PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 16, 1994
Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to exempt providers of telephone operator services who are in compliance with a billed party preference system established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from the requirement of filing an informational tariff with respect to calls for which operator services are provided. Eliminates provisions allowing the FCC to waive such requirement after October 17, 1994. Requires the FCC to: (1) review the informational tariffs and to determine whether the rates and charges filed appear to be just and reasonable; and (2) if they appear to be unjust or unreasonable, require such provider of operator services to demonstrate that they are just and reasonable. Eliminates provisions that require the provider of operator services to announce that its rates are available on request at the beginning of each call. Requires the FCC to prescribe a standard for rendering determinations that rates or charges are unjust and unreasonable if they exceed whichever of the following the FCC determines is most consistent with the public interest and the protection of consumers: (1) the rate or charge for the same service of the dominant common carrier providing such service; or (2) the weighted average of the charges contained in the tariffs filed by other operator services providers, weighted by traffic volume among such providers. Requires the FCC, by regulation, to define "dominant common carrier" for purposes of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY-9] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 5, 2024. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4969 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4969 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4969 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4969 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.