Theory works so much better than reality. President Clinton proclaims a grand plan to make sure that American school children, as well as libraries and rural hospitals, have access to the Internet.
Who would be against that?
But collecting universal service funding fees most likely will be full of problems.
Already, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain and House Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley are questioning the plan because they don’t think that consumers adequately commented on it. The lawmakers also are concerned about a rumor that has the Clinton administration, FCC staff and long-distance companies meeting to agree not to list these Internet access fees separately on consumer residential bills, at least until July. Yet, according to the lawmakers, long-distance companies do plan to separate the item out on bills sent to businesses.
Is anyone else left with the perception that these people think that if residential customers (voters) knew they were going to be paying for Internet access, they would be against it?
Oh ye of little faith.
American consumers are intelligent enough to decide whether they support paying for these Internet connections. And if the majority of the public don’t want it, it shouldn’t be forced on them, no matter how lofty the idea.
Regardless, people tend to notice when their phone bills increase, even by a few bucks, even though phone bills fluctuate. Forget the fact that they have a right to know. Some people (my own mother included) take out their calculators each month to double check whether U S West correctly figured her bill. (My mom grew up in the Depression and will be the first one to tell you she knows the value of a dime). She will notice an increase in taxes. She will not be alone.
FCC Chairman Bill Kennard does not think all telecom carriers need to pass on the universal services funding charges. Long-distance carriers, he noted, have no reason to pass on these charges because they are saving money from local access fees. Since when did long-distance companies become not-for-profits?
Another potential problem with universal service funding is that federal economists who estimated the revenues the government should expect to receive from commercial mobile radio service providers are essentially pulling rabbits out of hats. The amounts mentioned in the order already are substantially lower than what was expected last May.
But the problem with universal services funding is more basic than all of this: It is that Congress does not dare to call a tax by its proper name.
