FCC Decides ISP Calls are Long-Distance 199
Myko was the first to write in with an article confirming
that the FCC has decided that
ISP Calls are Long Distance. This
opens all sorts of problems that quite simply reduce down
to the consumer getting charged more money for our crappy slow
modem connections.
FCC is (sort of) right (Score:1)
Nonsense (Score:1)
Long distance is much cheaper with companies like 10-10-321, 10-10-120, and their ilk than it was back in the days of Ma Bell... The thing about networked systems is that the transport mechanism is often very very expensive (ie laying train track, gas lines, or fiberoptic cable)...
Your typical "Mom and Pops ISP" doesnt have to lay the T3, just lease it...
Hello!! Idiots!! Are you there?? (Score:1)
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
No Subject Given (Score:1)
While I am not affected immediately ... (Score:1)
I was being billed more than $60 per month on my phone line for local charges that was attributable only to my dial in access.
For me the net cost of cable is cheaper and somewhat faster than regular phone connections.
In many areas, this is not an option, however, examine other options, e.g. making a competing long distance provider your local phone company ( after being assured they will not be as stupid !
Begin speaking to these companies now so you can instruct them in the proper competitive stance vis-a-vis the consumer.
what the hell (Score:1)
A Strange Variation (Score:1)
Wouldn't it be interesting if this sort of thing was used to squeeze money out of the hugest ISPs? One thing you can say is, they _have_ the money. We don't- we'll just be forced into silence if we get hit with such charges. Supposing the AOLs of the world have become rich by using these loopholes? It would be very interesting if this development actually _aided_ local ISPs as a phenomenon, and mostly sucked the blood of the overarching, huge ISPs that are so brutal for local operations to compete with. On the one hand, yes yes, evil wicked government is going to lick the hand of the rich corporations and put the hurt on us poor regular folks. On the other hand- who, exactly, has the money in this equation? The rich corporations- and these days it's the Microsofts, the AOLs, etc., and they make it damned tough to maintain a normal capitalism with many players anymore. Wouldn't it be interesting if the government, purely out of self-interest, decided that since these corporations have all the money now, _they_ should be the focus for 'creative fundraising and taxation'?
Just a thought. I'd looooove to see my local ISP untouched, and AOL and MSN etc brutally taxed >:)
I wonder what the real truth will be.
what does this really mean? (Score:1)
No what it will probably mean is your ISP will get the snot charged out of them, then have to pass the charges on to the customers. I work for a small ISP, and this could possibly kill us if it goes the way I think it might. ( God, I hope not!)
This will only help the Telcos in killing out their competiton in the ISP market.
AAAaaarrrggggg!
Annoying... (Score:1)
This deserves action by consumer groups, anyone wanna
What this is about.. (Score:1)
I read an article on this a few months back. Here's why the FCC had to rule on this.
If you haven't noticed, everyone seems to be getting into the phone biz these days, the Baby Bells no longer have a monopoly on phone service.
The Baby Bells advocated a "originater pays" policy when dealing with phone connections between providers, so if a MediaOne phone customer calls a Bell Atlantic customer, MediaOne would pay BA for that call. The Baby Bells thought that this would work in their favor.
What happened is the New Guys (the non-baby bells) started signing up a large number of ISPs as customers, since they are on the receiving end of so many phone calls)
So when the Baby Bells noticed that they were paying big bucks to the New Guys because of these ISP calls, they went to the FCC and said "Wah, Wah! They can't do this to us, make them stop, Wah, Wah".
So this decision means that the FCC has sided with the Baby Bells on this one.
It's a bad decision because it will only serve to further protect the Baby-Bell monopolies
But University of *North* Carolina's got the goods (Score:1)
UNC has an excellent student network. All the dorms are wired, and the networking staff is highly competent. And look, they've got the site formerly known as sunsite [unc.edu]! This uni is definitely worth the money in that regard.
BEAT DOOK!!
How good is Road Runner for Linux? (Score:1)
I'm only asking because I'm going to be using it this summer once I move out of the dorms. My plan is to hook up an old 486 box as a firewall then ip masquerade to my Linux box and my roommate's Win98 machine. Will they do the service hookup if I'm connecting it to a linux machine?
-W.W.
FCC is (sort of) right (Score:1)
-Doug
Wow ... (Score:2)
they serious? (Score:1)
If the phone companies or ISPs end up paying more, you think they won't pass those costs along to us?
Maybe not.... (Score:1)
Actually, there is a reason that the telcos were forced to open their markets to newcomers. They were monopolies. They control an essential facility. They have to provide access to that facility for a fee. What happened here is that the telcos are getting rid of the newcomers that came in and used the telcos' own "reciprocal compensation" rules against them. This means that the ISPs that were getting the cut-rate deals from these companies will now end up paying the full rate that the telcos charge. You still think you won't see a price increase?
As usual, anyone in possession of a bigger clue than myself is welcome to correct this post. We all need to quickly learn what really happened and what it will ultimately mean to us. This post reflects my current understanding of the situation, which is always open to adjustments. :)
YOU UNPRINTABLE MORONS (Score:1)
Though I suppose most of the replies were from
Canadians, and they maybe can be forgiven. I
must've missed this the other 2 times it hit
slashdot. Comes up often enough on all the
mailing lists I'm on...
This Sucks Ass (Score:1)
The FCC sucks ass.
Wrong approach (Score:1)
Period.
The ISP has commincation lines that could be subject to interstate FCC regs, but my phone call is still LOCAL.
I heard about the billing problems arising with ISP's and telco's and how the telco's pay each other for calls that use both of their equipment. I can see why that may have to change, but their method of classifing ISP calls as long distace is wrong.
ISP calls now taxed (Score:1)
DSL/CABLE... JOKE.. (Score:1)
FCC is (sort of) right NOT! (Score:1)
Come on... They may have more traffic now, but they have better technology to handle it. And they are selling additional services now that they never offered before. I have a damn hard time believeing thier going broke because of the Internet!
So, now they sold everyone a second line, thier going to charge them per minute to actually use that second line??!?!! You can BET people will flock to cable modem. And if you don't get Cable modem yet (like me), just place a weekly phone call to your cable company (mine is TCI) asking them "is cable modem avaliable yet" (I know the answer is no, but I want to be honest in my effort to let them know I want it, and I wanna know as soon as I can get it.)
*ponder* (Score:1)
Both Alternatives Were Mindnumbingly Stupid (Score:1)
If these are called long distance calls, the originating telco does not pay the completing telco.
And there is a welfare program for suburbanites and farmers in there that might be affected, too.
*Bzzzzt* (Score:1)
The decision that the FCC handed down is NOT a modem tax, it's a regulation on how billing of calls to ISPs are handled between telcos. It does not say that ISPs are going to charge/minute of connection. It only involves contracts between telcos, and reciprocal billing between telcos for completing a connection across telephone infrastructures. Normally, "local" calls do not involve reciprocal charges, since it's assumed that there will be an equal number of calls in each direction; therefore only the call source's telco pays for completing the connection. Not so for ISPs, and long distance, where the number of calls varies so the telcos involved split the charges. It also is counter to the ruling several states made, which states that such calls should be treated as local (i.e. no reciprocal billing).
Unfortunately, this'll probably end up as a surcharge to an ISP's monthly rates, so it's the consumer who's going to get screwed in the end. Business as usual, I guess...
-cfw
--
Broadband access (Score:1)
You know, I used to be all for capitalism, but anymore it seems like everyday I get hit with one more illustration of why it's not a good idea. Not quite sure what could effectively replace it, but it apparently is NOT working for the benefit of the majority of us.
Go cable (Score:1)
JUSTICE AT LAST!! (Score:1)
Then again most of you don't think that far ahead, paying the phonecompany could help YOU in the future.
Who knows, maybe Europe will take the lead in internet usage when the Americas lose their advantage. At least I'll be hoping that this reduces bandwidth-wasting JUNK on the Net.
how can I be bitter? (Score:1)
hmmm (Score:1)
I can spend $25 a month and get unlimited calls on Sprint on the weekends, so the rates telcos are charging long distance companies for access through their CO's can't be that high.
I also think that billing in that manner to an ISP would mean that they can't charge for the line itself into the ISP but I could be wrong about that. If an ISP is paying $40 a month per line or circuit on a T1, then usage charges might not be much more per line except in unusual cases.
If that's the case, and this is really what the classification change means then I'd guess only very high usage people even have a chance of being affected. And someone who really has a valid reason to tie up their internet line 16 hours a day ought to have enough reason to pay $300 or $400 a month for a frame relay connection if cable, xDSL or other technology isn't available.
Anyone know anything more specific about this?
oh GOD (Score:1)
This has *nothing* to do with making ISP calls long distance, it just a simple ruling allowing telcos to choose if they desire to set up a reciprocal billing arrangement with ISPs (presumably larger ISPs) within their service area that they are providing lines to.
This doesn't mean you get billed per minute, it just means they have flexibility in how they choose to bill the line usage to the ISP.
They can, for example, class the incoming lines as inter-carrier lines, allowing them to be billed for usage rather than end-point charges.
And its not a requirement its just a clarification of their position on it. If I run fiber between two cities myself (ie, I own the fiber and I'm leasing the pole or line space underground) then I typically need those sort of reciprocal agreements with the carriers who are going to gateway traffic to my line in both terminating ends.
I don't think this is nearly as big of a deal as people have been making it out to be for the last six months that the rumor about this was going around. Some telcos may choose to gouge ISPs with these prices, but most probably won't charge anything. The release also made it seem like the actual situation would be based on the way existing reciprocal agreements within the state are handled.
I still wish I didn't need to use a telco though
Usage patterns are irrelevant (Score:1)
Also, if a telco make the "changing usage pattern" argument, it also opens itself up to the "what is your profit margin on T1 service today as compared to 10 years ago" question. Oddly enough no one at the Baby Bells seems real anxious to take on that question.
sPh
Actually, they decided they are local (Score:1)
This means that those consumers who continue to access the Internet by dialing a seven-digit number will not incur long distance charges when they do so.
Generally, new entrants to the local telephone business contend that calls to ISPs are local traffic and, therefore, subject to reciprocal compensation. Incumbent local telephone companies, on the other hand, generally contend that calls to ISPs are interstate in nature and that they are, therefore, beyond the scope of reciprocal compensation agreements.
This is the second story in a row that has been posted to
DSL/CABLE... JOKE.. (Score:1)
Where I live in Queens, Bell Atlantic doesn't offer DSL, Only ISDN, which would cost me somewhere around $450 to get it installed, and about $30-$40 extra on top of my monthly phone bill.
I'm so jealous of some of my co-workers who have ADSL where they live in (Northern) New Jersey.
I'm still chugging along at 33.6 waiting.....
Chill out, for now. (Score:1)
FCC announcement, I quote a piece of it here:
This was available from the index page of the FCC
website. It appears that this is aimed at the
baby bells and such, rather than us poor bandwidth
sucking Slashdot Longhairs.
Yeah, right. (Score:1)
This is something we don't need. Unless, of course, we want to limit information and access to free speech to only those above a certain income level. Honestly, I already pay for my phone. How many times do they need to charge me for the same service?
Go cable (Score:1)
Reference the ZDNET article that I sent to Rob yesterday: Privacy Concerns Over TCI@Home [zdnet.com]
YOU UNPRINTABLE MORONS (Score:1)
1) Gather information.
2) Process information (ie. think)
3) React/Speak.
Let's orgainize something (Score:1)
It could be like the refund day on a whole different level.
Anyway, I do not have the time to do this all on my own but I'd love to help out. Somebody mail me and/or set up a mailing list (or just keep up this thread) and maybe we can get something rolling.
what the hell (Score:1)
Umm.. While I may aggree with you that this aint' great, I've got to nitpick here and point out that actualy it was the government's idea. Didn't the Internet start with ARPAnet?
I hope that this was taken advantage of (Score:1)
But, as I'm sure you've all heard before with things like this, flames don't help causes. They only hurt them. Be polite, explain the situation and your distaste for it. Not knowing all the ramifications of their descision I didn't even ask them to overturn it, merely to reword it in such a way that phone companies are not given the ability to charge for services that they are not rendering.
Mail them. Now.
Let's email something (Score:1)
Think about it. FCC person finds his net access screwed or his emailbox bombed. What's he going to say? "Gee, a bunch of script kiddies are being dicks. I should rethink that whole long distance announcement".
For the love of whatever you love, don't do this.
The appropriate addresses have been posted. (Score:1)
Blagh. (Score:2)
What really sucks here is that fact that, while the data does travel a long distance, IT DOES NOT DO IT VIA THE PHONE COMPANIES EQUIPMENT. The high-capacity data lines that an ISP uses, afaik could be laid by any number of comanies. Aside from that, it eventualy gets to a backbone provider which (again afaik) has nothing to do with the phone company and that's where most of the long distance travel comes in, right?
The phone company would be charging for the use of equipment that is not theirs! Unless I'm seriously wrong with my reasoning (please point it out if I am) how could anybody even consider that acceptable?
Let's email something (Score:1)
Personally, I think that if they catch wind of this, they'll set up something to filter email or change the email address temporarily...
YOU UNPRINTABLE MORONS (Score:1)
The United States of America (Score:1)
The way I see it, is that the FCC has a theroritical monopoly over communication in the United States. Granted, this is a Federal bureau, however If the FCC was a business (which it looks to me like that's what it has turned into) this would constitute a monopoly. They are THE Federal Communications Commission. There is no alternative to them. You are Forced to abide by what they say and that's it. (This also brings up the point of multiple governments, but that's stupid, so let's not get into that. This is an EXAMPLE.)
Just my opinion here. I think it's bullshit what the FCC is trying to pull. Time to get your word processor out and start writing bitch letters. I Intend to do so. Peace.
They won this time (Score:1)
It was so their idea (Score:1)
*cough* you mean DARPA, the D (for defense)
was later dropped to help public relations.
Can't forget that the military was
a big player in the development of the net.
Go cable (Score:1)
The REAL Story here (Score:1)
Phew (Score:1)
-Laxative
news.com explains it better (Score:1)
----
At stake are millions of dollars per year paid to small telephone companies under contracts dubbed "reciprocal compensation."
The contracts govern who pays who when a customer makes a call. If a Bell Atlantic customer calls an e.spire communications customer under this system, Bell Atlantic would pay e.spire for completing that call.
When these contracts were signed, largely in the wake of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, local phone companies thought they would come out ahead since they controlled the vast majority of local phone lines.
But many small phone companies began signing up ISPs for service. The ISPs receive many calls, but place very few--resulting in the imbalance that favors the small telcos.
The Baby Bells and GTE have pressed the FCC to rule that calls to ISPs are long distance, since this would exempt the calls from the reciprocal compensation contracts.
----
They also note though that this could eventually mean bad news for consumers. Again from the article
----
But the decision was made under protest by one commissioner, who has argued that it could inadvertently open up the possibility for courts to impose per-minute access charges on ISPs.
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth had asked to delay the decision by at least another three weeks to study this issue. But Kennard denied that request, saying commissioners had already waited too long.
"I believe that part of operating efficiently is being decisive," Kennard said. "We owe the marketplace a decision."
----
flat rate is why it's a success (Score:1)
Also, this threatens to further enlarge the gap between the technological haves from the havenots.
I wonder how much the bribe was...
Talk Back! (Score:1)
The Chairman and the
Commissioners invite you to contact them via Email at the following addresses:
Chairman William Kennard: wkennard@fcc.gov [mailto]
Commissioner Susan Ness: sness@fcc.gov [mailto]
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth: hfurchtg@fcc.gov [mailto]
Commissioner Michael Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov [mailto]
Commissioner Gloria Tristani: gtristan@fcc.gov [mailto]
First Hand experience (Score:1)
This ruling says that you can't be charged long distance on your PHONE BILL. However, the telco can go to court now and claim that since the FCC declared ISPs to be IXC's, they should be charged the same as Sprint, MCI, or other long distance carriers for each minute of access that the ISP uses on the TELCO network. Based on an ISP with 100 phone lines:
100 lines * 60 minutes= 6,000 line-minutes per hour
6,000 line-minutes * 5 hours of peak time (6pm-11pm) = 30,000 line minutes for peak
50% usage for the rest of the day, 3,000*19=57,000 line minutes non-peak
57,000+30,000=87,000 line minutes *
This ruling doesn't do the above, it just opens to door for a future COURT case to open it. This is a form of incrementalism. These rulings are only the opening moves on a chess board. Once the pieces are in place, one move and checkmate.
Not good.
Dan
First Hand experience (Score:1)
I realise that before the per-minute charges go into effect, congress will probably pass a law, but with all of the money the telcos can spread, do you think it will be able to get through congress?
What about their charter? (Score:1)
What appears to be the intention of the ruling is to protect telephone companies from the competition posed by email and other forms of internet communication, such as internet telephony. It is unclear how the public interest is served by this ruling.
Why is the FCC chartered to "encourage competition"? I can only guess at the original intent of the charter, but my suspicion is that it is because competition is a reliable method of ensuring the highest quality of goods and services at the lowest price, consistent with the other goal "to protect the public interest".
By artificially raising the entry barrier to the internet for no good reason, this ruling also discourages advancement in the communication arts, by reducing the accessibility of the internet to those who would otherwise work as hobbyists to develop software and user interfaces, or act as testers for such developers.
The FCC should either change its mission statement to accurately reflect its updated(?) mission or it should act in accordance with the mission statement under which it was originally instituted.
Decision not final - It's up to your state (Score:1)
From the FCC Press Release: "FCC ADOPTS ORDER ADDRESSING DIAL-UP INTERNET TRAFFIC FCC Lets States Decide Whether Existing Interconnections
I personally don't understand the implications of this ruling at all. But, you can still lobby your state PUC memberst to make sure that no decision is made that would raise the cost of Internet access (and I'm not sure if this decision will).
However, if you live in a payola backwater (many state PUCs are just Bell front organizations), too bad for you.
Won't YOU be surprised... (Score:1)
It's amazing how many knee-jerk reactions a "news" posting like this can generate on slashdot. Rob even seemed to get a little knee-jerky himself. I am usually more impressed with his style then that. I am disappointed.
What it doesn't say is... (Score:1)
Now, if the ISP has a leased line, and the cost doesn't increase.. GREAT! But no business is going to eat a cost increase in favor of it's customer.
Just as with the cigarette tax, it's the customer that will end up paying the difference.
Re: Bull shit (Score:1)
The economy simply doesn't work this way. Telephone companies are in business to make as much of a profit as they possibly can, not to break even every quarter. I see nothing wrong with charging more for someone who uses their phone line 20 hours a day than someone who uses it for 45 minutes a day. They are dedicating more of their assets to the high-use person and can collect additional fees as a result.
YOU UNPRINTABLE MORONS (Score:1)
Maybe you should read the article before calling us all morons, hmm?
What it actually says (Score:1)
Try reading the report.
This is not about ISP's or internet access, it is about phone companies. When a new telco comes into a local area and competes for local service, they sign agreements to pay each other for compleeting local calls. So, I'm in Bell Atlantics region (ick) and joeblow phone company offers alternative local service. When I call somebody joeblow telco provides service for, from a Bell Atlantic serviced phone , Bell atlantic pays joeblow a certian amount for compleeting the call. When someone using joeblow calls a bellatlantic customer, joeblow pays Bell At. for completion.
Some of the compeeting telco's got the bright idea to market to ISP.s, who don't make many cals, but get a lot. So, the RBOC's end up paying out loads of cash to the competitor, who does not pay them much since it's customers are not making calls.
This ruling is about that. By determining that calls to ISP's are mixed in nature, and subject to federal jurisdiction (rather than that of lacal Public Utility COmmissions) they FCC clears the way for RBOC's to renegotiate the contract terms with the alternative locval providers that are making a lot of moneyu out of a loophole.
This has jack to do with your access.
I'm curious (Score:1)
Go read what it says. read it. figure out what it really means, then eat the working end of a 12 gauge.
There cannot be any per minute or per call cost passed along to the consumer or ISP. Hell, the decision is highly prelim,and does not even decide the issue in favor of the RBOC's, you stupid twat, it simply passes the ball back to the local PUC's, and indicates that some level of Federal jurisdiction may end up existing. That's all.
So, while you are hiding under your bed from the white van's and black helicopters, try learning a littel bit about how things really work.
I'm truly sorry (Score:1)
This decision is about reciprocation betwen phone companies. It's not anythingthat will have zip to do with end users. In this, the ISP is as much of an end user as you are.
Look sweety, if you get out of high school, mybe one day you will learn what all the big hard words mean, and how things work out in the wolrd. 'till then, I hope you keep dad happy so you can keep playing on his WebTV.
read the FCC page instead of the article (Score:1)
FCC: calls will NOT incur long distance charges (Score:1)
Then make up your own mind.
Now the telco gets to bill you twice! (Score:1)
No Subject Given (Score:1)
This doesn't sound like a decision on long-distance from a user's point of view. It sounds like the old argument about under what circumstances, when a caller on Telco A's network places a call to someone served by Telco B, B owes A for routing the call to them. Also, according to the ruling [fcc.gov], the existing agreements on reciprocal compensation still apply and the state PUC still has the final say in the matter. Sounds like a lot of uproar over very little.
I'd Love to! (Score:1)
Unfortunately, I would have to move to do it! Since cable modem connections probably won't be in my town for several years....ugh.
http://www.techweb.com/news/story/TWB19990225S0011 (Score:1)
[ Aaron Shaver ] [ ultravoid@usa.net ]
read the FCC page instead of the article (Score:1)
those consumers who continue to access the internet by dialing a seven-digit number will not incur long distance charges when they do so
--snip--
It's a good thing that these charges will actually apply to the ISP not the end user. In the Chicagoland area people will soon have to dial the full ten-digit number to call the nieghbors.
Of course the ISPs will probably raise rates if this ends up costing them money. If the rates get to high.
More reason to get DSL or Cable. DSL is getting cheap out here anyway.
And now, the UK ;) (Score:1)
Oh yeah, sorry if this has all been said before, I don't have time to read 100+ comments - I'm paying for it all
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
Here's why... (Score:1)
The average length of a voice call is about 6min, so the many->few reduction worked until ISP calls went up to many hours long. In some parts of the country, you can't make a local call at peak net surfing times.
The technology to alleviate the problem exists. You simply use the SS7 (inter-switch) protocol to recognize a call to a modem and terminate the call in a virtual modem in the local switch. Then, the IP traffic can be packet-switched to whomever it's directed.
Your phone company is not interested in a solution, they just want more money and are using this as an excuse.
It's like smart-cards - no reason for the banks to issue them, they just jack-up interest rates on everyone else to pay for fraud. In Europe, where people use debit cards and don't run up bills, they issue smart cards. Smart, huh?
Talk Back! (Score:1)
In reading the entire text of the Press Release [fcc.gov] several unobvious items came to mind. [Please comment if you are reading something different into the texts]. First, it basically left intact whatever agreements had been previously reached between ISP's and phone companies -- regarding the rates they charge each other, or as regulated by state commissions. Which I think means that it preserves alot of the status quo.
Where it seems dangerous is that (quoting) "a state commission, in the exercise of its statutory authority under sections 251 and 252 of the Act to arbitrate interconnection disputes, may have imposed reciprocal compensation obligations for this traffic." And check this out: "Resolution of failures to reach agreement on inter-carrier compensation for interstate ISP-bound traffic then would occur through arbitrations conducted by state commissions, which are appealable to federal district courts.
Just what we need. A bunch of bureaucrats and attorneys haggling over what is essentially the future of the Internet here in the US.
Finally, it also acknowledged that there needs to be a better federal law governing the Internet than the one they are operating under. So it seems to me that aside from the obvious rant to the FCC, we Internet users and all of the ISP's here in the USA really need to concentrate their lobbying efforts and resources on making sure that local public service commissions and Congress do the right thing for the little folks for a change.
Let's all work this one to death, folks.
read the damn article (Score:1)
The commissioners took pains to emphasize that their decision would not affect consumers' Internet phone bills.
"It doesn't affect the way consumers get dialup access to Internet," said chairman William Kennard. "Nothing we're doing here should be construed as regulating the Internet."
Don't go to psu (Score:1)
-The Cheese
This is an outrage if you cant get cable modems!!! (Score:1)
I agree: flame the cable companies!!!! (Score:1)
Go cable (Score:1)
AT&T et al. bribe Congress, who funds the FCC. If the bribes dry up, so does the funding. On the other hand, maybe the FCC has decided that cablecos are the future, and figures they'll bribe Congress even more than the telcos.
Go cable (Score:1)
No cable (Score:1)
Mike
Go cable (Score:1)
Why did they do this? (Score:1)
Makes me glad I live on campus... Ah... ethernet...
enjoy it while it lasts... (Score:1)
That's not to say they won't raise tuition, just that it won't have anything to do with this...
Cable is 2 ways... (Score:1)
Don't be so worried about the fcc (Score:1)
Read more closely (Score:1)
Long Distance charges, if any, come from a long distance company. So, if you get any new charges for "Long Distance" internet access, they would have to be implimented by your own ISP. We'll see if that happens.
Cable modem (Score:1)
The Telcos and Cable Ops Win! (Score:1)
what does this really mean? (Score:1)
Corporate Marketing Won't stand for this. (Score:1)
Okay then, explain.... (Score:1)
:>