LINGUIST List 3.365

Sat 25 Apr 1992

FYI: FCC

Editor for this issue: <>


Directory

  1. Michael Covington, Re: 3.364 FCC to Charge for Modem Use?
  2. William Crossgrove, Re: 3.364 FCC to Charge for Modem Use?
  3. , fcc charging for modems
  4. , FCC

Message 1: Re: 3.364 FCC to Charge for Modem Use?

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 02:01:08 EDRe: 3.364 FCC to Charge for Modem Use?
From: Michael Covington <MCOVINGTuga.cc.uga.edu>
Subject: Re: 3.364 FCC to Charge for Modem Use?

WAIT -- please don't pass anything on or write any letters until someone
gives us the date and number of the NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making).

In the past, the FCC has received many deluges of mail from people reacting
to out-of-date, misinterpreted, or totally spurious proposals. The most
infamous is the story that the FCC is about to ban all religious
broadcasting (a complete hoax, started around 1975 and still circulating).

Even the "modem tax" thing a couple of years ago got out of hand, with
lots of misinformation circulating, and people being asked to "act immedi-
ately" on very vague reports.

This one may or may not be genuine. If I decide to file comments on the
NPRM, I will do so after _seeing_ the NPRM. Note by the way that the
FCC is not a democracy and does not simply count letters for and against
a proposal -- it looks at the quality of the reasons given. If a
convincing argument has been given in several letters, there is little
point in trying to generate thousands more that are merely statements of
opinion not backed up by argumentation.

-- Michael Covington (FCC-licensed amateur radio operator N4TMI)

- Michael A. Covington internet mcovingtuga.cc.uga.edu -
- Artificial Intelligence Programs bitnet MCOVINGTUGA -
- Graduate Studies Research Center phone 404 542-0359 -
- The University of Georgia fax 404 542-0349 -
- Athens, Georgia 30602 bix, mci mail MCOVINGTON -
- U.S.A. packet radio N4TMIWB4BSG -
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: Re: 3.364 FCC to Charge for Modem Use?

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 11:15:36 EDRe: 3.364 FCC to Charge for Modem Use?
From: William Crossgrove <WMCROSSbrownvm.brown.edu>
Subject: Re: 3.364 FCC to Charge for Modem Use?

As has been pointed out on other electronic lists, the notion that the
FCC is about to charge modem users is an urban myth that pops up regularly
every year or so with pretty much the same wording, including the crusading
radio reporter and the myth that an earlier deluge of letters already
saved us before. The deluge of letters causes the FCC to issue another
weary denial. I don't really know if this is true or not, but the
wording of the most recent alarm sounds awfully familiar to me.
Bill Crossgrove
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 3: fcc charging for modems

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 92 11:54 CST
From: <ASHELDONUMNACVX.bitnet>
Subject: fcc charging for modems

 Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1992 08:52:00 EDT
 From: Joan Korenman <KORENMANUMBC.BITNET>
 Subject: RE: fcc wants to charge for modem use

 The memo about the FCC's wanting to charge for modem use is
simply NOT TRUE! Like the Neiman-Marcus cookie story or messages
about sending e-mail notes to a little boy dying of cancer, it's
simply an "urban legend" that re-surfaces on the net from time to
time. I've seen it before, as have members of the technical staff at
UMDD with whom I checked. So please, IGNORE IT.

 Joan Korenman Internet: korenmanumbc2.umbc.edu
 Bitnet: korenmanumbc
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 4: FCC

Date: 25 April 92, 11:12:52 EDT FCC
From: <R12040.at.UQAMtamvm1.tamu.edu>
Subject: FCC

Regarding the recent posting about the FCC's possible interest
in surcharging modem use, Prof. David Stampe of the University
of Hawaii has called my attention to his observation that a
notice like this has been circulating on various network groups
since the mid-80's. He believes it is not true. I do not have
any independent evidence that it is true. I didn't hear the radio
broadcast directly nor did I see the putative article in the NYTimes
that the posting mentioned. David also notes that it could be true.
Perhaps someone else on the list has additional information and/or
verification that the FCC really is or is not proposing to surcharge
modem use. Until such information is forthcoming, I guess the matter
remains uncertain.
Harry Whitaker
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue