| From: | John D Tarter <shintaro1@****.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Spam or not to Spam... OT |
| Date: | Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:58:51 EST |
<thomas@*******.COM> writes:
>At 08:28 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>Just a note to those who responded violently to the one person's
>posting of
>
>That was me. I stand by my position that none of the mailing lists
>that
>iTribe provides is a proper forum for that type of message.
>
>True or not, the message didn't refer to any particular docket, nor
>any
>specific place where any information could be found regarding the
>content
>of the message. It read as a revision of the modem tax urban legend
>(found
>under the classic section of www.urbanlegends.com), and urged people
>to
>send e-mail to a certain address without checking on information. As
>it
>was written, it gave out scant information - none of it detailed - and
>urged readers to immediately send e-mail. In short, it was intended
>to
>provoke an immediate response to an individual, who possibly was
>bombed by people who didn't know what they were yelling about.
>
>The message that was forwarded to everyone on this list told of the
>FCC
>trying to charge more money for internet access. The e-mail to
>address
>indicates that what is in question is for the Internet Access &
>Information
>Service Provider NOI (CC Docket No. 96-263).
>
>Internet Access & Information Service Provider NOI
>The NOI seeks comment on whether the FCC should, in addition to access
>charge reform, consider actions relating to the implications of
>information
>service and Internet access provider usage of the public switched
>network.
>In particular, in light of concerns raised over congestion on the
>public
>switched network, the Commission seeks comment on how it can most
>effectively create incentives for the deployment of services and
>facilities
>to allow more efficient transport of data traffic to and from end
>users.
>The Commission made no specific proposals, but tentatively concluded
>that
>providers of information services (including Internet service
>providers)
>should not be subject to the interstate access charges that local
>telephone
>companies currently assess on long-distance carriers.
>
>Comment Date: March 24, 1997
>Reply Comment Date: April 23, 1997
>
>Let's read that part again:
>
>The Commission made no specific proposals, but tentatively concluded
>that
>providers of information services (including Internet service
>providers)
>should not be subject to the interstate access charges that local
>telephone
>companies currently assess on long-distance carriers.
>
>In other words, the FCC is NOT proposing that ISPs pay additional
>money for
>access, the opposite of the initial post.
>
>The initial post was [1] not a proper post for this mailing list, [2]
>misleading, [3] irrelevant to a good portion of this mailing list, and
>[4]
>wrong. In other words, a complete waste of time and bandwidth. It's
>a
>bullshit post that is a revision of the 'modem tax' UL.
>
>
>
>
> Thomas Deeny
>Infobahn Austin
> 512 320 0556
>
Whether it is irrelevent to the list or not, It IS A MATTER OF CONCERN
and should be treated as such. Not only that, but a concerned list member
was trying to warn us all about something he believed to be true. I seem
to remember reading an article about this subject in The New York Times.
Please try not to be so harsh when someone is trying to help whether he
is incorrect or not.
~Shintaro
Cold hearted orb that rules the night,
blinds the colors from our sight,
red is gray and yellow is white,
but you decide which is right shintaro1@****.com
and which is an illusion. http://members.aol.com/jhndvd865/
