216 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
216 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
|
The following is a text file that was downloaded from the Delphi online
|
||
|
service's Tandy SIG
|
||
|
|
||
|
The FCC is considering reregulating the packet-switching networks like Telenet,
|
||
|
Tymnet, Compuserve, The Source and PC Pursuit. This could result in additional
|
||
|
costs to the user. This is excerpted from Infomat magazine.
|
||
|
====================================
|
||
|
COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE NEWS -- PART 1
|
||
|
====================================
|
||
|
by Tim Elmer
|
||
|
------------------------------------
|
||
|
FREE LOCAL ACCESS TO PACKET
|
||
|
SWITCHING NETWORKS MAY BE ELIMINATED
|
||
|
------------------------------------
|
||
|
(BPS) -- The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote on a proposal
|
||
|
to reregulate packet switching networks that, if approved, would eliminate free
|
||
|
local telephone access to those networks.
|
||
|
"If this occurs, it might eventually double or triple the costs to those using
|
||
|
packet switching networks to access commercial on-line databases and
|
||
|
information services and triple or quadruple the costs to those using Telenet's
|
||
|
PC Pursuit," said Philip M. Walker, vice president and regulatory counsel for
|
||
|
Telenet Communications Corp.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Predictably, the initiative to reregulate packet switching networks comes
|
||
|
primarily from the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) and secondarily from AT&T.
|
||
|
These companies provide local telephone service to vast majority of telephone
|
||
|
customers throughout the U.S. and will benefit the most from FCC reregulation
|
||
|
of the packet switching networks.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Under current FCC rules formulated in 1980 in the FCC's Second Computer
|
||
|
Inquiry, called Computer II, a distinction is made between "basic services" and
|
||
|
"enhanced services." "Basic services" are those that don't offer protocol
|
||
|
conversion such as local and long-distance voice telephone services. "Enhanced
|
||
|
services" are defined in an open-ended fashion as computer-based services that
|
||
|
are more than a "basic service," in other words, services such as packet
|
||
|
switching networks, database and on-line type services, and remote computing
|
||
|
services that offer protocol conversion, according to Walker.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Under the 1980 Computer II Inquiry, the FCC ruled that "basic services" would
|
||
|
continue to be regulated as they had always been. However, the FCC also ruled
|
||
|
that "enhanced services" would be deregulated, which opened up the industry to
|
||
|
competition. This resulted in numerous companies entering the packet switching
|
||
|
business, including BOCs, AT&T and at least a dozen others. The competition
|
||
|
resulted in significant price reductions for packet switching services.
|
||
|
To prevent monopolization of the packet switching industry by the Big Boys
|
||
|
(the BOCs and AT&T), the FCC ruled that they had to keep separate accounting
|
||
|
figures for their "basic services" and for their "enhanced services," and that
|
||
|
they could not use revenues from their lucrative "basic services" to cross-
|
||
|
subsidize their "enhanced service" packet switching networks.
|
||
|
The FCC also ruled that if the BOCs and AT&T used their "basic service"
|
||
|
telephone lines for packet switching services, then they must let their
|
||
|
competitors have access to those lines on the same basis, which would preserve
|
||
|
true competition in the industry.
|
||
|
|
||
|
"Now, under the FCC's Computer Inquiry III, the FCC is asking, should we
|
||
|
redefine protocol conversion services as 'basic services' rather than enhanced
|
||
|
services? Should we redefine all those companies as common carriers? This
|
||
|
would, in effect, subject them not only to federal regulations but, even worse,
|
||
|
to state regulations," Walker said.
|
||
|
The result would eliminate comparable interconnection requirements currently
|
||
|
imposed on BOCs and AT&T, allowing them to charge their packet switching
|
||
|
competitors local dial-in fees to access packet switching long-distance line
|
||
|
networks. It would also allow BOCs and AT&T to offer their own packet switching
|
||
|
services on a non-compensatory basis and, finally, allow them to cross-
|
||
|
subsidize those services with revenues from their much more lucrative voice
|
||
|
telephone service revenues. In short, it would allow BOCs and AT&T to
|
||
|
monopolize the packet switching industry and probably drive out most
|
||
|
competitors.
|
||
|
"In terms of cost impact," Walker said, "if we had to pay local access
|
||
|
charges, it would cost us about $3.60 an hour at the originating end, for calls
|
||
|
made by users to on-line databases and information services like CompuServe and
|
||
|
The Source.
|
||
|
|
||
|
"And with PC Pursuit, for which we have out-dial modems, we would have to pay
|
||
|
not only 3.60 per hour access fees at the originating end but also $4.80 at the
|
||
|
terminating end, a total of about $8 or $9. Obviously, to survive, we would
|
||
|
have to add those additional charges to our current fees and pass them on to
|
||
|
our consumers," Walker said.
|
||
|
That would almost certainly spell the end of PC Pursuit, and it would likely
|
||
|
put out of business not only many independent packet switching networks but
|
||
|
also many on-line databases and information services.
|
||
|
|
||
|
FCC approval of changes being considered in Computer III, Walker said, "would
|
||
|
really have a major impact on anyone using a packet switching service to access
|
||
|
online bulletin boards, databases, or information services aimed at the
|
||
|
residential user. They are just going to get creamed if this happens."
|
||
|
Walker said that is was not clear exactly when the FCC would vote on the
|
||
|
proposal, but that it would probably be the latter part of January or early
|
||
|
part of February, 1987. "They are moving very fast on this," he said.
|
||
|
For additional information, be sure to read Alan Bechtold's editorial in this
|
||
|
issue.
|
||
|
|
||
|
==========END>>>
|
||
|
|
||
|
Copyright (C) 1986, by BBS PRESS SERVICE, INC.
|
||
|
|
||
|
=================
|
||
|
THE EDITOR SPEAKS
|
||
|
=================
|
||
|
"Low-Cost packet switching Service Threatened"
|
||
|
|
||
|
by Alan R. Bechtold
|
||
|
|
||
|
As described in our lead news story this issue, the FCC is now considering a
|
||
|
major change in the way packet switched phone services are defined. This
|
||
|
change
|
||
|
is likely to lead to the demise of many of these services, and to much higher
|
||
|
prices for the use of the few that will eventually remain in business.
|
||
|
|
||
|
At the risk of over-simplification, I think I should first describe just what
|
||
|
a packet switched networking service is. These are the services you use to
|
||
|
access online databases and commercial online services, such as CompuServe and
|
||
|
The Source, with just a local telephone call. Once you call the local Telenet
|
||
|
or Tymnet number, for example, and a connection is made, you are then connected
|
||
|
with a computer that puts you in communication with the online services with
|
||
|
which you wish to communicate.
|
||
|
|
||
|
This computer is handling a number of calls into the main system computer at
|
||
|
the same time. It takes information you send and delivers it in "packets" to
|
||
|
the proper destination, picks up information from the online service computer
|
||
|
you called, and sends it, also in "packets," back to you. All of this
|
||
|
communicating is done in these so-called "packets" because this allows the
|
||
|
network's computers to offer protocol conversion and handle several ongoing
|
||
|
communications sessions at the same time.
|
||
|
|
||
|
FCC regulations allow AT&T and Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) to engage in
|
||
|
packet switching network operations, but they must also maintain completely
|
||
|
separate accounting of their voice and packet switching operations. They must
|
||
|
also offer free local-calling access to their lines to any competitors engaged
|
||
|
in the packet switching service industry.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The above regulations have allowed Telenet and Tymnet, among others, to
|
||
|
operate at a reasonable cost in a competitive atmosphere. This is a case of
|
||
|
regulation of a business actually RESULTING in increased competition and lower
|
||
|
prices to consumers.
|
||
|
|
||
|
As things stand now, you can call any local Telenet or Tymnet access number
|
||
|
and use these services to inexpensively access such online services as
|
||
|
CompuServe, The Source, Delphi, and countless others. In addition, GTE's new
|
||
|
PC PURSUIT service now offers you access, through their Telenet packet
|
||
|
switching service, to literally hundreds of local bulletin boards in cities all
|
||
|
across the country--for a flat charge of $25 per month.
|
||
|
But, the FCC is now being asked to REREGULATE this segment of the
|
||
|
communications industry, eliminating the FCC requirements that AT&T and BOCs
|
||
|
keep separate accounting records of their voice and packet switching services,
|
||
|
and eliminating the stipulation that the BOCs and AT&T must offer their
|
||
|
competitors in the packet switching business free access to their local
|
||
|
telephone connection lines.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The idea is patently ridiculous.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Mark Fowler, Chairman of the FCC, has been hailed by the press as a "fair-
|
||
|
market zealot." The chances are very good that he views this proposed
|
||
|
reregulation as the magic road to increased competition and fairer pricing for
|
||
|
consumers.
|
||
|
Unofficially, the word is out that the FCC advisory committee now considering
|
||
|
this matter is indeed leaning in favor of the proposed reregulation of the
|
||
|
packet switching industry. If the committee recommends these changes, it's
|
||
|
likely that a majority of the five voting members on the Federal Communications
|
||
|
Commission will vote in favor of the changes.
|
||
|
|
||
|
I have talked to sources within the industry who say it is the BOCs who are
|
||
|
pushing VERY HARD for this reregulation, because they want to get into the
|
||
|
packet switching service business in a big way, and they would like to rid
|
||
|
themselves of needless competition on their way to success.
|
||
|
|
||
|
What's that? RID themselves of competition? But--the proposed reregulation
|
||
|
is supposed to FOSTER competition! Why would a group of companies (BOCs)
|
||
|
hoping to eliminate their competition PUSH for this reregulation? I hope the
|
||
|
answer to THAT question is entirely clear.
|
||
|
Here we have an industry that is currently populated with plenty of
|
||
|
competition. Prices are already reasonable. Reregulation of the packet
|
||
|
switching service industry will IMMEDIATELY give giant corporations the upper
|
||
|
hand, and will allow them to cut off free access to their local access phone
|
||
|
lines to their competitors, namely Telenet and Tymnet and other similar
|
||
|
services that now offer you high-quality service, in a competitive marketplace,
|
||
|
at reasonable prices.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The proposed reregulation, however, would force all packet switching services
|
||
|
to compete with the BOCs and AT&T, companies that would be able to use the
|
||
|
enormous profits they earn with their voice telephone services to cross-
|
||
|
subsidize their packet switching services and offer them on a non-compensatory
|
||
|
basis, at least until their competitors are eliminated. When that happens,
|
||
|
they are then sure to jack up their fees to any level they want.
|
||
|
|
||
|
It would also force their packet switching competitors to pay access fees for
|
||
|
connection to local phone lines. The access fees alone could add as much as
|
||
|
$4.00 per hour to the fees packet switching companies would be forced to pass
|
||
|
on to their customers. This will be added to your hourly connect-time charges
|
||
|
for accessing ALL online databases through these services.
|
||
|
The proposed reregulation could very well spell the death of PC PURSUIT.
|
||
|
Because GTE also uses dial-out modems at the other end of their Telenet
|
||
|
connections for PC PURSUIT service, the company would be forced to pay an
|
||
|
hourly charge at BOTH ends of the phone line--totaling up to $8 or $9 per
|
||
|
hour. These fees would have to be added to the flat $25 per month that GTE now
|
||
|
charges for access to PC-PURSUIT. It would simply make the final cost to PC-
|
||
|
PURSUIT customers too high for the service to remain practical and affordable.
|
||
|
So--this is ONE TIME you MUST use your word processor to produce some letters
|
||
|
opposing this proposed reregulation! Write to:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Honorable Mark Fowler
|
||
|
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
|
||
|
Washington D.C. 20554
|
||
|
|
||
|
Refer to Computer Inquiry III in your letters. State clearly, in your own
|
||
|
words, that competitive packet switching services should not be reregulated or
|
||
|
subjected to carrier access charges, and then explain why not. Tell Mr. Fowler
|
||
|
that reregulation of packet switching services will completely destroy the
|
||
|
existing fair market for these services, and eventually increase costs, not
|
||
|
DECREASE them.
|
||
|
|
||
|
And hurry! I have heard this matter will be going before the FCC for a vote
|
||
|
in the latter part of January or early part of February. Time is running out.
|
||
|
|
||
|
==========END>>>
|