by Miles Durfee

The United States National Anthem ends with the famous phrase, “O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” However, at the time of the deadline for this article, the land of the free didn’t necessarily extend to taxing Internet access in the United States of America. The Internet Access Tax Ban (an amendment to H.R. 3678, the Internet Tax Freedom Act) was set to expire on November 1, 2007. Without Congressional passage and signing into law by the president, prior to that date, state and local governments would have been given authority to approve new taxes on Internet connections and some Internet purchases of products and services.

With the House of Representatives’ passage of a four-year extension, approved 405 to 2 in October, it is likely that by the time you read this the Senate will have taken similar action and that another four-year extension will have been signed into law by the President. This is the third time the tax ban will have been extended for four years. Congress previously had extended the tax moratorium in 2001 and in 2004.

While a permanent ban has been introduced in Congress and is supported by the President, apparently the US is only the land of the free in four-year increments. It appears that the most active groups working against a permanent ban are state and local governments and the telephone companies. For governments, a permanent ban would restrict their ability to add a new tax-revenue option in times when it becomes necessary to resolve potential budget shortfalls. It’s also easy to understand why phone companies and other providers are watching the definition of Internet access very closely, to ensure that competitors like Voice over Internet (VoIP) providers don’t have the ability to charge consumers lower rates because taxes are not included in their services, when they are included in traditional telephone company services. The International Blogging and New Media Association (IBNMA) believes that the reasons to support a permanent ban far outweigh the reasons not to support it. IBNMA will continue to advocate for the approval of a permanent tax ban on Internet access during the likely four-year extension.

Another issue that some believe is tied to our freedom is the right to access to broadband services. For many years Internet service providers (ISPs) have reported to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) based on five-digit zip codes. If any person had broadband access in a particular five-digit zip-code location, the area was considered covered by broadband. Access to broadband is becoming more and more important as new media becomes a combination of video, podcasts, Web calendars, maps, and blogs: one integrated communication tool for Internet users. Without reliable connections, or even basic service in some parts of the country, the flow of information could stagnate and hinder the natural advance of new-media opportunities.

Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), the chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, has introduced legislation that would direct the FCC to require service-provider information regarding broadband penetration down to the zip-code-plus-four location and to define second-generation broadband as services that “reflect a data rate that is not less than the data rate required to reliably transmit full-motion, high-definition video.” (Refer to the Broadband Data Improvement Act, S. 1492, for more information.) These two provisions are vital to continued access to better broadband services, which will allow the public to quickly get better information. While the ability to transmit reliable high-definition video may seem to be a goal for individuals who use the Internet for entertainment (rather than an integrated information tool), the real need for second-generation bandwidth will make possible a complete new wave of Internet services and products. This wave will not only drive the new-media industry, but will also better inform the populace and improve every individual’s quality of life.

Some would argue that S. 1492 is just a way to get sensitive, competitive information about service providers’ broadband capabilities. I contend that only through accurate reporting of broadband, and second-generation broadband gaps in certain geographic areas, will we be able improve access in parts of the country that now are being underserved. IBNMA supports S. 1492 and I encourage you to look closely at this legislation, as well as Representative Edward Markey’s (D-MA) legislation H.R. 3919, which similarly directs the FCC to require broadband service providers to provide information down to the zip-plus-four location level, but does not redefine broadband or second-generation broadband.

Miles Durfeeis president of the International Blog­ging & New Media Association. Send email to miles@bloggerandpodcaster.com.