FCC Rules ISP Calls are Long-Distance in Nature

InfoWorld Electric February 25, 1999 Nancy Weil

FCC rules ISP calls are long-distance in nature

By Nancy Weil InfoWorld Electric Posted at 10:58 AM PT, Feb 25, 1999

In a long-anticipated vote, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday decided that dial-up Internet calls are interstate in nature and not local.

The ruling overturns state decisions holding that dial-up calls to the Internet are local. The decision also could mean that local phone companies will be able to assess usage-sensitive access charges on ISPs, the FCC suggested in a statement Thursday regarding its vote. Without the so-called "ESP Exemption," consumers might have to pay per-minute fees for dialing into the Internet on local lines, though not all Internet-access calls necessarily will be charged at long distance rates.

The matter has been under discussion for months by the FCC, which ruled in October 1998 that high-speed Internet access provided by GTE is interstate in nature because a certain percentage of Internet traffic originates in one state and winds up in another.

In a statement regarding the ruling, the FCC said that Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth did not participate in the vote out of protest over what he contends was the denial of his process rights.

The five FCC commissioners have, "for at least 25 years" been allowed to put off by one month any action set for consideration at a commission meeting. According to the statement, William Kennard, the FCC's chairman denied Furchtgott-Roth's request to push back the decision for three weeks.

Furchtgott-Roth questioned whether it is in the public interest to risk Internet access charges, according to the statement, which went on to say that the decision had been delayed from January at the behest of Kennard.

The Federal Communications Commission, in Washington, can be reached at www.fcc.gov . http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36d5e2992437.htm

-- Texan (callfcc@ranch.com), February 25, 1999

Answers

From another forum "Forget the charges. What they are saying is the connection with the ISP is governed by federal laws, not state. Inching closer to big brother."

The net is just too big a threat to gov't. or what?

Make us pay outrageous taxes with no relief in sight, try to keep us in dark about Y2K, hotdog over our treetops,

But puhleeze don't take away internet access....

Time to get that ham radio license...

-- Texan (thisiswaytoocloseforcomfort@ranch.com), February 25, 1999.

The end of unlimited $20/mo Internet?

Hopefully Big Brother won't shut-down short-wave too!

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous.com), February 25, 1999.

Well, the phone cos. got to find some way to pay for all this Y2K work!

On a serious note, is this decision final, or is there something net users can do to complain.

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 25, 1999.

Let me tell you how it will be,

there's one for you nineteen for me...

Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman...

If 5% appears too small, be thankful I don't take it all.

If you drive your car I'll tax the street

If you try to sit I'll tax your seat

If you get too cold I'll tax the heat

If you try to walk... I'll tax your feet!

Cause I'm the taxman, and your woking for nobody else but ME!

-The Beatles

-- (anon@aaa.abc), February 25, 1999.

Sysman,

Here's FCC press release from today: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrcc9014. html

Please post your interpretation....

Obviously there's alternate routes for those still in the cities but cable is hard to get in rural locales. Satellite last time I checked is kinda of pricey.

-- Texan (surf@ranch.com), February 25, 1999.

I thought that internet marketing was the wave of the future. Millions are being invested on that premise. If we were charged for access, who would shop or invest on the internet? It would be killing the goose. No egg for anyone.

-- Bill Solorzano (notaclue@webtv.net), February 25, 1999.

Looks like Clinton/Gore's Internet usage tax idea won't die. This time they're trying to justify taxing us for long distance calls. And it might work, too. Phone companies will see the opportunity to make extra cash collecting long distance fees for local calls. If they work out costs/benefit analysises showing lost income of people dropping their telco-provided ISP services are less than new long distance money, well you know which side they'll side with this round.

Looks like I've got to look into the cable modem services. Just to screw the telcos and Feds out of the long distance rates and taxes. I know I'll pay more for web access, but it's the principle of the matter.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), February 25, 1999.

Thanks for the info Texan. I think I've got to read it several times, or get a lawyer to read it! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 25, 1999.

Sysman,

LOL

Yep it's easier to just order cable or satellite access than read that tome!

-- Texan (online@ranch.com), February 25, 1999.

Well, I'ld LOVE to have cable but the local co. here "has no plans" at this point. Turkeys! I'm spoiled with that T1 at work, and this dial-up speed just, well, sucks. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 25, 1999.

PS - Don't you still need a dial-up for outbound with satellite? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 25, 1999.

The news release says that today's decision does not impose long distance charges on Internet access calls. However, the door is left wide open for--indeed, the FCC strongly recommends--new rules on long-distance Internet charges, as a means to compensate carriers for the work they do in transferring customers from one carrier to another. I tried to cut and paste the press release but it wouldn't compute. There's info at the site on how to contact the FCC.

-- Surly Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 25, 1999.

Thanks Old Git. Actually then, wouldn't this apply to cable also, since that traffic eventually ends up getting passed on? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 25, 1999.

As you all must know one of Clinton's pet projects is to have access to the internet for all school children across America. Also, libraries offer internet usage as well. If this ruling comes to pass won't school budgets and library budgets shoot through the roof.

Of course, this assumes that we march over that yellow brick bridge into the 21st century dodging the Y2K bug.

-- Teacherbyday (librarian@night.com), February 25, 1999.

If charges for long distance are ever instituted I'm out of here. Did it when prodigy started charging for BB time and will do the same here. See bad omen for business people on the web. People won't just get on here and browse around the way they do now.

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), February 25, 1999.

Got Competition?

It may become a hackers world yet.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 25, 1999.

teacherbyday wrote:

>If this ruling comes to pass won't school budgets and library >budgets shoot through the roof.

What will probably happen if this tax is implemented, is that the .edus and .mils and .govs will be granted "exemption" from the stupid taxes. You watch........

Bobbi http://www.buzzbyte.com/

-- Bobbi (bobbia@slic.com), February 25, 1999.

According to the FCC's News Release from today they're still only debating the issue. This tax scare has been going on for as long as I've been on the internet (1990). There is a very powerful internet user group that is lobbying against it. Still, it would be wise to write your congressman to voice your oposition.

From what I understand in this news release, they are talking about charges that carriers would charge each other. Carriers like GTE and AT&T, as they relay calls to each other. What muddies the picture for me is that long-distance carriers also provide internet access, and so are ISP's on their own.

"The Commission declared that Internet traffic is jurisdictionally mixed and appears to be largely interstate in nature. But the decision preserves the rule that exempts the Internet and other information services from interstate access charges. This means that those consumers who continue to access the Internet by dialing a seven-digit number will not incur long distance charges when they do so. In a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission also asked for comment on proposals governing future carrier-to-carrier compensation for handling this traffic."

But ofcourse this is only my take on what this news release means, it's confusing.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 25, 1999.

okay, so they're gonna soak the carriers who will pass it along to the ISPs who will pass it along to us...but then the gov gets away with it, 'cause they make it look like the ISP's are taking more money, when it's just another stupid tax, after all.

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 25, 1999.

The individual states should simply agree to nullify this ruling.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), February 25, 1999.

As I posted on the other thread...someone@somewhere.com), February 26, 1999.

Apologies, I'll try that again... http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/18129.html

Dialups will still be billed as local calls.

-- (someone@somewhere.com), February 26, 1999.

I'm still confused:

"The ruling overturns state decisions holding that dial-up calls to the Internet are local. The decision also could mean that local phone companies will be able to assess usage-sensitive access charges on ISPs, the FCC suggested in a statement Thursday regarding its vote. Without the so-called "ESP Exemption," consumers might have to pay per-minute fees for dialing into the Internet on local lines, though not all Internet-access calls necessarily will be charged at long distance rates."

Doesn't this imply, that even though I can still make a free local call to my ISP, my ISP may start charging me "per-minute fees"??? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), February 26, 1999.

Yes, Sysman. The rock around which this whole topic flows is that if a call begins in one state and ends up in another, it's long distance. That can be stretched to mean that even if my ISP is local, if I look at Intellicast weather--bingo! I'm long-distance. Worse, if I plug into an overseas site, I'm international! Aaaaagh!

Don't y'all remember when ATMs started? They were free. People liked them, got hooked on them. So the banks started charging 25c/transaction. Funny, we thought, when they're saving money on staff, building, carpets, nice silk flower arrangements, etc. (Also cutting down the chances of a robbery.) Then they bumped the charge to 50c. And what is it now--coupla dollars in some places?

Sounds like the same principle to me--cable TV did it too. Were there any REAL protests about this decision from ISPs? Will ISPs be getting a cut of this money? Is this why Internet stocks have been going nuts?

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 26, 1999.

If ISP's start charging per minute, look for the huge internet bubble to be the first spectacular burst of the market, quite possibly starting the WHOOSH mentioned here on many threads.... just MHO

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), February 26, 1999.

"Doesn't this imply, that even though I can still make a free local call to my ISP, my ISP may start charging me "per-minute fees"??? "

They may, but then you have the competition to keep the fees in check. Delphy was the first major BB (buletin board service) that gave internet access, back then the BB's access fees were around $2/hr, including AOL and Prodigy. Competition for internet access came in, Netcom started to offer it, then small local one-man start up ISP's (provided access to internet only) appeared who charged monthly flat fees ($40+ at first), and the competition took over from there, offering more and better for less. AOL and other big BB's jumped in with the internet. The rest is history.

If your local ISP increase their fees, shop around, and tell them you've dropped them to go to another cheaper provider. Per-minute/hr fees is extremely unlikely to return.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 26, 1999.