Thanks Julie. I spent an hour late, late, last night because of the rumor on my e-mail writing to my Congressman. Now I"m embarrassed. I'll try to stay better informed. Dennis Wallace of Salina, Kansas.-----Original Message----- From: Julie Young <youngj2@hotmail.com> To: NCUNION-L@rootsweb.com <NCUNION-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, February 04, 1999 8:14 AM Subject: [NCUNION-L] Internet Access- HOAX >Please do not forward that message. It is a hoax that some people find >funny. Unfortunately, many folks believe stories like this as well as >the Microsoft e-mail offers for $1,000 & the kidney harvesting stories >of Lousianna. This flood of warnings jam internet servers, slows your >access time, and is just a nuisance. Please check out >http://urbanlegends.miningco.com the next time you feel like something >may be important before passing it along, particularly if it involves >writing to the government. The whole story if interested is: > >Internet Access Rumor Won't Go Away > >Dateline: 01/20/99 > >Even though it's been debunked by just about everybody, the rumor rages >on via forwarded email alerts: the U.S. government, we are told, is on >the verge of enacting legislation that will raise our Internet access >costs by allowing calls to ISPs to be charged at long-distance (i.e., >per-minute) rates. > >The rumor is false, as was thoroughly explained in an FCC Fact Sheet >released in December. > >It is nonetheless popular, exemplifying a genre of Internet folklore >dating back to the "modem tax" legend of the early '90s. The rumor then >was that the FCC was about to approve a surcharge on all phone lines >connected to computer modems. A grassroots email campaign resulted in a >flood of protests to the FCC, in spite of the fact that it had no such >ruling under consideration. > >In similar fashion, the latest rumor has generated hundreds of thousands >of email complaints from "well-meaning but misinformed people" over the >past two years, says the FCC. > >Much like the issue of computer security, which has given rise to a body >of lore including virus hoaxes, hacker alerts, and rumors of privacy >invasion, low-cost access is and will likely always be a "hot button" >topic among Internet users, hence fertile ground for rumormongers. False >rumors often paint a true picture of a community's deep-seated fears and >concerns. > >Here's a typical email rendering of the current one: > >Date: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 7:50 PM >Subject: INPORTANT!!! PLEASE READ!!!!!! > >THIS IS NO JOKE !!! > >CNN stated that the Government would in two weeks time decide to allow >or not allow a Charge to your phone bill equal to a long distance call >each time you access the internet. > >The address is >http://www.house.gov/writerep/ > >Please visit the address above and fill out the necessary form! This is >not a joke....but REAL. We all were aware that the Government has been >pressured by the telephone companies to consider such a charge and now >it's reality..... > >If EACH one of us, forward this message on to others in a hurry, we may >be able to prevent this injustice from happening! > > > >The irony is that similar messages warning that the government will make >a decision "in two weeks" have been circulating since early November, >more than two months ago. > >The earliest of these coincides with news reports about a ruling under >consideration by the FCC (not Congress) pertaining to "reciprocal >compensation" arrangements between local telephone companies. The ruling >(still pending at this writing) will decide whether calls to ISPs should >be regarded as interstate transactions, since Internet traffic is not, >strictly speaking, local. It would only affect the rates phone companies >charge each other for the use of local lines to complete such calls. > >In some quarters, including news organizations such as CNN, this was >misinterpreted as having an impact on the rates phone companies charge >ISPs, and thus on consumer access fees. As CNN ominously reported on >November 7, "The cost of going online could go up significantly if the >Federal Communications Commission decides that dialing your local >Internet provider is a long-distance call." > >It was an erroneous assumption. FCC chairman William Kennard had >announced the opposite just the day before: "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." > >Unfortunately, the rumor was well underway. Even now, in spite of plenty >of information to the contrary on this site and elsewhere, people >persist in believing the email alerts and continue forwarding them >hither and yon with righteous indignation. > >Two days ago, the Arizona Republic reported that Congressman Ed Pastor >had received no fewer than 85 messages of protest since November, the >bulk of them during the past two weeks. Pastor's office responds to the >protests by kindly denying the rumor and handing out the address of the >FCC Web page listed above. Other members of Congress are doing the same, >and likely will be for quite some time to come. > >"Internet misinformation resembles one of those fires that start up in >huge piles of tires," observed the author of the Arizona Republic >article. "You can knock them back, but never really put them out." > >The FCC can vouch for that. Come to think of it, so can I. > >For more information, see: > >•No Consumer Per-Minute Charges to Access ISPs >Dec. '98 Fact Sheet from the FCC •FCC Chairman's Statement >Nov. 11 speech to Regulatory Commissioners •FCC Again Says It Won't Tax >Internet >Reuters news coverage, Nov. 7, 1998 •Internet Access Fees (Again?) >(NOT!) >David Spalding's in-depth 'Hoax du Jour' feature > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >