new internet "usage fee" bill?

[bb156 at scn.org]

On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Rich Littleton wrote:

> 
> Actually, Aki, it appears to be more "old news" rather than a hoax.  It
> relates to circumstance almost a year ago.
> 
> Rich
> 



Actually, Rich, it is a hoax rather than old news.

-Andrew

______________________________________________________________________________
   
  Internet Access Charges
  
   January 1999
   
   This is a variant of the historic modem tax hoax of bygone years. This
   latest version started making its rounds on Nov 06, 1998, based
   apparently on a CNN story. Early versions pointed the finger at the
   FCC as the villian in this story. Then it was 'the government', then
   it was 'the Congress'.
   
FCC statement:
"... the FCC has no intention of assessing per-minute charges on
Internet traffic or of making any changes in the way consumers obtain
and pay for access to the Internet."


********************************

  Date: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 10:03 PM

  Looks like Congress has found another way to tax us.

  There is a new bill in US Congress that will be affecting all Internet
  users. You might want to read this and pass it on.  CNN
  stated that the government would in two weeks time decide to allow or
  not allow a charge to your (OUR) phone bill each time you access the
  internet.

  Please visit the following URL and fill out the necessary form!

  The address is http://www.house.gov/writerep/

  If EACH one of us, forward this message on to others in a hurry, we may
  be able to prevent this from happening! (Maybe we CAN fight the phone
  company!)

*********************************

   This alert is a hoax. The earliest electronic version of it, which
   does not urge any particular action but merely reports and comments on
   the story, appeared on Usenet on Nov 06, 1998. Appearing under the
   thread "INTERNET PER MINUTE FEES COMING?" on the ba.internet news
   group, it cited a CNN story aired that same day. A later version,
   urging everyone to contact Congress, appeared on Nov 18, 1998 in a
   different news group and referenced an FCC release dated Oct 30, 1998
   as the source of the CNN story. The actual FCC proceeding which
   apparently set off this mushrooming flurry of alerts dealt with the
   'reciprocal billing' issue, which relates to charges for
   interconnectivity between various telcos.
   
   In reaction to it, the FCC issued an official statement of December,
   1998, which can be found at
   <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/nominute.html>.
   This publication restates that the reciprocal billing issue does not
   include any proposal to have metered billing of any sort by the telcos
   for internet usage.
   
   Reputable organizations producing legislative alerts will include some
   basic information which will assist the reader in determining how and
   when to respond. Most if not all of this information was missing from
   this spurious alert.
   
   1) Congress does not vote as a single body. Any alert should name the
   specific body (House or Senate) scheduled to vote to whom
   letters/email should be sent. It will also indicate whether this is in
   front of a committee, and which committee, or that it is set for a
   floor vote.
   
   2) At a minimum, a specific bill number will be cited such as S.1615
   or H.R.3888. The reader can then check the Congressional bill status
   web site <http://thomas.loc.gov> to determine the precise current
   status of the bill before writing to your member of Congress about it.
   
   3) A specific alert date, and a deadline date for responses, will be
   included to help in determining whether the alert is stale.
   
   4) A legitimate alert will say exactly what is wrong with (or right
   with) the bill, possibly even citing a specific section. Check the
   language of the bill on Thomas to ensure that amendments to the bill
   in between the time the alert went out and the time that you're
   reading it haven't changed it to the point where the alert is no
   longer relevant.
   
   It should also be noted that this alert began making its rounds after
   the 105th Congress had adjourned. Although the House of
   Representatives came back into a lame duck (post election) session to
   consider the issue of impeachment of the president, no other issues
   were considered. And the Senate did not reconvene at all. The 106th
   Congress was officially convened in early January, 1999. At the time
   the new Congress is seated at the beginning of every odd numbered
   year, all bills not enacted into law by the end of the previous
   Congress are swept away. The new Congress starts over with a clean
   slate, introducing entirely new bills which must make their way
   through the entire legislative process. A legislative alert from 1998
   is null and void in January, 1999, whether it was spurious at the time
   or not.
   
Charles Oriez
coriez at netone.com
National Legislative Chair
Association of Information Technology Professionals

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *