Date : Sun, 21 Jun 1987008:42:00-MDT
From : xanth!kent@MCNC.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan)
Subject: FCC proposal again threatens modem users
In article <446@cup.portal.com> Phil_CW_Sih@cup.portal.com writes:
>This proposal threatens to ruin the entire online industry overnight.
>Does anyone have any suggestions on how to fight something like this?
>
>Phil Sih
>408/973-9111
I saved two long, but very competent seeming postings, one from
comp.sys.mac, the other from comp.sys.amiga. Since this seems likely
to be or become a crisis for the community of people who use computer
networks regularly, (I figure my own usage cost would go from the
current $25 I pay for "unlimited use" private phone service to my
local Baby Bell, to about $1525, per month, for my 10 hours per day
online. OK, I admit it, I'm hooked. ;-), I hope you will forgive the
repeat posting. I do think this satisfies the above query. Please
feel free to spread the word to other services. My thanks to the
excellent efforts by the authors of these two articles.
Kent.
--
Kent Paul Dolan, LCDR, NOAA, Retired; ODU MSCS grad student // Yet
UUCP : kent@xanth.UUCP or ...{sun,harvard}!xanth!kent // Another
CSNET : kent@odu.csnet ARPA : kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu \\ // Happy
USPost: P.O. Box 1559, Norfolk, Virginia 23501-1559 \// Amigan!
Voice : (804) 587-7760 -=][> Last one to Ceres is a rotten egg! -=][>
*************************** the first posting **************************
>From: bruceb@telesoft.UUCP (Bruce Bergman @spot)
Subject: HOW TO RESPOND TO THE FCC REGARDING THEIR PROPOSAL
Date: 19 Jun 87 21:44:35 GMT
Old-Subject: Re: ATTENTION ALL MICRO USERS!!! FCC INFORMATION TAX AHEAD!!
John D. Hays asked for someone to post a sample letter for addressing
comments to the FCC regarding their future proposal to surcharge
Enhanced Service Providers (such as Tymnet, Telnet, etc.).
First of all, THE FCC HAS NOT RELEASED THE DOCKET! Sending in
comments before the docket is released would be bad manners. The FCC
said that the docket should be released in a couple of weeks. To save
hassle, I'll send out a message when the docket is available for
public consumption, as well as a lead to where you might obtain said
document. Keep an eye out in these newsgroups.
The FCC General Docket number is 87-215. The TITLE is "Amendment of
Part 69 of the Commission's rules relating to Enhanced Service
Providers."
An example of how to reply to FCC docket 87-215.
Below you will find such a beast. This sample is taken from a recent
posting I made to rec.ham-radio to oppose a proposal the FCC was
making to remove certain Amateur Radio frequencies. It is a tried and
true format that the FCC will consider valid, AS LONG AS YOU FOLLOW
THE GUIDELINES LISTED.
Take this opportunity to respond to the FCC. They love to let things
slide, and to save something, all it takes is a LOT of people writing
letters like what is provided below. We've done it before for ham
radio -- it can be done here.
If you have questions or concerns, PLEASE email me. I'll gladly
answer any questions about writing the FCC that I can. Just ask.
(The example below mentions a list of possible reasons why you might
want to oppose this proposal. Since the docket hasn't been released,
I'm not going to include any reasons yet. As soon as I get a copy of
the docket, I'll post reasons and references. Stay tuned.)
bruce bergman
(my net address is at the bottom of this message)
The following is a do-it-yourself-kit for responding to FCC docket 87-215
regarding amendment of Part 69 relating to Enhanced Service Providers.
Before I get started with the actual "form letter," let me take this
opportunity to make a few comments regarding responding to the FCC.
EVEN IF YOU DON'T BOTHER WITH THE SAMPLE LETTER STUFF, THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION IS USEFUL AND IMPORTANT TO THE SUCCESS OF YOUR RESPONSE.
1) If you really want to make an impression on the Commissioners, SEND
MORE THAN ONE COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE. Send FIVE copies. If you want
to make an even better impression, send ELEVEN copies. Five copies
makes sure that your vote counts, as well as provides a copy for each
of the general groups. Eleven copies will get your document in the
'IN' basket of each Commissioner. If this isn't possible, even ONE letter
counts as a vote. Don't send more than 11. Just 11 will do.
2) DON'T SEND FORM LETTERS! While I referred to this message as a "form
letter," it really isn't. Form letters are usually not worth the effort
you put into them. Why, you ask? Well, while each form letter you
send gets counted as a vote, it can be rejected later. If it turns out
that we win this round, it is entirely probable that OUR OPPONENTS WILL
ASK TO GO THROUGH EACH AND EVERY RESPONSE. If they can show that 100
responses are identical (or closely similar) with the exception of the
signature, THEY CAN BE REDUCED TO ONLY ONE VOTE! Make sure your letter
is sufficiently different enough not to get caught by this.
3) LIMIT YOUR MAIN ARGUMENTS TO ONE PAGE. If you want to go into more detail,
augment your document with additional pages expanding on your original
comments, keying to those original points. Number your points.
4) Give REASONABLE REASONS why you oppose this docket. You can't just say
that you oppose the rule-making without a sound, reasonable response.
REMEMBER THAT THE OPPOSITION WILL READ EACH AND EVERY RESPONSE YOU SEND,
if it can benefit them. We don't have that type of financial backing;
they *DO*. Use some of the samples below if you're stuck for ideas.
5) MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU DO. How important you
are actually makes a difference. If you have a certain expertise, or if
you have a degree of some sort, TELL THEM THAT. It counts a lot for what
the commissioners think if they know you are someone who knows what you
are talking about. If you run a service, are an administrator, offer
services to the public, etc., briefly describe what you do and why.
6) DOUBLE SPACE YOUR DOCUMENT. This can make the difference between your
response being read or just counted! If your response is CLEAR, DOUBLE
SPACED, and CONCISE, it will be read and given a better subjective value.
7) GET YOUR NEIGHBORS INTO THE ACT. If your friends and/or neighbors are
familiar with your activities and support you and your activities, ask them
to write a letter to the FCC expressing their concern over how this docket
might affect your community. If you can get local officials to do the
same, great! Letterhead and many copies make the BEST response.
8) MAKE SURE THE DATE IS ON THE DOCUMENT. It is important that the reader be
made aware that this isn't an old response. Put the date on your document.
And, of course, DON'T EVER FORGET TO PUT THE DOCKET NUMBER AT THE TOP!!
9) Lastly, remember that this is going to be a very important point in future
rule-making efforts. Any time the FCC wins a battle, whether by apathy or
some other means, it is a big step for them in the future. If the FCC
decides in favor of this docket, it's likely that you will see more of the
same type later on. Private agencies will see how easily it went over and
base future requests on that information. If we win, it will make it tough
for anyone to raise the issue again. If a specific proposal fails to make
it through a certain number of times (because of the public's efforts), the
commissioners tend to NOT reconsider it again during their term...
Even if you don't bother with this proposal, you have a vested interest in
what happens to it. Eventually, THIS *WILL* AFFECT YOU!
Okay, enough preaching. On to the "form letter." Basically, you will want to
create a letter which has the name of the FCC at the top, AS WELL AS A CLEAR
POINTER TO THE DOCKET NUMBER. If the people at the FCC have to search for a
docket reference, they'll "loose" your response.
Here's an example first page header:
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Before the |
| FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION |
| Washington DC 20554 |
| |
| |
| In the Matter of \ |
| \ |
| Amendment of Part 69 of the > GENERAL DOCKET 87 - 215 |
| Commission's Rules relating to / |
| Enhanced Service Providers / |
| |
| TO: The Commission |
| |
| COMMENTS OF <your full name>, <any professional titles> |
| |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
After you have created the header, you can begin your text, DOUBLE-SPACED.
Begin by expressing who you are and any specific titles, duties, or any
responsibilities that might qualify you as someone who has a vested interest
in what's going before their consideration. Even only as a user of this
network is suitable. Now is NOT the time to be humble, however. Just
tactfully explain what makes you significant to this proposal. YOU'RE OUT
TO MAKE AN IMPRESSION. DO SO! (Don't be verbose, however.)
Then, begin listing the reasons (numbered) WHY you oppose this proposal.
The more reasonable the reason, the better. BE CONCISE and clear. If you
need to go into detail, refer the reader to attached pages.
Here's an example:
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| I am a user of an Enhanced Service Provider. I frequently make use |
| |
| of such services to obtain information from computer information |
| |
| services that would otherwise be unavailable to me. The information |
| |
| I obtain allows me to <something...>. |
| |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
After you've explained who you are, and have shown why you have an interest
in this docket, continue with...
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| I strongly oppose the Commission's proposal to surcharge Enhanced |
| |
| Service Providers for the following reasons: |
| |
| 1. <reason one> |
| |
| 2. <reason two> |
| |
| 3. <whatever comments you feel appropriate to your situation> |
| |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Remember, you don't need to be verbose to get your point across. You
want to make sure the reader understands why you feel the way you do.
If you need additional material in order to accomplish this, feel free to
include additional pages, however if you are only interested in making
your feelings known and don't want to get really in-depth, the simple
statements like the ones pictured above are sufficient to make your point.
Where you can refer to the text of the original document, DO SO! This is
great for those who like to know exactly what you are referring to. It
also shows that you have done your homework and are not just spouting off.
The best mode of attack in instances like this is to first explain WHY you
are against the proposal. Once you have made it clear that there are good
reasons why this wouldn't be a good thing, SUGGEST ALTERNATE IDEAS. It can
go a long way for your arguments if you can suggest a viable alternative.
There are lots of reasons you can supply. I've listed about 10 that come
to mind at the bottom of this message. Please use them if you like, however
any that are pertinent to your local situation are going to be the better
responses.
Finally, follow up your reasons with a nice suffix like:
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Respectfully submitted, |
| <sign in BLACK INK> |
| <your spelled-out name and title> |
| |
| |
| <your street address> |
| <your city, state, and zipcode> |
| <THE DATE> |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Black ink is important when you sign your response. Also, make sure
that you send the original. Copies for yourself, original to the people
you are writing to. Please make sure you sign it and date it.
If you have included additional pages, it would be wise to include a
trailer at the bottom of each page, designating what page out of the
total number of pages this is. Example:
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Responses to General Docket 87-215 Page 1 of 3 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Finally, place a return address on your envelope, place the correct postage
on it, and mail it SOON! If you can spend the extra cash, don't fold your
responses; mail them in a larger manila envelope and keep them flat. This
is especially useful if you are sending multiple copies. Chances are that
it will get there in one piece, and will look great sitting on the desk of
some Commissioner (flat).
The key to remember is that you are out to make a feasible point about the
docket. You don't want to sound like you don't know what you are talking
about, so be sure of your facts. You can best do this by being concise,
clear, correct, and impressive. The impressive part comes to bear when you
consider arrangement and looks of your document as well as your status in
the topic under consideration.
If you have any questions, please contact me! This document was prepared
by Bruce Bergman, N7HAW, Northern San Diego County EC. To the best of my
knowledge, all the information contained herein is correct. Comments,
corrections, etc. are welcome and encouraged.
***** Appendix A *****
***** Possible Responses to Docket 87-215 *****
[To Be Provided]
[End of Document]
--
bang!-
allegra!\ \ (619) 457-2700 x123
gould9! \ crash!--\
ihnp4! \ \
>--sdcsvax!---->--telesoft!bruceb (Bruce Bergman N7HAW)
noscvax! / /
scgvaxd! / log-hb!--/ TeleSoft, Inc.
ucbvax! / / 5959 Cornerstone Court
talaris!- San Diego, CA. 92121-9891
All opinions are mine. [ packet: n7haw @ n6atq-1, fido: 103!203 ]
***************************** the second posting ****************************
>From: mayerk@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Kenneth Mayer)
Subject: Re: ATTENTION ALL MICRO USERS!!! FCC INFORMATION TAX AHEAD!!
Summary: Rumor control
Date: 17 Jun 87 21:03:07 GMT
When last we saw our hero, keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) ...
>In article <2288@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
>> A terrible piece of news I just read about in the New York Times
>>this morning. The FCC just voted 4-0 to impose a $4.50 - $5.50 an HOUR
>>tax on people who are using the phone system to transmit information
>>across state lines.
After seeing all of the various versions of this, I decided to contact
the FCC myself and get the facts straight:
In 1983, the FCC adopted an access charge plan where every secondary
user of local telephone services would be charged a tariff based on
the costs of the local exchange. Two groups were exempted from this
tariff -- resellers (those who buy telephone service in bulk and
resell it at reduced prices) and enhanced service providers (data
retrieval, manipulation, and transmission). This year, the resellers
were removed from exemption.
In a couple of weeks, the FCC will announce a *notice*of*inquiry*. Not
a tariff, but a request for comments on a proposed rule change. The
proposal is to add enhanced service providers back into the access
charge plan. Although the local rates will vary, the national average
should be about $0.09/minute.
If you would like a copy of the notice of inquiry and instructions on
how to submit comments, contact International Transcription Services,
(202)857-3800. There will probably be a summary in the Federal
Register. If you would like to make a comment, you may also mail a
letter directly to the FCC, but I am unsure whether they will be
received or acknowledged. Send your letters to
The Hon. Dennis Patrick, Chairman, FCC
1919 M Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20554
In your letter, state that this is in reference to docket number 87-215.
Also, send a copy to your elected representatives.
If you have further queries, you may contact the FCC at (202)632-4047.
Tell them that you have a query about docket number 87-215.
Kenneth Mayer mayerk@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
Teacher: "Two plus two equals..." Student: "Four, but what's a two?"