Thanks Terri for clearing it up. I am forwarding this to all the addresses that I sent my first message as you suggest. George ROOTS-L Prescreeners wrote: > Hi George, > > I'm one of the volunteer screeners for Roots-L. I'm pleased to tell you > that this is a hoax. I am including some information that should > reassure you. It would be a kindness to all of us online if you would > pass this information on to all those to whom you sent this message, as > well as to the person who sent it to you. It may help to slow the > spread of this false information.(and save our Congress-people from > being inundated with email!) Thanks! > > If you have any questions or comments, please write to me directly at > the address below my name. > > Terri Strotman > pstrotman@earthlink.net > Volunteer: Roots-L Screening Team > ========================================================= > > From: > http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/blfcc.htm > > Excerpted from True Lies, 11/07/98: > > FCC Denies 'Modem Tax' Plans... Again > > The FCC has repeatedly stated for the past decade -- and is stating > again > today -- that it is NOT repealing the ISP exemption that [prevents] > Internet service providers from paying per-minute charges to local > telephone companies. This is one of the great enduring urban myths. > > -- FCC Chairman > William Kennard, Nov. 6, 1998 > > It was about this time last year that a recycled email alert flooded the > Net, charging that the FCC was considering a ruling to allow phone > companies to charge per-minute fees for Internet access . Consumers were > outraged, deluging the FCC with angry phone calls and email protests -- > for > no good reason. The claims made in the outdated email alert were false. > > Similar false rumors have circulated at intervals for the past 10 years, > making the "Modem Tax" legend a classic of Internet folklore (see > http://www.urbanlegends.com/classic/modem_tax.html). > > "It happened again this week," Reuters reported on Friday, "when an > upcoming FCC decision over how local telephone carriers pay each other > for > exchanging traffic was widely misinterpreted as having some bearing on > Internet regulation or fees. The decision is expected to be released > later > this month." > > According to Reuters, news of the impending decision has whipped up > another > frenzy among consumers as rumors of "per-minute access charges" once > again > flew out of control. > > And for the gazillionth time, William Kennard, Chairman of the FCC, was > forced to announce that the ruling under consideration "has NOTHING to > do > with consumer Internet charges." > > Pass it on. > > Update: > > From William Kennard's speech to the National Association of Regulatory > Commissioners, 11/11/98: > > "For reasons that escape me, there are those who regularly suggest that > the FCC is considering the imposition of per minute charges on Internet > providers. > The forces behind these rumors are doing a disservice to the American > consumer, because in fact nothing could be further from the truth. But > somehow these rumors keep arising, often on the Internet itself. I know, > because I receive hundreds and > thousands of e-mails every time this rumor arises. > > "I know that many of the e-mails I receive are from well-meaning, but > misinformed, people who are concerned about the future of the Internet. > I applaud their > vigilance and I am glad to assure them that the FCC is not about to > impose per > minute charges on the Internet." > > Full text of Kennard's speech: > > http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Kennard/spwek833.html