NARUC'S Concerns with S. 150
As Amended
September 2003
Both the House and Senate versions of the ITFA add a "clarification"
to the definition of "Internet access" that could, in
our view, be used by the BOCs and other broadband and VOIP providers
to achieve a regulatory reclassification of broadband services as
an information service and thus be unintentionally exempt from all
Title II common carrier safeguards (E-911, CALEA, unbundling requirements
under 251, and non-discriminatory access requirements, etc). While
the merits of this policy change are currently under consideration
by the FCC in their twin broadband proceedings (wireline DSL and
cable modem), the language in the bill could be used to embolden
the advocacy pressure on the FCC and later on in the courts to deregulate
such services. While we support your overall objectives with this
bill, I'm not sure this is what you guys really want to do here.
The existing Internet Tax Freedom Act definition of "internet
access" says, "Such term does not include telecommunications
services." See 47 U.S.C. 151 note -- section 1104(5) of the
ITFA. The clarification section in both the House and Senate bills
modify this sentence to read "Such term does not include telecommunications
services, except to the extent such services are used to provide
Internet access."
This "clarification" will effectively reduce local/state
tax revenues a ILECs claim that all of their new networks (and part
of their old) are exempt from taxes that apply today to "telecommunications
services."
NARUC'S CONCERNS WITH THE CLARIFICATION SECTION.
While we understand the argument that this bill simply makes changes
in tax law, the same change can also be read to unintentionally
blur the regulatory dividing line between Internet access and the
underlying transmission service. The bill in its current form finds
that if a "telecommunications service" is used to provide
"internet access" then suddenly the regulatory treatment
(applicability of tax in this case) is different. This regulatorychange
is exactly what the incumbent carriers want in order to be relived
of any State oversight of their services, including telephone services
if they are provided over the internet.
If Congress adopts the bill in its current form and it becomes law,
it will be cited as "evidence" that it was Congress' intent
to treat the transmission services used to provide Internet access
differently than those transmission services not used for Internet
access, and more precisely that Congress intends the underlying
transmission service to be treated the same as the Internet access
service. (not subject to Title II in the DSL and cable modem proceedings)
Moreover, it will be used to argue that Congress supports the FCC's
revisionist "telecommunications is subsumed into information
services" approach that serves as the basis of the FCC's cable
modem and wireline DSL proceedings. NARUC is on the record as stating
this approach to the statute will cause many more problems than
it will solve and result in an enormous amount of wasteful and costly
litigation to the States and consumers. We have written several
letters to the Hill and comments to the FCC articulating these concerns
over the years.
HOW CAN WE LEAVE THE CLARIFYING PHRASE IN TACT WHILE MINIMIZING
ITS
POTENTIAL ANTICOMPETITIVE IMPACT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE FCC'S BROADBAND
PROCEEDINGS?"
ADD TO THE UNDERLYING TEXT AFTER THE CLARIFICATION (AFTER LINE 22
ON PAGE 3) THE FOLLOWING:
"This unusual definition of "internet access" to
include "telecommunications services" applies exclusively
to this part only. It can be used exclusively for the purpose of
determining if taxes can be assessed pursuant to the Internet Tax
Freedom Act. In no other statutory provision in this (or any related
federal statutory provision), does the offering of a "telecommunications
service" in tandem with "internet access" or any
related regulatory classification, allow an agency to ignore statutory
provisions that otherwise apply to the telecommunications portion
of the combined offering."
return
to the internet taxation page
|