Re: Web Fees

[Ron Force <rforce@uidaho.edu>]

Sorry, it's a hoax.  You can quicly check the more obvious ones by going
to the Department of Energy's computer Incident Advisory Center:
http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/CIACHoaxes.html

The text relating to the current warning is below (long).

susan.palmer@mail.ww.cc.wa.us wrote:
> 
>      Visionaries,
> 
>      I don't know anything about this, but received it from a former
>      student of mine whom I believe is a reliable source. This could have a
>      major impact, making the internet even less available than it is now
>      to those who can't afford it.

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 <http://www.aitp.org>



***********************************************************************
Ron Force					rforce@uidaho.edu
Dean of Library Services			(208) 885-6534
University of Idaho				Moscow 83844-2350
************************************************************************