Mailing List Archive

I think the proposed Access Tariff is a serious matter. But I think it
might be better discussed elsewhere, as it is a business not an ops issue,
and is likely to generate some volume for some time.

randy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I knew this went to the FCC before and was shot down.
The FCC was not too impressed with the phone companies claim that the load
was "too high". Plus the Whitehouse doesn't want to put too many tolls
on the "information superhighway".


I'll look into it and see what is going on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles F. Crizer Jr. KF4MNE
Senior Systems Engineer ccrizer@dyncon.net
Certified Novell Administrator http://www.cais.com/dyncon
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1997 Charles F. Crizer Jr. All Rights Reserved.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: MX%"randy@psg.com" 9-FEB-1997 10:01:58.40
To: MX%"nanog@merit.edu"
CC:
Subj: Re: Unsubstantiated Rumor

Return-Path: <owner-nanog@merit.edu>
Received: from merit.edu by ISDMNL.WR.USGS.GOV (MX V4.1 VAX) with SMTP; Sun, 09
Feb 1997 10:01:52 PST
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.5/merit-2.0) with
SMTP id MAA01011; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 12:59:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sun, 9 Feb 1997 12:55:06 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.5/merit-2.0) id MAA00936
for nanog-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 12:55:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rip.psg.com (root@rip.psg.com [147.28.0.39]) by merit.edu
(8.8.5/merit-2.0) with SMTP id MAA00931 for <nanog@merit.edu>; Sun, 9
Feb 1997 12:55:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: by rip.psg.com id m0vtdSv-000800C; Sun, 9 Feb 97 09:55 PST
(Smail3.1.29.1#1)
Message-ID: <m0vtdSv-000800C@rip.psg.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 97 09:55 PST
From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Unsubstantiated Rumor
References: <01IF7FWWBUZMA23B63@OMEGA7.WR.USGS.GOV>
<Pine.BSI.3.95q.970209124243.28620B-100000@cais2.cais.com>
Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu

My intention was not to generate discussion, but to raise the flag and
point out the supposed deadline date and the mail address for comments.
-jrf
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think the proposed Access Tariff is a serious matter. But I think it
might be better discussed elsewhere, as it is a business not an ops issue,
and is likely to generate some volume for some time.

randy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The detailed background info on this issue can be found on
Page 1 of WebWeek, Jan 20, 1997.

"ISPs Could Owe New Fees To Telcos if FCC Gives its OK".

FCC has an email box at

isp@fcc.gov

for ISPs and consumers to send informal comments. The deadline is
Feb 21, and March 24 is the dead for replies to comments.

FCC will post the comments at

www.fcc.gov/isp.html


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

On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, James R. Fisher wrote:

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Randy Bush wrote:

> I think the proposed Access Tariff is a serious matter. But I think it
> might be better discussed elsewhere, as it is a business not an ops issue,
> and is likely to generate some volume for some time.

Send a message reading

subscribe com-priv

to listproc@lists.psi.com and bring up the issue there. com-priv discusses
anything related to policies and regulatory affairs.



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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

>The detailed background info on this issue can be found on
>Page 1 of WebWeek, Jan 20, 1997.
>"ISPs Could Owe New Fees To Telcos if FCC Gives its OK".
>FCC has an email box at
> isp@fcc.gov
>for ISPs and consumers to send informal comments. The deadline is
>Feb 21, and March 24 is the dead for replies to comments.
>
>FCC will post the comments at
>
> www.fcc.gov/isp.html
>Hong Chen 408-567-3800 (tel)
>hchen@aimnet.net 408-567-0990 (fax)
>
>On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, James R. Fisher wrote:
>
>> What appears below is an unsubstantiated rumor, but some rumors are true...
>> -jrf
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >Return-Path: bbb@acm.org
>> >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 97 16:41:22 EST
>> >To: fnc@web1.hpc.org, lsn@hpcc.gov
>> >From: "Bruce B. Bottomley" <bbb@acm.org>
>> >Subject: Fw: Telephone charges for Internet
>> >
>> >
>> >Does anybody know if there's truth in this one? The concept doesn't sound
>> >extraordinarily unlikely given the info we received from the FCC rep at FNC
>> >a few months back about central office loading, allocation of costs and
>> >revenues, etc., but the lack of publicity associated with this--if true--is
>> >a bit surprising.
>> >
>> >>Subject: Fwd: Telephone charges for Internet
>> >>
>> >>>I am writing you this to inform you
>> >>>of a very important matter currently under review by the FCC. Your local
>> >>>telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute
>> >>>charges for your internet service. They contend that your usage has or will
>> >>>hinder the operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that
>> >>>internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per
>> >>>minute charges. The FCC has created an email box for your comments,
>> >>>responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send your comments to
>> >>>isp@fcc.gov and tell them what you think. Every phone company is
>> >>>in on this one, and they are trying to sneak it in just under the wire for
>> >>>litigation. Let everyone you know hear this one. Get the e-mail address to
>> >>>everyone you can think of.
>> >>>
>> >>>isp@fcc.gov
>>
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

Thanks for the update.

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

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Simona Nass wrote:

> Their page said
> Comment Date: January 29, 1997 new!
> Reply Comment Date: February 14, 1997 new!
> when I checked just now. Where did you get the dates you mentioned? -S.
>
> >The detailed background info on this issue can be found on
> >Page 1 of WebWeek, Jan 20, 1997.
> >"ISPs Could Owe New Fees To Telcos if FCC Gives its OK".
> >FCC has an email box at
> > isp@fcc.gov
> >for ISPs and consumers to send informal comments. The deadline is
> >Feb 21, and March 24 is the dead for replies to comments.
> >
> >FCC will post the comments at
> >
> > www.fcc.gov/isp.html
> >Hong Chen 408-567-3800 (tel)
> >hchen@aimnet.net 408-567-0990 (fax)
> >
> >On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, James R. Fisher wrote:
> >
> >> What appears below is an unsubstantiated rumor, but some rumors are true...
> >> -jrf
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >Return-Path: bbb@acm.org
> >> >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 97 16:41:22 EST
> >> >To: fnc@web1.hpc.org, lsn@hpcc.gov
> >> >From: "Bruce B. Bottomley" <bbb@acm.org>
> >> >Subject: Fw: Telephone charges for Internet
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Does anybody know if there's truth in this one? The concept doesn't sound
> >> >extraordinarily unlikely given the info we received from the FCC rep at FNC
> >> >a few months back about central office loading, allocation of costs and
> >> >revenues, etc., but the lack of publicity associated with this--if true--is
> >> >a bit surprising.
> >> >
> >> >>Subject: Fwd: Telephone charges for Internet
> >> >>
> >> >>>I am writing you this to inform you
> >> >>>of a very important matter currently under review by the FCC. Your local
> >> >>>telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute
> >> >>>charges for your internet service. They contend that your usage has or will
> >> >>>hinder the operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that
> >> >>>internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per
> >> >>>minute charges. The FCC has created an email box for your comments,
> >> >>>responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send your comments to
> >> >>>isp@fcc.gov and tell them what you think. Every phone company is
> >> >>>in on this one, and they are trying to sneak it in just under the wire for
> >> >>>litigation. Let everyone you know hear this one. Get the e-mail address to
> >> >>>everyone you can think of.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>isp@fcc.gov
> >>
> >
>
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Simona Nass wrote:

> >"ISPs Could Owe New Fees To Telcos if FCC Gives its OK".
> >FCC has an email box at
> > isp@fcc.gov
> >for ISPs and consumers to send informal comments.

If your company is going to play the regulatory game, don't bother with
filing informal comments. Learn the procedures for filing proper
FORMAL comments with the FCC. Some basic info is available here
http://www.fcc.gov/getinfo.html and the explanation of how to file
a formal comment is here
http://www.fcc.gov/pub/ftp/pub/reference_tools/panel_4.txt

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

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

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

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




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

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

A few data points rather than a policy diatribe:

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

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

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

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

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

--david

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


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

I suspect that "directly analogous" is neither a legal nor a regulatory
term.

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

It may be worth your while to learn what a "telecommunications carrier"
is. (I rather doubt that you are one. I also rather doubt that the
people you want to peer with are either.)

The telecomreg mail list might be a useful place for you to explore this topic.

-tjs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Tim Salo wrote:

> > a) The "free peering" relationship is directly analogous to a "bill &
> > keep" interconnection relationship between traditional telephone companies.
>
> I suspect that "directly analogous" is neither a legal nor a regulatory
> term.

Tim this is new legal ground. That is my whole point.

>
> > b) Under the Communications Act of 1934 As amended by the Telecommunications
> > Act of 1996 ("Act"), "telecommunications carriers" are under obligation to
> > interconnect "with the facilities and equipment of other telecommunications
> > carriers..." (Act, Sec. 251 (a) (1)
>
> It may be worth your while to learn what a "telecommunications carrier"
> is. (I rather doubt that you are one. I also rather doubt that the
> people you want to peer with are either.)

I'm very aware of what a "telecommunications carrier" is and without boring
you with the details I'm also very secure in Whole Earth Networks ability to
fall under that definition. The question as to whether we peer with other
"telecommunications carriers" is what should be of interest to the
operational community.

I'm going to take this off of this list but all I'm trying to get across if I
can't be more subtle about it is:

A broad FCC interpretation of the 'Act' with regard to regulations concerning
what 'Interconnection' is among 'Carriers' could be of operational benefit to
many on this list and we need to make that clear to our future regulators.


--david
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, David Holub wrote:

> A broad FCC interpretation of the 'Act' with regard to regulations concerning
> what 'Interconnection' is among 'Carriers' could be of operational benefit to
> many on this list and we need to make that clear to our future regulators.

You really should go to http://www.fcc.gov and read some of Reed Hundt's
speeches concerning the Internet. You are headed 180 degrees opposite
of where the FCC is currently headed. And this discussion really does
belong on com-priv@lists.psi.com where FCC issues are regularly discussed.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Michael Dillon wrote:

> You really should go to http://www.fcc.gov and read some of Reed Hundt's
> speeches concerning the Internet. You are headed 180 degrees opposite
> of where the FCC is currently headed. And this discussion really does
> belong on com-priv@lists.psi.com where FCC issues are regularly discussed.

Thank you again for the pointer, very useful.

I'm trying to pay more attention to the rulings and the dates than the
speeches.


--david


From: http://www.fcc.gov/pub/ftp/pub/Reports/implsched.html



ISSUE/BUREAUS STATUTORY FCC PROCEEDINGS TIMETABLE STATUS
REQUIREMENTS
DEADLINES


Interconnection Intelligent Network CC Docket 91-346 Q1 1997 OPEN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

>The detailed background info on this issue can be found on
>Page 1 of WebWeek, Jan 20, 1997.
>"ISPs Could Owe New Fees To Telcos if FCC Gives its OK".
>FCC has an email box at
> isp@fcc.gov
>for ISPs and consumers to send informal comments. The deadline is
>Feb 21, and March 24 is the dead for replies to comments.
>
>FCC will post the comments at
>
> www.fcc.gov/isp.html
>Hong Chen 408-567-3800 (tel)
>hchen@aimnet.net 408-567-0990 (fax)
>
>On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, James R. Fisher wrote:
>
>> What appears below is an unsubstantiated rumor, but some rumors are true...
>> -jrf
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >Return-Path: bbb@acm.org
>> >Date: Sat, 8 Feb 97 16:41:22 EST
>> >To: fnc@web1.hpc.org, lsn@hpcc.gov
>> >From: "Bruce B. Bottomley" <bbb@acm.org>
>> >Subject: Fw: Telephone charges for Internet
>> >
>> >
>> >Does anybody know if there's truth in this one? The concept doesn't sound
>> >extraordinarily unlikely given the info we received from the FCC rep at FNC
>> >a few months back about central office loading, allocation of costs and
>> >revenues, etc., but the lack of publicity associated with this--if true--is
>> >a bit surprising.
>> >
>> >>Subject: Fwd: Telephone charges for Internet
>> >>
>> >>>I am writing you this to inform you
>> >>>of a very important matter currently under review by the FCC. Your local
>> >>>telephone company has filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute
>> >>>charges for your internet service. They contend that your usage has or will
>> >>>hinder the operation of the telephone network. It is my belief that
>> >>>internet usage will diminish if users were required to pay additional per
>> >>>minute charges. The FCC has created an email box for your comments,
>> >>>responses must be received by February 13, 1997. Send your comments to
>> >>>isp@fcc.gov and tell them what you think. Every phone company is
>> >>>in on this one, and they are trying to sneak it in just under the wire for
>> >>>litigation. Let everyone you know hear this one. Get the e-mail address to
>> >>>everyone you can think of.
>> >>>
>> >>>isp@fcc.gov
>>
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

m: Josh Hall <jwhall@noc.digex.net>
To: Richard Newcomb <rnewcomb@namss.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Sprint traffic
In-Reply-To: Sprint traffic (Richard Newcomb)
References: <3308AA0B.7F20@namss.com>
Reply-To: Josh Hall <jwhall@digex.net>
Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu

Sprintlink's noc.

noc@sprintlink.net

Josh
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:13:21 -0800 (PST)
> From: David Holub <david@hooked.net>
> To: Tim Salo <salo@msc.edu>
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Unsubstantiated Rumor - this is not simply about RBOC ISP Tariff
> [...]
> I'm very aware of what a "telecommunications carrier" is and without boring
> you with the details I'm also very secure in Whole Earth Networks ability to
> fall under that definition. ...

One interesting attribute of telecommunications carriers is that they
all seem to have big legal departments.

Be careful what you wish for...

-tjs

[.By the way, given the number of people who want someone to regulate
some aspect of the Internet, I suspect that we will see the day when
all ISPs have lawyers. On the other hand, it doesn't make much sense
to me to try to hasten the arrival of this era.]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -