Have you heard the latest? Probably not. That's the way it is with complicated legislation or governmental decrees that may or may not hurt your pocketbook, especially when you're intentionally kept out of the loop.

Thank heavens, some people on Capitol Hill aren't OK with that - even if it does involve money.

Next week, in a vote on a proposal Americans are not allowed (ahem) to have access to, the very powerful (read: scarily powerful) Federal Communications Commission will decide whether or not to approve changes that could have sweeping effects on the way phone companies do business. Specifically, it'll change how they charge each other for all kinds of communications traffic - landline phones, Internet access, wireless, the works.

Right now, the big telecommunications companies (Verizon, AT&T and Qwest) say the system is nearly broken - resulting in fees that are too high in some situations, and too low in others. No uniformity. I can see where that would be a problem; it's not efficient, which means it's not cost-effective as we move increasingly to a technologically unified communications world. Sounds OK, right?

But at the grass-roots level, Congressional leaders, consumer groups and average citizens (especially in far-flung places, where phone and Internet service isn't as cheap as it might be in well-populated areas) are getting antsy.

They want to know more about this proposal: Will it mean lower or higher rates for consumers? Will telecom companies be required to provide service in outlying areas if uniform delivery rates apply (meaning more out-of-pocket costs for the telecoms)? What are the long-term ramifications of such a sweeping proposal? (Several consumer groups are warning fees to you and me could "skyrocket" - perhaps as much as 30-40%.)

People want to know answers to these questions and more. Unfortunately, before the FCC commissioners vote  on the proposal this Nov. 4 (yes, Election Day, the busiest news day of the year - makes you wonder why, doesn't it?), that's not going to happen.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin won't discuss it. According to the Wall Street Journal, he has "declined to release details, citing the FCC's normal policy." Which might be part of the reason why dozens of lawmakers recently sent letters to Martin asking for a delay in the decision, which the FCC has suggested is not likely to happen.

Huh? An anti-communications Communications Commission? That sounds positively Orwellian. (As does so much of our government, especially lately.)

"Normal policy" be damned. Why can't we know what the plan says? Are the members of the FCC and the big phone companies afraid average Americans won't understand it and could complicate the process, bogging things to a slow crawl during these economically trying times when most businesses are hurting?

Or are they, perhaps, concerned we'll understand it all too well? If so, maybe they're taking a parental viewpoint: "We don't need to explain what's best for them; let's just get on with this." Or maybe the motives are darker than that.

I, for one, am tired of being left out of the governmental process.

If the FCC has nothing to be concerned about, if this proposal is, in fact, good for American households, businesses and commerce, then by all means, let the "communications" part of the Federal Communications Commission shine through - and may we all be enlightened and better for it.

Some are calling for action - specifically to contact your legislators.

If you're so inclined (even to request more information), here are some contact links:

Senate leaders

State representatives