Subject:  Internet cost (Whitehead).
Date:     Sun, 01 Oct 2000 103256 -0500
From:     Roy Beavers 
To:       guru 
--------------------------------------------------

.........From EMF-L....... See the ****** paragraph.....guru......

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Internet cost
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 16:15:42 -0400
From: "whitehead" 
To: "Roy Beavers" 

Hi Roy:

You may or may not want to post this since it isn't about emf, but since it
will affect all U.S. users of the Internet, your American subscribers might
want to call or e-mail  their representatives about it before Congress
adjourns October 6th.  It seems the insatiable greed of the
telecommunications industry just can't be satisfied and they can never make
enough profit.  It looks like HR4445 could raise access rates by up to 35
percent if it goes through.  The article is from the Christian Science
Monitor, September 30.

Richard Whitehead
rewhitehead@netzero.net


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
Should you pay more for Internet access?   By Sue Ashdown - WASHINGTON

Federal regulators have wisely adopted a "hands off" approach to the
Internet. Why? The Internet has been growing like crazy. Presumably, few
Congressmen or federal bureaucrats are interested in leaving their
fingerprints on changes that will upset the current regulatory framework.

Consumers and businesses have been the winners. Consumers have enjoyed low
Internet rates without having to worry about per-minute charges. A thriving
Internet has supported 2.5 million jobs and 50,000 companies.

Call it enlightened self-interest. While Internet tax and regulation schemes
are floated from time to time in Washington, they rarely find anyone in
Congress who's willing to risk killing the golden goose. Right now, though,
there's a bill in Congress that would upset the current regulatory
framework, and could increase consumer Internet costs by up to 33 percent.
The worst part: The Baby Bells would keep the money. Obviously, the nation's
dominant phone companies support the bill.

It's unusual to have Internet executives, consumer groups, and state
regulators all on the same side of an issue. But a range of business and
consumer interests, including Consumer Federation of America, Consumers
Union, Information Technology Association of America, and the American
Internet Service Providers Association have lined up to oppose the proposed
changes.

The state regulators association called the legislation a "special exemption
for the Bell companies" and warned Congress not to pass the bill. Frankly,
none of us thought Congress would even consider the bill. We were wrong.

The Baby Bells have a leg up. Sponsored by Bill Tauzin (R) of Louisiana,
"The Reciprocal Compensation Adjustment Act of 2000," or HR 4445, has
cleared the House Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection
Subcommittees. It's well on its way to becoming a law, which could happen by
Congress's scheduled adjournment on Oct. 6.

When Baby Bell customers use the network of a competing phone company to
reach their Internet service providers (ISP), the Baby Bells are required to
help pay for that call. The fee is called reciprocal compensation. If
Congress ends the practice of treating Internet calls as local calls, as
"local" phone companies, the Baby Bells will no longer have to help their
customers log online.

Internet users would have to make up the difference, and ISPs estimate that
rates will go up 18 to 35 percent to cover the shortfall. The legislation
wouldn't require the Baby Bells to refund the money to their customers.
Equally bad, the legislation makes a big dent in the fragile regulatory
framework that has incubated the Internet.

States now have the right to treat Internet calls as local calls and
determine whether the Baby Bells should pay reciprocal compensation.
Thirty-three states that have heard this issue have done just that. So the
Baby Bells took the issue to Congress.

**********
Right now, the federal government doesn't distinguish between your
Internet-bound phone calls and your calls to your mother, sister, or local
pizza parlor. That's given the Internet some protective camouflage against
unwanted taxes. This bill would put Internet traffic into a separate
category, which is one step away from its own special tax.********

Businesses thrive on certainty. The fewer rules you change the better, and
when you do, you'd better get it right. Consumers benefit from low rates. If
this bill passes, both lose. We should demand a thoughtful "measure twice,
cut once" approach to Internet policy. The tail end of a congressional
session amid the raging currents of an election year is the wrong time to
make big changes. When we do decide to stir the pot, let's make sure that
the Baby Bells aren't the only ones who benefit.

• Sue Ashdown is executive director of the American Internet Service
Providers Association.


____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now     http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM  1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________


Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com