CompuServe What's New This Week(FREE) NEW 1 Members Urged to Fight "Modem Fee" <<<<------- 2 Rate Changes to Radio Suisse Network 3 CompuServe Help Forum Opens 4 T.V. Program Guide Online 5 July Savings in IQuest 6 Theater Reviews in ShowBiz Forum 7 New Car Showroom Adds Exotic Cars 8 June Articles in Consumer Reports 9 Columbia House Offers Free CDs 10 Mall Merchants Give Free Items (Above Articles Are Free) 11 Online Today MEMBERS URGED TO FIGHT "MODEM FEE" (16-Jul-92) A commissioner with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently stated that the FCC may again examine the possibility of imposing "modem fees" for information service companies. Observers have said the fees could drive up telephone line costs to information services companies by as much as 300 percent, some or all of which online service members would likely bear. CompuServe again needs your help in fighting any proposed cost increase so that online services can grow and remain affordable. The ramifications of the FCC's possible action is explained online (GO FCC). This area is free of connect charges. CompuServe asks that you send a letter to the FCC in opposition to modem fees and also to write to certain U.S.Senators to encourage legislation that would require the FCC to allow CompuServe and other information services companies to use new and more efficient technologies without being subjected to higher telephone line access charges. Also, please copy Congressman Edward Markey of Massachusetts, Chairman of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee. In 1987, a similar letter writing campaign by online services users helped prevent increased access charges from being implemented. The GO FCC area lists the names and address of FCC commissioners and U.S. Senators to whom you should write. Or, CompuServe will soon make available an FCCgram you can send electronically for 29 cents to the FCC and Senators. (Composing online is free.) A sample message is provided. CompuServe is subsidizing this low 29-cent rate. GO TELECOM to read more about this issue in the Regulatory Affairs section of the Telecommunications Forum. Your support of affordable information services is deeply appreciated. GO TELECOM Computing Support TELECO Welcome to Telecommunications Forum, V. 2G(41) News Flash: Welcome to ... ___ .__ . .__ __ __ . . | |_ | |_ | | | |\/| | | |__ |__ |__ |__ |__| | | . Your SysOps: Marilyn DePaoli 76702,1626 Scott Loftesness 76703,407 Wally Roberts 70356,1355 An FCC Commissioner recently stated that the FCC may again examine the possibility of imposing "modem fees" for information service companies. Observers have said the fees could drive up telephone line costs to information services companies by as much as 300 percent, some or all of which online service members would likely bear. For more specific information on this issue, GO FCC and read about the background as well as a suggested letter that you may want to send to your Congressional representatives regarding the matter. Further discussion of the issue can be found here in the Telecom Forum's Regulatory Affairs section 2. #: 18310 S2/Regulatory Affairs 16-Jul-92 00:49:05 Sb: #FCC Access Charges Fm: Scott Loftesness 76703,407 To: All Well, apparently the access charge issue as applied to enhanced service providers such as CompuServe has once again raised its ugly head. This issue was originally proposed aver five years ago and was soundly defeated at the FCC as a result of considerable pressure brought to bear on the FCC Commissioners and staff from Capitol Hill. CompuServe is encouraging its subscribers to make their feelings known on this issue. You can read more about it along with a suggested letter that you may want to use to voice your concern about any such proposal. What's involved here is the use of standard business lines by enhanced service providers in which those lines are not charged access charges for calls that they handle. The FCC seems to feel that this exception to access charges for these kinds of lines is not justified and is beginning to think again about adding the access charges to these lines which will drive up the telecom cost component for every online service provider. #: 18369 S2/Regulatory Affairs 16-Jul-92 14:31:03 Sb: #18310-#FCC Access Charges Fm: F. Sherwood Lewis, Esq. 72510,2156 To: Scott Loftesness 76703,407 (X) Scott, I agree with the comments from jalevin in Msg # 18343 - we definitely need more information. In the system header CI$ put up this morning (GO FCC - carefully foisting the grunt work on you and Wally and Marilyn), it was stated: "In July 1991, the Federal Communications Commission adopted rules which could increase by up to 300 percent the price of local telephone lines which employ new network features and which are used by information service companies like CompuServe to provide its services to customers." In what specific FCC proceeding (docket no. and page reference, pls) was this conclusion reached? (And, if it was that dire, why did CI$ wait this long to send out the alarm?) The header also states: "CompuServe and other information service providers have filed petitions with the FCC asking the agency to reconsider its July 1991 access charge decision." Could these be placed in a library for downloading? I have been a part of every campaign to make sure that non-telco information service providers don't have to pay an inordinate share to use the public switched network, and I will continue to do so if the fact are there. But I'd sure caution all concerned not to start a letter writing barrage without having specifics in hand and deciding independently that indeed the FCC has deliberately set out on a course aimed specically at the independent information service providers. Best - Sherwood #: 18376 S2/Regulatory Affairs 16-Jul-92 17:16:08 Sb: #18369-#FCC Access Charges Fm: Scott Loftesness 76703,407 To: F. Sherwood Lewis, Esq. 72510,2156 (X) Sherwood, Will be getting some of the specific references and making them available here shortly. The basic decision that is being referenced involves the Open Network Architecture rulemaking, as I recall. Scott #: 18399 S2/Regulatory Affairs 16-Jul-92 23:51:06 Sb: #18376-#FCC Access Charges Fm: Chris Smith 70412,622 To: Scott Loftesness 76703,407 (X) As you hunt down specifics, can you provide any indication of how this might (if at all) affect Canadian (and other non-U.S.) subscribers to CompuServe or other info services? If it does affect us, then your $2-$3 hour increase might translate into a $6-$7 hour increase outside the U.S. ....Chris Smith #: 18420 S2/Regulatory Affairs 17-Jul-92 09:34:12 Sb: #18399-FCC Access Charges Fm: Scott Loftesness 76703,407 To: Chris Smith 70412,622 (X) Chris, There's no logical reason why this should affect Canadian or other non-US subscribers. The costs involved are those tied to CompuServe maintaining a large number of local business lines in the US to provide access to the network. Scott #: 18383 S2/Regulatory Affairs 16-Jul-92 19:50:51 Sb: #18369-FCC Access Charges Fm: George Carpenter 70007,6036 To: F. Sherwood Lewis, Esq. 72510,2156 (X) F. This whole thing is part of the ONA proceedings in which the RBOC's can restructure tariffs as they want based upon the "opportunities" presented by the access restructuring the FCC has blessed. They didn't beat IP's in 87-215 but will beat them by going through the back door in this one. CI$ will go up $2-$3 an hour. The only relief is legislative. Sykes is laying down on this one. G . #: 18412 S2/Regulatory Affairs 17-Jul-92 03:17:47 Sb: #18310-#FCC Access Charges Fm: Peter Weyzen 76467,745 To: Scott Loftesness 76703,407 (X) Is this real. This issue has been popping up every couple months for the past few years. Is this yet another hoax???? #: 18421 S2/Regulatory Affairs 17-Jul-92 09:34:15 Sb: #18412-FCC Access Charges Fm: Scott Loftesness 76703,407 To: Peter Weyzen 76467,745 (X) Peter, I believe what's real is the continuing discussion about it at the FCC. I think what CompuServe has decided is to re-enlist the people (subscribers) who successfully challenged this effort several years ago to ensure that it doesn't gain any further momentum. Scott #: 18431 S2/Regulatory Affairs 17-Jul-92 13:27:46 Sb: #18310-#FCC Access Charges Fm: Robert Meigs 70541,3451 To: Scott Loftesness 76703,407 (X) I have been a subscriber to Compuserve for only 2 years, so I do not remember the controversy of several years ago everyone is talking about. Nor do I understand the terms. What is cost-based access vs. usage-based? How do these affect the cost structure of the service? Am I event asking the right questions? Any answers would be welcome, and I certainly want some reliable information before sending a letter to Congress or the FCC. R. Meigs #: 18441 S2/Regulatory Affairs 17-Jul-92 15:58:04 Sb: #18431-#FCC Access Charges Fm: Scott Loftesness 76703,407 To: Robert Meigs 70541,3451 (X) Robert, The original controversy occurred back in the 1987 timeframe. It was fought hard by modem users all around the country and, ultimately, the FCC caved to pressure from Capitol Hill. What's at issue is whether enhanced service providers should also have to pay access fees. These fees would increase the cost of providing online information services seemingly without providing any other benefit. Scott #: 18459 S2/Regulatory Affairs 17-Jul-92 23:31:04 Sb: #18441-#FCC Access Charges Fm: Jim Gorman 71525,1366 To: Scott Loftesness 76703,407 (X) Scott, ONA is not my area of expertise. I assume that the FCC has some rationale for this policy, logical or not. Do you have any info that could enlighten us on the FCC's postition versus the ESP's? Jim There is 1 Reply. #: 18462 S2/Regulatory Affairs 17-Jul-92 23:58:31 Sb: #18459-#FCC Access Charges Fm: Edward Bitter 72766,2555 To: Jim Gorman 71525,1366 Can ANYONE explain (in simple terms without ANY unexplained abbreviations such as ONA) what FCC's rationale is for wanting to increase modem access fees? If someone does understand it well enough to explain it, please do so.... Ed #: 18495 S2/Regulatory Affairs 18-Jul-92 10:53:59 Sb: #18462-FCC Access Charges Fm: Jonathan Seder 70324,1770 To: Edward Bitter 72766,2555 The only rationale I can see is that modem calls have a much longer average duration than voice calls. When (in the case of Pacific Bell here) they offer us unlimited local calling for $8.35/month, they're making some assumptions about the number of hours we will be using their switch and thus the number of trunk circuits they have to supply. Modem calls last a long time (on average) and require the BOCs to buy more hardware. Also, the BOCs could argue that modem service is not the sort of thing they have to supply as part of universal access to telephone service, and thus deserves no subsidy. #: 18518 S2/Regulatory Affairs 18-Jul-92 14:00:16 Sb: #18462-FCC Access Charges Fm: tim gorman 71336,1270 To: Edward Bitter 72766,2555 Edward, I don't believe the FCC is considering modem access fees. What is being considered is removing the waiver that enhanced service providers received several years ago allowing them to get lower access charges for access to the telephone network than interLATA long distance providers were paying. At one time, I thought the ONA proposal was uploaded into one of the libraries here. You may want to do a search although I'm not sure what to use for a search key other than ONA. Tim Gorman #: 18445 S2/Regulatory Affairs 17-Jul-92 17:16:06 Sb: #modem fee reply to CIS Fm: Brian Treadway 76116,3711 To: ALL Here is a reply to CIS's appeal on the modem fee, that I sent to FEEDBACK: > CompuServe asks that you send a letter to the FCC in opposition to modem > fees and also to write to certain U.S.Senators to encourage legislation that > would require the FCC to allow CompuServe and other information services > companies to use new and more efficient technologies without being subjected > to higher telephone line access charges. You're hogs! The analog data density of modem-generated sound is clearly higher than ordinary voice communication, so fewer modem signals will fit on a line of a given capacity. Charges ought to reflect this. You want a subsidy for your data-rich signals, and you want a surcharge for your CIS-MCI mail link. You'll collect anything you can! BFT #: 18449 S2/Regulatory Affairs 17-Jul-92 18:49:11 Sb: #18445-#modem fee reply to CIS Fm: Frank Arnold 72561,641 To: Brian Treadway 76116,3711 (X) Brian... You may or may not be correct in your analysis. However, let me ask you this: Next time you go to buy a new car are you going to tell the dealer he should charge more because the big rig that delivered the vehicle to the dealership was harder on the road than an automobile? I think not. Frank #: 18464 S2/Regulatory Affairs 18-Jul-92 01:03:33 Sb: #18445-modem fee reply to CIS Fm: Jonathan Seder 70324,1770 To: Brian Treadway 76116,3711 (X) You're wrong. Voice circuits and modem data both get 56K digital connections, assuming you're not connected via antique hardware found in certain foreign countries. Modems just use the bandwidth efficiently. The digital telephone system is time division multiplexed. The basic increment - T-1 - is 1.544 megabits/second, or 24 56K channels. The problem with the whole telephone system is that idle channels take the same bandwidth as (for example) V.32/V.42 modems running full tilt. The solution is to move people to ISDN, which not only lets the BOCs and inter LATA carriers move things around more efficiently. ISDN also gets the BOCs out of the power distribution business - on analog subscriber lines, the BOCs provide dial tone and ring current; with ISDN you provide it. If you think about it, you'll see that power is a signficant cost to the BOCs. #: 18484 S2/Regulatory Affairs 18-Jul-92 07:55:26 Sb: #18445-#modem fee reply to CIS Fm: Martin winter 76407,3521 To: Brian Treadway 76116,3711 (X) I hate to say it, but you can get MORE data calls on the same line than you can VOICE. The phone companies are NOT taking advantage of the technology of data compression (something that is ALREADY available to them). If you want I can go check with my resident technical phone guru to tell you just how this works, but the argument that a modem call uses more bandwidth is spurious at best. Press for next or type CHOICES ! #: 18506 S2/Regulatory Affairs 18-Jul-92 12:44:13 Sb: #18484-modem fee reply to CIS Fm: earle robinson [ibmeur] 76004,1762 To: Martin winter 76407,3521 Actually, it is somewhat different, due to the use of adpcm: ADPCM stands for Adaptive Delta Pulse Code Modulation (some people say "differential" instead of "delta", but it means the same). It is a way of doing PCM (digital transmission of analog signals, as is done on fiber optics and T1 links, etc.) in which each "word" (set of bits) represents the _change_ from the previous state rather than the absolute value of signal. In effect, it allows what normally take 64000 bit/s to be squeezed into 40k, 32k, or even 24k or 16k! This allows many more channels to be simultaneously carried on the same digital connection. Unfortunately, the algorithm introduces more quantization noise (I think you're familiar with this term), and in fact pushes the noise level above what a V.29 receiver can normally handle. The additional SNR performance provided by trellis coding, however, allows V.32 to work on ADPCM links (at 40K and usually 32K, anyway). Most common-carrier digital links detect the 2100 Hz answer tone and try to keep data calls on 64K links, but if congestion requires degrading of connections, it will assign data calls to 40K ADPCM and voice calls to 24K ADPCM. -er #: 18478 S2/Regulatory Affairs 18-Jul-92 04:05:41 Sb: Modem Fee Fm: RoseMary Shannon 70700,2713 To: Senator Edward Markey Senator Edward Markey It has come to my attention that you may recommend a modem tax or fee. I do not believe that is doing the job for which you were elected. You were elected to serve the people not special interest groups. An increase that could raise the cost of using a modem as much as 300% can be a burden on business that uses a modem in lieu of our mails which are expensive and not always as speedy as they could be. A response to this 'gram' would show that you do read you mail. You did not respond to previous offers of information which leads me to believe you are not interested in the thoughts, and desires of the public. RoseMary Shannon, 70700,2713