minstrel: E-mail legislation alert!

RBoyd40076 at aol.com RBoyd40076 at aol.com
Fri Feb 7 23:41:52 PST 1997


Hello everyone:
   This is a communique that came to me which I am passing along in turn.
  Admittedly, it is not about what these respective E-lists are for, but it
threatens such activities on all levels.   As noted in the original message
below, I have tacked a proposed E-message on the bottom.   Please pass this
one along!

Bob (KSA Gunnar Redbeard)(don't ask)
RBoyd40076 at aol.com
##########################################

>From PRR-Talk at dsop.com

I received this from a friend. It affects all of us. Maybe one of our
members that is great at composing an E-mail, could compose an E-mail for us
to copy and send to the government. Anyone willing to do this?

Chuck
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>From erc at Traveller.COM

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 at 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 at fcc.gov

Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all
our voices may be heard!

##########################################

My proposed E-message:

Gentlemen;
   I have received a note over an E-mail net that there is presently
legislation before the FCC to allow phone companies to charge for internet
access time.

   The present system provides the long distance phone companies with payment
for internet access: I am presently on America On Line and access thru
Sprintnet- who I presume gets a portion of the money AOL charges me.   For
these access companies to charge more- on top of their present fees- is
unreasonable: additional minutes of use will give them additional income, so
there is no problem.

   As for the local phone company, I presently pay a fee for "unlimited local
service", and it does not matter what use I put that service to.   Either
they meet my service demands, or they are committing fraud (which is the
problem with AOL).   A specific-purpose fee is in violation of our present
contract for "unlimited local service".   

   In the case of a local customer on a fixed time plan, their additional use
above the plan baseline will result in greater fees (and presumably enough
income to provide more equipment).   So again, a special-purpose surcharge is
unjustified.

   I urge you to disallow this proposed legislation.   The phone companys
(long distance and local) are responsible under the terms of their present
consumer contracts to provide adequate equipment- for which a portion of
their earnings should be provided for capitalization.

   If they failed to do this, they should be responsible.   If their
motivation is to "cash in" on the internet phenominom, their greed should be
curtailed.   Either way, they should be required to uphold their part of our
mutual consumer contracts: certainly they will act quickly enough if we fail
to do so.

   Thank you for your consideration.

Robert A. Boyd
4933 Chippewa #1E
St. Louis, Mo. 63109

RBoyd40076 at aol.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send email to majordomo at pbm.com containing
the words "unsubscribe minstrel". To contact a human about problems, send
mail to owner-minstrel at pbm.com



More information about the minstrel mailing list