H.R. 1291, the "Internet Access Charge Prohibition Act of 2000"

Additional Views
of
The Honorable John D. Dingell

This legislation, H.R. 1291, is intended to make sure that when an individual logs on to the Internet, he or she will not be charged by the minute for the privilege of doing so. That is a worthy goal, and I support it.

I am sure that few Congressional offices have escaped an insidious e-mail campaign over the past year decrying fictitious legislation that would purport to accomplish precisely the opposite result of the bill we report today. I only hope that passage of H.R. 1291 will finally extinguish this "cyber-myth" once and for all.

I am not convinced, however, that mounting a massive legislative counter-attack on a fictitious bill, introduced by a make-believe Congressman, is the best use of this Committee’s time, or that of the House. Particularly when the substance of this bogus bill – if it were actually introduced – is so contrary to the public interest that it would have zero chance of success in this Committee.

My puzzlement extends further to the speed with which the Republican leadership wants this bill to go to the floor. They apparently believe this bill is so important that we were asked to dispense with regular order and bypass Subcommittee consideration. I find it amazing that a phantom Congressman has more success jump-starting the legislative process than those of us elected by the people.

Certainly our constituents should know that Congress has no intent of installing a meter on their use of the Internet, and this legislation will alleviate their concern in that regard. However, I am disappointed that the majority refuses to seize the opportunity presented here to address a greater and more genuine threat to consumer pocketbooks. That is, the real possibility that burgeoning new Internet services, such as Internet telephony, paging, web-based wireless services, and countless others on the horizon may evade the responsibility of contributing to support the Universal Service Fund – a fund which ensures that all Americans have access to affordable telephone service.

These services will continue to migrate from traditional networks to the Internet and, unless we act, the Universal Service Fund will be left to wither on the vine. Traditional network service providers will be forced to raise prices wherever they can, and that can only spell trouble when it comes to local phone rates for all consumers, but particularly those who live in rural areas and the working poor. Of course, these are the same Americans who are stuck on the wrong side of the "digital divide" and are least able to take advantage of high-tech alternatives.

This Committee’s approach to telecommunications policy has always been consistent and straightforward: like services should be treated in a like manner. We had the opportunity to apply that philosophy here, and it would have been entirely proper that we do so.

Unfortunately, in our haste to get legislation to the floor that solves an imaginary problem, we squandered the opportunity to address one that is all too real: the prices Americans will pay for telecommunications services if today’s disparate regulatory treatment is permitted to continue. Whether a service is offered via the Internet or through a traditional network, the obligations attendant to it should be the same.