Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: To Spam or Not to Spam...[OT]
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:12:23 -0500
>BTW, it was false. The FCC is trying to provide incentives to companies to
>develop better services and facilities to allow more efficient transport of
>data traffic to and from end users. It has suggested not charging ISPs the
>interstate access charge that long-distance carriers are charges. The FCC
>is trying to lower costs and increase the efficiency of the internet.

This is what the FCC wants, yes. However, that does not say that the phone
companies are not trying to convince them otherwise, and does not say that
they are not gathering comments, from BOTH sides.

>The initial spam said just the opposite. In fact, all it was was the
>'modem tax' urban legend. Someone heard Internet and FCC and remembered
>the old urban legend.

I remember the legend, I was around then (boy, I feel old...). The
difference is that the FCC proposed what you said IN RESPONSE to a request
to regulate traffic. You can say the worry isn't valid (I agree, the FCC
isn't dumb, that's why they are making the suggestions they do)

Rereading what I can find, I will agree that the initial post IS misleading,
but NOT false.

BTW, I included OT in the topic. It'd be bad to be accused of Spamming
about Spam... :)

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 2
From: Faux Pas <thomas@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: To Spam or Not to Spam...[OT]
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:35:06 -0600
At 09:12 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>[4] wrong.
>
>Well, Not really....basically, the phone companies proposed that the FCC
>regulate usage of phone lines for internet access. While the FCC has not
>followed their suggestion (yet), they are listening to both sides.

Actually, no. Head back to that page. What the FCC is doing is attempting
to improve the access and the speed of the internet. One thing they've
thought of is not charging ISPs the charge that long distance providers are
charged. They're trying to offer more incentives to businesses so more
efficient things can be done to the internet.

What the spam purports is what you've said above. The FCC is regulating
the usage of phone lines, charging ISPs for internet usage (this is the
modem tax UL. I recieved a copy of it back when I was on GEnie, eons ago).
By adding fees, the FCC will make it harder for ISPs to start up, and be
detrimental for the growth of the internet.

<important part>
The e-mail address quoted in the spam (isp@***.gov) is set up for this
particular docket. Yes, they are listening to all sides, but for proposals
on how to provide incentives, not for comments on if a fee should be
instituted to ISPs. After all, making something more expensive is not a
good incentive.
</important part>

What was sent out was a variation of the modem tax UL. Here's how the
modem tax UL works: The FCC is purported to have a proposal pending that
would add on a fee for using a modem. This is to either limit the number
of users because the usage of the internet is tying up the backbone of the
phone system - or it's something to bring money to the phone companies on
whose lines users access their e-mail, the web, etc. It's basically a fee
that's imposed on the ISPs, which is passed down to the users. This recent
posting is a retelling of the modem tax UL.
-Thomas Deeny
telltale.hart.org

"When I said I would die a bachelor, I did not think I should live till I
were married."
- Benedick, "Much Ado About Nothing"
Message no. 3
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: To Spam or Not to Spam...[OT]
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:38:42 -0500
Faux Pas enlightened us with these words of wisdom:
><important part>
>The e-mail address quoted in the spam (isp@***.gov) is set up for this
>particular docket. Yes, they are listening to all sides, but for proposals
>on how to provide incentives, not for comments on if a fee should be
>instituted to ISPs. After all, making something more expensive is not a
>good incentive.
></important part>

Okay, let me try an clarify what I meant: The FCC is doing nothing of the
kind (regulating that is). I was saying that several corps were TRYING to
get them to. Thus, the call for people to make the other side heard was
valid. (unnessary, and misleading, but valid) People should email saying
that think it's a great idea, etc.

>What was sent out was a variation of the modem tax UL. Here's how the
>modem tax UL works: The FCC is purported to have a proposal pending that
>would add on a fee for using a modem. This is to either limit the number

again, I am familiar with the UL. The similarity is that the FCC has no
such proposal. The difference is that someone is trying to make them
consider one.

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 4
From: Faux Pas <thomas@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: To Spam or Not to Spam...[OT]
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:00:08 -0600
At 10:38 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
[Brett's stuff]

Ah. Then we are on the same page, as it were.

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled ShadowRN mailing list... :)


-Thomas Deeny
telltale.hart.org

"When I said I would die a bachelor, I did not think I should live till I
were married."
- Benedick, "Much Ado About Nothing"

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about To Spam or Not to Spam...[OT], you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!