From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Dec 20 17:41:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA19671 for isp-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:41:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from thecore.com (guardian.thecore.com [206.136.149.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id RAA19664 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:41:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (sfinn@localhost) by thecore.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id UAA21253; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 20:40:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 20:40:56 -0500 (EST) From: Shaun Finn To: Michael Dillon cc: isp-marketing@sparknet.net, isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ISP's will get *NO* refunds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Michael Dillon wrote: > It now appear that the whole issue of ISP exemption from FCC Subscriber > Line Charges is wrong, wrong, wrong. As I mentioned a month or so ago it > appears that the people who have promoted this idea were getting the > Network Access Charges (around two cents per minute) confused with the > Subscriber Line Charge of $6 per line per month. ISP's are considered > Enhanced Service Providers by the FCC and are thus exempt from the > NAC but are explicitly required to pay the SLC. Period, end of story. I found the same to be true in my own investigation. I talked to a Kevin Werbach in the Plans & Policies Bureau of the FCC just this week on this very subject. He corroborates everything you say about the confusion over NAC vs. SLC. He even said they are aware of the misleading Email making its rounds on the Internet. +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Shaun M. Finn TechnoCore Communications, Inc. | | sfinn@thecore.com P.O. Box 106 | | (908)928-7400 FAX:(908)928-7402 Jackson, NJ 08527-0106 | +------------------- http://www.thecore.com/ ----------------------+