Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from rly-yc05.mail.aol.com (rly-yc05.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.37])
by air-yc03.mail.aol.com (v56.26) with SMTP; Wed, 24 Feb 1999
14:17:27 -0500
Received: from sunhost1.house.gov (sunhost1.house.gov [143.231.86.3])
by rly-yc05.mail.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id OAA10567;
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:17:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hrmims03.house.gov (hrmims03.house.gov [143.231.32.159])
by sunhost1.house.gov (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA02061;
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:14:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: by hrmims03.house.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2539.1)
id <F1PDFX3Y>; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:13:59 -0500
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Smith, Adam" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Internet Access Fee
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:15:34 -0500
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2539.1)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thank you for your e-mail regarding your concerns with a long distance
charge on Internet services. There is no plan, bill, or process in place to
charge an access fee or long distance charge for the Internet. Nor is there
any plan to tax electronic commerce on the Internet, because last year
Congress passed a bill, that I cosponsored, titled The Internet Tax Freedom
Act. This bill puts a moratorium on all Internet Taxes for two years, until
a sound policy regarding electronic commerce can be developed. This being
said, where does the talk of a long distance fee on the Internet come from?
Last month the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was to decide whether
or not calls to your Internet Service Provider (ISP) were considered an
interstate (across state boundaries) or intrastate (within a state's
boundary) call. If the FCC rules these calls are interstate, then the FCC
will have jurisdiction over Internet telephony policy, but if it is ruled
these calls are intrastate, then state governments will have jurisdiction
over Internet telephony policy. Some consumers worry that if the phone call
is considered an interstate charge, they will charged a long distance fee.
This is not the case now, and the decision has been postponed until sometime
in 1999. But still, consumers wonder if this is just the beginning of a
slippery slope into long distance charges on the Internet.
I believe the only scenario where long distance charges may be considered is
if the Internet is used for voice telephony. For example, Cisco Systems is
actively developing technology that will make it possible to use the
Internet for voice telephone calls. If this technology is implemented, I
would imagine that MCI and Sprint would demand that Cisco System customers
pay the same access fees as their own customers. But, this technology and
many other exciting breakthroughs will drastically reshape how we interface
and use telecommunications. For instance, in Long Island, New York,
residents are delivered phone service through their cable TV system, and in
Phoenix, Arizona, US West delivers digital cable TV through the phone lines.
The government must not be too quick to regulate, or worse, tax an industry
that is developing its technology so fast. I think the consumer and market
will determine which technology will prevail, much as they did with Betamax
and VHS. More importantly, I believe the consumer will benefit from the
risk taking and brilliant thinking of our telecommunications industry.
Thanks again for contacting me about your concerns with a long distance
charge on the Internet. If there is anything else I can do for you, please
do not hesitate to e-mail, call or write me.
Sincerely,
Adam Smith
Member of Congress
