[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]
Subject: IP: modem tax again... for IP
From: rjs@rpcp.mit.edu (Richard Jay Solomon) Subject: modem tax again... for IP WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A., 1996 FEB 23 (NB) -- Brock Meeks, in his latest Muckraker column for HotWired, resounds the alarms over the long-discussed but yet-to-be-seen modem tax from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). "The so-called modem tax, once the cyberspace version of urban myth, is evolving into reality. Only now it's more likely to be called the 'Internet service tax'," Meeks wrote. "One powerful tool at their disposal is the new Telecommunications Act, which requires a new definition of Universal Service. Buried in that bedrock public policy are the access fee structures." Long the legend and lore of the Internet world, modem tax rumors surface with some regularity, as with Meeks' call-to-arms coming from the enactment of the Telecommunications Act. But maybe this time Meeks has it right, but for a slightly different reason. Bob Smith, executive director of the Interactive Services Association (ISA) told Newsbytes that "the current discussion has been going on for a couple of months. What's prompted the talk is that the Internet may become the alternative to voice communication networks." A September 25, 1995 press release from the Internet Telephone Company points to the issues of concern to the traditional voice communications companies: "ITEL has announced the forthcoming release of WebPhone. WebPhone is a powerful, full featured, voice communication system which provides real-time, full duplex, point to point telephone quality voice communications over the Internet. WebPhone looks and operates like a conventional full featured telephone yet costs the user nothing but their monthly Internet service provider's fee for unlimited long distance calls." "The telephone companies are asking why this network should not pay the same charges as the existing telecommunications networks," Smith said. "It seems we are evolving into the integration of voice communication into Internet communications." "It's unlikely, perhaps impossible, for an Internet service tax to be imposed given the infrastructure," J.P. Bailey, of MIT's Research Program on Communications Policy (RPCP) and author of "Internet Economics," told Newsbytes. "Have you ever looked at www.thelist.com? There are so many mom & pop service providers that the coordination costs would outweigh the benefit of receiving a tax. How do you tax something so distributed and so dynamic?" "How many long distance telephone companies are there? Meeks rhetorically asked Newsbytes. "Answer: perhaps a thousand or more, and all of them have to pay access fees. The extra burden would likely drive out or accelerate the demise of "mom and pop" ISPs" (Internet service providers). Meeks said that, according to his FCC contacts, such an outcome would be likely, but "they aren't concerned. 'Frankly, this kind of shake out will likely happen sooner or later,' is the basic response," Meeks said. "What they are charged with doing is making the rate structure fair and competitive. To do that, subsidies are to be stricken, and the ESP (Enhanced Service Provider) exemption (given to online service providers) is one of those. Likewise, the Bells have been hammering the removal of the exemption big time. And the FCC is listening." Michel Daley, spokesman for Bell Atlantic, said that his company had no comment on the idea of ISPs being charged an "Internet service tax," but that, "We have concerns about Internet usage and phone lines, those being usage fees versus the current flat fees." "As Internet providers and users tie up our network for hours at a time," Daley told Newsbytes, "they are requiring us to build additional facilities to handle these calls. It's just not fair unless they pay more." In December, 1995, FCC Chairman Reed Hundt proposed access charge reforms, changing from interstate access rate base to cost-based levels where everyone would pay the same rate based upon usage. A Newsbytes source in the FCC Common Carrier Bureau said that "many ESPs came in saying they'd be willing to pay the cost-based rates." The Common Carrier Bureau went work on restructuring the Access Fee framework but the pending passage of the telecommunications bill held things up, according to Meeks. "After looking at all that is involved with the various rulemakings, the CCB decided that the access fees issues fell under the broad definition of redefining universal service," Meeks said. "It's a highly volatile issue, even within the FCC. They know (and have been warned from the inside) that they are likely to get hammered on this and they are preparing for the onslaught." Brock Meeks insisted to Newsbytes that "this time, it's no rumor -- this idea has legs... and they are growing. The FCC is concerned about the rise of Internet phone technologies, despite their low usage. It makes the Net look more like a telephone company and when it starts to look like one, it starts to get regulated like one." (Dennis Whitehead/19960223/Contact: Bob Smith, ISA, 301-496-4955; Glenn Hutton, ITEL, 305-251-4653 ext 104; Mindy Ginsberg, FCC/CCB, 202-418-1500; Michel Daley, Bell Atlantic, 703-974-3428; Brock Meeks, brock@well.com)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC