[telecom] RE: FCC Commissioner proposes tax on Internet advertising

I guess the proposal to tax Internet advertising platforms for the Universal Service Fund uses the same reasoning Willie Sutton used to justify robbing banks: That's where the money is (

). However, that is probably not where the traffic is (Netflix provided 12.9% of American downstream traffic in the first six months of 2019 but hosted no advertising).

However, I think we should recognize that Internet transport IS communications. It should be regulated in the same manner as other telecommunications services.

Quoting from my comments in the Net Neutrality proceeding (

1. NPRM:9. The NPRM cites letters from Congress at
   formatting link
   as in indication that Congress did not intend for ISPs to be regulated as telephone companies. The first of the cited letters (from John D. Rockefeller IV) concerns ISP contributions to the Universal Service Fund. His letter says ?We believe it is also imperative that the Commission revisit its decision regarding the exemption of Internet service providers from universal service contributions and access charges. New reports of offerings of voice to voice telephony and fax services over the Internet -- the providers of which do not pay either either access charges or universal service contributions -- indicate that these providers are are indeed now offering telecommunications services, and that they should incur universal service obligations. Like long distance carriers, these providers rely on the local phone network to receive and deliver their services. They should not be allowed to continue to burden without paying their fair share for its upkeep.? If anything, this letter recognizes that Internet service providers are telecommunications carriers and should be regulated as such.

1. NPRM:9. A second letter (the ?Five Senators Letter?) takes the opposite stance (that quoted in the NPRM) that ISPs should not be considered telecommunications carriers and be subject to universal service contributions. While discouraging considering regulation of ISPs as telecommunications carriers, the letter continues ?In arguing for the extension of direct universal service obligations to ISPs, the development of ?Internet telephony? services is cited as the primary reason why ISPs should contribute directly to universal service. While various types of Internet telephony now are being tested, such services currently are not good substitutes for traditional telephone service. Nevertheless, because the advent of Internet telephony does raise some important policy issues we urge the FCC to carefully monitor developments in this area. In short, while we believe that it would be appropriate for the FCC to initiate an inquiry to better understand the the emerging Internet telephony marketplace and its potential impact on the public switched network, given its early stage of development, such services should not become an excuse for regulating information service providers.? Thus, nearly 20 years ago, Internet telephony was not sufficiently developed to consider regulation of ISPs in the same manner as telephone companies. In the intervening 20 years, Internet telephony as well as video conference, and various other communications techniques are well established and ready for regulation in a manner similar to POTS.

2. NPRM:9. In the third and final letter, Senator John McCain makes a strong argument that Internet access is an information service. However, in this 1998 letter, he states ?Recent public announcements about the advent of commercially available ?Internet telephony? services suggest a possible partial convergence between information services and telecommunications. It would be grossly premature, however, to attempt to address these services today, given their early stage of development.? Now that these services have matured, it is indeed time to address these services with a fresh look.

Harold