I sent my comments this morning and thought you would be interested ...
might give you something to think about.
PLEASE EVERYONE Respond to [email protected] with your concerns and opinions !!!!
This ruling will have a huge impact on our future.
thanks
becky
>Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 11:29:37 -0600
>To: [email protected]
>From: Becky Bonner <[email protected]>
>Subject: wire charges
>
>I am an Assistant Professor at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences
Center and am solely funded by grants. I have been using the internet in my
research since approximately 1986. Services on the internet I extensively
use include: telnet to libraries, ftp and gopher, the WWW to NCI, NIH and
many cancer, medical, and scientific WWW sites, and of course email. I
maintain 4 free access WWW sites. The internet has become a tool for
education and research extensively used by libraries, classrooms, students,
historians, scientists etc. etc. etc. It has bonded countless many in this
country to everone else in the world and improved public and international
relations.
>
>It would be disastrous to the research grant budgets to allow fees to be
charged for individual usage. This has become a popular research
communication medium for myself and many of my colleagues as we are able to
rapidly relate our research findings with our multi-institutional and
international research programs. Not only does it allows us to put forth in
writing a clear and concise communication, delivered almost immediately, it
can be read at a time convenient to our colleagues for instance in China.
It also allows the attachment of electronic files which we use extensively
for grant applications, renewals of our multi-institutional trials, and
preparation of manuscripts ... allowing the recipient to edit the document
and return it. It obviates the need to be able to read various types of
media recording i.e. floppy disks, zip disks etc. as the electronic
transmission conforms to one of 3 the industry standards. Tech-support for
our equipment in recent years has expanded to include almost immediate
response for problems regarding our equipment and software. We also use the
internet to track perishable irreplacable patient sample shipments and
reagents. Our research in early cancer detection and chemoprevention has
helped thousands and potentially to help billions ... yet we will be charged
under this ruling to try to SAVE LIVES.
>IMPACT: 1) Sorry, can't afford to use it; 2) Loss of jobs due to lack of
funding due to decrease in productivity; 3) a tremendous slowing of
progress; 4) Back to the dark ages
>
>Perhaps with this impact in mind, you rule to exclude universities,
military and government from charges. Consider this: The future of
research will include more and more colloboration with industry to
accomplish and fund research as our tax dollars for government funded
research continues to dwindle. How will that be addressed? Small business
cannot afford to pay; our players may well be limited to large profit
bearing industry stifling technology development, technology transfer, and
small business growth.
>
>Can we believe the claims of the phone company that the internet is
clogging the wire?
>The internet, originally developed under ARPANET, used governement tax
dollars to develop the most elaborate fail safe communication scheme ever
imagined. It is designed it such a way to prevent complete blackout of the
entire network primarily for military purposes. An example of how well this
works was seen in Oklahoma City during the bombing crisis. ALL phone lines
were jammed with the flood of calls to the point that even administrators in
Washington could not communicate with federal/state agencies for about 48
hours .. until the phone company constructed dedicated lines for them.. BUT
... the internet email was perfectly fine .. busy but no delays. And it was
this medium I used to help many friends and relatives determine that their
loved ones were safe (in most cases). Exactly what was hoped in 1969 by the
original founders. At that time they must have realized the limitations of
the telephone system and predicted that in the event of a disaster, it would
be difficult to communicate.
>
>Regardless of FCC phone system demand, the internet WILL and DOES continue
to function. I seriously doubt that the internet is consuming phone company
resources ... as they do not have the resources at their switching stations
to handle even half of the internet communications typical of a busy
university... much less the DOD, DISA and other military agencies.
>
>Now the thought comes from the phone companies ... look at all this "free
communication". We should be charging people to communicate using our wire
that the GOVERNMENT helped install. Well in fact they already do. We pay
them a monthly fee (plus install) for our phone line. Our ISP pays them a
monthly fee for use of the wire (plus install). We pay to get to our ISP
... monthly usage fees and in some cases long distance charges. To pay an
additional fee would be equivalent to our paying for every local phone call
we make. In my mind, if this is accepted, you have opened the door for two
new charges that appear on my phone bill in the next millineum:
>Local calls $70
>Long distance $50
>Internet packet charges $50
>Line Usage $28
>etc....
>Tax ... well at least Uncle Sam would get something for his original
investments!
>
>Plus a likely outrageous bill from my ISP because his management expenses
just went way up in the audit trail.
>
>Next they will try to figure out a way to charge us to call another
computer for non-internet communications, networking over T1 connections,
etc. etc. etc.
>
>The internet only recently has become affordable to the lower middle class
of America. Additional charges would be an effective mechanism to limit
usage to upper middle class, industry, government and education (provided
the latter two were exempt from the ruling). I really think the internet
should be FREE to EVERYONE and is the future of communication in the next
millineum.
>
>My vote: NO NO NO to any additional charges.
>The phone companies will have to determine another mechanism to increase
their revenues!
>Considering the implications and impact a ruling in favor of the phone
company would have on industry, education, economy and in fact almost every
aspect and disclipine in the world, it should be put to a national vote
prior to enactment.
>
Becky Bass Bonner Email: [email protected]
Home of the *HARRISON* Repository
WWW: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~harrisonrep OR http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~harrisonrep
Data Managed by me and my mom Josephine Lindsay Bass ([email protected])