You're an ISP. You pay a bundle to set up fast Internet services for your clients. Those leased T1 lines don't come cheap, you know. A portion of the cost involved is the network access fee.       Pleased by the response, you offer several useful services to your users. For instance, they can download the latest version of an Internet phone program and make poor-quality voice calls right over the Internet. Cool, huh? You've paid enough to maintain the network, they've paid their monthly fee to cover your charges, and everyone's happy. Right? Well, not quite. The FCC is interested now—they've proposed levying network access fees on Internet-based telephone providers. See, long distance carriers are worried that these calls are cutting into their business and they think the Internet, as a carrier, should be subject to the same charges as they are. We editors here at MIND don't buy it.       Phone usage has drastically changed over the last half decade. Large telephone companies planned their capacity needs based on projections that didn't foresee the burgeoning popularity of fax machines, cell phones, and—most of all—the Internet. After all, how many people used the Web in 1992? In the years since, people have made fewer three-minute voice calls and more two-hour Internet calls. When you charge a higher rate for the first minute, and round to the next minute, 30 calls at three minutes a piece turn out be a lot more profitable than a single 90-minute call.       As a result of all this, telephone companies are making millions instead of millions and millions, and they see the new threat—more efficient, packet-switched calls over leased lines—as a good thing to target. In addition to making an alternative technology seem less attractive, they would be able to recoup some of the losses they've suffered through inadequate planning.       There's one big problem with this plan. The growth of the Internet and the services being scrutinized utilize phone lines that already exist. The network access charges on these lines have already been paid. What the FCC is proposing is, in fact, double-dipping. They want to charge a fee for the phone lines used to connect to the Internet, then charge again when the phone lines are used like a phone. We think that's unfair and unnecessary. If the money collected for the leased lines isn't enough to support the network MIND Labs head technician Sven enjoys the closeness of the new Gillette Mach3 razor—and assistant technician Helga approves! infrastructure, that's a problem that should be addressed at the hardware level, not the software level. This isn't an issue of "keeping the Web free." It's a matter of not double-charging to protect a market that's quickly becoming outdated.       And speaking of outdated markets, a FedEx box arrived on our doorstep last month. Always curious, and eager to read about the latest in consumer products, we quickly ripped the thing open. (Now that they've captured the Unabomber, we don't have to point packages away from our face anymore.) Wouldn't you know, it was the new Gillette Mach3 razor press kit! We get a lot of interesting stuff in this office, but rarely has a package been so perfectly targeted to a publication as this. We at MIND Labs have long prided ourselves on our cue ball-smooth faces and silky legs. And now, we'd be able to experience the ultimate in shaving comfort—not just two blades, but three!       Like "Saturday Night Live" two decades ago, we started wondering one thing: why stop at three blades? Why not 10? Or 20? Slap a hundred blades on there for the closest shave you can get! Lots of slogan opportunities here: "It's like a thousand blades urging your follicles to let go."       Actually, we were wondering a second thing. When we surfed over to their site, http://www.gillette.com, why were we told that we were attempting to access their system from an IP address that had been excluded? We're used to that from those "Micro$oft $uck$" sites so popular among 12-year-olds, but do we deserve this treatment from the maker of the new Mach3 razor? We think not. (In the interest of fairness, the Gillette page started working again a day later.)       To tell you the truth, we were wondering a third thing. You think they picked the name "Mach3" because it looks so much like "Macho" from a distance? Naaaaah, probably not. Companies don't do that stuff.       Reporting from our Nissan SX, about to head for the mountains of Busch, that's all for this month! —J.T.