George Voinovich: “First, they talk about: ``DO NO HARM. Any extension of the moratorium should preserve existing state and local…”

“First, they talk about: ``DO NO HARM. Any extension of the moratorium should preserve existing state and local revenues.'' The next point they make is: ``BE CLEAR. Definitions matter.'' By the way, in the area of ``DO NO HARM,'' they mention the fact: With state and local governments collecting over $18 billion in telecommunications taxes annually, any significant change in the taxability of telecommunications could cost states billions [billions] of dollars. At a time when state and local governments are facing large increases in mandatory spending and stagnant revenue growth, Congress should not exacerbate state fiscal problems by interfering with the collection of existing taxes. In terms of the definitions, they believe that: The original moratorium split the definition of Internet access into two parts: a broad and inclusive description of Internet access and an absolute exclusion of telecommunications services from the moratorium. The definition read: ``Internet access means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet, and may also include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to users. Such term does not include telecommunications services.'' The exclusion of telecommunications services protected states by clarifying that Internet access was a separate, distinct and limited service.”