to the Internet, the
telephone companies are undermining the growth of technology, limiting an
avenure of free trade and hampering the search for knowledge and
information.  Surely this measure is in opposition to goals set forth by
President Clinton in his State of the Union address to INCREASE access to
the Internet by all Americans, to make this learning tool MORE accessible
to students and researchers.

Please add my opinion to others voicing their opposition to this measure.

Respectfully, 

Jane N. Law Baker
2 Riversedge Drive
Milford, NH  03055

From l.smith@nt.research-int.com Thu Feb 13 10:41:27 1997
Return-Path: l.smith@nt.research-int.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 KAA05365 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:24 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22502; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from quay.mail.pipex.net(158.43.128.34) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma022358; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:40:50 -0500
Received: (qmail 27179 invoked from network); 13 Feb 1997 15:40:44 -0000
Received: from mailhost.research-int.com (194.33.52.253)
  by quay.mail.pipex.net with SMTP; 13 Feb 1997 15:40:43 -0000
Received: from nt by mailhost.research-int.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA00176; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:23:53 GMT
Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1277)
  by nt (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.7 for Windows NT(tm))
  id AA-1997Feb13.102200.1277.195; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:34:30 GMT
From: l.smith@nt.research-int.com (CRRI - Smith, Lisa)
To: isp@fcc.gov (fcc)
Message-ID: <1997Feb13.102200.1277.195@nt>
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 15:34:30 GMT
Subject: Internet costs
Content-Length: 1115


Comments regarding following matter:
>We are 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 our 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.

This at the very least needs further exposure and discussion among affected 
parties.  Such an imposed per-minute charge would drastically slow down 
Internet usage, which may have some benefits, but also must be considered 
carefully so as not to impede the remarkable communication expansion and 
possibilities created by the Internet.  I urge you to give this subject the 
high attention it deserves and not allow it to be rushed through the 
legislative process.  Thank you.


From ab4lg@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:41:57 1997
Return-Path: ab4lg@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 KAA05369 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:56 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22703; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m1.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.199) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xmaa22382; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:41:06 -0500
Received: (from ab4lg@juno.com) by m1.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KTS24982; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:39:55 EST
To: ISP@FCC.GOV
Subject: TELCO Tariffs for Internet usage
Message-ID: <19970213.104653.9014.0.ab4lg@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-2,4-5,18-19,23-24,30-31,39-40,44-45,54-58
From: ab4lg@juno.com (Richard N Booth)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:39:55 EST
Content-Length: 3121


Arrogance and corporate greed!  

Please enter my opposition to the imposition of an additional telephone
tariff for internet service.

If tariff is approved, FCC should recognize and close loophole which
allows a local telephone company to act as an internet service provider
on a monthly fee basis in order to circumvent long distance service
charges.  This is being done now by Horry Telephone Co-operative, Conway,
South Carolina.  This co-op charges a flat-rate, monthly service fee for
unlimited internet service with no long distance Tariffs.  This
procedure, if continued, will allow local telephone companies to
circumvent any tariff as might be imposed and, further, act as a
deterrent to competition to rates in the future by allowing local
telephone companies to undercut service rates.  Local telephone companies
would have the unfair, competitive advantage by being able to avoid the
payment of Tariffs which would not be an advantage enjoyed by individual
Internet subscribers except where 1-800 number access was provided.  

Additionally, existing and future Internet subscribers not having access
to 1-800 number access already pay long distance Tariffs for Internet
service.  Allowing an additional tariff constitutes a method for the
telephone companies to double-dip.

Telephone companies are public service utilities which hold their
licenses of convenience in public trust; not for the purpose of
perpetuating a monopoly.  For those entities to argue that Internet usage
will diminish in the face of additional Tariffs flies in the face of the
advancement of technology currently being promoted by our congressional
leadership.  

The telephone company major players have expended, and continue to spend,
hundreds of millions of dollars on inane, infantile advertising; the
monies, or a least a portion of which, could be utilized to expand
telephone network capacity.  Moreover, these same telephone companies
utilize their same telephone networks to solicit (uninvited and
unrequested) customer changes in long distance providers; evening luring
changes with discounts.  The amount of these discounts could be better
devoted to expanding the telephone networks.  

The addition of another tariff would result in an additional  sum in
taxes to be paid by the public.  Government is already large enough.  If
this is a scheme to help reduce the deficit, it surely is an underhanded
method of raising taxes.

General Telephone Company of the Southeast has presently pending before
the South Carolina Public Service Commission a petition to be classified
as a rural service provider; the purpose of which is to prevent
competition by other telephone service providers within its markets. 
General Telephone is not a rural provider.  For years this entity thumbed
its nose at its local customers by continuing to promote  long distance
Tariffs between Conway, South Carolina, and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
 General Telephone held the franchise for telephone service in both
communities located only fourteen (14) miles apart.

Richard N. Booth
6250 Highway 701 North
Conway, South Carolina 29526

From sfeld@umd5.umd.edu Thu Feb 13 10:42:03 1997
Return-Path: sfeld@umd5.umd.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 KAA05373 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:02 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22759; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from umd5.umd.edu(128.8.10.5) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma022675; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:41:31 -0500
Received: from marple.umd.edu (marple.umd.edu [128.8.10.50]) by umd5.umd.edu(8.6.13/95Sep13)
	with ESMTP id KAA13379; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:31 -0500
Received: from localhost by marple.umd.edu with SMTP id KAA24701; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:27 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Feld - Samuel <sfeld@umd5.umd.edu>
X-Sender: sfeld@marple.umd.edu
To: isp@fcc.gov
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95q.970213103959.13446A-100000@marple.umd.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 235

T o whom it may concern,
Please do not increase the already too heavy burden on teachers and
schools by agreeing to extra phone charges.  The increase will in the end
diminish the access of knowledge by students and teachers alike-SF


From highlander@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:42:35 1997
Return-Path: highlander@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 KAA05377 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:34 -0500
From: highlander@juno.com
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22962; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x1.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma022751; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:41:40 -0500
Received: (from highlander@juno.com) by x1.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KME22967; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:06 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:58 EST
Subject: Imposed Charges to ISP
Message-ID: <19970213.104459.4431.0.highlander@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,10-11,19-20,23-26
Content-Length: 1297

Sir:

If phone companies are allowed to charge per-minute access to the
internet, then I can guarentee you that it will cause more problems than
you can handle.  Hackers will be defrauding thses phone companies for
one, No one will want internet anymore, and phone companies will LOSE
CUSTOMERS.  I, being a customer for 21 years with at&t, and my parents
being costomers of at&t for 10 more... I would LEAVE AT&T for a company
who doesn't charge internet access.  These BIG TIME COMPANIES will lose
money more than make it, or people will not be interested in interent
sevice.

I for one, am very upset at these companies trying to get their greedy
hands into our hard working dollars.  I work my ass off for the money I
make, which is very little, and here the internet is my only reprive
after a hard day work.  I do NOT, and WILL Not want or have this
internet, nor will I care for it if we, the consumers have to pay more
for it's access.  For another thing, the companies say it ties up their
lines or some sort... what is the difference between TALKING on the
phone, and accessing the internet using the phone.

i do hope that you, the Federal Communications Commission, in your
wisdon, will DENY The phone Companies this new way of robbing the
American Public.

Sincerely,
Richard E. Rice

From madunajski@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:42:39 1997
Return-Path: madunajski@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 KAA05381 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:38 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA22990; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x16.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.28) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma022769; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:41:43 -0500
Received: (from madunajski@juno.com) by x16.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id K}Z16197; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:17 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: FCC Charges for the Internet
Message-ID: <19970213.104132.10358.1.madunajski@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.14
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,8-9,11-13
From: madunajski@juno.com (Michele A Dunajski-Haines)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:17 EST
Content-Length: 659

I think this is an outrage and a horrible misuse of the capitalistic
system.  I have not had any problems making long distance or local calls
since the internet came into being.  

I think that this is just somebody's way of trying to scarf up profits. 
We should be concerned about the wonderful advance in communication that
the internet is, not whether or not it can be manipulated to be available
only to the rich - and at the same time, make people richer.  The riches
to be gained are in knowledge, not in money.

For heavens sake, let us believe that something can be done for the good
of all instead of just a few for a change.

Thank you in advance.

From steveli@uiuc.edu Thu Feb 13 10:42:47 1997
Return-Path: steveli@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 KAA05385 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:46 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23056; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ux5.cso.uiuc.edu(128.174.5.45) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma022860; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:41:59 -0500
Received: from shrapnel (crh0865.urh.uiuc.edu [130.126.192.131])
	by ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA29000
	for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:42:04 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <3301E49F.5633@uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:41:19 -0600
From: steveli <steveli@uiuc.edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: charging for internet access
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 292

the internet is a place for people to access information whenever it is
needed, call it a global library if you will.  To impose a price on
those who wish to gather knowledge is ridiculous.  the internet has been
around for years now without complaint, why should the fees start now?!

steve

From jtheiss@umd5.umd.edu Thu Feb 13 10:43:21 1997
Return-Path: jtheiss@umd5.umd.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 KAA05389 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:21 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23206; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from umd5.umd.edu(128.8.10.5) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma023180; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:42:53 -0500
Received: from tracy.umd.edu (tracy.umd.edu [128.8.10.51]) by umd5.umd.edu(8.6.13/95Sep13)
	with ESMTP id KAA00513; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:00 -0500
Received: from localhost by tracy.umd.edu with SMTP id KAA09832; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:59 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Theiss - Judy <jtheiss@umd5.umd.edu>
X-Sender: jtheiss@tracy.umd.edu
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: email phone charges
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95q.970213103306.13517A-100000@tracy.umd.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1113

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to register my outrage at the very idea of phone companies
charging email users per minute for their usage of the internet. Not only
would this severely cut down on internet usage, but it would be a
catastrophe for the vast numbers of people in diverse businesses, cultural
enterprises, universities, research institutions etc who have come to
depend on internet access as an integral part of their work. Profits and
cultural productivity of all kinds are threatened by such a move which is
clearly motivated by the greed of phone companies who see an opportunity
to make huge amounts of money by taking advantage of our society's
deepening dependence on the internet for daily life and work. This is a
key area for the FCC to regulate in order to protect our freedoms of
communication so vital to our freedoms of speech and to the economic and
cultural well-being of our country.

I urge the FCC to prevent the such a massive manipulation for profit of
one of our most,
soon probably the most, important form of communication we have, the
Internet.
Sincerely,
Janet Theiss


From revmlowe@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:43:25 1997
Return-Path: revmlowe@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 KAA05393 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:25 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23236; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m9.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.195) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma023096; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:42:31 -0500
Received: (from revmlowe@juno.com) by m9.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KMP29710; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:18 EST
To: isp@FCC.gov
Subject: Phone Companies charging per minute for internet usage.
Message-ID: <19970213.094310.7367.0.RevMLowe@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 8-11
From: revmlowe@juno.com (Matt Lowe)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:18 EST
Content-Length: 634

	I have received information that suggests that phone companies
are planning to charge per minute rates for internet usage.  I was
wondering how ethical that would be since they are already charging for
the phone line installation, per month usage, and customer service.  It
seems as though service to customers has again fallen prey to the monster
of greed.  If these phone companies are having trouble making money maybe
they should poll their customers and net providers about usage and ask
how they think they this problem should be handled.  Instead of sneaking
behind the consumer's back to increase their profits.

Matt Lowe
 

From jmattson@discover-net.net Thu Feb 13 10:43:27 1997
Return-Path: jmattson@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 KAA05397 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:27 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23249; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from unknown(208.134.196.20) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma023138; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:42:38 -0500
Received: from [208.134.202.249] (pm4-249.discover-net.net [208.134.202.249]) by discover.discover-net.net (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA21341 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:40:38 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:40:38 -0600 (CST)
X-Sender: jmattson@discover-net.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v01540b00af2892e36818@[208.134.202.246]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: jmattson@discover-net.net (James E. Mattson)
Subject: internet access
Content-Length: 528

It is our understanding that our local telephone company has filed a
proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for our internet
service. We want to register our request with you to not grant the local
telephone companies this request. If these new charges are implemented, we
believe internet usage will greatly decline and even become impossible for
many. If usage is indeed a problem to local phone companies, there must be
another answer.

Sincerely,

James & Mary Ellen Mattson
139 Second Street
Chetek, WI 54728



From ret1sam@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:43:29 1997
Return-Path: ret1sam@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 KAA05401 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:29 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23261; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x1.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma023194; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:42:57 -0500
Received: (from ret1sam@juno.com) by x1.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KMW22967; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:13 EST
To: ISP@fcc.gov
Subject: Access fees
Message-ID: <19970213.083953.10366.1.ret1sam@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1,4-5,7-8,10-13
From: ret1sam@juno.com (Samuel F Femia)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:13 EST
Content-Length: 493

I am writing you to  complain about the proposed access fee that will be
imposed on the ISP groups.
This fee would put a hardship on me as I am retired and use the internet
for access to the outside world and I could not afford additional charges
for using this service.

I think this would be an injustice the millions of internet users, who
are on fixed incomes.

I ask the hearing committee to reject this ploy by the telephone
companies to increase their profits.

Respectfully 
Sam Femia

From ricka@coop.com Thu Feb 13 10:44:03 1997
Return-Path: ricka@coop.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 KAA05405 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:03 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23415; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from unknown(204.157.153.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma023391; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:43:34 -0500
Received: from ccird.UUCP (Ucoop@localhost) by freeside.fc.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with UUCP id JAA11653 for fcc.gov!isp; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:12:29 -0600
Received: from ricka.coop.com by ccird.coop.com id aa21099; 13 Feb 97 9:08 CST
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970213151107.0091c348@ccird.coop.com>
X-Sender: ricka@ccird.coop.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:11:07 -0600
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: Rick Alan <ricka@coop.com>
Subject: Local Internet Access
Content-Length: 204

Just wanted to express my opinion that it's none of the phone company's
business what my intentions are when I call a local Internet Service
Provider -- it's a local call, period.

Rick Alan
Lakeway, TX


From thooper@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:44:05 1997
Return-Path: thooper@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 KAA05409 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:05 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23434; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.26) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma023300; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:43:17 -0500
Received: (from thooper@juno.com) by x11.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id K[J13775; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:42 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: CC Docket No 96-263
Message-ID: <19970213.104027.4303.1.THOOPER@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5-6,9-10,12-18
From: thooper@juno.com (Thomas E. Hooper)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:42:42 EST
Content-Length: 601

Gentlemen,	

It seems to me that we are already paying taxes, both State & Federal for
using the telephones as it is. Further, the telephone companies seem to
be able to give more and more cut rates to grab more business from their
competitors. 

It appears that "here we go again" finding something else to tax. Many
E-Mail users dial local numbers to use the service and not making toll
calls.

Wish I was more articulate on this subject.  Just became aware of this
February 12 and wish to make my vote for NO to tax known.

Thank you,

Thomas E. Hooper
27 Northfield Road
Enfield, CT    06082-4214

From StieglerMEM@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:44:44 1997
Return-Path: StieglerMEM@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 KAA05413 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:43 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23641; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot03.msn.com(204.95.110.85) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma023457; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:43:47 -0500
Received: from upmajb04.msn.com ([204.95.110.81]) by upsmot03.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id TAA10087; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:38:26 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:37:52 UT
From: "Michael Stiegler" <StieglerMEM@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL08.199702131542390675@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Cc: "George Stiegler & Ronda" <gstiegler@aol.com>,
        "Senator Barbara Boxer" 
	<Senator@boxer.senate.gov>,
        "Senator Dianne Feinstein" 
	<senator@feinstein.senate.gov>
Subject: per minute charge by local telephone co's
Content-Length: 376

Please do not allow the local telephone companies to charge a per minute fee 
for access to the Internet. The charge of the local service should cover any 
voice or data  line. I feel the telephone companies see this as a cash cow. 
Where they can raise prices without increasing service. This should not be 
allowed period.

Thank you 

M. Stiegler
A very concerned citizen!

From patty-larry@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:44:45 1997
Return-Path: patty-larry@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 KAA05417 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:45 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23661; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.22) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma023505; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:43:56 -0500
Received: (from patty-larry@juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id K^J07314; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:19 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: phone charges
Message-ID: <19970212.073754.7223.0.Patty-Larry@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 10-11
From: patty-larry@juno.com (Laurence H. Bennett)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:19 EST
Content-Length: 795

I would like to comment on the suggested telephone company charge for
internet usage.  I really think that the phone bills are high enough as
it is.  I can see that the more people use the internet, the more usage
the telephone system will get.  If higher rates are needed to cover the
cost, I think that charging the internet providers a higher rate would
work better.  It seems to me that by charging the individual phone user
for the time that they are on the net, would create a huge bureaucratic
nightmare, costing the consumer more and not improving anything except
the phone company's profits.  I realize that everyone wants a piece of
the internet pie, but the phone co. is already being paid for the use of
their lines.  I think that one piece of pie is enough.
				Laurence H. Bennett

From netdata@fred.net Thu Feb 13 10:44:51 1997
Return-Path: netdata@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 KAA05421 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:51 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23689; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma023597; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:44:15 -0500
Received: from Netdata.fred.net (netdata.fred.net [205.252.219.139]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA23941 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:41:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970213154442.00672814@fred.net>
X-Sender: netdata@fred.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:42 -0500
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: "Michael \"Doc\" Clay" <netdata@fred.net>
Subject: Phone Charges
Content-Length: 367

I understand this is the email address to forward my concern about internet
access phone charges. I am opposed to the idea of per minute charges for
internet access. Although I do not connect for long periods of time, I
wanted to express my concerns about changing phone services.

Thank you,
Michael Clay
Michael "Doc" Clay
NetData Services

Email:netdata@fred.net


From mclimo@ici.net Thu Feb 13 10:44:53 1997
Return-Path: mclimo@ici.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 KAA05425 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:53 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23706; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from uhura.ici.net(204.97.252.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma023613; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:44:17 -0500
Received: from d-ma-mansfield-8.ici.net (d-ma-mansfield-8.ici.net [207.180.8.17])
          by uhura.ici.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id KAA17283 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:43 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:40:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199702131540.KAA17283@uhura.ici.net>
X-Sender: mclimo@mail
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: mclimo@ici.net (Steve Thibodeau)
Subject: p/min rates
Content-Length: 1243

Dear Sirs:

I'm writing in responce to upcoming proposal filed by local telephone
companies to impose a Per Minute Rate for internet useage.  I am strongly
opposed to this potential charge.  I feel that any per minute charge for
internet service is completly unfair.

Everyone who uses the internet is already paying fees to Internet Providers
for access and as consumers we shop around to find the best deal.  If this
fee were to be imposed, it would be imposible for Internet Providers not to
have to pass these charges to their users.  Thus causing the consumers to
have to stop using the internet all together.

I have learned to use the internet to obtain important information as well
as the use of e-mail has become essential for me to remain in touch with
family, friends, and business associates.

With the changes in telecommunications and local phone companies offering
Internet access, I also feel that this will create a Monopoly situation for
the phone companies to be the only Internet Providers that could offer
unlimited access without a Per Minute Rate.

Again, I am strongly opposed to this proposal and would like to see it
turned down.

Thank You,
Steven A. Thibodeau
10 Brookside Rd.
Mansfield, MA  02048
mclimo@ici.net


From John_Edinger@notesgw.hns.com Thu Feb 13 10:45:59 1997
Return-Path: John_Edinger@notesgw.hns.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 KAA05429 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:45:59 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA23964; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:45:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ngw2.hns.com(139.85.177.38) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma023886; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:45:21 -0500
Received: by ngw2.hns.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA20847; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:53 -0500
Message-Id: <199702131546.KAA20847@ngw2.hns.com>
Received: by HNS (Lotus Notes Mail Gateway for SMTP V1.1) id
  18E1838C7A33042F8525643D0054EF15; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:53 EST
To: isp <isp@fcc.gov>
From: John Edinger/HNS <John_Edinger@notesgw.hns.com>
Date: 13 Feb 97 10:42:42 EST
Subject: Re: Internet Access & ISP NOI : CC Docket No. 96-263 This is not
  a copy of formal comments.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain
Content-Length: 1423

I oppose charging per minute fees for Internet access when making a local 
telephone call.  For as long as I can remember, the phone companies have 
charged for the unlimited use of the phone line for communications (voice, fax, 
computer, whatever) and it would greatly hinder a great many businesses for 
them to change to a per minute fee just for Internet access.  My local phone 
company already offers a per call phone usage account for those that make few 
calls.  I would not be against them offering a new option, but I am against 
them taking away current features.

If a per minute fee were allowed, Internet use would greatly diminish since the 
fees would make it prohibitively expensive for many individuals and 
businesses.  It would end up restricted trade between businesses who use the 
Internet for customer and vendor ordering and provide it as an easier way to 
provide customer services.  If their customers can no longer afford Internet 
access, they could no longer use this function and may end up making fewer 
purchases from these companies.  That would not be good for the economy.  
Ideally, Internet access would be free, just like the public library system.  
But the next best system is the one we have now.  Please keep the local 
telephone companies from restricting this use with per minute fees.  Thank you.

John Edinger
19930 Gateshead Circle 
Germantown, MD   20876

jedinger@hns.com

From DCExpert@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:46:33 1997
Return-Path: DCExpert@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 KAA05433 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:33 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24107; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024088; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:08 -0500
Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id GAA10918 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:46:39 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:43:18 UT
From: "Craig Wells" <DCExpert@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL02.199702131543560523@msn.com>
To: "FCC" <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: Proposal by Local Telephone Companies to Charge for Internet Usage
Content-Length: 88



PLEASE!

STOP METERED RATE LITIGATION!!!


Thanking you in advance for your support.


From crzqbn@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:47:05 1997
Return-Path: crzqbn@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 KAA05441 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:05 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24185; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m15.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.192) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024114; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:14 -0500
Received: (from crzqbn@juno.com) by m15.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KVW10935; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:45:12 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Phone Fees
Message-ID: <19970213.074452.9486.2.crzqbn@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 9-16
From: crzqbn@juno.com (Rick Rivero)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:45:12 EST
Content-Length: 728

I just received a message from a friend that stated that the phone
companies are trying to impose a fee for per minute internet use.  I
think thats crazy!  Everything is getting like the cable companies where
they charge for everything and give crappy service.   I oppose the fee
because we already pay 19.95 per month and am able to let my wife and
kids use it fro educational and recreational use.   Th phone comanies
complain that it will hinder their service.  Well, their job is phone
service and to be at the service of the people.  I don't think we should
be paying for a service that we are already paying for in the form of
phone bill.  We already don't get what we pay for.


Thanks for your attention.



Rick Rivero

From lepley@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:47:08 1997
Return-Path: lepley@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 KAA05445 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:07 -0500
From: lepley@juno.com
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24196; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m3.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024174; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:40 -0500
Received: (from lepley@juno.com) by m3.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KWN20028; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:56 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: stop the madness
Message-ID: <19970213.104059.9942.0.lepley@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-3,7
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:56 EST
Content-Length: 376

re: this backdoor scheme to raise phone rates by placing a surcharge on
internet usage


WHAT a LOAD of bullshit. The phone companies are already bleeding the
public dry with enormous profits through such low-overhead services as
cellular phones and cable television. Don't let these greedheads smack a
secret tax on the technology millions of Americans enjoy and learn from.

From rparge@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:47:09 1997
Return-Path: rparge@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 KAA05449 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:09 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24209; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024117; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:18 -0500
Received: from upmajb04.msn.com ([204.95.110.81]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id GAA10996 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:46:49 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:43:07 UT
From: "Rick Pargeter" <rparge@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL07.199702131545310676@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Measured Service
Content-Length: 468


The phone companies have always wanted to foist measured local service upon us 
consumers, 
and this is just another attempt to get this implemented.

Measured service is available in our area.
Unlimited service is an option and is charged a premium rate.

Turn this proposal back. It's bad for the customer, and will further ruin the 
already
messed up phone system we have in this country, which was the finest in the 
world until
the mandated government break up.

From islinsun@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:47:12 1997
Return-Path: islinsun@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 KAA05453 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:11 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24233; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024123; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:21 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id JAA21497 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:46:27 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:46:27 -0600 (CST)
Received: from nas-nh3-49.ix.netcom.com(207.93.163.113) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma021415; Thu Feb 13 09:45:33 1997
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970213104608.44bf2456@popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: islinsun@popd.ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: Donna <islinsun@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Internet Usage fees
Content-Length: 336

UNFAIR  UNJUST if my daughter can spend hours on the phone talking to her
friends it is discriminatory to levy what amounts to a fine or a tax on my
internet usage.  Please defeat this unjust proposition!

Donna Braman
Islands in the Sun
Donna Braman, Cr. Photog.
215 Main Street
Salem,  NH  03079
Tel# 603-898-8088 
Fax# 603-898-2917


From mdgreene@mis.net Thu Feb 13 10:47:14 1997
Return-Path: mdgreene@mis.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 KAA05457 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:13 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24246; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:46:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.mis.net(204.68.227.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024158; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:35 -0500
Received: from home.mis.net (carin18.mis.net [206.28.44.187]) by MIS.Net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA00837 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:12 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:12 -0500
Message-Id: <199702131550.KAA00837@MIS.Net>
X-Sender: mdgreene@pop.mis.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: Cindy Greene <mdgreene@mis.net>
Subject: FYI per minute line charges
Content-Length: 1705

Dear FCC,

I am a regular internet user and I am concerned about the proposal by the
phone companies to impose per minute charges to internet users.  We home
school our children and we use the internet as part of their education and I
'm sure our usage will increase over the next few years as colleges and
universities make more and more available to home school families.  Because
of  home schooling we are a one income family and  have to stretch our
resources more than most two incomes families and so this extra charge would
be an even greater hardship on us.  

I believe that if you allow phone companies to charge a per minute line
charge internet usage will decrease.  We live in eastern Kentucky, a
relatively poor area of the US.  Most of the local people here do not have
big incomes.  If they can afford a computor and internet service they could
never afford to pay additional costs, such as per line charges, to receive
internet service.   Many of these people are uneducated and would be some of
the people to receive the biggest benefit from  internet services.

I do not believe that  internet usage will hinder the operation of the
telephone network.  Our network server recently had to add more lines so
that they could accomadate all the users in our rural area.  When the
internet server's lines were full we were not able to access the internet.
The internet use did not affect the ability of the community to use phone
lines either local or long distance.  

My family and I hope that you look carefully at this proposal before you
make any decision that will directly affect millions of internet users all
across the United States.  

Sincerely,

Cindra Greene
mdgreene@mis.net


From vicalt@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:47:50 1997
Return-Path: vicalt@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 KAA05463 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:49 -0500
From: vicalt@juno.com
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24399; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024230; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:46:51 -0500
Received: (from vicalt@juno.com) by x2.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KgQ25673; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:45:44 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:43:49 PST
Subject: jcmc4@juno.com (judy l conley): E-Mail
Message-ID: <19970213.104349.11078.1.vicalt@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-30
Content-Length: 864

--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: jcmc4@juno.com (judy l conley)
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: E-Mail
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:31:40 EST
Message-ID: <19961101.040505.5031.10.jcmc4@juno.com>

Dear One

Please Please do not let the telephone companies get in on charging for
E-mail.
I think they make enough money.  I do not even have an internet company
because I cannot afford it.  I have established so many wonderful
friendships and become closer to all my family members who all live out
of state  through E-mail.

Let the Americans enjoy one thing that someone does not have to make
money on.
The rich will get richer and then there is the poor.

I hope you are led my your heart and not your head .  
God Bless America and you too

Yours truly
Judy Conley

--VAA26366.855628394/m11.boston.juno.com--



--------- End forwarded message ----------

From wjhud@digicity.net Thu Feb 13 10:47:54 1997
Return-Path: wjhud@digicity.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 KAA05467 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:53 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24427; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from livewire.digicity.net(207.212.96.10) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024349; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:47:14 -0500
Received: from ip115.dialup-1.digicity.net (ip115.dialup-1.digicity.net [207.212.98.115]) by livewire.digicity.net (8.8.3/8.8.31) with SMTP id HAA26621 for < isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:47:19 -0800 (PST)
To: isp@fcc.gov (Federal Communications Commission)
Subject: CC Docket No. 96-263
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:49:49 GMT
Message-ID: <M.021397.074949.63@ip115.dialup-1.digicity.net>
From: wjhud@digicity.net (William J. Hudspeth, Ph.D.)
Return-Receipt-To: wjhud@digicity.net (William J. Hudspeth, Ph.D.)
X-Mailer: Quarterdeck Message Center [2.00]
Content-Length: 5024

Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.  20554

I am writing to you as a concerned citizen, in an effort to
curtail a potential problem.  I hear the phone companies are
requesting that additional "per minute" charges be levied
against Internet users, citing that our Internet usage has or
will hinder the operation of the telephone network.  I believe
you would be ill-advised to support such a movement, and I will
list my reasons for your consideration.

#1- As telephone users, we have a right to use our telephones in
any manner we see fit; as long as we do not break any laws while
doing so. I realize the phone companies are attempting to create
legislation to prevent the use of the Internet without additional
charges, but at the current time, I am not aware of any laws we
are breaking while using the phone to "dial-up" an Internet
Service Provider.  We are merely using technology to our advantage,
which is something the phone companies have been doing for a long
time.

#2- Current Internet access charges are in-line with other
communication facility charges.  There are conventions in place
to use the Internet for advertising.  Just as our air waves are
polluted with advertisements to assist in defraying the costs
associated with broadcasting, these same opportunities are
available through the Internet.  As the Internet comes closer to
integration with other broadcasting media, new opportunities will
arise for commerce and taxation.  The phone companies will have
every opportunity to exploit these newfound advertising and
marketing venues.  They will not suffer losses created by these
technologies, they will discover new ways to profit from them, 
ays that do NOT require unnecessary legislation or additional
fees for Internet "access".

#3- In many cases, the people using the Internet are already
paying for additional phone service.  They are adding additional
phone lines, and this means profits for the phone companies.

#4- The quality and availability of telephone service will
dictate the public's willingness to pay for it.  The technologies
used to communicate over the Internet are clearly taking advantage
of the existing capabilities offered by telephone networks.
Rather than finding ways to increase the charges for use of
existing technologies, the phone companies need to occupy
themselves with taking the lead on development of "new and
better" technologies.  Most people, even when the opportunity
to use an Internet telephone exists, will not rely on it for
their sole communications tool.  Just as the invention of the fax
machine created new communications opportunities, so has the
Internet. When the fax machine was invented, did the US Postal
Service lobby for legislation to "tax" fax usage, in an attempt
to replace lost revenues? And if they did, were they successful?
Or, did they step-up their efforts to provide a different,
"higher quality" delivery system?

#5- Perhaps most importantly, telephone companies are currently
taking every step possible to enter new markets, markets they
intend to dominate, in an effort to increase their profits.
In a free-market economy, they have every right to do so.  They
also have a responsibility to act in a manner that is in the best
interest of the public.  Adding additional charges for Internet
use will further inhibit access to the world's knowledge base.
This is in no way in the public's best interest.  There is
already a distance between the "classes" as it were, and a
segment of the population that is prevented from enjoying the
benefits of access to knowledge due to their economic and/or
educational condition.  They are already at a clear disadvantage.
Do not further hamper their chances at gaining social, economic,
and educational equality by making Internet access more
unreachable to this segment of the population.

#6- Local telephone companies, especially Pacific Bell, have
courted Internet Service Providers with a fee structure that
would assure the success of the Internet.  Moreover, PacBell
courted end user's with a competitve fee structure that has
made PacBell one of the largest ISPs in the country. Now that
the public is invested and dependent, PacBell wants the FCC 
to believe that they were unable to predict the success of the
Internet that PacBell now claims has overburdened the
infrastructure of the telephone system.  Since PacBell has
aggressively positioned itself in all the strategic profit-making
niches of the Internet venture, it cannot be viewed as a passive
victim of circumstance.  Rather, PacBell's past actions and current 
claims coalesce into a picture that looks, smells and tastes like
fraud. Is it?


In closing; I am a concerned, taxpaying citizen of the United
States of America.  I urge you to resist any attempts by the phone
and telecommunications companies to impose new legislation and/or
collect additional fees for Internet usage.

Thank you,


William J. Hudspeth, Ph.D.
16 Edan Avenue - Stockton, CA - 95207



From ronald.call@m.cues.k12.ut.us Thu Feb 13 10:48:28 1997
Return-Path: ronald.call@m.cues.k12.ut.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 KAA05475 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:28 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24549; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from svc.cues.k12.ut.us(205.120.117.15) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024407; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:47:30 -0500
Received: from [205.120.67.19] by svc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA11020; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:41:18 -0700
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:41:18 -0700
X-Sender: cu6033rc@m.cues.k12.ut.us
Message-Id: <v01510100af28941eccff@[205.120.67.19]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: ronald.call@m.cues.k12.ut.us (Ronald Call)
Subject: per minute charges for internet
Content-Length: 692

   Dear Sir or Madam,

        I am a high school teacher from rural Utah and have just heard
about the proposal by telephone companies to charge additional per minute
charges for internet access.  This would be devestating for my students.
Here in rural Utah we have no nearby college or university libraries that
my students can get to.  Many of my students use the internet as their
major source for finding information.  Yet much of the time spent on
internet is in the early morning or later afternoon hours when telephone
lines are less busy.  Please do not impose additional per minute charges
for intenet access.  It will be a knife to the heart of education.  Thank
you.

Ron Call



From gin_meyer@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:48:30 1997
Return-Path: gin_meyer@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 KAA05479 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:30 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24567; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot02.msn.com(204.95.110.79) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024391; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:47:28 -0500
Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot02.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id HAA17085 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:44:21 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:46:17 UT
From: "Virginia Meyer" <gin_meyer@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL03.199702131545160560@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: CC Docket No 96-263
Content-Length: 890

My name is Virginia Meyer  I live at 449 Valley Hi Circle in Colorado Springs, 
CO.  80910 and I have been made aware that the FCC is looking into a proposal 
from the phone company to charge per minute usage of on-lines services.  
I firmly believe that this is a violation of our rights and a criminal way for 
the phone companies to get richer.  We pay a flat fee to our on-line service 
provider that ensures us of unlimited usage.  If the phone companies want to 
try to attach extra fees for this usage they should try to get them from the 
providers.  The big corporate lawyers would probably make short work of this 
outrage!  Picking on the little guy who innocently uses these services is just 
adding insult to our pocketbooks!
I urge you to look into this matter and put a stop to it!
Thank you,.
Virginia Meyer
gin_meyer@msn.com
449 Valley Hi Circle
Colorado Springs, CO 80910

From holzheim@meol.mass.edu Thu Feb 13 10:48:32 1997
Return-Path: holzheim@meol.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 KAA05483 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:32 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24582; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from meol.mass.edu(134.241.27.23) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024486; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:47:50 -0500
Received: by meol.mass.edu; id AA18325; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:24 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Diane Holzheimer <holzheim@meol.mass.edu>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: proposed new phone company charges
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.91.970213104819.28196A-100000@meol.mass.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 383

I understand that telephone companies are proposing to charge for the use 
of the internet now. I would like to go on record as being AGAINST their 
right to do that! They have no right to cash in on this. They have no 
business charging people anything. Please put a stop to this nonsense 
immediately. Thank You. Diane Holzheimer <holzheim@meol.mas.edu> and 
<dfholzheim@aol.com> 

From cfpinc@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:48:34 1997
Return-Path: cfpinc@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 KAA05487 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:34 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24598; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x1.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024512; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:47:59 -0500
Received: (from cfpinc@juno.com) by x1.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KOC22967; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:45:22 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:16:51 PST
Subject: CC Docket No 96-263
Message-ID: <19970213.094348.15702.10.cfpinc@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,7-8,10-16
From: cfpinc@juno.com (Harold Templeton)
Content-Length: 695

I don't know if all the buzz on the internet is true, but my vote is
against local telephone company per minute charges for phone access to
the "net."

Telephone companies exist for the purpose of making a profit.  For too
long, they and other utilities have depended on Government interference
to provide that profit.  It is time for everyone (including the private
citizen) to stand up on their own two feet.

Telephone companies need to view increased traffic as an opportunity to
explore, not an excuse to increase rates.

Harold Templeton
1406 Oak Avenue
Round Lake Beach, IL  60073
cfpinc@juno.com (checked every day)
haroldt@iwc.net (for large messages, attachments, checked once a week)

From emo_p@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:48:36 1997
Return-Path: emo_p@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 KAA05491 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:36 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24610; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.26) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024515; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:48:00 -0500
Received: (from emo_p@juno.com) by x11.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id K]D13775; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:59 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov, Alan_Wallace%MISSION_CRITICAL_SOFTWARE@notes.worldcom.com
Subject: internet surcharges
Message-ID: <19970213.084806.17399.1.emo_p@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5-6,9-15
From: emo_p@juno.com (Emo J Pentermann)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:59 EST
Content-Length: 491

Dear Sir/Madam:

The quality of telephone service from our local provider (US WEST)
borders on a Federal Crime. It feel at times like I live in a 3rd world
country. These people have a monopoly and funnel all their profits into
foreign projects, while leaving their home base stranded.

Do not allow Internet surcharges, which will further monopolize their
position. They are already overcharging Internet providers for Internet
access.

Deregulation is the key word here.

Thank you.

E.P.

From greene@calv4.cray.com Thu Feb 13 10:49:08 1997
Return-Path: greene@calv4.cray.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 KAA05496 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:08 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24737; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from timbuk.cray.com(128.162.19.7) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024628; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:48:19 -0500
Received: from calv4.cray.com (greene@calv4.cray.com [128.162.44.25]) by timbuk.cray.com (8.8.4/CRI-gate-8-2.11) with SMTP id JAA07711 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:48:26 -0600 (CST)
Received: by calv4.cray.com (SMI-8.6/CRI-5.13)
	id KAA17399; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:24 -0500
From: "Dorian D. Greene" <greene@calv4.cray.com>
Message-Id: <9702131048.ZM17388@calv4.cray.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:22 -0500
X-Mailer: Z-Mail Lite (3.2.0 5jul94)
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Telephone Company Internet Charges
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 463

To Whom It May Concern,

	I understand that local telephone services are contemplating assessing
per minute charges for Internet use conducted over their phone systems.  I
would like to register a strong protest against such charges.  Use of the
Internet over local networks should not be restricted by such charges.  Such
fees are unwarranted both as a restriction on speech and as an unjustified
profit levied without a comensurate service.

	Dorian D. Greene 

From ariprime@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:49:40 1997
Return-Path: ariprime@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 KAA05500 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:40 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24869; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m3.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024761; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:48:51 -0500
Received: (from ariprime@juno.com) by m3.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KYL20028; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:22 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Awwww,c'mon....
Message-ID: <19970213.104738.10054.15.ariprime@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-7,10-14
From: ariprime@juno.com (Arianne S Norton)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:22 EST
Content-Length: 447

We pay for phone service, we pay for metropolitan phone service to get
our philly computer lines, we pay for our online services....enough is
enough!!!!

I am sick and tired of having to pay, pay pay.

What the phone companies are proposing are nonsense fees.

If these rates go through, I will be among the first to get rid of my
metro phone service and the phone company will lose more of their
customers.

We pay, and we pay enough

Ari Norton

From linnvm@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:49:42 1997
Return-Path: linnvm@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 KAA05504 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:42 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24899; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x1.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024834; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:49:09 -0500
Received: (from linnvm@juno.com) by x1.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KPH22967; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:32 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Proposed per-minute charge for Internet users
Message-ID: <19970213.104731.5239.9.linnvm@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 5,7
From: linnvm@juno.com (Veronica & Matthew Linn)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:47:32 EST
Content-Length: 544

I am one of thousands of Internet users AGAINST THE PROPOSED PER-MINUTE
CHARGE.  We are already paying a fee to access the Internet. Why should
we pay on top of that an extra 4 to 40 cents per minute charge?  Are you
penalizing technology and development?  This is outrageous!!!  Local
calls would cost less.  Guess what, computer users could boycott this
decision -- if taken -- by not using the Internet or the telephone. 
We will have to go back to the beginning of the century and start writing
letters more often. SO MUCH FOR PROGRESS!!! 

From dianamc@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:49:46 1997
Return-Path: dianamc@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 KAA05508 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:46 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA24938; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024850; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:49:17 -0500
Received: (from dianamc@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id K[T24646; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:47 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Phone charges
Message-ID: <19970213.104721.10303.4.DianaMc@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2
From: dianamc@juno.com (Diana E       E McLean)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:47 EST
Content-Length: 217

I strongly object to the phone co. being able to charge extra.I would not
be able to use my E-mail if that happened. I am already paying local
charges to the phone co. Please don't add any extra charges. Diana McLean

From flog@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:50:18 1997
Return-Path: flog@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 KAA05512 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:18 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA25099; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x1.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xmaa24834; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:49:25 -0500
Received: (from flog@juno.com) by x1.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KPO22967; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:33 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:48:21 PST
Subject: CC Docket No 96-263
Message-ID: <19970213.094821.11950.0.FLOG@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,12,15-21
From: flog@juno.com (FREDERICK R. FOYE)
Content-Length: 1199

This msg is in regards to the request by the telephone companies to
impose a per minute fee for users of the internet.  
The telephone companies are stating that the internet users have or will
hinder the operation of the telephone network.  I believe that this is a
unfounded  statement by these companies and that it is just another ploy
to rip off the consumer to enrich their (telephone companies)
stockholders.  These companies already charge for everything under the
sun.  How many telephone companies have lost money or filed for
bankruptcy in recent years?  I would be very surprised if there have
been any in this country.   I already pay a Customer line charge of
$3.50 per month, a 911 Service Fee of .55, Federal Tax @ 3%, Texas
Poison Control Surcharge .04,Texas 9-1-1 Surcharge .04, Other Taxes
$1.75. 
The telephone companies need to cut out the fat in their organizations,
get competitive, and provide the service at a reasonable price.  The
days of being a government protected monopoly, hopefully are gone.
Again, I oppose this request from the telephone companies.
Thank You for your consideration of this request.

Frederick R. Foye
25503 Yellow Pine Circle
Spring, Texas  77380

From gflinza@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:50:26 1997
Return-Path: gflinza@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 KAA05516 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:26 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA25179; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma024984; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:49:29 -0500
Received: (from gflinza@juno.com) by x2.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KiO25673; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:01 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: no more costs for internet
Message-ID: <19970213.104149.3982.0.GFLinza@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2
From: gflinza@juno.com (Guy F. Linza)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:49:01 EST
Content-Length: 118

I want to express my very strong objections toany proposal to increase
the costs for using Internet.
GFLinza@juno.com

From carolgmann@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:51:00 1997
Return-Path: carolgmann@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 KAA05521 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:51:00 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA25411; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xmaa24850; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:50:12 -0500
Received: (from carolgmann@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id K[Q24646; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:46 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Charging fee by phone companies
Message-ID: <19970213.104628.6918.0.carolgmann@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,6-7
From: carolgmann@juno.com (Carol G. Mann)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:46 EST
Content-Length: 440

To Whom It May Concern
I am against permitting the phone companies to charge for Internet
connections.  They are just seeing a golden goose in getting more money
from their customers.  This may preclude some people from having access
because they cannot afford the additional expenses.  In a time when our
President wants the school systems to come up to speed in computers this
may hinder schools from providing this service.  
Carol Mann

From grobison1@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:51:02 1997
Return-Path: grobison1@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 KAA05525 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:51:02 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA25421; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m7.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.196) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma025218; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:50:13 -0500
Received: (from grobison1@juno.com) by m7.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KOW28814; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:10 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Cc: lapple1@aol.com, lburris@smartnet.net, bobcar1@juno.com, pgooch3@juno.com,
        74517.3331@CompuServe.COM, amontgom@smartnet.net, wrobert@dialnet.net,
        rext9138@smartnet.net
Subject: Internet charge
Message-ID: <19970213.094013.7327.0.grobison1@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,6-7,10-11,14-15,17-20,22-24
From: grobison1@juno.com (gene robison)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:48:10 EST
Content-Length: 1076


I protest the proposal filed by the regional bell companies to impose a
per minute charge for internet service.  I am a user of the internet. I
pay my monthly telephone fee and want to continue to use the phone lines
to call  whoever I please. I understand some companies are lobbying for
rates as high as $1 per minute. I am sure Mr. Gore does not approve of
this proposal nor President Clinton.

The regional phone companies have no right to set charges based on the
different people and businesses I choose to call. If they do, where will
it stop.

The imposition of these surcharges will restrict the freedom and rights
of every individual in America plus placing an economic restriction on
the economy.

Eight or ten companies have no right to have this much power of
censorship or control over the freedom of the individual.

They are making plenty of money now. Look at their financial results.

I am telling my friends about this bill and asking them to email you
their feelings at isp@fcc.gov if they agree with the above comments.

Gene Robison  grobison1@juno.com

From almoreel@cyberg8t.com Thu Feb 13 10:51:36 1997
Return-Path: almoreel@cyberg8t.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 KAA05529 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:51:36 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA25567; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:51:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from key.cyberg8t.com(204.137.200.40) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma025502; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:50:58 -0500
Received: from host17.cyberg8t.com (host17.cyberg8t.com [206.85.247.76]) by key.cyberg8t.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA02206 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:50:27 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:50:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.16.19970213075100.2c4729e8@cyberg8t.com>
X-Sender: almoreel@cyberg8t.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16)
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: Steve Fischer <almoreel@cyberg8t.com>
Subject: PER MIN. CHARGE INCREASE
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 455

PLEASE FOR ALL OF THOSE WHO USE THE INTERNET DO NOT ALLOW THE PHONE CO'S
WHO ALREADY MAKE BILLIONS OF PROFIT EVERY YEAR TO START CHARGING BY THE
MINUTE I OPERATE FORM A BUSINESS PHONE SO I ALREADY AM BEING CHARGED "BY
THE MINUTE" AND A SECOND CHARGE WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO HANDLE
I BELIEVE THAT THE FCC STILL WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY AND WE
WANT SOME RELIEF SO THAT WE CAN BUILD OUR BUSINESSES INSTEAD OF CLOSING THEM
THANK YOU 
STEVE FISCHER

From gross@homebrew.pinenet.com Thu Feb 13 10:52:08 1997
Return-Path: gross@homebrew.pinenet.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 KAA05533 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:52:08 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA25765; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:51:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from homebrew.pinenet.com(206.11.214.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma025600; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:51:22 -0500
Received: from gross.pinenet.com (pm1-22.pinenet.com [206.11.214.32]) by homebrew.pinenet.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA07878 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:51:26 -0600
Message-ID: <330338CC.5559@mail.pinenet.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:52:45 -0600
From: "Dell M. Gross" <gross@homebrew.pinenet.com>
Reply-To: gross@homebrew.pinenet.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: CC Docket No. 96-263   Not copy of formal comments.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 508

Local telephone companys should not be allowed to charge extra for
internet access by the end user. The introduction of other phone
companys and the price war that follows is a clear indication of the
price gouging that has gone on for years. It is time that the average
user get some value for the money that they have spent over the years.
So please don't be seduced by the phone companys slick laywers and their
sweet nothings and say no to any price increase.

Dell Gross
405 7th St.
Pine City, MN 55063

From sherrman@discover-net.net Thu Feb 13 10:52:45 1997
Return-Path: sherrman@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 KAA05537 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:52:44 -0500
From: sherrman@discover-net.net
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA25956; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:52:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from unknown(208.134.196.20) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma025775; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:51:49 -0500
Received: from [208.134.202.237] (pm4-237.discover-net.net [208.134.202.237]) by discover.discover-net.net (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA21746 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:49:51 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:49:51 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <v01540b00af289305ec46@[208.134.202.253]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject:  FCC and Internet
Content-Length: 945

Dear FCC,
I am writing to protest the per minute charge for internet use currently
being proposed by the phone companies.  I feel this would devastate the
educational opportunities this service provides for students both young and
old.  This is a resource that is extremely important for the future of our
children and society.  It allows people to communicate globally and
correspond globally.  This fosters an interest in world society and affairs
that seems to be largely lacking in many young people today.  For a better
world, we need to feel more connected as people.  The internet has opened
avenues to my children.  They have been in contact and written and recieved
mail from such diverse places as Australia, Norway, New Zealand, Korea.  If
the price were to be per minute, I know that it would prohibit our use.
Please keep this resource available to my children and myself.
Thank you,
Sheri Herrman
1538 15th St.
Barron, WI54812





From ewm611@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:53:31 1997
Return-Path: ewm611@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 KAA05541 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:30 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26164; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma025995; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:52:32 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id JAA29431 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:52:37 -0600 (CST)
Received: from det-mi6-23.ix.netcom.com(199.183.194.215) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma029404; Thu Feb 13 09:52:22 1997
Message-ID: <33036103.32AB@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:19 -0800
From: "E. Marshall" <ewm611@ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-NC250  (Win95; U; 16bit)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Charges for local calls
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1198

To Whom it May Concern,

I recently received news of a proposal to allow phone companies to charge internet users 
for local phone calls to ISPs.  This is an outrage!  With the way the telephone 
companies currently operate, most phone users have no choice as to who handles their 
local phone service.  Giving these local monopolies power to charge based on the type of 
communication someone is using is a way to further subjugate the people to the 
all-powerful corporation.  Before the FCC decides to give more power to the telephone 
companies, it should think about giving power back to the people by deregulating the 
local phone companies to encourage competition so the average user can decide whether 
s/he wants to be charged to call locally to use the internet or anything else.  
If this proposal goes through, will we be charged for faxing documents for business or 
personal use?  Will educational institutions have to stop offering internet access due 
to escalating prices?  How much will I have to pay in the future to voice my opinion on 
such violations of public will?  

This is ludicrous.

Erik Marshall
33573 Pardo
Garden City, MI 48135
(313) 422-1262

ewm611@ix.netcom.com

From bj.peterson@m.cues.k12.ut.us Thu Feb 13 10:53:45 1997
Return-Path: bj.peterson@m.cues.k12.ut.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 KAA05545 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:45 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26247; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from svc.cues.k12.ut.us(205.120.117.15) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma026059; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:52:48 -0500
Received: from [205.120.1.72] by svc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA11545; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:46:30 -0700
X-Sender: cu8993bp@m.cues.k12.ut.us
Message-Id: <v03010d01af28e5a42c8b@[205.120.1.72]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:51:43 -0700
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: "B.J. Peterson" <bj.peterson@m.cues.k12.ut.us>
Subject: Phone company charges for Internet time
Content-Length: 1309

It sounds to me that the phone companies are just trying to find new ways
to make you pay more for a service that you are already paying for.

The phone companies make money on the circuits that they provide to the
Internet providers.  Many of the phone companies offer internet services,
so they make money on the Internet in that way.  They also make money off
the phone service they provide to your home.

In my opinion, when you pay them for a phone service, you should be able to
use that phone service any way you would like (whether it be data or
voice).  When you make a local call, you're not charged to make that call.
When you make a long distance call, you are charged for that call.  If I
call local to my ISP, it is the same thing as if I were calling my friend
down the street.  I am using one line and one service, I don't think that
it matters whether or not I send Data or Voice (it is not the phone
companies business).

--
B.J. Peterson                     Help Desk Support Specialist
Voice:  (801) 896-9297            fax:  (801) 896-4767
Email:  mailto:bj.peterson@m.cues.k12.ut.us
 http:  http://www.cues.k12.ut.us
  ftp:  ftp://ftp.cues.k12.ut.us
++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++==++
Lack of PLANNING on your part
does not justify an EMERGENCY on my part.



From wdmcclen@ingr.com Thu Feb 13 10:53:50 1997
Return-Path: wdmcclen@ingr.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 KAA05549 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:49 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26269; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hq15.pcmail.ingr.com(129.135.251.243) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma026108; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:52:59 -0500
Received: by hq15.pcmail.ingr.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63)
	id <01BC1993.B5F1A250@hq15.pcmail.ingr.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:53:06 -0600
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=INTERGRAPH%l=HQ7-970213155240Z-20821@hq15.pcmail.ingr.com>
From: "Mcclendon, Bill (William D)" <wdmcclen@ingr.com>
To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: Proposed Internet usage charges
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:52:40 -0600
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63
Encoding: 86 TEXT
Content-Length: 3712


FCC Representative,

Let me express my opposition to the recent effort by telephone companies
to increase rates for Internet access.

I work in the computer industry.  But I am also a home Internet users.

Technically, there is no basis for their concern over "system overload"
by Internet users.  While most individual users will never use a
telephone line for Internet access for more than an hour at a time some
will use it more.  No matter the duration, this is usually at the
expense of actual voice calls.  There is no extra wear and tear on the
switching equipment when computers communicate instead of people.  It
doesn't take more power, or more time, to handle a 1 hour modem
connection to the Internet than it does to handle a 1 hour voice
conversation.

The concerns of loss of service due to full capacity use are valid.

My home town of Huntsville, Alabama is a good example.  All switches in
our local calling area are now digital.  Switch to switch, our phone
transmissions are all digital, the equipment cannot recognize whether a
call is to a person, or a computer.  In fact, I believe that the phone
company would have to ADD capability to identify calls from my home to
the switch as Internet.  They would have to do this for EVERY switch
facility in the country.  Interesting, they would have to ADD equipment
or software to charge for a service which does not require additions
currently.

By the way, there is no way to tell if I am dialing a FAX machine,
another computer directly in my calling area, or an Internet connection
except by the number I dial.  If my logic is correct, they would only
charge for calls to specific numbers.

Moreover, most heavy home users, like Internet Service Providers
(ISP's), have additional line(s) added.  These added lines cost no more
to install and service than a second line for my children, regardless of
the usage time.  Will the phone company attempt to access surcharges for
the capacity required for my children?

In reviewing the studies presented so far by Bell Atlantic, I have
several conclusions and quite a few questions.  Conclusions are:

The assertion that switching systems are reaching peak is obviously
true, within this sample.
The assertion that "all lines are busy" is more frequent a may affect
911 calls is true, within this sample.
However, I was under the impression that 911 calls receive priority
switching over all other calls.  If true, this implies the risk is much
smaller.

Questions that arise are as follows:

What is the impact of the timeframe (i.e. these peaks occur late in the
evening, when switches are traditionally quiet)?
Why is there no statement that ISP's using T1 lines can only use T1
switches?
Why is there no statement that ISP's using ISDN lines can only use ISDN
switches?
Why is there no statement that ISDN lines are only available in a small
fraction of the country and require entire facilities?
Why is there no statement about the cost of adding these facilities in
order to switch ISP's to this type of service?
What is the impact of ISP service in smaller areas such as 100,000 to
500,000 people and NOT Washington DC?

I submit that the phone companies have legitimate points, and also
hidden motives.  Let's get this all up front.  Let's ACTUALLY talk about
the need to provide 21st century high speed digital communications.

I support charging higher rates to ISP's, IN THOSE AREAS WHERE
ADDITIONAL CAPACITY  IS CLEARLY NEEDED.  I do NOT support charging
higher rates to ALL ISP's!



W. D. (Bill) McClendon
Project Manager - Digital Media
Home of the Studio Z
Intergraph Corp.
wdmcclen@ingr.com
(205) 730-3539 (voice)
(205) 730-8300 (fax)
http://www.intergraph.com/visual/visual.stm


From ozbo1st@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:53:51 1997
Return-Path: ozbo1st@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 KAA05553 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:51 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26276; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.22) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma026109; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:52:59 -0500
Received: (from ozbo1st@juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KcN07314; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:03 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Per minute telephone charges.
Message-ID: <19970213.104858.13142.0.ozbo1st@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-2
From: ozbo1st@juno.com (Richard X Zubris)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:03 EST
Content-Length: 125

I strongly object to the proposal to
charge per minute fees for internet access by the telephone companies.
		Richard Zubris

From patriciaf@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:53:55 1997
Return-Path: patriciaf@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 KAA05557 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:55 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26295; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x7.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.24) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma026133; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:53:05 -0500
Received: (from patriciaf@juno.com) by x7.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id K^U05581; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:52:58 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Message-ID: <19970213.104703.12398.1.patriciaf@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 5-7
From: patriciaf@juno.com (patricia j frushour)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:52:58 EST
Content-Length: 424

I really don't know how to start this letter.  How can the phone
companies decide that local usage by using computers is any different
than a person making a personal phone conversation?  How can greed be
allowed to affect so many people who could not afford to communicate with
distant relatives and friends.  Please register my complaint against
imposing per minute fees on e-mail access numbers.  Thank you.

P. Frushour

From grievan@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 10:54:27 1997
Return-Path: grievan@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 KAA05561 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:27 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26447; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.7) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma026208; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:53:17 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id JAA20786 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:53:17 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:53:17 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199702131553.JAA20786@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com>
Received: from spr-ma3-17.ix.netcom.com(205.184.172.113) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma020742; Thu Feb 13 09:52:44 1997
From: grievan@ix.netcom.com (Evelyn Griggs Schoolcraft)
Subject: CC Docket No. 96-263
To: isp@fcc.gov
Content-Length: 2900

I am appalled to learn that telephone companies now are attempting to 
destroy usage of the Internet.  Already we must pay servers $19.95 per 
month for such usage, and I'm certain these servers already are paying 
telephone companies huge sums for such use.  Why must we pay twice for 
the same service?

My telephone bill per month already is huge.  I never have trouble 
calling out or making numerous long distance calls, so I doubt their 
contention that Internet usage has or will hinder the operation of the 
telephone network.  As with any business, if you need more equipment, 
you add it.  Undoubtedly if they choose to add more lines or whatever 
is needed, the cost of same will be added to our telephone bills.  Why 
must they also attach what is already being paid for by the server?  
I'm sure servers' costs must already be astronomical.  With new 
equipment, the telephone companies would increase fees to the server 
and get back more money in that manner, too.

Why should the user be PENALIZED and CHARGED TWICE for usage of the 
Internet?

If the greed of telephone companies forces paying of per minute fees to 
the Internet, I'm sure servers "will go down the tubes" for I, for one, 
will be unable to pay such costs.  All of my acquaintances, both young 
and old, are in the same predicament, yet my grandchildren, and others 
like them, use the Internet to find information needed to complete 
their homework. It's bad enough to already pay large sums to the 
telephone companies providing service to me.  We have to pay TWO 
companies per month for use of ONE telephone.  

It will be a great detriment to our society, stamp out educational use 
by our children, and once again force us, the United States of 
American, that great land of the free and the brave, to take a back 
seat to other nations, many of which are already ahead of us in 
education and industry.  

I feel sad that the greed of corporations in our country in setting up 
facilities outside the U. S. already has made us a "service" country 
rather than the great industrial nation which brought us to prosperity. 
Downsizing has hurt thousands of our citizens while their CEO's stash 
away sums needed by no individual, for no person is worth such money.

I'm 71 years of age and have seen much change in my lifetime.  Are you 
being coerced by the telephone companies?  Stand firm.  IF YOU KEEP THE 
WELFARE OF YOUR CITIZENS AT HEART-- we, who, like you as individuals, 
PAY THE TAXES AND FOOT THE BILLS the politicans pass so lightly -- YOU 
WILL TURN DOWN the request of telephone companies to add a per-minute 
charge to us for Internet Service, a double charge which will add to 
corporate coffers, add hardship to people already stressed out paying 
costs, and put many more United States citizens out of work. 

EVELYN G. SCHOOLCRAFT (MRS. ROBERT B.)
210 EAST LONGMEADOW ROAD
HAMPDEN, MA 01036 

From sheila.mcclune@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:54:29 1997
Return-Path: sheila.mcclune@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 KAA05565 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:29 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26458; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.22) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xmaa26109; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:53:34 -0500
Received: (from sheila.mcclune@juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KcH07314; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:01 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:49:27 PST
Subject: CC Docket No 96-263
Message-ID: <19970213.085525.-23865.0.sheila.mcclune@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 6-7,10-17
From: sheila.mcclune@juno.com (Sheila K McClune)
Content-Length: 791

I wanted to voice my opposition to additional per minute charges for
Internet services.  I am already paying both the telephone company and
the Internet Service Provider for these services.  Since I correspond
mainly via e-mail, I make very few voice calls, and the small amount of
time I spend online downloading and uploading my e-mail (an average of
five minutes per day) does not seem to me to be a significant burden to
the telephone system.

Also, many people who make extensive use of Internet services have
installed a second phone line for just this purpose, so they are ALREADY
paying for the additional telephone services they use.

Thank you very much for you attention.
Sheila McClune
1275 South Birch Street #502
Denver, Colorado 80222
sheila.mcclune@juno.com
mcclunes@aol.com

From jb16@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:54:31 1997
Return-Path: jb16@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 KAA05569 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:31 -0500
From: jb16@juno.com
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26468; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x13.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.27) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma026203; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:53:17 -0500
Received: (from jb16@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KPX00349; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:52:29 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Cc: Docket@staff.juno.com, #@staff.juno.com, 96-263@juno.com
Subject: Please do not seperate our family again
Message-ID: <19970213.105214.10118.5.jb16@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1,7
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:52:29 EST
Content-Length: 488

Your docket #96-263 We are Jerry and Norma Bashover living at 6325
Timberlakes way Delray Beach,Fl. 33484
My family like thousands of others have seperated over three states and
my grandchildren are off to college in other states. For the first time
since we have all separated free email has brought us together again as a
family. We are in touch with them as if they lived next door. With the
stress on family why break us up again by putting a price on email and
educational internet.

From toddtyler@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:54:35 1997
Return-Path: toddtyler@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 KAA05573 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:35 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26486; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma026306; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:53:36 -0500
Received: (from toddtyler@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id K\T24646; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:54 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Re:CC Docket No 96-263
Message-ID: <19970213.095017.3958.2.toddtyler@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-7,10-21
From: toddtyler@juno.com (Todd T Young)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:50:54 EST
Content-Length: 715

Tyler Young
807 E. 21st Street
Odessa, TX 79761
(915) 337-5313
e-mail: toddtyler@juno.com

Dear Sirs:

Along with millions of others, I think that it is unconscionable that
telephone companies are petitioning the FCC to impose charges for
internet connections. This 
is just another example of arrogant corporations who can't stand the 
internet being accessible to everyone without corporations profitting 
from it. The net is an information highway that should be open to 
everyone without penalties and unnecessary charges, and these charges 
will be penalties to all of us who now use and depend upon the net for 
research and communication. 
  
I urge the FCC to deny this petition.

Respectfully,
Tyler Young

From ransan@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:54:39 1997
Return-Path: ransan@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 KAA05577 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:39 -0500
From: ransan@juno.com
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26513; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma026410; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:53:57 -0500
Received: (from ransan@juno.com) by x2.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KjS25673; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:15 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:52:49 PST
Message-ID: <19970213.095250.6950.0.ransan@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,8-14
Content-Length: 540

Dear Representatives of the FCC

I wish to make known that I find the complaint the telephone companies is
unfounded.  Does not the Internet provide more business instead of less? 
They will ultimately profit after improvements are made.  Many businesses
go through these transitions, why should the telephone company be given
"special privileges?"  Please consider the many users of the Internet
and the profit they bring to telephone companies before ruling.  Thank
you.


Randy M. Koppen
ransan@juno.com
411 Bailey St
Jackson, MN  56143

From rlwilkes@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:55:13 1997
Return-Path: rlwilkes@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 KAA05581 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:55:13 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26626; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.194) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma026576; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:54:36 -0500
Received: (from rlwilkes@juno.com) by m11.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KSH03816; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:55 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Per minute charge for internet users
Message-ID: <19970213.105425.18543.0.rlwilkes@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,11,14
From: rlwilkes@juno.com (Ronald L Wilkes)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:55 EST
Content-Length: 885

Dear FCC,

I have just been made aware of the local phone companies attempt to
implement a per minute charge to all users of the internet. This is the
most absurd thing I have ever heard. It is discriminatory and out and out
greedy. How can the phone companies justify a per minute charge for a
LOCAL CALL, This just proves that greed and self interest are all these
companies are about. I, for one, am sick of this crap. Every time
something good comes about there are always vultures ready to feed off
the public. WHY MUST WE, THE AVERAGE CITIZEN, HAVE TO ALWAYS BEAR THE
EXPENSE OF THE MONEY GRUBBING FEW WHO JUST WANT TO CAPITALIZE ON
TECHNOLOGY  THAT THEY HAVE NOTHING TO WITH . 
You cannot allow this to happen. The people of this country deserve a
break. A local call is just that "a local call"and to charge certain
people for that call is discriminatory and possibly illegal.

From sscccrh@wsfa.com Thu Feb 13 10:55:15 1997
Return-Path: sscccrh@wsfa.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 KAA05585 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:55:15 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26631; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hobbes.traveller.com(204.199.139.242) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma026473; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:54:11 -0500
Received: from PC_sscccrh@wsfa.com (dyn_16.mgm.tis.net [206.26.185.16]) by mail.wsfa.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA57252 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:54:16 -0600
Message-ID: <MAPI.Id.0016.00736363637268203030303730303037@MAPI.to.RFC822>
Priority: Normal
To: isp@fcc.gov
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Cathi Hunt <sscccrh@wsfa.com>
Subject: Internet per minute charges
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:57:24 PST
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 387

I understand that the FCC is considering allowing per-minute charges on Internet use by telephone companies.  This will tremendously hinder growth and slow down what is a burgeoning way to transfer information.  The telephone companies have posted record profits for many years now and they do not need additional income which is sure to kill the internet.  DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN!

From mmanley@digitalenterprises.com Thu Feb 13 10:55:17 1997
Return-Path: mmanley@digitalenterprises.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 KAA05589 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:55:17 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26645; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:54:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp.internex.net(199.2.14.12) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma026474; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:54:12 -0500
Received: from de.digitalenterprises.com ([207.88.209.18])
	by custmail.Internex.NET (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA23061
	for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:53:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [153.34.191.87] ([153.35.234.99])
          by de.digitalenterprises.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.0)
          with SMTP id AAA132 for <isp@fcc.gov>;
          Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:55:10 -0800
Message-ID: <33033B67.81C@digitalenterprises.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:08:05 -0800
From: mmanley@digitalenterprises.com (Mike Manley)
Reply-To: mmanley@digitalenterprises.com
Organization: Digital Enterprises, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
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: 891

To whom it may concern:
It is my beleif that the internet will be diminished as a low cost and
valuable tool for all segments of the population if per minute charges
are allowed to be levied by the phone companies.  Please do NOT allow
this to happen.
Just to have on-line capability is an expense to the user and a profit
to the phone companies. 
-- 
------------------------------------------------------
* Computer-based Training
* Interactive Communication
* Java and Shockwave Development 
* Graphic Design/Marketing
* Web Page Design/Marketing

Michael Manley, Executive Vice President, Digital Enterprises, Inc.
15460 Willow Dr. 
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Email: mmanley@digitalenterprises.com 
Web Site:  http://www.digitalenterprises.com 
------------------------------------------------------ 
Phone: 408-448-5354
Fax: 408-448-3058
------------------------------------------------------

From gryphun@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:55:53 1997
Return-Path: gryphun@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 KAA05593 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:55:53 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA26799; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:55:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x11.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.26) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma026726; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:55:18 -0500
Received: (from gryphun@juno.com) by x11.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id K_V13775; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:53:18 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:58:29 PST
Subject: phone charges
Message-ID: <19970213.075829.14343.0.GRYPHUN@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 7
From: gryphun@juno.com (Patricia H Griffin)
Content-Length: 542

The proposal by the phone companies to add extra fees for use of the
internet is unreasonable and greedy. We pay regular fees which are
returning all of them large profits. I am a stockholder in several
telecommunications firms and appreciate the dividends received, but do
not feel this is a proper way to increase those dividends. The phone
companies are spending millions of dollars in advertising to try to draw
customers from their competitors. That money would be better spent
enlarging their capacity to cope with the growth in usage.

From GrayE2108@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:57:40 1997
Return-Path: GrayE2108@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 KAA05597 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:57:40 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27259; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:57:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027124; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:56:51 -0500
Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id GAA14167 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:57:22 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:48:23 UT
From: "Erik Gray" <GrayE2108@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL03.199702131549500945@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Docket Number 96-263--Phone Companies and Internet Usasge
Content-Length: 548

To Whom it May Concern:
	I AM FURIOUS!!!!  The telephone companiesa already have a vast system of 
compensation, why do they have to get their fingers in on the Internet??  It's 
silly--the  only reason the phone companies are complaining about Internet 
access is the fact that they don't have their greedy little fingers in this 
particular pie. STOP THIS INSANITY FROM GOING FURTHER!!!!!
	Please respond at GrayE2108@msn.com.  I would very much like to follow this 
little piece of so-called litigation.

					Erik M .Gray
					Fayetteville, NC

From btkelly1@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:57:50 1997
Return-Path: btkelly1@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 KAA05601 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:57:50 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27323; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:57:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m15.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.192) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027242; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:57:16 -0500
Received: (from btkelly1@juno.com) by m15.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id K[S10935; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:56:39 EST
To: isp@FCC.GOV
Subject: Proposed Charges
Message-ID: <19970213.105215.11910.0.btkelly1@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1,4-5,7-8
From: btkelly1@juno.com (Barbara T Kelly)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:56:39 EST
Content-Length: 400

My home-based business, so far, has cost me more money than it is making
for me.
The free E-Mail Service to which I have recently subscribed is the one
Oasis in a desert of bills, taxes and fees that  this small-business
owner must constantly endure.

I pay 3 bills each month to the telephone company - Personal line,
business line and
Computer line.  I really don't see why I need to pay more.    

From jmikee@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:58:24 1997
Return-Path: jmikee@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 KAA05605 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:24 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27491; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x16.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.28) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027341; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:57:30 -0500
Received: (from jmikee@juno.com) by x16.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KEZ16197; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:57:03 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Extra charges.
Message-ID: <19970213.075532.16215.0.jmikee@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3
From: jmikee@juno.com (John M. Enriquez)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:57:03 EST
Content-Length: 236

I believe the FCC should be wary when telephone companies try to raise
rates.  For most internet users, the telephone access is more costly than
the internet access, due to a shortage of local access number by some
internet carriers.  

From sjones@aig.vialink.com Thu Feb 13 10:58:33 1997
Return-Path: sjones@aig.vialink.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 KAA05609 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:30 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27515; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from unknown(205.132.37.36) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027445; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:57:58 -0500
Received: from joness (joness.vialink.com [205.132.32.229])
          by aiginet1.vialink.com (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP
          id AAA140 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:58:01 -0600
Message-ID: <33033A03.405@aig.vialink.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:57:55 -0600
From: "Steven F. Jones" <sjones@aig.vialink.com>
Reply-To: sjones@aig.vialink.com
Organization: Applied Intelligence Group
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I)
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: 268

I oppose the imposition of additional per minute charges by my local
phone company for internet use.  I believe that the fee I pay to my
internet provider is more than sufficient.

Steven F. Jones
11739 Springhollow Road
Oklahoma City, OK 73120-4624
fearnot@flash.net

From rhalley@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:59:02 1997
Return-Path: rhalley@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 KAA05613 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:02 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27602; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x6.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.23) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027487; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:58:02 -0500
Received: (from rhalley@juno.com) by x6.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KeD05825; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:57:04 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:44:53 est
Subject: CC Docket No 96-263
Message-ID: <19970213.104517.4911.0.RHalley@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-6,8-10,12-18
From: rhalley@juno.com (Robert W Halley)
Content-Length: 722


I wish to go on record as opposing any special charges by telephone
companies for use of their lines to transmit and receive data by digital
means.( i.e E-mail, Faxes or other developing technologies)

Attempting to tax  these data systems  will lay  the burden
of identifying and collecting on the local telephone company and have the
benefits totally accrue to those scheduled  to receive the tax...i.e. the

Federal Government and one of it's branches.

It is disappointing to me that this effort has received so little
publicity by
the FCC. Typically,  Proposed Rule Making announcements allow a
reasonable time for comment by those that will be affected.

Robert W. Halley
114 Red Bird Lane
Terrace Park, Ohio 45174

From rusty@stratos.net Thu Feb 13 10:59:06 1997
Return-Path: rusty@stratos.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 KAA05617 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:06 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27622; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from home.stratos.net(207.25.199.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027473; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:58:01 -0500
Received: from JOHN ([207.25.199.220]) by atlas.stratos.net
          (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP id AAA265
          for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:56:23 -0500
Message-ID: <33033A09.537F@stratos.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:01 -0500
From: rusty@stratos.net (rusty)
Reply-To: rusty@stratos.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Internet and local phones
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 403

If it were not for the internet, the phone company would be getting half
the business from me that they are now.  I'm a residential phone user,
and I have put in a second line for internet access.  I'm on a fixed
monthly budget (disabled), and the internet is the one of the only forms
of entertainment I can afford.  Please do not allow the local phone
companies to gouge us more than they already do!

From sherry_christensen@msn.com Thu Feb 13 10:59:08 1997
Return-Path: sherry_christensen@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 KAA05621 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:08 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27633; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot03.msn.com(204.95.110.85) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027495; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:58:04 -0500
Received: from upmajb04.msn.com ([204.95.110.81]) by upsmot03.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id TAA14291 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:52:46 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:46:04 UT
From: "Ken Christensen" <sherry_christensen@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL08.199702131557420323@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Phone Charges for Internet access
Content-Length: 229

	Charging for local phone calls just because the line is being used to access 
the internet sounds like an excuess by the phone company to pad their pockets. 
 I am not in favor of that.
	Please count my vote against this plan. 

From rev_aynne@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:59:42 1997
Return-Path: rev_aynne@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 KAA05625 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:42 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27763; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.199) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027665; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:59:03 -0500
Received: (from rev_aynne@juno.com) by m2.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KfQ00375; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:28 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: We already pay enough for our phone bills and for Internet
Message-ID: <19970213.105322.13631.1.Rev_Aynne@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,7-12
From: rev_aynne@juno.com (Reverend      Aynne P Morison)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:28 EST
Content-Length: 542

To allow the local phone company to add charges for internet service will
not only limit the time some use, it would cut off many students who
don't have the extra money to give the phone company.

We are paying quite enough now for the service.  The local phone company
is making more than enough to cover this use, especially since it is
mostly local calls and for those of us who do not have a local node, we
are already paying long distance per minute charges.

Enough is Enough.  No More Charges!

Reverend Aynne P. Morison
Manassas, VA

From drmel@juno.com Thu Feb 13 10:59:44 1997
Return-Path: drmel@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 KAA05629 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:44 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27784; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x7.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.24) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027732; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:59:15 -0500
Received: (from drmel@juno.com) by x7.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KaZ05581; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:30 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Internet Telephone Charges
Message-ID: <19970213.110416.2543.1.DRMel@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5-11
From: drmel@juno.com (David R. Melchior)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:30 EST
Content-Length: 362

Sirs:

  It is my understanding that GTE and other telephone companies have
requested that they charge local computer users for Internet access.
Please know that I STRONGLY OBJECT to this. We are already paying too
much for what is now a necessity of life, namely telephone service.

Sincerely,
David Melchior
245 Brighton Ct.
Englewood, FL 34223
DRMel@juno.com

From wd5fhg@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:00:16 1997
Return-Path: wd5fhg@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 LAA05635 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:16 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27877; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x3.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.22) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027855; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:59:49 -0500
Received: (from wd5fhg@juno.com) by x3.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KiK11196; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:22 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Proposed telco internet charges.
Message-ID: <19970213.095627.12310.0.WD5FHG@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,4-6
From: wd5fhg@juno.com (JOSEPH L SHEINBERG)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:22 EST
Content-Length: 373

It's not enough that we pay for the telephone line, but the phone
companies in their inimitable and greedy ways want
to charge us extra for using them for oyther that voice. I
have a separate line besides my home phone, for the computer & I don't
think you should allow the phone companies to milk us further.

Sincerely,  J. L. Sheinberg WD5FHG@Juno.COM   I'm also a ham.

From odavis@fred.net Thu Feb 13 11:00:18 1997
Return-Path: odavis@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 LAA05639 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:18 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id KAA27887; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027747; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:59:19 -0500
Received: from [205.252.212.196] (odavis.fred.net [205.252.212.196]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA25247 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:56:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <v01530500af2897157cdd@[205.252.212.196]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:36 +0100
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: odavis@fred.net (Owen Davis)
Content-Length: 182

I am writing to inform you that I am opposed to the phone company receiving
an additional charge for internet use. Should we have to pay an additional
charge for a fax? Owen Davis



From tdelnort@ici.net Thu Feb 13 11:00:24 1997
Return-Path: tdelnort@ici.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 LAA05644 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:24 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA27925; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from uhura.ici.net(204.97.252.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027755; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:59:20 -0500
Received: from 207.180.8.50 (d-ma-mansfield-84.ici.net [207.180.8.93])
          by uhura.ici.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id KAA19650 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:55:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <330337C3.6E8C@ici.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:49:04 -0500
From: "B. Dorf" <tdelnort@ici.net>
Reply-To: tdelnort@ici.net
Organization: TDN Environmental
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Internet Service
	>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.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 856

I have been informed that my local telephone company has
filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for my
internet service. They contend that my usage has or will hinder the
operation of the telephone network.

I strongly oppose the imposition of such special charges for internet
service. My time spent on the internet, through local access lines, is
much less than many "conversation" calls placed by other people.
Singling out one user type would be an extremely unfortunate precedent. 
Telephone service is available at fixed rates and what the paid user
does with that service is up to them.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barbara Dorf
Tejas del Norte Environmental
1 Sagamore Road
Attleboro, Massachusetts  02703
USA

Telephone:  508-226-3368
FAX: 508-226-3368
E-mail: tdelnort@ici.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From pbesser@svcam.amd.com Thu Feb 13 11:00:28 1997
Return-Path: pbesser@svcam.amd.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 LAA05648 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:28 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA27945; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from amdext.amd.com(139.95.251.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027805; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:59:30 -0500
Received: from amdint.amd.com (amdint.amd.com [139.95.250.1])
          by amdext.amd.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/AMD) with ESMTP
	  id HAA18303 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:59:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CAEIS2 (caeis2.amd.com [139.95.1.2])
          by amdint.amd.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/AMD) with SMTP
	  id HAA15041 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:59:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199702131559.HAA15041@amdint.amd.com>
Received: from CAEIS2 via Pony Express VMS Mail FPI (v9.5.0-moe002);
	  Thu, 13 Feb 97 07:58:43 PST
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 07:58:43 PST
From: APD THIN FILMS <pbesser@svcam.amd.com>
To: svcam::wins@"@amd:isp@fcc.gov".fcc.gov
Cc: pbesser@caeis2.amd.com
Subject: Per minute charges by local phone companies for internet
	 access.
X-Vms-To: SVCAM::WINS%"@amd:isp@fcc.gov"
X-Vms-Cc: PBESSER
Content-Length: 1081

Dear Sirs:

It is my understanding that the FCC is currently reviewing a plan
that would allow my local telephone company to impose per minute charges 
for internet service. It is also my understanding that the local phone 
companies justify these charges by contending  that my 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. In addition, I believe
that this is a case where the phone companies are trying to double-charge
me.  I already pay the phone company a flat rate for local phone service,
regardless of the length of my phone call.  So I believe that I am already
paying the local phone company for access.  The option offered by my 
local phone company is to pay for every call on a per minute basis, in 
which case, again, I would already be paying.  To ask me to pay a special
fee just because I am calling a specific number is outrageous.

I STRONGLY URGE YOU NOT TO ALLOW THIS LEGISLATION TO PASS.
     
Regards, 

Dr. Paul Besser


From TDFord@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 11:00:36 1997
Return-Path: TDFord@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 LAA05652 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:36 -0500
From: TDFord@ix.netcom.com
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28003; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.7) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027867; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:59:53 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id JAA22399 for isp@fcc.gov; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:59:58 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:59:58 -0600 (CST)
Received: from man-nh1-09.ix.netcom.com(205.187.216.41) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma022376; Thu Feb 13 09:59:43 1997
To: isp@fcc.gov
Message-Id: <1997213105239541@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Say NO to the phone Co. 
X-Mailer: NETCOMplete v3.20, from NETCOM On-Line Communications, Inc.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 1699


>
>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 agengies
>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, Netcom), 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,
>
>                                       Todd Ford
>
>
>




From BobJudyT@msn.com Thu Feb 13 11:01:08 1997
Return-Path: BobJudyT@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 LAA05656 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:08 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28140; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027978; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:12 -0500
Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id HAA15249 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:00:43 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:52:09 UT
From: "bobjudyt " <BobJudyT@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL01.199702131558310839@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Access fees to ISP's
Content-Length: 367

If the FCC allows phone companies to begin charging isp's for each minute of 
phone usage, there won't be very many homes in the country connected by the 
year 2000 as the President and Vice President would like.  It sounds like 
computer use in the home would be meant only for the affluent.  If this 
happens, I can assure you that we will quit using the internet.

From bart@bnl3.com Thu Feb 13 11:01:10 1997
Return-Path: bart@bnl3.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 LAA05660 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:10 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28156; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bnl3.com(206.103.41.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027906; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:01 -0500
Received: from nemo (nemo.bnl3.com [206.103.41.3]) by bnl2.bnl3.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA32586 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:00:37 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970213075711.00a23100@206.103.41.2>
X-Sender: bart@206.103.41.2
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:03:11 -0800
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: "Bart N. Locanthi" <bart@bnl3.com>
Subject: RE: Docket No. 96-263 (original)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 1666

i am very familiar with usage charges on isp access, given that our home
network has been bridged to the internet via isdn for a few years, and
in our region, gte charges for isdn by the minute.

when every minute counts, and the first minute usually counts more than
the rest, it becomes very important to set the drop time on one's modem
or router to avoid excessive first-minute charges.

mine is currently set to 150 seconds, or 2.5 minutes, for exactly this
reason.  anything less, and taking say 1.5 minutes to respond to email
could invoke an extra first-minute charge.

since isdn connections come up in less than 5 seconds, this seems to me
a complete waste.  i would rather my router drop the connection when it
isn't being used, but the rate structure forces me to play this stupid
game, and more, all in the interest of minimizing usage charge.

i used to work for at&t bell laboratories and am very familiar with the
digital switched network and its currently mostly analog terminae in the
home. i see nothing wrong with charging more for digital service, because
resources *are* being consumed to support long-term connections.

BUT, 1) connect times are artificially long now, and 2) i want to know in
advance what my local service charges are going to be.  that is, *i* want
my local digital service to be like a subscription, which is the way my
tv and print magazines work.

please DO NOT let bell-head telcos get a free ride on this issue.  time and
again they have chosen not to think, but simply to insist that their dumb
ways of doing things be subsidized.

bart locanthi
8456 sw charlotte drive
beaverton or 97007
503/591-9385
bart@bnl3.com



From lorettajcrawford@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:01:12 1997
Return-Path: lorettajcrawford@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 LAA05664 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:12 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28165; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma027966; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:14 -0500
Received: (from lorettajcrawford@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KaD24646; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:28 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: surcharges
Message-ID: <19970213.110032.6862.2.lorettajcrawford@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-2,6-10
From: lorettajcrawford@juno.com (Loretta J. Crawford)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:28 EST
Content-Length: 349

To Whom it may concern:


I have recently heard of doings by the telephone industry to surcharge
our e-mail usage.  I think this is very wrong.  I already pay for online
usage and any additional charges should be deemed duplicate and not
allowed.

Please do not pass any legislation pro this surcharge.  It is very wrong.

lorettajcrawford@juno.com

From jserran1@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 11:01:15 1997
Return-Path: jserran1@popd.netcruiser
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 LAA05668 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:14 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28175; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028008; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:17 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id KAA25135 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:00:23 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199702131600.KAA25135@dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com>
Received: from sfo-ca36-05.ix.netcom.com(205.184.159.229) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma025075; Thu Feb 13 09:59:54 1997
Subject: Charges for Internet Use
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 08:05:05 -0800
From: <jserran1@ix.netcom.com>
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Length: 573

To whom it may concern:
If local charges are added to monthly fee for internet use, people will 
connect with less frequency. Some people may even disconnect their 
services from home and begin to use it at work or at educational 
institutions. 
Do not add regional charges to those already being paid through ISP's.

Juana Serrano


=================================================

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world 
upside down, all alone
together women ought to be able to turn it rightside up again.
--Sojourner Truth, 1797-1883




From voxh@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 11:01:19 1997
Return-Path: voxh@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 LAA05672 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:18 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28201; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028007; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:17 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id KAA29887 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:00:23 -0600 (CST)
Received: from unknown(199.183.41.177) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma029830; Thu Feb 13 09:59:59 1997
Message-ID: <33033AD7.63C7@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:27 -0500
From: Allan Heinberg <voxh@ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: voxh@ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
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: 541

Hi, I'm an internet user who accesses the net for both business and
personal reasons.  I'm writing to oppose the potential per minute
charges being discussed in relation to internet access.  My daily
internet usage impedes Brooklyn/New York phone access just exactly as
much as my daily local calls do -- no more, no less.  To add an
additional charge per minute to internet calls will severely restrict
its usage and, I'm afraid, will effectively kill it.  Thanks for your
time. 

Best,

Allan Heinberg
719 Eighth AV #3D
Brooklyn, NY 11215

From jpaul@ici.net Thu Feb 13 11:01:21 1997
Return-Path: jpaul@ici.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 LAA05676 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:20 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28211; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from uhura.ici.net(204.97.252.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028049; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:28 -0500
Received: from d-ma-boston-22.ici.net (d-ma-boston-22.ici.net [207.180.17.31])
          by uhura.ici.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id KAA19870 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:56:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:56:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970213110059.36ff5e7c@ici.net>
X-Sender: jpaul@ici.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: "J.P. Alberino" <jpaul@ici.net>
Subject: I am in protest of NYNEX internet charges
Content-Length: 598

To whom it may concern:

I am a system consultant whom uses the internet daily as a part of my system
toolbox to maintain and recieve the latest technical information and software.

I do not believe that NYNEX has the right to differentiate between internet
LOCAL calls and local NON-INTERNET noncharged phone calls.
It should not matter weither the initial local call connects you down the
street or to Hong Kong over the internet.

"I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT NYNEX SHOULD INFRINGE ON THE USAGE OF THE INTERNET,
AND BE ALLOWED TO CHARGE ANY TYPE OF FEE TO THE END-USER...

Thank you

Joseph Alberino


From samba@sdt.com Thu Feb 13 11:01:23 1997
Return-Path: samba@sdt.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 LAA05680 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:22 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28219; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sdt.com(199.100.49.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028063; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:29 -0500
Received: by world (5.0) id AA05725; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:00:17 +0600
Received: from aadt.sdt.com(144.9.149.25) by world via smap (V1.3)
	id sma005496; Thu Feb 13 09:59:36 1997
Received: from topgun (topgun.sdt.com) by aadt.sdt.com (4.1/SUN-2.0hub)
	id AA23137; Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:37:32 CST
Received: by topgun (5.61) id AA09020; Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:30:56 -0600
Message-Id: <9702131530.AA09020@topgun>
Subject: Increase in the per minute cost
To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 9:30:55 CST
From: samba <samba@sdt.com>
X-Mailer: Elm [version 2.1 PL0]
Content-Length: 60

Please do not increase the per minute telephone cost
-samba

From bornagn2@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:01:27 1997
Return-Path: bornagn2@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 LAA05684 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:26 -0500
From: bornagn2@juno.com
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28239; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x12.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.26) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028118; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:44 -0500
Received: (from bornagn2@juno.com) by x12.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KbT06890; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:31 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:26 PST
Subject: Please defend us !
Message-ID: <19970213.110128.3526.0.BornAgn2@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-4,7-8,10-11,13-16,20-21,23-24,26,28
Content-Length: 1264

It has come to my attention that the phone services are trying to get
permission to charge a fee for the use of the internet.

We already pay a phone bill that is too high for most people.

If I choose to use my line for one purpose...  and you choose to use your
line for another purpose...  what gives them the right to charge me an
extra fee for my choice of use ?

This is another example of companies trying to tap into the wallets of
the people in an underhanded and back door kind of a way.

I already pay for the privilege to use this phone line....  it is mine to
use...  as I choose.

I do not have a voice in this matter...  unless you speak out for me.

The internet use is only going to keep on growing in the coming years, 
as you know very well.  Now is the time to let the phone companies know that they can not try to tap into this lucrative market by double
charging people for the use of the phones.

PLEASE.....  speak out for us all......   PLEASE.....   stand up for our
rights.....  PLEASE....  stop this proposal in it's tracks...  NOW !

Thank you for your time...  and we will be watching to see how you handle
this one.
                                                                         
                     Scott F. Rabideau Sr.

From pastor_ed@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:02:03 1997
Return-Path: pastor_ed@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 LAA05688 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:03 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28383; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.22) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028236; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:01:05 -0500
Received: (from pastor_ed@juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KfO07314; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:31 EST
To: F.C.C.@juno.com
Cc: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:44 PST
Subject: Mail Delivery Subsystem <postoffice@staff.juno.com>: Returned 
	mail: User unknown
Message-ID: <19970213.105853.7967.2.pastor_ed@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-105
From: pastor_ed@juno.com (Ed Yearack)
Content-Length: 3413

--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <postoffice@staff.juno.com>
To: pastor_ed@juno.com
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:41:49 -0500
Message-ID: <199702130541.AAA25406@x4.boston.juno.com>

This is a MIME-encapsulated message

--AAA25406.855812509/x4.boston.juno.com

The original message was received at Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:39:18 -0500
from pastor_ed@juno.com

   ----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
F.C.C.@juno.com  (unrecoverable error)

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 F.C.C.@juno.com... User unknown

   ----- Original message follows -----

--AAA25406.855812509/x4.boston.juno.com
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: (from pastor_ed@juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id AXM29003; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:39:18 EST
To: F.C.C.@juno.com
Cc: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 00:38:10 PST
Subject: Mail Delivery Subsystem <postoffice@staff.juno.com>: Returned 
	mail: User unknown
Message-ID: <19970213.003819.7967.2.pastor_ed@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-63
From: pastor_ed@juno.com (Ed Yearack)

--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <postoffice@staff.juno.com>
To: pastor_ed@juno.com
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:02:08 -0500
Message-ID: <199702130302.VAB20911@x4.boston.juno.com>

This is a MIME-encapsulated message

--VAB20911.855802928/x4.boston.juno.com

The original message was received at Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:59:24 -0500
from pastor_ed@juno.com

   ----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
F.C.C.@juno.com  (unrecoverable error)

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 F.C.C.@juno.com... User unknown

   ----- Original message follows -----

--VAB20911.855802928/x4.boston.juno.com
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: (from pastor_ed@juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id VRC29003; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:59:24 EST
To: F.C.C.@juno.com
Cc: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:58:22 PST
Subject: Telephone Co.
Message-ID: <19970212.215831.7967.8.pastor_ed@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3,5,9,11,13,17-22
From: pastor_ed@juno.com (Ed Yearack)

Dear Sirs:

I am appalled with the action of the phone companies bargaining to try
and weasel out more money from the consumers!
I find it absolutely ridiculous that they would try and sneak such a
thing under the guise that internet traffic is clogging the lines.
Isn't it a fact that every internet user is also a phone company customer
and already pays their phone bill locally and their phone bill long
distance! this is crazy to ask for another charge on top of their
already exorbitant rates.
It is obviously just another plea to gain revenues that they already are
getting paid for handsomely.
Just ask yourselves; what good is internet without the phone lines in the
first place?
And really, the internet is already bringing the phone companies business
not the other way around! TO BE ON INTERNET, YOU MUST BE A PAYING, PHONE
COMPANY CUSTOMER & IF YOUR NOT, THEN YOUR INTERNET IS ABOUT AS USEFUL AS
A BOAT ANCHOR!

Sincerely,
Ed Yearack
Internet user
Hundred bucks a month, phone company customer.

--VAB20911.855802928/x4.boston.juno.com--


--------- End forwarded message ----------

--AAA25406.855812509/x4.boston.juno.com--


--------- End forwarded message ----------

From amkillian@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:02:05 1997
Return-Path: amkillian@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 LAA05692 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:05 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28401; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m3.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028237; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:01:05 -0500
Received: (from amkillian@juno.com) by m3.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LaG20028; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:23 EST
To: FCC@juno.com, isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Internet use charge by local phone companies
Message-ID: <19970213.105750.20614.1.amkillian@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,4-5,7,9
From: amkillian@juno.com (Ann M Killian)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:23 EST
Content-Length: 482

To Whom It May Concern:
     Local phone companies should not be allowed to charge for internet
use time.  Whether it is my computer or a person using the phone should
be immaterial to them.  My basic service should cover my computer, also. 
 
     Thank You.
                                                                         
                        Yours truly,
                                                                         
                         Ann Killian

From kedwards@traveller.com Thu Feb 13 11:02:09 1997
Return-Path: kedwards@traveller.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 LAA05696 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:09 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28437; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cyclone.traveller.com(198.49.103.156) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028264; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:01:16 -0500
Received: by cyclone.traveller.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA54800
        for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:46:55 -0600
Message-ID: <33033CA6.75AC@traveller.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:09:10 -0600
From: Kathy Edwards <kedwards@traveller.com>
Reply-To: kedwards@traveller.com
Organization: Traveller Information Services
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Per Minute Charges for Internet Usage
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 194

I writing to let you know that I am strongly opposed to phone companies
imposing a per minute charge for internet usage. Please make sure they
are not allowed to do it.
Thanks, Kathleen Edwards

From hoperumpca@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:02:11 1997
Return-Path: hoperumpca@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 LAA05700 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:11 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28459; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m8.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.196) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028308; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:01:26 -0500
Received: (from hoperumpca@juno.com) by m8.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KSH13362; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:12 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Cc: president@whitehouse.gov
Subject: CC Docket No 96-263
Message-ID: <19970213.075803.9798.1.HopeRumpca@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,6,8-14
From: hoperumpca@juno.com (Hope Rumpca)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:59:12 EST
Content-Length: 541

To Whom It May Concern:

	I am writing to express my concern over the per minute charge for
dial up internet service.  I believe very strongly that it is wrong and
would hinder rather than help the internet industry.  I also see it as
another means of driving small business' into extinction.  I believe it
is a biased idea that would only benefit the phone companies.
	Please reconsider a per minute charge.  A monopoly does not
permit growth.

Hope Rumpca
394 Madrona Ave. S.
Salem, OR 97302-5650
(503) 391-4793
email: HopeRumpca@juno.com

From donnavh@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:02:13 1997
Return-Path: donnavh@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 LAA05704 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:13 -0500
From: donnavh@juno.com
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28474; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x13.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.27) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028153; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:49 -0500
Received: (from donnavh@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id KTC00349; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:57 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: "Daniel M. Thompson" <calvaryacademy@miworld.net>: PLEASE 
	DON'T IGNORE
Message-ID: <19970213.111201.4967.3.donnavh@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 17-18,39-62
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:58:57 EST
Content-Length: 3495

I received the following forwarded message.  I don't know what the phone
company is trying to do, but the e-mail and Internet has been such a
blessing and fun thing for us all I ask that you will not let them impose
charges that would stop or add to the expense of e-mail or Internet.  My
phone bill per month is quite extravagant as I have 2 children, a sister,
and others out of state.  I continue to use the phone often, but having
this cheaper form of communication has been wonderful for me.  As far as
I am concerned the phone company is hurting as people are not so
dependent on them as they once were--perhaps their "gravy" days are over.
 Please do not let them impose a fee that would hinder us from using the
e-mail that we had grown to love. I have had to pay "big bucks" to use
their service, now I receive at least 2 calls a week trying to give me
offers of cheaper rates.  If that was possible, why didn't they do it in
the first place instead of waiting til they had a little competition to
make them bring their prices down.  I actually do not understand all that
is involved, but I hope you tell them to keep their "mitts" off of the
Internet service. Thanks for listening. Donna Vander Hart, Runnells,
IA--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: "Daniel M. Thompson" <calvaryacademy@miworld.net>
To: ddjjLJ@juno.com, 74114.170@CompuServe.COM,
dlind@usa.ibeuce.com.br,dennis1216@juno.com, donnavh@juno.com,
rstuart@neumedia.net,EWEBE954@wpo.bju.edu, BuntP@aol.com,
pennwood@juno.com,fredrick@netbiz.net, Harry_Shearer@HSB.Com,
JWEBE272@wpo.bju.edu,paint6846@aol.com, jnorris@websurfer.net,
mccoyj@ed.concord.wvnet.edu,long@aob.pradeshta.net, jrlytle@iafrica.com,
needgrace@aol.com,jduff@grfn.org, jawillis@sprynet.com,
107766.2756@CompuServe.COM,yamacom@sec.secrel.com.br,
Yamacom@cecrel.com.br,Leigh.Robinson@pixie.co.za,
mnicholas@acc7.ac.cc.md.us,mlounsbr@crato.netcariri.com.br,
liu197827@hknet.com,trozzo_md@academ.wvwc.edu,
moody@teenmania.org,paul@soncrest.giant.net,
rk.miller@auckland.ac.nz,thompson@magnum.wpe.com,
rddurst@ix.netcom.com,rothwell@connexus.apana.org.au, KBeckley@maf.org,
blockard@netbiz.net,sblasc80@usurp.calvin.edu,
103120.1054@CompuServe.COM,104744.1722@CompuServe.COM,
timbecky@usa.ibeuce.com.br,vbjones@aol.com,
105147.1062@CompuServe.COM,davehall@usa.ibeuce.com.br, DanDJJ@aol.com,
brian@usa.ibevce.com.br,dale@ihug.co.nz, 106122.2750@CompuServe.COM,
cloibel@netbiz.net,73661.2534@CompuServe.COM, bmbarnes@secollege.edu,
wwc3@juno.com,s1063271@cedarville.edu
Subject: PLEASE DON'T IGNORE
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:14:34 -0800
Message-ID: <33035A09.1EAA@miworld.net>

>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.
>
>    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 litiagation. Let everyone you know here
>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!

--------- End forwarded message ----------

From axyz@msn.com Thu Feb 13 11:02:45 1997
Return-Path: axyz@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 LAA05708 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:45 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28572; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot03.msn.com(204.95.110.85) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028376; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:01:41 -0500
Received: from upmajb06 ([204.95.110.89]) by upsmot03.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id TAA15219 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:56:22 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 16:05:25 UT
From: "Richard Jackson" <axyz@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL01.199702131600530042@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Telephone Rates
Content-Length: 107

I do not agree with the phone companies proposal to charge a per minute rate 
for the use  of the Internet

From blaakso@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 11:02:53 1997
Return-Path: blaakso@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 LAA05712 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:53 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28614; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028432; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:01:48 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id KAA25340 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:01:54 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199702131601.KAA25340@dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com>
Received: from grn-sc3-04.ix.netcom.com(205.184.144.100) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma025279; Thu Feb 13 10:01:33 1997
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:02:36 -0500
From: "Brenda J. Laakso" <blaakso@ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: NO! to charges per minute for internet service
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 453

We now have this incredible communications tool that can be afforded by many people in the US.  Usage of it has promoted unprecedented communications among people from all over the world--unprecedented throughout the history of humankind--don't limit its usage to only those who can really afford it just because others want to increase their profits off its usage.

NO! to allowing telephone companies to charge by the minute for using the internet!!!

From bitikofl@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:03:25 1997
Return-Path: bitikofl@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 LAA05716 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:25 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28762; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x16.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.28) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028588; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:02:28 -0500
Received: (from bitikofl@juno.com) by x16.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LGV16197; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:16 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: phone line charges for internet access
Message-ID: <19970213.095924.15239.1.bitikofl@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.14
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3-7
From: bitikofl@juno.com (Lauren G. Bitikofer)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:16 EST
Content-Length: 288

I understand that the phone companies have petitioned to be able to
access a per minute charge specifically for internet access.  If this is
true, please record this comment as AGAINST  such specific line charges. 
We should pay for phone use as we do now.  

Thank you

Lauren Bitikofer

From qrenee@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:03:27 1997
Return-Path: qrenee@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 LAA05720 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:27 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28768; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x8.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.24) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028605; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:02:31 -0500
Received: (from qrenee@juno.com) by x8.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LcS00458; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:06 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: CC Docket No 96-263
Message-ID: <19970213.085917.5439.0.qrenee@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3-10
From: qrenee@juno.com (Renee L Rogers)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:06 EST
Content-Length: 297

	I recently heard of the proposal that is under review by the FCC
to charge additional minutes by the local telephone companies for
internet use. I am VERY MUCH OPPOSED to this proposal!!!!   Please do NOT
pass this proposal.

	Thank You,
	

	Renee Rogers	
	50 Marseille Ct.
	Danville, Ca   94506

From tlwilson@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:03:29 1997
Return-Path: tlwilson@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 LAA05724 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:29 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28777; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.199) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028678; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:02:42 -0500
Received: (from tlwilson@juno.com) by m2.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LhK00375; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:43 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Phone lines
Message-ID: <19970212.230056.7031.1.tlwilson@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-6
From: tlwilson@juno.com (Teri L Wilson)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:43 EST
Content-Length: 254

I do not agree with the proposal to attach extra fees to the isp lines. 
If you are aiming at Internet providers then charge them and allow them
to pass it on to 
THEIR consumers.  Do not attack all of us with extra phone charges.

Thank you
Teri Wilson

From kimberly_orr@mailzone.com Thu Feb 13 11:03:31 1997
Return-Path: kimberly_orr@mailzone.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 LAA05728 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:31 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28796; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028714; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:02:51 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id KAA25538 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:02:58 -0600 (CST)
Received: from hou-tx3-07.ix.netcom.com(204.30.68.103) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma025495; Thu Feb 13 10:02:46 1997
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970213095724.006796e4@popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: kimorr@popd.ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 beta 7 (32)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:57:24 -0800
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: Kimberly Orr <kimberly_orr@mailzone.com>
Subject: local  telephone internet surcharge...
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 841

Dear FCC:

I am outraged!!!  Don't allow it!  To allow local telephone companies to
tack on an internet usage fee to local telephone service borders on
hindering free speech!    The internet is a marvelous and powerful tool.
Adding such a charge will also slow the progress of this tool.  There will
also be fewer customers for telephone companies trying to compete with big
internet service providers.  All around, I can't see HOW this charge would
benefit any customer!!!

I beg you,

DO NOT ALLOW LOCAL TELEPHONE COMPANIES TO CRIPPLE THE INTERNET!

Respectfully,

Kimberly Orr

Godspeed,

Kimberly Orr

Forever e-mail:  kimberly_orr@mailzone.com
Home page: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/1159/  
Other pages of association:  
http://www.hgo.com
http://members.aol.com/dadbond/wmama.html 
(in memory of my Grandmother--"weemama")

From toddandjamie@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:04:05 1997
Return-Path: toddandjamie@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 LAA05732 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:05 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28930; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m15.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.192) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028824; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:03:16 -0500
Received: (from toddandjamie@juno.com) by m15.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id L^B10935; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:54 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Message-ID: <19970213.095923.10886.6.ToddandJamie@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,9-14
From: toddandjamie@juno.com (Todd C Hoffman)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:54 EST
Content-Length: 619

To Whom It May Concern:

I am sure that you understand that any extra charges applied to an
already hefty phone bill will make many like myself scrap the internet. I
will not put up with paying extra for something I already pay for. When I
signed with my local phone company it was (first of all because it was
the only one I am allowed to sign on with) it was to use  the phone lines
not restricted to a voice handset. I signed to have the rights to use the
phone line period, and when I am on the internet that is exactly what I
am doing.

Trying To Get My Money's Worth,
Todd Hoffman
546 Aspen Drive
Leeds, AL 35094

From kdenton@ingr.com Thu Feb 13 11:04:07 1997
Return-Path: kdenton@ingr.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 LAA05736 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:07 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA28939; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hq15.pcmail.ingr.com(129.135.251.243) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma028894; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:03:35 -0500
Received: by hq15.pcmail.ingr.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63)
	id <01BC1995.312B6400@hq15.pcmail.ingr.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:03:42 -0600
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=INTERGRAPH%l=HQ8-970213160300Z-22588@hq15.pcmail.ingr.com>
From: "Denton, Keith" <kdenton@ingr.com>
To: "'isp@fcc.gov'" <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: FCC Billing Plans for Net Use: E-mail FCC by 2/13/97
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:03:00 -0600
Return-Receipt-To: <kdenton@ingr.com>
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63
Encoding: 57 TEXT
Content-Length: 1894


Keith Denton
Manager, Global Engineering Technology Center
134 Merchant Street
Cincinnati, OH 45246
513-326-6883
513-326-6849 (fax)
kdenton@ingr.com  MAILSTOP: OHCINN
Check Intergraph out at http://www.intergraph.com
Sir or Madam,

NO, to changing the current policy on internet usage of existing phone
lines. There must be other alternatives to what the telco's are
requesting.

Thank you,

Keith Denton
kdenton@ingr.com
>
>===========Forwarded Message=============================
>FYI,
>Just thought you might want to know about this incase you want to do
>something about it...
> important. please read and respond to the enclosed address!
>
>
>> Subject: FW: FCC Billing Plans for Net Use: E-mail FCC
>> by 2/13/97 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 litiagation. Let everyone you know
>> here 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!
>>
>>
>> I would like to thank dwalton@isoc.net for finding this
>> information and bringing it to our attention so we could
>> pass it along to you.
>>
>>
>>               John
>
>The Internet is the Rebirth of Democracy in America!
>
>
>

From robanion@fred.net Thu Feb 13 11:04:41 1997
Return-Path: robanion@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 LAA05740 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:41 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29090; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma029016; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:04:02 -0500
Received: from robanion.fred.net (robanion.fred.net [205.252.220.67]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA25882 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:04 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <33033B4E.6524@fred.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:26 -0500
From: robanion <robanion@fred.net>
Organization: FredNet - Frederick, Md.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Proposed per minute internet charges
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1018

To WHom It May Concern;
	I just want to voice my opinion that I am against any proposal for
local phone companies to impose charges for internet service over local
phone lines.
	The local telephone companies contend that internet usage is/will
hinder the operation of the telephone network.  If this is the case, why
are they always advertising to add an additional phone line to your
residence?  There are numerous children that spend hours of time on the
phone speaking to their friends while watching TV.  This is also a
burden on the 'system' but if the subscription for the line is unlimited
usage, then they could stay on the line 24 hours a day and still not
incur any additional cost.
	I find that more time is spent on the phone by my children than I am
connected to my ISP.  
	The local companies should re-evaluate their service plans if they find
that usage is more than the system can handle.  Otherwise they need to
invest in expansion of the system.
	Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Roy G. O'Banion

From k7pzx@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:04:43 1997
Return-Path: k7pzx@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 LAA05744 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:43 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29098; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m8.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.196) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma029021; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:04:06 -0500
Received: (from k7pzx@juno.com) by m8.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LUR13362; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:29 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:01:56 PST
Subject: Re: Phone Charge's.
Message-ID: <19970213.090157.4286.0.k7pzx@juno.com>
References: <199702130706.XAA02452@m6.sprynet.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3,5
From: k7pzx@juno.com (kenneth h jackson)
Content-Length: 352

I would like to file a objection to  additional  charge's of any kind for
use  computer communication on telephone. We already pay,for use.I am a
amateur radio operator,some of my phone use is emergency
communication's,E:mail.
They already have a monopoly,on who's service we can subscribe to. Thank
you for the opportunity to express my objections's.

From Michael_James_McConkey@msn.com Thu Feb 13 11:05:22 1997
Return-Path: Michael_James_McConkey@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 LAA05748 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:21 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29267; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot02.msn.com(204.95.110.79) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma029107; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:04:24 -0500
Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot02.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id IAA22234 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:01:11 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 16:00:55 UT
From: "Michael McConkey" <Michael_James_McConkey@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL06.199702131603090861@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Local Telephone Internet Charges
Content-Length: 512

Please do NOT support anything like a local charge for Internet access.  A 
local call is a local call and they are "free".  Each of us already pays for 
this service and the local phone company does not loose money.  

Of course they perform terrible maintenance with poor quality of technical 
work and often "break" our phone service in the process of "fixing" something 
else.  Keep them out of the Internet, and internet access.  Make them simply 
leave well enough alone.

Michael McConkey
Savannah,  GA



From mismith@fred.net Thu Feb 13 11:05:26 1997
Return-Path: mismith@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 LAA05752 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:25 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29299; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma029130; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:04:31 -0500
Received: from sys_mike_nt (mismith.fred.net [205.252.223.12]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA25920 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:01:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970213110205.0091d850@mail.fred.net>
X-Sender: mismith@mail.fred.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:02:07 -0500
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: MIke Smith <mismith@fred.net>
Subject: ISP per minute charge
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 256


Dear Sir/Madam,

	I allready pay my ISP to provide a service, and I allready pay the
phone company for a telephone line and its use.  Any other charges would 
simply be crazy and unfare.

							Sincerly,
							mismith@fred.net
							Michael D. Smith



From tlwilson@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:05:32 1997
Return-Path: tlwilson@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 LAA05756 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:32 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29363; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.199) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma029178; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:04:45 -0500
Received: (from tlwilson@juno.com) by m2.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LiO00375; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:55 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Phone lines
Message-ID: <19970212.230257.6543.3.tlwilson@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-6
From: tlwilson@juno.com (Teri L Wilson)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:03:55 EST
Content-Length: 254

I do not agree with the proposal to attach extra fees to the isp lines. 
If you are aiming at Internet providers then charge them and allow them
to pass it on to 
THEIR consumers.  Do not attack all of us with extra phone charges.

Thank you
Teri Wilson

From Tal_Elam@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 11:06:06 1997
Return-Path: Tal_Elam@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 LAA05760 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:05 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29576; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.16) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma029264; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:05:01 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id KAA27073 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:05:06 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199702131605.KAA27073@dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com>
Received: from tul-ok1-01.ix.netcom.com(204.31.234.33) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma027064; Thu Feb 13 10:04:42 1997
From: "Talmadge Elam" <Tal_Elam@ix.netcom.com>
To: <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: Charges for local internet usage
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:06:07 -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: 718

While I am no opposed to a company charging for it's services, I am very
opposed to a charge on a local call to the internet. This will hinder or
destroy the internet as we know it. Most peaple who use the internet, or
will in the future, use it as a recreation. If the internet proves usfull
or interesting the tend to find more and better uses for it.
If a charge for call by the telephone provider is inposed on top of the
charge the internet provider sends, most if not all casual users will stop.
Many jobs, and much revinue will be lost to various regions or markets. It
will hinder more than help.
Another way can be found. Make them find it.
			Talmadge W. Elam
			Recreational Internet User
			Tulsa OK.	
			

From mehayes@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:06:12 1997
Return-Path: mehayes@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 LAA05764 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:12 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29612; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x2.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.21) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma029509; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:05:37 -0500
Received: (from mehayes@juno.com) by x2.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LpV25673; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:05:19 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:00:32 PST
Message-ID: <19970213.110035.10095.1.mehayes@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5,7,13
From: mehayes@juno.com (MaryEllen Hayes)
Content-Length: 778

Dear FCC Council,

     Please do not let the phone companies charge us a fee of any kind to
use our internet service which most of us already have to pay for, (some
of us are already poor)!!  The use of internet services does not in any
way hinder the operation of the
telephone network, besides, if the internet causes a hinderance to the
telephone
network why are the companies trying to charge a fee instead of do away
with it altogether?! We just got on the internet, if the phone companies
charge us a fee to use it, we would not be able to. It would be extremely
expensive for everybody on the internet for these greedy phone companies
to get away with this, and they will be limiting or completely taking
away the access of the internet for many families including us. 

From ginron@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 11:06:46 1997
Return-Path: ginron@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 LAA05768 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:46 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29724; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.11) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma029665; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:06:09 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id KAA00343 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:06:15 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:06:15 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199702131606.KAA00343@dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com>
Received: from san-tx1-17.ix.netcom.com(204.31.238.49) by dfw-ix11.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma000214; Thu Feb 13 10:04:54 1997
From: ginron@ix.netcom.com (VIRGINIA LEE NOKES)
Subject: CC Docket No. 96-263
To: isp@fcc.gov
Content-Length: 286



In my opinion,  the telephone company has been adding charge after 
charge over the years.  telephone charges have gone sky high.    where 
will it end?   Now they want their cut on email.  Please don't yield to 
their every demand.

Ginny Nokes
454 Buerger Lane
Seguin, Texas  78155

From dcornell@email.gc.cuny.edu Thu Feb 13 11:06:48 1997
Return-Path: dcornell@email.gc.cuny.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 LAA05772 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:48 -0500
From: dcornell@email.gc.cuny.edu
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29742; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from gaudi.gc.cuny.edu(146.96.64.20) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma029689; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:06:17 -0500
Received: from broadway.gc.cuny.edu (broadway.gc.cuny.edu)
 by GAUDI.GC.CUNY.EDU (PMDF V5.0-6 #18284)
 id <01IFD5KWHPDS009INR@GAUDI.GC.CUNY.EDU> for isp@fcc.gov; Thu,
 13 Feb 1997 11:06:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (dcornell@localhost)
 by broadway.gc.cuny.edu (8.8.5/ankDU-96) with SMTP id LAA19539 for
 <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:21 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: NO to Internet Phone charges!!!
X-Sender: dcornell@broadway.gc.cuny.edu
To: isp@fcc.gov
Message-id: <Pine.OSF.3.93.970213105758.23733C-100000@broadway.gc.cuny.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-Length: 659


dear FCC

I am so strongly opposed to the notion of phone companies 
making even more money off the only free space of 
information left in this country!!!!!

If such a policy is permitted, you will turn the internet 
over to the wealthy and destroy the ability of poor and 
working people to educate themselves. 

What good is the much touted "universal access" if it is 
unaffordable -- about as much good as cake during the French
Revolution!  Has Marie Antoinette been reincarnated as the 
FCC????

PLEASE CONSIDER THE PLEAS OF THE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT ACCESS 
THE NET THROUGH THEIR CORPORATE SITES AT HIGH PAYING 
JOBS!!!!

Thank you.

Daniell Cornell





From kerby@mediaproducers.com Thu Feb 13 11:07:20 1997
Return-Path: kerby@mediaproducers.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 LAA05776 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:20 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29838; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ns.wavefront.com(204.73.244.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma029721; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:06:25 -0500
Received: from 207.146.201.37 by wavefront.wavefront.com (8.6.10/SMI-4.1.R931202)
	id KAA16334; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:05:30 -0600
Message-ID: <33033C1E.25DE@mediaproducers.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:06:55 -0600
From: Kerby Armand <kerby@mediaproducers.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: No more charges!!!
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 884

To whom it may concern:

Do not charge for internet access concerning the following:

" [quote]
Your local telephone company has filed a proposal
>with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service whether
>or not you are on a local server.  The telephone companies contend that your
>usage has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network.  They want
>compensation now for what they perceive to be costs in the future for more
>equipment in order to handle normal telephone calls as well as internet
>access.  It is my belief that the internet will not be used to its full
>potential if users were required to pay additional per minute charges. 

"[unquote}

It is also my belief that this stifles my freedom.
You do not have the right to impose charges on things that are alreaddy
paid for!
Thank you very much

kerby armand
karmand@wavefront.com
371-0073

From Greg_Loynd@dbna.com Thu Feb 13 11:07:28 1997
Return-Path: Greg_Loynd@dbna.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 LAA05780 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:24 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA29863; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from inferno.dbna.com(204.242.48.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma029753; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:06:31 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost) by dbfire.dbna.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id LAA17360 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dbrelay1.admin.nyc.dbna.com(165.250.195.68) by dbfire via smap (V1.3)
	id sma017325; Thu Feb 13 11:04:48 1997
Received: from ccmailgw1.gateway.nyc.dbna.com (ccmailgw1.gateway.nyc.dbna.com [165.250.68.29]) by dbrelay1.admin.nyc.dbna.com (8.7.5/8.7.3/FW/Revision: 1.3) with SMTP id LAA23740 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:04:46 -0500
Received: from ccMail by ccmailgw1.gateway.nyc.dbna.com
  (IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 (Gold Candidate Beta) Enterprise) id 0004AB0B; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:05:54 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:51:42 -0500
Message-ID: <0004AB0B.1501@ccmailgw1.gateway.nyc.dbna.com>
Return-receipt-to: Greg_Loynd@ccmailgw.gateway.nyc.dbna.com (Greg Loynd)
From: Greg_Loynd@dbna.com (Greg Loynd)
Subject: per minute usage charge for internet users
To: isp@fcc.gov
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Content-Length: 593

     
     Please vote NO on the telephone companies' request for per minute 
     usage charges for internet users.
     
     The "current" phone system network already has more than the capacity 
     to handle a 1000% increase in internet users, while still providing 
     the same level of service for their phone customers.
     
     Their claim that internet use can or may affect the network is 
     ridiculous, and is nothing more than a new idea to reap additional 
     profits for a new market niche (one that they put forth no effort, 
     funds, marketing, etc. to attract).

From shakeman@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 13 11:08:06 1997
Return-Path: shakeman@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 LAA05784 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:06 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00119; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com(206.214.98.6) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma029890; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:07:11 -0500
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id KAA26329; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:07:13 -0600 (CST)
Received: from oma-ne2-17.ix.netcom.com(204.31.248.81) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id sma026242; Thu Feb 13 10:06:03 1997
Message-ID: <33033B18.37FF@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:02:32 -0600
From: "Larry L. Miller" <shakeman@ix.netcom.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Per Minute Charge for Internet Service
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 11

NO WAY!!!!

From milret@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:08:12 1997
Return-Path: milret@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 LAA05788 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:12 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00143; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x5.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.23) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma029920; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:07:21 -0500
Received: (from milret@juno.com) by x5.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LjP06357; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:30 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:07:14 PST
Subject: telephone company additional charges for internet time
Message-ID: <19970213.100715.2662.2.milret@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 3
From: milret@juno.com (Rodney-lee J. Guidry)
Content-Length: 262

.i totally disagree withthis proposal of the telephone companies.  This
is just another wayto extract additional monies from the public and the
government.  It works well just as it is. don't fix it if it ain't broke.  tell them that they make enough money now.

From edcrutchfield@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:08:14 1997
Return-Path: edcrutchfield@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 LAA05792 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:14 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00153; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x8.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.24) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma029946; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:07:27 -0500
Received: (from edcrutchfield@juno.com) by x8.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LfJ00458; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:29 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: internet usage as a proposed income item for local phone companies
Message-ID: <19970213.111103.12142.0.edcrutchfield@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2,7
From: edcrutchfield@juno.com (EDWARD CRUTCHFIELD)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:29 EST
Content-Length: 367

don't understand why the FCC  is taking under consideration of the above
subject,when the satellite system and usage was paid for by individual
tax payers and not  subsidized  by the profit making telephone companies.
							please advise if
my assumptions are
unfounded																					ed
crutchfield											"e-mail
address" edcrutchfield@juno.com			        

From The_McCoys@msn.com Thu Feb 13 11:09:06 1997
Return-Path: The_McCoys@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 LAA05796 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:09:06 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00399; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma000147; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:07:53 -0500
Received: from upmajb02.msn.com (upmajb02.msn.com [204.95.110.74]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id HAA17455 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:08:17 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 16:00:56 UT
From: "John & Terrie McCoy" <The_McCoys@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL09.199702131606010047@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Telephone companies charging for internet time
Content-Length: 217


 isp@fcc.gov


PLEASE DON'T SELL THIS IDEAL DOWN THE DRAIN- LET CORPORATE CUSTOMERS FINANCE
THE CAPACITY, THE PUBLIC INDIVIDUALS CAN'T AFFORD ANY MORE RESTRAINST ON
TRULY DEMOCRATIC DISCOURSE!!


John & terrie mccoy

From jelincicsr@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:09:12 1997
Return-Path: jelincicsr@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 LAA05800 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:09:12 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00434; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m5.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.197) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma000279; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:08:18 -0500
Received: (from jelincicsr@juno.com) by m5.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LUP25207; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:41 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: no minute charges
Message-ID: <19970213.080330.8279.0.jelincicsr@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,5-6,10-12
From: jelincicsr@juno.com (Joesph J Jelincic)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:41 EST
Content-Length: 551

Gentlemen:
E mail has become a great part of our family life.  It keeps us in
contact with our grown children all over the us , and has created a very
special relationship with our grandchildren.  They never thought of
picking up a pen and writing Grandma a letter, but the internet is no
effort for them.

Do not limit their enthusiasms by minute charges.  The telephone
companies are constantly looking for ways to increase their profits, and
I feel the consumer has done  its share of enhancing  their profits . 
You must say 'No".

Clara Jelincic

From ryahola1@ti.com Thu Feb 13 11:09:18 1997
Return-Path: ryahola1@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 LAA05804 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:09:18 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00481; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from news.ti.com(192.94.94.33) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma029994; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:07:42 -0500
Received: from robin.itg.ti.com ([172.25.2.75]) by gatekeep.ti.com (8.6.13) with ESMTP id KAA29988 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:07:46 -0600
Received: from dsks52.itg.ti.com (dsks52.itg.ti.com [172.25.2.79]) by robin.itg.ti.com (8.7.3/8.6.11) with SMTP id KAA03023 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:07:10 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ti (cids4.itg.ti.com [172.25.50.161]) by dsks52.itg.ti.com (TI SMTPMail MTA v1.0.8.3) with SMTP id NKQGATBK; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:06:49 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
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: "Robyn B. Yahola         575-3555" <ryahola1@ti.com>
Subject: Raise in rates...
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:06:26 -0600
X-BeyondMail-Priority: 1
Message-Id: <BMSMTP85584963136a0195403@dsks52.itg.ti.com>
Conversation-Id: <BMSMTP85584963137a0195403@dsks52.itg.ti.com>
Reply-To: "Robyn B. Yahola         575-3555" <ryahola1@ti.com>
X-Receipt-From-Agent: true
Content-Length: 636

You should NOT allow the phone companies to charge
access fees to the internet service providers. 

I believe that in many instances the ISPs rent time on some
phone lines and that is where some of the monthly charge to
customers comes from. 

The phone companies are basically fleecing the people of
America as it is. Don't allow them to cap off people's access
to information. This could have major repercussions, not only
on businesses, but also on educational facilities as well. If
America is to remain on top in World Economics, we need to be
able to access information quickly and easily. The internet has
fulfilled that need. 


From RoshanMathew@msn.com Thu Feb 13 11:09:53 1997
Return-Path: RoshanMathew@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 LAA05808 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:09:52 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00752; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:09:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from upsmot01.msn.com(204.95.110.78) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma000418; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:08:49 -0500
Received: from upmajb06 ([204.95.110.89]) by upsmot01.msn.com (8.6.8.1/Configuration 4) with SMTP id HAA17805 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:09:20 -0800
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 16:03:56 UT
From: "Roshan Mathew" <RoshanMathew@msn.com>
Message-Id: <UPMAIL07.199702131607520794@msn.com>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Content-Length: 601

CC Docket No 96-263



Please do not allow phone companies to charge for internet access. If they 
need to change their infrastructure to support higher volume that is 
evolution, and it should have been done before. But to start charging for what 
should and has been free is just another tactic to whittle away at the 
American consumer and line already deep pockets.

			Sincerely
		Roshan Mathew

p.s. Handling internet service is just another cost of doing business and 
staying current, no need to pull and AOL and whine about doing good business.

Roshan Mathew
202 Canyon Point
Waco,
Tx
76712

From dear6@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:10:11 1997
Return-Path: dear6@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 LAA05812 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:10 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00845; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:09:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m13.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.193) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma000647; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:09:13 -0500
Received: (from dear6@juno.com) by m13.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id L]C17766; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:46 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Don't impose charges,please!
Message-ID: <19970213.105354.5383.4.DEAR6@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2
From: dear6@juno.com (Sara L Dear)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:46 EST
Content-Length: 217

internet is the greatest invention as a mode of communication since the
invention of the telephone. Please do not impose any charges of internet
users! It will diminish internet use! We can't afford it! Please don't!

From johnts@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:10:23 1997
Return-Path: johnts@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 LAA05816 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:22 -0500
From: johnts@juno.com
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA00918; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m13.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.193) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xmaa00647; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:09:26 -0500
Received: (from johnts@juno.com) by m13.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id L]D17766; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:47 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: phone charges to use the internet
Message-ID: <19970213.091257.3182.12.johnts@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 4
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:47 EST
Content-Length: 305

	WE ALREADY PAY FOR THE PHONE LINES WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO PAY
EXTRA FOR WHAT WE USE IT FOR. THE PHONE COMPANYS ARE ALREADY MAKING
ALOUGHT MORE MONEY FROM ALL THE NEW LINES THEY ARE PUTTING IN. SOMEDAY
ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE IT EXTRA TO CALL OUR GIRLFRIENDS OR BOYFRIENDS
JUST BECAUSE WE DO IT ALOUGHT : (

From joanne.james@born.com Thu Feb 13 11:10:55 1997
Return-Path: joanne.james@born.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 LAA05820 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:54 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01018; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mpsexch.born.com(206.10.205.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma000727; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:09:29 -0500
Received: by mpsexch.born.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5)
	id <01BC1996.6F7DB770@mpsexch.born.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:12:36 -0600
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=Born_Information%l=MPSEXCH-970213161235Z-11406@mpsexch.born.com>
From: Joanne James <joanne.james@born.com>
To: "'Fcc'" <isp@fcc.gov>
Subject: Internet charges
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:12:35 -0600
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5
Encoding: 8 TEXT
Content-Length: 438

 I am sending this e-mail to express my disapproval of the recently
filed proposal by my local telephone company to impose per minute
charges for my internet service.  They fail to recognized the additional
revenue it has also regenerated for them in terms of additional service
lines, etc...  Please inform me if there is any additional actions I can
take to help prevent this proprosal from becoming a reality.  Thanks for
listening!!


From tots@fred.net Thu Feb 13 11:11:02 1997
Return-Path: tots@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 LAA05824 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:01 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01052; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bigdog.fred.net(204.215.84.2) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma000950; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:10:11 -0500
Received: from 205.177.202.62 (tots.fred.net [205.177.202.62]) by bigdog.fred.net (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA26400 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:07:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <33032FAF.16C1@fred.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:13:58 -0400
From: Tina <tots@fred.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: internet charges
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 369

I feel that it unfair for the phone companies to charge an internet
user by the minute.  Isn't enough that we are paying once for that
service?  Everyone wants a piece of the action.  For many of us we
have already paid to get a second line into our homes that we would
not otherwise have.  If there would be an addtional charge a lot of
people would drop the service.

From ricksb_ne@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:11:05 1997
Return-Path: ricksb_ne@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 LAA05828 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:05 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01084; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m4.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.198) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma000982; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:10:22 -0500
Received: (from ricksb_ne@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LdM24646; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:56 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Internet charges
Message-ID: <19970213.110801.8726.0.RicksB_NE@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,6-7,10-12
From: ricksb_ne@juno.com (Betty R Ricks)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:08:56 EST
Content-Length: 527

To Whom It May Concern:

The idea of telephone companies charging for internet access is
ludicrous.  We pay a monthly charge for unlimited use of the telephone
lines, without restriction.  It is enough that we pay an internet
provider for the service, without having to also pay local telepohone
companies.

If anyone should pay the local telephone companies (and I don't think
they should), it would have to be the internet providers.  They are the
ones furnishing the service for which the consumer pays.

Dr. Betty R. Ricks

From charles_kettering@lord.com Thu Feb 13 11:11:37 1997
Return-Path: charles_kettering@lord.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 LAA05832 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:37 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01247; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from apum1.mpd.lord.com(152.50.20.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma001013; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:10:36 -0500
Received: by apum1.mpd.lord.com (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)
	id AA13626; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:27 -0500
Date: 13 Feb 97 11:06:04 +0000
From: Charles Kettering <charles_kettering@lord.com>
Subject: Internet Charges Per Minute
To: isp fcc <isp@fcc.gov>
Message-Id: <970213.110604@lord.com>
X-Mailer: QM-Internet Gateway 1.0
X-Priority: 4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Length: 1208

To whom it may concern,

It has just been brought to my attention that all local telephone =
companies have petitioned the FCC to be allowed to impose per minute =
charges for Internet Services.  The contention is that my usage has or =
will hinder the operation of the telephone network.  The fact is that my =
Internet Services is a local phone call and any Internet Service not in my =
area is a long distance phone call.  I want to ask, will the telephone =
company add additional charges to both local and long distance phone calls,=
 to which all evidence points to that it costs no more that $0.07 a minute =
anywhere in the U.S..  I also want to contend that my local call to an =
Internet Service, which lasts an hour, no more hinders the telephone =
network than any other one hour call.   If the FCC allows charges per =
minute to be added to local calls for Internet Service, I fear of what =
this would do to schools and education budgets around the country.  What =
of retired persons or persons with a disability with a need for these =
services but a limited budget.  I ask you at the FCC to please not allow =
the telephone company this additional charge. =

Sincerely,
Charles E. Kettering

From kemarquis@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:11:39 1997
Return-Path: kemarquis@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 LAA05836 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:39 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01262; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m13.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.193) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma001081; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:10:44 -0500
Received: (from kemarquis@juno.com) by m13.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id L[E17766; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:37 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: per minute charges for internet access
Message-ID: <19970213.100248.11919.0.kemarquis@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 4-5,16-17,22-23,25-29
From: kemarquis@juno.com (Kendra E Marquis)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:06:37 EST
Content-Length: 1500

It was brought to my attention today that you are currently reviewing and
issue that will greatly affect myself, my friend and my family.  This is
the issue of per minute charges for Internet services, imposed by the
telephone company.  I feel this would be a tremendous disservice to the
millions of internet users today.

Recently AOL, the carrier I personally use, provided a service of
unlimited usage for a flat rate.  I, like thousands of others, chose to
take advantage of this service.  Not only is AOL a way to meet others,
but it also provides educational benefits to my children, help on-line
with homework, computer experience, and educational games for the
computer.  I also use AOL for business purposes.  I am able to contact
the naval reserve officers thru out the USA that I deal with through my
work.  My husband, a naval reservist as well, is able to communicate with
his unit and the detachments even when not drilling, provide naval
educational material to those people, as well as find out the latest in
naval reservist news.

As you can see, we use the internet for more than just entertainment,
mind you we do have our fun time on-line as well.  To allow an additional
charge for internet access would not only place a financial burden on my
family, it would also go against the service I agreed to pay for with
AOL.

please consider these issues when making you decision, an consider the
impact it would have on families, friends and businesses alike


V/R
Kendra E. Marquis

From dlbreese@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:11:41 1997
Return-Path: dlbreese@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 LAA05840 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:41 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01278; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from m9.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.195) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma001100; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:10:48 -0500
Received: (from dlbreese@juno.com) by m9.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LXK29710; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:20 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Re: Per minute charges for Internet
Message-ID: <19970213.111058.7079.0.dlbreese@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-3,5,7,10,12,14,16,18,20,22-23,25,27-32
From: dlbreese@juno.com (David L Breese)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:20 EST
Content-Length: 1112

Feb. 13, 1997 - - 10:40 a.m.

To whom it may concern:

As a free e-mail user and a hopeful Internet user, I am in complete
opposition
to the proposal with the FCC by local telephone companies to impose a "
per
minute" charge for Internet service.   Since we already pay a monthly
charge to the phone company for the lines to our homes or offices, that
means we would be
paying double for any time on the Internet.  Our phone charges are not
lowered
when we do not use it very much, and if we were to use the phone, local
calls,
that is, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, we would not be charged anything
above
the normal monthly service rate, and it would be the same usage whether
it
was the use of a telephone or a computer, and said usage, as I have
already
said, is paid for by your monthly service charges, whatever those charges
are.

Therefore, I do not see how the phone company or FCC can legally impose
this 
"per minute" charge without incurring the wrath and/or possible lawsuits
of an
avalanche of unhappy Internet users.  

Once again, I cannot state it strongly enough, I AM OPPOSED!

Marilyn Breese

From SBunsick@eia.doe.gov Thu Feb 13 11:12:23 1997
Return-Path: SBunsick@eia.doe.gov
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 LAA05844 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:12:23 -0500
From: SBunsick@eia.doe.gov
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01444; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:12:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailperson.eia.doe.gov(198.76.0.15) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma001326; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:11:32 -0500
Received: from smtp.eia.doe.gov by mailperson.eia.doe.gov 
	id AA841; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:00:55 EST
Received: from ccMail by smtp.eia.doe.gov (SMTPLINK V2.11 PreRelease 4)
	id AA855859999; Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:51:24 EST
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 10:51:24 EST
Message-Id: <9701138558.AA855859999@smtp.eia.doe.gov>
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: CC Docket No 96-263
Content-Length: 1831

     
     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,
     
     Susan M. Bunsick
     1104 Meurilee Lane
     Silver Spring, MD  20901
     
     



From mproctor1@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:12:25 1997
Return-Path: mproctor1@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 LAA05848 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:12:25 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01460; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:12:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x18.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.29) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma001370; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:11:46 -0500
Received: (from mproctor1@juno.com) by x18.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LKJ16896; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:10:38 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:08:37 PST
Subject: Phone Companies Proposal
Message-ID: <19970213.090842.5415.4.mproctor1@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.00
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2,6-11
From: mproctor1@juno.com (MICHAEL J PROCTOR)
Content-Length: 471

Dear Sir,
I strongly disagree with the proposal that a special charge be made for
the use of internet/email type phone communications.
I do not believe it is warranted.  In addition it will set a president
that would open the door for additional charges for any type of  local 
"lengthy" phone use ( shut ins, volunteers checking on parents and
elderly, etc).  DO NOT APPROVE.

Michael J. Proctor
Lt Col U.S. Army, Retired
4405 Ridgecrest Dr.
Colo Sprgs, CO 80918-4325  

From warrenway@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:13:03 1997
Return-Path: warrenway@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 LAA05852 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:13:03 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01601; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:12:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x6.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.23) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma001484; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:12:11 -0500
Received: (from warrenway@juno.com) by x6.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LlF05825; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:12:15 EST
To: ISP@FCC.GOV
Subject: Comments
Message-ID: <19970213.110615.4551.0.WARRENWAY@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,5-12
From: warrenway@juno.com (Warren Way)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:12:15 EST
Content-Length: 312

Gentlemen,

Please do not further encumber the government with allowing the phone
companies to add additional charges for internet connection. That would
just make another government agency necessary to police the phone
companies.

Thank you,

S. Warren Way
392 Jefferson Rd.
Newark, Ohio 43055
(614) 366 - 1512

From jonathan@pharmacop.com Thu Feb 13 11:13:37 1997
Return-Path: jonathan@pharmacop.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 LAA05856 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:13:37 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01760; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:13:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailhost.pharmacop.com(207.242.229.1) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma001567; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:12:44 -0500
Received: from MAIL ([198.138.202.1]) by pharmacop.bbnplanet.net
          via smtpd (for gatekeeper1.fcc.gov [192.104.54.1]) with SMTP; 13 Feb 1997 11:10:30 UT
Received: from jonathan-719r9 ([198.138.202.171]) by mail.pharmacop.com
          (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 100-30135U510) with SMTP
          id AAA168; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:13:45 -0500
Message-ID: <3302F6F6.7AB1@pharmacop.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:50 +0000
From: jonathan@pharmacop.com (Jonathan Sheward)
Organization: Pharmacopeia, Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: Per Minute Internet Access
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 689

To whom it may concern,

Recently I have heard about a plan to allow phone companies to charge on
a per minute basis for internet access.  I am strongly against this.  I
feel that the phone companies are doing very well and we do not need to
add to the already healthy profits of these companies.

I would also like to know how the phone company would know that a person
is calling an internet provider.  This certainly could be a case of
invasion of privacy purely for the profits of a greedy monopoly.

Thank you for providing this e-mail box.  I hope that someone will
carefully consider the consequences of this decision and take in mind
the consumers point of view.

Jonathan Sheward

From tkbrown@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:14:15 1997
Return-Path: tkbrown@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 LAA05860 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:14:15 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01927; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:13:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x10.boston.juno.com(205.231.101.25) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma001840; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:13:28 -0500
Received: (from tkbrown@juno.com) by x10.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LbV14771; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:57 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: FCC REGS
Message-ID: <19970213.111539.21318.0.TKBrown@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 5-6,9-16
From: tkbrown@juno.com (Tracy K Brown)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:57 EST
Content-Length: 645

	NO!  Are you asking the consumers to pay for their usage of
phones twice?  Is this another infringement  of the people's right of
freedom of speech and information?  To make people pay to use the
internet is wrong!  Most of us are already paying an outrageous phone
bill because of no local access which is already caused because of the
phone companies' inability to or lack of enthusiasim in giving them out.
	
	If phone companies want to stay in the game they need to come off
of their gilded behinds and increase the amount of phone coverage and
service.

Tracy K Brown

TKBrown@juno.com
TKTREKKER@aol.com
2079 Co. Rd. 237
Roanoke, AL 36274

From escully@wti.org Thu Feb 13 11:14:18 1997
Return-Path: escully@wti.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 LAA05864 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:14:17 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01943; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:13:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from wti.org(199.245.25.10) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma001881; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:13:42 -0500
Received: from mary.wti.org (mary.wti.org [199.245.25.104]) by server.wti.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA06611 for <isp@fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:30:44 -0500
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970213161710.0070bf40@wti.org>
X-Sender: escully@wti.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:17:10 -0500
To: isp@fcc.gov
From: Ellen Scully <escully@wti.org>
Content-Length: 1102

I am writing to express my concern over the proposal filed by local
telephone companies with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your
internet service.  The Internet is used over local telephone lines which is
paid for by the consumer through monthly telephone charges.  I do not
understand the need for an additional fee to continue to provide a service
that has always been provided.  I believe that this is an attempt to
unfarily capitalize on an important new business tool that many companies
and organizations now need to remain competitive. The imposition of
additional charges would impose an unnecessary cost to doing business which
we can not afford.  I urge you to reject the phone company proposal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Scully, Associate Director for Learning Systems

Work & Technology Institute               Direct: 202/833-7111   
1775 K Street, NW, Suite 630                 Fax: 202/833-1424  
Washington, DC 20006-1502                 E-mail: EScully@wti.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------


From hberner@juno.com Thu Feb 13 11:14:22 1997
Return-Path: hberner@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 LAA05868 for <isp@www2.fcc.gov>; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:14:21 -0500
Received: by gatekeeper.fcc.gov; id LAA01967; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:14:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from x15.boston.juno.com(205.231.100.28) by gatekeeper.fcc.gov via smap (3.2)
	id xma001922; Thu, 13 Feb 97 11:13:52 -0500
Received: (from hberner@juno.com) by x15.boston.juno.com (queuemail)
	id LIG01576; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:55 EST
To: isp@fcc.gov
Subject: 1,000 times....NO !!
Message-ID: <19970210.202955.7271.3.hberner@juno.com>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.15
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,8
From: hberner@juno.com (h. d. berner)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:11:55 EST
Content-Length: 500

To whom it concerns:

NO, NO, No to charging by the minute for internet service.  Must
everything be ruined for us?  I have a chronic illness and the internet
is a very vital part of my life.  I have gained much knowledge and many
deep friendships thur this means and I hate that for some people MONEY is
the answer to all.  IT IS NOT.  Keep your hands off of our internet time
and charges !  WASH. D.C. has enough money...now how about a little
compassion for us?  Where would you be without us??