FC: Colleen Boothby on local telecos pushing for taxes on ISPs

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Thu Jun 05 2003 - 22:39:46 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Email firm NetCreations tries to define "opt-in" standards"

    [Colleen is a veteran telecom lawyer in DC. --Declan]
    
    ---
    
    Subject: FC: Replies to reporter about Earthlink levying additional fees
    Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:25:12 -0400
    From: "Boothby, Colleen" <cboothbyat_private>
    To: <declanat_private>
    
    One of the responses mentioned the FCC's universal service fund 
    ("USF").  The FCC does not require ISPs to pay a USF charge, for 
    now.  ISPs, like any other end user of telecom services, may nevertheless 
    end up paying a USF charge when they buy telecom services because telecom 
    companies choose to pass through to end users, including ISPs, the USF 
    "contribution" that the telecom company must pay.
    
    But local telephone companies are currently pushing the FCC to expand the 
    list of companies who must contribute and add ISPs.  That means a new 
    federal regulatory fee could be imposed on ISPs.  Right now, only providers 
    of interstate "telecommunications" -- meaning plain vanilla transmission 
    services like voice lines, T1s, DS3s, DSL without the Internet access, etc. 
    -- have to pay into the federal Universal Service Fund.  The FCC currently 
    collects a little over $6 billion (that would be a "b") PER YEAR for the 
    USF and the amount goes up every year.  The bulk of the money is handed out 
    to local phone companies who claim that their costs are above 
    average.  Local phone companies are pushing for new rules that would 
    require ISPs to "contribute" directly to the fund, in addition to the local 
    and long distance phone companies who already pay.  And if ISPs have to 
    pay, they will most likely try to pass their "contribution" on to their 
    customers.  They wouldn't HAVE to, because no regulator dictates how these 
    things are passed through; they aren't sales taxes.  But that hasn't 
    stopped long distance companies from routinely passing through their USF 
    "contribution" as a separate line item on customer bills, e.g., the 
    "Universal Connectivity Charge" on AT&T bills.  (Funny how they never pass 
    through regulatory reductions but that's a different problem.)
    
    This fund isn't small change -- the current charge that telecom providers 
    must "contribute" is 9.1% of their interstate retail revenues, up from 3.9% 
    only five years ago when the program started.
    
    The FCC has asked for public comment on whether ISPs should pay the USF in 
    its proceeding to de-regulate the Bell companies' broadband Internet access 
    services.  
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jun 05 2003 - 23:40:10 PDT