Previous Politech messages: "Colleen Boothby on local telecos pushing for taxes on ISPs" http://www.politechbot.com/p-04817.html "Replies to reporter about Earthlink levying additional fees" http://www.politechbot.com/p-04810.html --- From: Chris Savage <chris.savageat_private> To: "declanat_private" <declanat_private>, "politechat_private" <politechat_private> Subject: RE: Colleen Boothby on local telecos pushing for taxes on ISPs Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 05:30:55 -0400 -----Original Message----- From: Declan McCullagh [mailto:declanat_private] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 1:40 AM To: politechat_private Subject: FC: Colleen Boothby on local telecos pushing for taxes on ISPs [adr] Declan... a slight revision to Colleen's post (from another veteran telecom lawyer :) ). Colleen said: >>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.<< There is a subtle distinction in the law here, but it matters. Section 254(d) of the Communications Act says that every provider of interstate "telecommunications ***SEVICES***" "shall" contribute. Providers of telecommunications **SERVICES** are the plain-vanilla transmission guys. But the statute also says that the FCC "may" require payments from any provider of interstate "**TELECOMMUNICATIONS.**" The distinction, basically, is that "telecommunications" is shipping customer data at all; telecommunications is doing it for a fee. The statute also defines "information service." This is, more or less, storing, manipulating, etc. data "via telecommunications." ISPs are providers of "information service." So are cable modem service providers. The FCC is pondering whether to move combined phone company DSL+Internet access into that category. ISPs, in short, use and in some sense "provide" telecommunications as part of their information services, even if they don't sell the "telecommunications" as a separate thing. They therefore "may" be called on to contribute. A big deal back in late 1997-early 1998 was an analysis of this issue done at the behest of Sen. Stevens. In April 1998 the FCC said that ISPs were not providing telecommunications services and that no contributions would be required of them -- for now. Kevin Werbach was instrumental behind the scenes in getting this generally good-for-the-Internet ruling to come out the way it did. The phone companies obviously want to spread the pain of contributing to the universal service fund, partly just to lower their own "tax" burden, and partly since they are and would remain the biggest recipients of funding from this system. But this isn't some bizarre policy frolic and detour. Assessing USF fees on ISPs may be a bad idea, but the statute expressly says that the FCC "may" do it. Chris Savage *************************************************************************** This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged information. If you believe that you have received the message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. *************************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 : Fri Jun 06 2003 - 06:34:20 PDT