new internet "usage fee" bill?

[Rich Littleton]

Good research, Andrew.

Rich

______________________________________________________________________

*****  Unless stated otherwise, this message may be forwarded.  ******

On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 bb156 at scn.org wrote:

> 
> 
> 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/     * * * * * * *