Nuclear Iran SFRC Hearing 3/2

[TayTay]

First one is a closed briefing from Negroponte

A Nuclear Iran:
Challenges and Responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEMBERS BRIEFING
CLOSED BRIEFING
before the

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, March 2, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time: 9:00 AM
Place: S-407 The Capitol
Presiding: Senator Lugar

Briefer:
The Honorable John D. Negroponte
Director of National Intelligence
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Washington, DC
******************

AH, considering events of recent days in Iraq and the bombing of the Shia holy Mosque, well, this could get interesting. We might see some sober Senate faces at the public part of this:

[TayTay]

1. Nuclear Iran: What the Admin will say in public in SFRC

Nuclear Iran:
Challenges and Responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HEARING
before the

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, March 2, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time: 10:30 AM
Place: 419 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Presiding: Senator Lugar

Witnesses:
The Honorable Ronald F. Lehman, II
Director
Center for Global Security Research
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA
Dr. Patrick Clawson
Deputy Director for Research
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Washington, DC
Additional Witness May Be Added…

************************

Oy! Ahm, I think this might be an 'all hands on deck' type of meeting. Sigh!

[TayTay]

2. Calling GV: Ahm, what is this about again? USF Contributions 2/28

USF Contributions
Full Committee Hearing
Tuesday, February 28 2006 - 10:00 AM - D-106

Webcast: Click here to view a live webcast of this hearing.
Description: Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Co-Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) have scheduled a Full Committee Hearing on USF Contributions for 10am on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 in room 106 of the Dirksen Building.

Panel 1:

Mr. Glen Post
CEO, Century/Tel

Mr. Tom Simmons
Vice President of Public Policy, Midcontinent Communications

Mr. Trent Boaldin
President, Epic Touch Co.

Ms. Bonnie Cramer
Member, AARP Board of Directors

Mr. Paul Garnett
Assistant Vice President Regulatory Affairs, CTIA

*********************

So ahm, GV: is this about that recent bill that our esteemed Senator filed to allow unused portions of the internet pipes to be used for community internet services and to expand the reach of the net? (Ahm, or not.)

[TayTay]

3. USF Distributions (Ahm, GV knows this. Ask her.) 2/28

USF Distributions
Full Committee Hearing
Tuesday, February 28 2006 - 2:30 PM - D-106

Webcast: Click here to view a live webcast of this hearing.
Description: Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Co-Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) have scheduled a Full Committee Hearing on USF Distributions for 2:30pm on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 in room 106 of the Dirksen Building.

Panel 1:

Mr. Jeff Mao
, Maine Department of Education

Ms. Shirley Bloomfield
Vice President, Government Affairs and Associated Services, National Telecommunications Cooperative Association

Mr. Carson Hughes
, Cellular South

The Honorable Tony Clarke
President, North Dakota Public Service Commission, Chairman, NARUC Telecommunications Committee Department

Mr. Ben Scott
Policy Director, Free Press

***************************

A whole day of this. Ahm, I'll listen in, off and on, until I reach a certain level of pure befuddlement at which point I will switch to the Senate floor debate and the discussion of the Patriot Act, at which point said befuddlement will no doubt turn to a sense of utter frustration, anger and annoynance. Sigh! Either that or I'll go out for ice cream. Not sure which.

[globalvillage]

5. More

Like you really want to know more.
You know how you are supposed to get a phone bill for $X and it ends up being "WTF are all these taxes and fees tacked on to my phone bill???!!!!!"
Mostly, they're pass-through fees, like the USF, e-911.
This is actually likely to be interesting if it's what I think it is.

There are four components to the Federal Universal Service Fund. They are:

Low-Income. This program provides telephone service discounts to consumers with qualifying low-incomes.

High-Cost. This program provides financial support to companies that provide telecommunications services in areas of America where the cost of providing service is high.

Schools and Libraries. This program helps to ensure that the nation's classrooms and libraries receive access to the vast array of educational resources that are accessible through the telecommunications network.

Rural Health Care. This program helps to link health care providers located in rural areas to urban medical centers so that patients living in rural America will have access to the same advanced diagnostic and other medical services that are enjoyed in urban communities.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/usfincrease.html

[globalvillage]

4. No, I don't think so.

I think they are seeking changes to the Universal Service Fund. You pay this on your phone bill for some calls (long distance, int'l), but I think they are trying to make it a flat rate, rather than a usage rate. The argument against is that it would harm the people who currently benefit and do not pay the fee today.
I think this may also require that the USF is paid by VOIP companies, and not just traditional switch telephony.
This is not my area of expertise, but it may be required in the future, so I'd better have a listen.
Thanks for posting.

[karynnj]

6. USF = Universal Service Fund

I'm not GV, but this is on old telephone fund. Here's what I know the fund was in the past. (Caveat -this is stuff I haven't read about for at least 7 years. So, I hope this is at least half right.)

The original intent of USF was to insure universal telephone service to places where it was non-economic to pay for it. In general, the old Bell companies paid money into the fund and small independent rural companies where the cost of wiring people homes to the central offices was very high, received subsidies. AT&T was a regulated monopoly with a guaranteed rate of return. The independent companies were helped by this and it served a societal good for everyone to be connected.

After divestiture, part of the money from the fund came from a "subscriber line charge" included in your local bill while the rest came from the interstate carriers where it was part of the per minute charge. Gradually, the subscriber line charge increased, while the amount put in by the interstate carriers has decreased by FCC action. (There was an incredible amount of statistical work to estimate factors used by the companies to determine who paid what.)

It could very well be that this fund could serve the same purpose with the internet. If you think about it, the underlying is the same to connect everyone. But it may be an incredibly boring telecommunications discussion. (The people speaking seem to be telco people. AARP likely is involved because it impacts the local service charge.

[globalvillage]

8. Ha!

Boring to you, maybe.

LOL.

[karynnj]

9. After reading your posts, I will be listening

It's interesting that they are finally going after charging voip. I'm surprised at how many things it funds now.

[globalvillage]

10. It's a pass-through.

The service provider will pay nothing, it will show up on the user's bill as a tariff (fee), and will be paid to the fund by the voip provider. Just like on your phone bill.
The value depends on how the fund is used. The companies typically don't support these additional fees, as they make the customer's bill higher, and they get no profit. But they don't pay anything out of their revenues, either.
So, they're not going after anyone but the end user.
If the funds are used properly, it's a good thing. If not, it's just another fee.
Currently, there's some debate around the distribution.
We'll see.

Edit to say I'm sure you know that, but others may not.
:-)

[globalvillage]

11. It just occured to me

that we may be the only two people here who wouldn't be bored half to death by this topic.
Oh, well. Interesting history lesson. I have little experience with traditional telephony.
Thanks.

[globalvillage]

7. Did he file that bill?

I can't find it. It may be that he proposes using the USF to fund the expansion of the internet. That might be a connection.

[TayTay]

12. More Hearings for Commerce 3/2

Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
Full Committee Hearing
Thursday, March 2 2006 - 10:00 AM - D-562


Webcast: Click here to view a live webcast of this hearing.
Description: Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Co-Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) have scheduled a Full Committee Hearing on Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP) for 10am on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 in room 562 of the Dirksen Building.



No guest list yet. Looks like Karynnj and GV were right. This is the topic of the week. (And I do listen, if only to reveal to myself how much I have to learn.)