I'm not sure what text you're reading, but I'm reading from the ammendment to HR1291 Section 2, sub (2) which states: "(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. -- Nothing in this subsection shall preclude the Commission from imposing access charges on the providers of Internet telephone services, irrespective of the type of cus- tomer premises equipment used in connection with such services.". my (personal) translation is this: Nothing here prohibits the FCC from imposing charges on Internet telephone providers. Because if you're an "ITP", it would likeley require compatability with the existing PSTN infastructure, you would then be charged based upon existing fees associated with telephone calls. (DCS, PRI, etc.. as you interconnected with ILEC/CLEC telephone switches to gain access to the PSTN). - jared On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 02:08:34PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:

Since this specifically addressed per-minute charges/fees/taxes, and USF is not a per-minute charge as I understand it (I thought it was per-line), I suspect it is not related.

Owen

...

<i am not a lawyer, but i talked to one>

This is as it relates to the USF (Universal Service Fund).

This means that providers of IP telephony that interconnect with the PSTN are not excluded from paying USF fees. Or that's my understanding of the ammendment.

- Jared

On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 03:37:45PM -0400, John Fraizer wrote:

...

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,36339,00.html

Time for a change in Washington. Register to throw them out...er...vote.

--- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc

-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine. END OF LINE |

-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine. END OF LINE |