Patrick Douglas's 2/13 issue of Internet Tourbus did some investigative
reporting on this memo that's going being forwarded round the net - it
turns out to be a false alarm.

For details read below:

ACTUAL FCC POSITION ON IMPOSING CHARGES:
>In December, the FCC rejected the telephone companies' request and
>tentatively concluded "that the existing pricing structure for information
>services should remain in place."  In other words, the FCC has tentatively
>concluded that Internet service providers should *NOT* be subject to the
>interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess
>on long-distance carriers.
>
>The FCC now seeks the public's comments on this conclusion.
>
>Unfortunately, the "warning" letter that is currently circulating around
>the Internet gives the impression that some sort of sinister operation is
>afoot here, that the FCC and the telephone companies are trying to sneak
>this proposal through without anyone noticing, and that it is up to each
>and every one of us to stop the evil FCC.
>
>What garbage.  In fact, the FCC has, at least tentatively, REJECTED the
>telephone companies' proposal.  The FCC is now simply asking you if you
>agree or disagree with their decision.
>
>The most disappointing aspect of this whole situation is that because of
>the misinformation that has been distributed across the Internet over the
>past couple of weeks, the FCC has received 100,000+ e-mail letters, most of
>which flame them for making a decision that EVERYONE AGREES WITH!  Hands
>down, the flaming of the FCC is one of the Internet's most shameful acts
>ever.
>
>I also discovered another thing about the FCC that increased my respect for
>their organization one-hundred-fold.  Part of the 10 page explanation that
>the FCC sent me states that their "existing rules have been designed for
>traditional circuit-switched voice networks, and thus may hinder the
>development of emerging packet-switched data networks."  Because of this,
>the FCC is also seeking the public's comments on the implications of the
>Internet and its usage through the public switched telephone network.
>
>Folks, *ANY* government agency that stops and says 'hey, we can ALWAYS use
>some more information so that we are better prepared for whatever happens
>in the future' has earned my respect and admiration.
>
>By the way, most of the information that I have shared with you today can
>be found on the FCC's "ISP" homepage at
>
>     http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html
>
>If you would like to send your comments to the folks at the FCC (the
>deadline for comments about their decision not to impose interstate access
>changes on Internet service providers is Friday, February 14th), make sure
>that you check the FCC's ISP Web page first.  At the bottom of this page
>are some pretty specific instructions on what you need to put in the
>subject line of you e-mail letter before you submit it to the FCC.
>
>Personally, I'm going to leave the poor folks at the FCC alone for a while.
>They seem to be doing a great job in the face of unnecessary (and
>misinformed) opposition.

Claire Pillsbury