| Author |
Message |
MKDCO
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2000 - 1:13 pm: | |
At least, I put it out for all to see just what kind of reaction and reply that came back! |
cfdeaton
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2000 - 9:46 am: | |
Being from and in Arkansas and having been the victim of Bill and Hillary I can tell you that politicians are not to be trusted with our freedoms. It is in our best interest to vigourously join in on any campaign, email or other to protect the freedom of the internet. |
Tomj
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2000 - 2:13 pm: | |
About word for word the same letter I received from Max Sandlin, my rep. Gee, what a surprise. |
MKDCO
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2000 - 1:50 pm: | |
This is the letter that I received from my congressman on this issue. Hopefully there are no typo's.
From: The Honorable Larry Combest
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
19th. District, Texas
Date: Febuary 17, 2000
Mr. Don Mathews
Odessa, Texas 79763
Dear Mr. Mathews,
Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you.
I understand your opposition to the imposition of a per-minute charge on consumer access to the internet. I agree that such charges would discourage access to the internet. Fortunately for consumers, the matter has been erroneously reported. But I want to assure you I will strongly oppose any such effort to tax the internet.
It is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that recently considered the matter and not COngress. It is my understanding that the FCC had a proceeding underway to settle an industry disput regarding carrier-to-carrier payments and wheather these reciprocal payments apply to local calls made to Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
On normal calls, if a customer of phone company A makes a call to a customer of phone company B, phone company A must compensate copmpany B for handling the last leg of the call. These carrier-to-carrier payments are normally not controversial since the companies' payments to each other are usuall balanced out. But if one of the two companies serves an ISP, then traffic and potential payments are very unbalanced; consumers call ISPs but ISps seldom call anyone at all. There is also a question as to wheather or not the ISP calls area local or long distance calls. Additionally, calls to ISPs are often longer than regular calls and the different traffic flow can effect the amount of compensation due. As a results of these imbalances, the matter has becaome controversial and needful of FCC clarification.
Following the recent FCC proceeding, the commission issued a Declaratory Ruling that states that carries are bound to their existing interconnection agreements, that internet traffic is both local and long distact in nature. and preserves the rule that exempts internet services from interstate (per-minute) access charges. (NOTE: from "preserves to charges is underlined in the text.)Cont: Since the ruling did not settle the carrier-to-carrier payment controversy but only confirmed that the current agreement should be honored, the FCC announced that it would began taking public comment on proposals to govern the future handling of these reciprocal payments.
The FCC reiterated that regardless of how these recip[rocal payments are ultimately decided, they would not bepassed on to or be paid by the consumers for their internet usage. The rates consumers pay for local telephone service is regulated by the states and not the FCC. Most states require phone companies to charge a flat rate for unlimited local usage, thus preventing a surcharge for internet traffic.
But as a measure to convey the strong constitument opinion on this iuuse to the FCC and to the industry, I have cosponsored H.R. 1291, the Internet Access Charge Prohibition Act. The bill would essentially prohibit the imposition of access charges on ISPs. I have also consponsored H.Con.Res.190, which expresses the sense of Congress that we should support a permanent ban on taxing electronically-transmitted information. In addition, I have also joined several of my colleagues in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefky urging her to keep a permanent moratorium on taxes for international commerce through the internet.
I also understand your concern about a surcharge or tax being placed on e-mail messages. This claim is completely false.(Note: from This to false - typed in BOLD type) The message circulating on the internet claims that a "Representative Schnell" has introduced "Bill 602P" which would allow the government to impose a five-cent surcharge on each e-mail message delivered over the internet. No such proposal exists and in fact, There is not even a menber of COngress named "schnell." Furthermore, the U.S.Postal Operations has no authority to tax e-mail messages over the internet. You can be assured that I will continue to oppose unnecessary taxes and help you keep more of your hard-earned dollars.
I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to call on me if I can ever be of assistance to you.
Signed:
Sincerely,
Larry
Larry Combest |
Gale Hawkins
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2000 - 9:33 pm: | |
Jim at least we can bet no similar bill would ever make it out of committee now so Dave's post was of value anyway. Washington's stand on the Internet seems to be 'hands off' today but we can not be sure that someday that policy will not change. |
Jim
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2000 - 3:54 pm: | |
As mentioned, I too was fooled and sent out many emails: about HOAX. Today I received back a response from my REP. He response was fast and he stated that he would never vote for a tax or user fee, by the GOVT or the Postal Service, on the INTERNET. Even if it was a hoax, it got his attention (maybe others) |
Tom Weems
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2000 - 12:37 pm: | |
Most, if not all of these kinds of email are total garbage. You are not going to make a million dollars, get a free trip or anything else for passing this kind of garbage on. Most of the virus warnings are the same kind of "slow motion chain letter". Why people start this kind of stuff is a mystery to me.
Not a bad idea though, think of it. You could open up your email without spam. |
Dave
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2000 - 11:22 am: | |
YUP, it's another hoax, and this old man was "hood-winked".
Sorry for taking up your time and mine (took 3 hrs to send all the emails out).
But my lesson for that day was learned, be sure your are right, and THEN go ahead.
Apologies to all. |
Santa
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2000 - 11:06 am: | |
Its a hoax! Go here to read all about it.
http://www.umich.edu/~virus-busters/hoaxes/usps602p.html |
ksmith
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2000 - 10:54 am: | |
dave- can you provide any more info on those bills, please? who's the sponsor, and what's the bill number, for the bill contemplating toll access? and who's the sponsor on the bill allowing the post office to horn in where they don't belong? and are we correct in assuming that both of these are house, not senate, bills? thanks ken smith |
Dave
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2000 - 12:11 am: | |
NO MORE FREE E-MAIL.....
> >>
> >>CNN has reported that within the next two weeks
> >>Congress is going to vote on allowing telephone
> >>companies to CHARGE A TOLL FEE for Internet Access.
> >>
> >>Translation: Every time we send a long distance e-mail
> >>we will receive a long distance charge. This will get
> >>costly. Please visit the following web site and file a
> >>complaint.
> >>
> >>Complain to your Congressperson. We can't allow this
> >>to pass" The following address will allow you to send
> >>an e-mail on this subject DIRECTLY to your
> >>Congressperson.
> >>
> >> http://www.house.gov/writerep
> >> http://www.house.gov/writerep>> ,
> >>
> >>Pass this on to your friends. It is urgent. I hope all
> >>of you will pass this on to all your friends and
> >>family. We should ALL have an interest in this one.
> >>
> >>WAIT, THERE'S MORE. IN ADDITION,
> >>
> >>The last few months have revealed an alarming trend in
> >>the Government of the United States attempting to
> >>quietly push through legislation that will affect
> >>your use of the Internet. Under proposed legislation
> >>the U.S. Postal Service will be attempting to bilk
> >>email users out of alternate postage fees". Bill 602P
> >>will permit the Federal Govt to charge a 5 cent
> >>surcharge on every email delivered, by billing
> >>Internet Service Providers at source. The consumer
> >>would then be billed in turn by the ISP.
> >>
> >>Washington D.C. lawyer Richard Stepp is working
> >>without pay to prevent this legislation from becoming
> >>law.
> >>
> >>The U.S. Postal Service is claiming that lost revenue
> >>due to the proliferation of e-mail costing nearly
> >>$230,000,000 in revenue per year. You may have
> >>noticed their recent ad campaign "There is nothing
> >>like a letter". Since the average citizen received
> >>about 10 pieces of email per day in 1998, the cost to
> >>the typical individual would be an additional 50 cents
> >>per day, or over $180 dollars per year, above and
> >>beyond their regular Internet costs.
> >>
> >>Note that this would be money paid directly to the
> >>U.S. Postal Service for a service they do not even
> >>provide. The whole point of the Internet is democracy
> >>and non-interference. If the federal government is
> >>permitted to tamper with our liberties by adding a
> >>surcharge to email, who knows where it will end. You
> >>are already paying an exorbitant price for snail mail
> >>because of bureaucratic inefficiency. It currently
> >>takes up to 6 days for a letter to be delivered from
> >>New York to Buffalo. If the U.S. Postal Service is
> >>allowed to tinker with email, it will mark the end of
> >>the "free" Internet in the United States. One
> >>congressman, Tony Schnell has even suggested a "twenty
> >>to forty dollar per month surcharge on all Internet
> >>service" above and beyond the government's proposed
> >>email charges.
> >>
> >>Note that most of the major newspapers have ignored
> >>the story, the only exception being the Washingtonian
> >>which called the idea of email surcharge "a useful
> >>concept who's time has come" (March 6th,1999)
> >>Editorial.
> >>
> >>Don't sit by and watch your freedoms erode away" Send
> >>this e-mail to EVERYONE on your list, and tell all
> >>your friends and relatives to write to their
> >>Congressman and say "No"" to Bill 602P. It will
> >>only take a few moments of your time, and could very
> >>well be instrumental in killing a bill we don't want.
> >>
> >>PASS THIS ON TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW WHO USES EMAIL
> >>REMEMBER THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES THAT EFFECT ALL
> >>OF US ONLINE. LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD NOW, NOT AFTER"""""" >> |
|
