In the Caribbean, Net Surfers Pay Through the Nose (int'l edition)

''Net surfers get a (price) break'' (European Business, Sept. 20) sympathized with the Belgians for having to pay 2 cents a minute after midnight for Internet access, following a recent 50% reduction. My heart bleeds for them.

Here in the Caribbean, our local telephone monopoly, the British giant Cable & Wireless Communications PLC, charges 15 cents a minute after midnight. And before. (Cable & Ruthless, we call them.) As a consequence, the only people surfing the Net for any length of time are unsupervised office workers, able to bury the expense in their bills to clients.

Several of the Caribbean islands are testing the resolve of Cable & Wireless in the courts, but it is a long and hard battle.

Gordon Barlow
George Town
Cayman Islands

What's Wrong with Giving Money Back to Taxpayers? (int'l edition)

Laura Tyson still doesn't have it right in ''A massive tax cut: A leap of faith we can't afford'' (Economic Viewpoint, Sept. 20). First, to see her lack of insight into the ''surplus'' issue, consider a church in the poor section of Oakland, Calif., with a serious leak in the roof. Reluctantly, a collection is taken up from members of the congregation. Some give $10, some give $100, and the money is raised. Unexpectedly, an anonymous donor gives the church enough money to fix the roof, buy a new organ, and build a new Sunday school/day-care center. At a loss as to what to do with the money, the elders decide to return it to the donors.

What criteria should be used when it comes to returning the money? The elders decide to give the money back to the donors based on what they gave: $10 to the $10 donor, $1,000 to the $1,000 donor.

Washington has a different answer. Once the money is given, it should be spent. Surely we can find something to spend the surplus on. If any money is to be returned, it would be unfair to refund it to those who worked hard and paid it in. Instead, those who paid little or nothing should get most of the tax cut and those who paid the most should get little or nothing. This is the new definition of fairness that Ms. Tyson espouses.

William C. Dunkelberg
Bala Cynwyd, Pa.

Biofilms Can Also Help with Pollution Control (int'l edition)

''Getting a grip on bacterial slime'' (Science & Technology, Sept. 13) was an interesting introduction to the topic. It rightly pointed out the importance of biofilms as a cause of problems in many areas of medicine and industry.

Although biofilms indeed play dangerous and destructive roles in many cases, they can be beneficial in other circumstances. In nature, biofilms are a prevalent mode of existence for microorganisms, and they are responsible for microbially induced cycling of nutrients and degradation of pollutants. In industry, they are commonly used in some fermentation processes and for pollution control.

Since, in biofilms, microbial communities are situated close together, their proximity allows for the transfer of genetic material (plasmids) in a ''natural'' way. By cultivating microbes in biofilms, new species that degrade polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were able to evolve. In addition, Biofilms offer new possibilities of metabolic engineering, where nutrients and products are exchanged between neighboring population clusters.

Slav Hermanowicz
Associate Professor
Civil & Environmental
Engineering Dept.
University of California
Berkeley

Limit Guns by Sticking to What the Constitution Says (int'l edition)

I have a suggestion about new legislation for gun control (''Say yes to American gun control,'' Editorials, Aug. 16). My bill would use the Second Amendment's exact language about preserving a ''well regulated militia'' and ''the right of the people to keep and bear arms.''

It would then prohibit ''the people'' from ownership, possession, or use of all handguns and other firearms except those guns and firearms ''designated and used for lawful recreational purposes.'' The bill would additionally except from its prohibitions ''the people constituting a well regulated militia as defined herein.''

The definition section of the bill would restrict the meaning of ''a well regulated militia'' to the armed forces of the U.S. ''acting legally while on active duty.'' In addition to the armed forces the definition would include ''all salaried, full-time law enforcement officials while acting in their official capacity to enforce the law.''

Of course, a penalty clause should be added for violations, but I believe such a bill would be constitutional. It would certainly assist in prohibiting illegal use firearms.

Philip P. Ardery
Louisville