Re: [at-l] Fw: CHARGE FOR USING THE INTERNET

[WHHAWKINS@aol.com]

The message on Internet Access Charges, sent to the list is a Internet Hoaxe. 
<A HREF="http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/CIACHoaxes.html#internetcharge">CIAC
Internet Hoaxes</A> 

The information on this is below.

Wildbill 

Internet Access Charges

January 1999 

This is a variant of the historic modem tax hoax of bygone years. This 
latest version started making its rounds on Nov 06, 1998, based 
apparently on a CNN story. Early versions pointed the finger at the FCC 
as the villian in this story. Then it was 'the government', then it was 
'the Congress'. 

FCC statement:
"... the FCC has no intention of assessing per-minute charges on
Internet traffic or of making any changes in the way consumers obtain
and pay for access to the Internet." 

********************************

  Date: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 10:03 PM

  Looks like Congress has found another way to tax us.

  There is a new bill in US Congress that will be affecting all Internet
  users. You might want to read this and pass it on.  CNN
  stated that the government would in two weeks time decide to allow or
  not allow a charge to your (OUR) phone bill each time you access the
  internet.

  Please visit the following URL and fill out the necessary form!

  The address is http://www.house.gov/writerep/

  If EACH one of us, forward this message on to others in a hurry, we may
  be able to prevent this from happening! (Maybe we CAN fight the phone
  company!)

********************************* 

This alert is a hoax. The earliest electronic version of it, which does 
not urge any particular action but merely reports and comments on the 
story, appeared on Usenet on Nov 06, 1998. Appearing under the thread 
"INTERNET PER MINUTE FEES COMING?" on the ba.internet news group, it 
cited a CNN story aired that same day. A later version, urging everyone 
to contact Congress, appeared on Nov 18, 1998 in a different news group 
and referenced an FCC release dated Oct 30, 1998 as the source of the 
CNN story. The actual FCC proceeding which apparently set off this 
mushrooming flurry of alerts dealt with the 'reciprocal billing' issue, 
which relates to charges for interconnectivity between various telcos. 

In reaction to it, the FCC issued an official statement of December, 
1998, which can be found at <
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/nominute.html>. 
This publication restates that the reciprocal billing issue does not 
include any proposal to have metered billing of any sort by the telcos 
for internet usage. 

Reputable organizations producing legislative alerts will include some 
basic information which will assist the reader in determining how and 
when to respond. Most if not all of this information was missing from 
this spurious alert. 

1) Congress does not vote as a single body. Any alert should name the 
specific body (House or Senate) scheduled to vote to whom letters/email 
should be sent. It will also indicate whether this is in front of a 
committee, and which committee, or that it is set for a floor vote. 

2) At a minimum, a specific bill number will be cited such as S.1615 or 
H.R.3888. The reader can then check the Congressional bill status web 
site <http://thomas.loc.gov> to determine the precise current status of 
the bill before writing to your member of Congress about it. 

3) A specific alert date, and a deadline date for responses, will be 
included to help in determining whether the alert is stale. 

4) A legitimate alert will say exactly what is wrong with (or right 
with) the bill, possibly even citing a specific section. Check the 
language of the bill on Thomas to ensure that amendments to the bill in 
between the time the alert went out and the time that you're reading it 
haven't changed it to the point where the alert is no longer relevant. 

It should also be noted that this alert began making its rounds after 
the 105th Congress had adjourned. Although the House of Representatives 
came back into a lame duck (post election) session to consider the issue 
of impeachment of the president, no other issues were considered. And 
the Senate did not reconvene at all. The 106th Congress was officially 
convened in early January, 1999. At the time the new Congress is seated 
at the beginning of every odd numbered year, all bills not enacted into 
law by the end of the previous Congress are swept away. The new Congress 
starts over with a clean slate, introducing entirely new bills which 
must make their way through the entire legislative process. A 
legislative alert from 1998 is null and void in January, 1999, whether 
it was spurious at the time or not. 

Charles Oriez
coriez@netone.com
National Legislative Chair
Association of Information Technology Professionals 
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *

==============================================================================