Sender: •••@••.•••
i am wondering if you thought this through. here's how this would happen,
according to what was said.
the fcc eliminates their long-distance charge, and then raises the local
charge to us. thus we pay more for local calls. assuming that we're calling
a local number for net access, and i hope we all are, this extra local charge
raises our total cost to log on. then, our isp has to hike prices to stay in
profit because of this packet tax. and then, on top of all this crap, then
we get charged for von?!?!?!?! this would all result in the regulatory death
of von, and heart disease for net use in general.
we don't need, nor want, a triple-tax death of our net.
and no, i don't think you can even say that this would eliminate this
'info-gap'. for one, anyone can go and get a newspaper, or turn on the tv or
news radio, and get info the american way : through an iv while in a coma.
two, were net access neccessary to acquire info, giving those without net
access a free connection wouldn't result in a vast improvement in our
education level. it would be largely used for porno, games, and flaming. if
net access is free to those who currently don't care for 'nerd-net', then
what are the odds that they will discuss as we do, or even something close?
don't flame me wrong, i am not something like a 'nethead supremacist' (that
was a joke), and i think that those who would like it, and bring something to
it, should have it, but three concurrent taxes would change my mind damn
quick.
and that's just assuming that the net falls under the jurisdiction of the
fcc, or anyone else, which it does not, being software.
jacob
:x
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sender: Robert Cannon <•••@••.•••>
Subject: cr> ACTA Opposition Coalition Meeting - DC
Coalition formed to oppose ACTA Petition
Shack, Crawford & Cannon has announced the creation of a coalition to oppose
the attempt by America's Carrier's Telecommunications Association ("ACTA")
to impose FCC jurisdiction on the Internet and over software companies
developing voice communication technologies for the Internet. The firm has
created a web page resource center at http://www.cais.net/cannon/acta.htm.
If ACTA is successful, software companies and service providers would bear a
heavy regulatory burden that could substantially halt the development of
voice technologies on the Internet.
Parties wishing to join the coalition should respond by e-mail to Henry E.
Crawford: •••@••.•••. A meeting of interested parties will take
place at firms offices on Friday, March 29, 1996 at 5:30 PM.
/----------------- Shack, Crawford & Cannon -------------/
/ 1150 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 900 /
/ Washington, D.C. 20036 /
/Tel.: (202) 862-4395 Fax: (202) 828-4130 /
/ Communications Law - Information Law - On-Line Law /
/------------------- •••@••.••• -----------------/
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sender: Robert Cannon <•••@••.•••>
Subject: ACTA Petition Deadline Extension
The deadline for the filing of comments at the FCC in response to
the ACTA petition (voice in the Internet) has been extended to May 8, 1996.
See the FCC Daily Digest Below.
-Robert Cannon
ACTA Petition Resource Page: http://www.cais.net/cannon/acta.htm
******************************************************************
DAILY DIGESTVol. 15, No. 50 March 25, 1996
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC NOTICES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report No. CC 96-10 - COMMON CARRIER BUREAU
CLARIFIES AND EXTENDS REQUEST FOR
COMMENT ON ACTA PETITION RELATING TO
"INTERNET PHONE" SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE -
RM NO. 8775 - Comments due: May 8, 1996; and replies
due: June 8, 1996; Contact: Kavin Werbach at (202) 418-
1599. [DA 96-414].
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Subject: Re: cr> *BULLETIN*: FCC Sets Comment Date for Internet Phone Comments
Sender: David Nicholas Russo <•••@••.•••>
> Sender: "David Heck" <David.Heck>
>
> Andy,
>
> Well done! I think your eloquent statement should be left and
> submitted as is.
>
> Keep up the Great Work!
> David
I have to agree whole-heartedly. I don't contribute much to the list, but it
has been more than empowering, and I wish I could contribute more. Here's a
start: The effort you've put in to Cyber Rights is outstanding, Andy (and
Richard), and as I have read the piled email, slowly, it appeared that yall
needed some reinforcement. THIS IS KILLER!
I have become much more able to articulate my social awareness and concerns
because of the dialogue in this community, and really want to thank you.
Keep on keepin on.
One suggestion: for better reading purposes, I would separate the sub
topics more clearly on the letter to the FCC... for example with astrixes
*************************************
Emerging Internet Technologies
*************************************
or something... A small suggestion that might help when people print it and
pass it around the office and post it to bulletin boards in the break
room.... Whatever.
Take care,
David Russo
Senior Staff, Campus Times
University of Rochester
•••@••.•••
716-529-5707
---------
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by Andrew Oram - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR)
Cyber-Rights: http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/
ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/
CyberJournal: (WWW or FTP) --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore
Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
