Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) Message-ID: <2644@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 5 Jan 90 20:29:53 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Lines: 16 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 10, message 2 of 13 There are two things. One is the FCC Enhanced Service Provider (ESP) surcharge, which they don't call a surcharge, but is one. That is what the latest "modeming" chain letter was about. It is a false rumor, as my message of last week sought to squash. The other is Southwestern Bell's idea that people who use modems at home are really doing business with them, and not qualified for residential rates. That's a state issue and totally separate. SWBT is losing there too, but seems to fight on. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388