FCC Eyes Tax on Internet Service

Status
Not open for further replies.

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,400
To fund an agency created to expand Internet access, The FCC is considering a proposal to levy a tax on broadband service. The ‘Connect America Fund’ would be used to build high-speed networks to reach the Americans presently without high speed access. Thanks to forum member Majeztik12 for the linkage.

Numerous companies, including AT&T, Sprint and even Google have expressed support for the idea.
 
Of course the ISPs like it. Instead of having to pay for their own infrastructure upgrades, they can now use money stolen at gunpoint to do it instead. All of the benefits of armed robbery without all of drawbacks like that going to jail thing.

Broadband Internet access is not a right. I suggest that if you do not like the fact that Middle of Nowhere, AK has no broadband, that you move.
 
*rage*

*rage*

*rage*

that's good enough for now, although this was in another story which made me laugh... then cry

The FCC could run into legal problems with the Internet Tax Freedom Act, a 1998 law that bans the government from taxing Internet access. But the FCC has long argued that Universal Service is a fee that the providers choose to pass on to consumers and not a tax.
 
how much money was AT&T given yearssss ago to update their infrastructure and they spent it on who knows what and didnt upgrade a dam thing..


As usual, get the end user to pay for everything cause we aren't being robbed already..

Heck Google, you can spare some cash to build some infrastructure....
 
Since we're paying tax for it, if this pass, will it make having high speed internet a right?
 
I thought that the "Internet connectivity charge" was supposed to be used for that?!

Would you folks PLEEEEEESE quit electing these Liberal jerks/thieves!!!!!!
 
Taxation can only be implemented with representation. If they want to vote this kind of tax in, then I say we demand the guarantee of a minimum speed we determine with no throttling and no data caps. I'd be willing to shell out up to $0.25 extra per month for this.
 
Why don't we just use the money to pay for municipal broadband instead? That way, these clowns (Comshittycast, Time Shitty Warner, AT&Shitty) can stop overcharging us for a service the local governments would be providing at a price that will benefit everyone? Make it so that the munis' net profits must be used to improve and expand the infrastructure. BAM! Problem solved for everyone.
 
I thought that the "Internet connectivity charge" was supposed to be used for that?!

Would you folks PLEEEEEESE quit electing these Liberal jerks/thieves!!!!!!

Riiight, because conservatives (or what supposedly passes for one these days) have never done ANYTHING like this at all ... :rolleyes:
 
How about we use the taxes to open a legal fund to fight asshole ISP's from monopolizing local communities and also fight big corporate ISP's from preventing municipal broadband service?

Instead the FCC will just take the tax money and waste it. The FCC is a joke , they are in the pockets of big ISP's all over the country. Want an example? Check out North Carolina and the Time Warner monopoly they have there. Its fucking disgusting.
 
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street.
If you try to sit, I'll tax the seat.
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat.
If you try to walk, I'll tax your feet.
(Geo. Harrison)

And Godmachine--it is the local governments which grant the ISP monopolies (usually cableco). Monopolies do not happen without government fiat.

Nor should we have taxation at all for anything, as it is the taking of someone's property without consent, i.e. theft.
 
How about we use the taxes to open a legal fund to fight asshole ISP's from monopolizing local communities and also fight big corporate ISP's from preventing municipal broadband service?

Instead the FCC will just take the tax money and waste it. The FCC is a joke , they are in the pockets of big ISP's all over the country. Want an example? Check out North Carolina and the Time Warner monopoly they have there. Its fucking disgusting.

This. Unfortunately I have no confidence that it will change anytime soon no matter who you elect.
 
So the "fund" is not a "tax" it's a "fee" that the ISP "chooses" to pass on to the user.......

This sounds just like the strategy that was used to pass the ObamaHealthCare (aka) Affordable(read more taxes here)Care Act.

So I get to pay more taxes to use my broadband, so some dickhead gets it for free in BumFuckNowhere? Please, I'll take two.
 
Right , but the local governments are in Time Warner's pocket in North Carolina which is still under the supposed "eye" of the FCC which granted Time Warner's its freedom to lock down the entire state just about it.

The point is that the FCC is much like the rest of the Government , incompetent and corrupt. Giving them billions in tax revenue isn't going to help matters.
 
So the "fund" is not a "tax" it's a "fee" that the ISP "chooses" to pass on to the user.......

This sounds just like the strategy that was used to pass the ObamaHealthCare (aka) Affordable(read more taxes here)Care Act.

So I get to pay more taxes to use my broadband, so some dickhead gets it for free in BumFuckNowhere? Please, I'll take two.

Wow , people truly don't understand Obamacare at all.
 
I don't think a tax for this makes sense ... the US is too big to try and force internet speeds like those in Korea and Japan (a fraction of our size). If they feel a burning desire to intrude government into this I would much rather they exercise eminent domain (for wireless and broadband) which would make far more sense and affect fewer people directly than a tax would. Also, it would be less likely to be abused than a tax would.
 
Of course the companies think it's a good idea. They don't have to pay for it but it will be handed to them after it's built. It's a win/win for them.

There's only one way I would support this. They can have it when it's built, BUT, the charge for uncapped broadband for any U.S. citizen will be $5 a month for life. We are the ones building the damn thing after all.
 
Why friggin' bother? The folks this would extend internet to would just bitch about the tax despite the fact it would save them the money of having to pay for pricey satellite internet.

I sure as shit don't want to pay for it on their behalf.
 
Wow , people truly don't understand Obamacare at all.

Look..........not only am I a citizen of the United States, I also work in healthcare and have to deal with what you say I don't understand everyday.

Would you care to explain how you see this?
Have you read the Supreme Court's opinion on this?
Read the dissenting opinion sometime.
 
Let the free market combined with anti-trust laws take care of this.

In other words, when the government gets the hell out of the way, we end up with things like Sprint confirming they will still have unlimted 3g and 4g with the iphone 5, or Google investing money to brign fiber- the fastest consumer broadband there is- to Kansas City.

However, when I say that the government should stay out of it I do not mean it should allow these companies to operate with impunity. They are a common carrier- they should not be able to slow, throttle, cap, degrade, prefer or in anyway screw with the data coming over the pipes. So that whole ATT won't allow facetime for unlimited data account holders? Yeah- antitrust laws shoudl be enforced on that.
 
Look..........not only am I a citizen of the United States, I also work in healthcare and have to deal with what you say I don't understand everyday.

Would you care to explain how you see this?
Have you read the Supreme Court's opinion on this?
Read the dissenting opinion sometime.

This. Seriously- this. People really, really need to read the Court opinions on this issue. Then form your opinions- it's not a terribly difficult read.
 
Sooo....why should everyone have to pay for a few backwater places to get broadband? Shouldn't they be paying for it themselves?

Unless this goes towards getting me fiber in my area, then...no. Broadband is already ass-rapingly expensive enough.
 
Sooo....why should everyone have to pay for a few backwater places to get broadband? Shouldn't they be paying for it themselves?

Unless this goes towards getting me fiber in my area, then...no. Broadband is already ass-rapingly expensive enough.

I swear i am not some liberal socialist, but... the idea is that by getting broadband to backwater areas, we raise the common good and that is better for everyone. Doesn't mean you have to agree that it is worth it, and frankly I am not sure I do. But- that's the reasoning.

Personally, I think these broadband companies need to become utility companies. Google's fiber is the best motivator for lower broadband speeds that could ever come along, and Google is a private company. The high margins of these companies are ripe for competition, but the entrenched nature of a utility-like service requires a serious shake-up in the market to see anything change.
 
Donate money if you think the backwaters should have better internet. My intertubins are already expensive enough.
 
Donate money if you think the backwaters should have better internet. My intertubins are already expensive enough.

Didn't you hear? Luxury is now a god given right, not something to strive for. No one should be able to individually achieve greatness! Well, that's what a bunch of people want.....
 
So the "fund" is not a "tax" it's a "fee" that the ISP "chooses" to pass on to the user.......

This sounds just like the strategy that was used to pass the ObamaHealthCare (aka) Affordable(read more taxes here)Care Act.

So I get to pay more taxes to use my broadband, so some dickhead gets it for free in BumFuckNowhere? Please, I'll take two.

Here's a dollar. Use it to get yourself an education.

Try reading up on ACA instead of regurgitating what Sean Hannity told you. :rolleyes:

On topic: I wasn't aware that the FCC had the power to impose tax on American citizens. They can ask Congress to create a bill, but I don't see it going anywhere unless AT&T, Comcast and the likes lobby for it and lobby hard.
 
Why don't we just use the money to pay for municipal broadband instead? That way, these clowns (Comshittycast, Time Shitty Warner, AT&Shitty) can stop overcharging us for a service the local governments would be providing at a price that will benefit everyone? Make it so that the munis' net profits must be used to improve and expand the infrastructure. BAM! Problem solved for everyone.

They tried that in a few areas and got slapped with lawsuits, eventually the lobbyists paid off the politicians to stop it.
 
What access do these people lack? Is it voluntary that they choose not to have internet access? Is it simply the region they live in that doesn't have access? If you have a computer and a phone, does dial-up service still exist for them? What is the real issue here in terms of spending another stream of untold billions of dollars so these people can get on the internet using netscape. If they aren't on the net now, why spend this money to put them there?

Is there some great outcry to get them on the internet with broadband and how much will they pay and who's infrastructure are they going to connect to and why as a tax payer should I be funding a project like this for people who aren't on the net already?
 
Wow , people truly don't understand Obamacare at all.

Exactly. When the idiots realize it will completely bankrupt the country and prevent people from getting care they need...then it will be known.
 
I say if we have to pay tax on it, then the following should happen
1. Internet access because a legal right.
2. All control of physical infrastructure is removed from private companies and placed in control of a government body (FCC or something new)
3 A set standardization levels of service are created a given equally to everyone no matter where you are. (Access to lowest level or highest level of service no matter of location.)
4. Open and limitless access is granted to all. (No Blocking, CAPing, filtering or F'ing with content coming to and from users.)
5. ISP are only allowed to provide gateway services. (They now will have to compete on quality of service and customer service.)
 
What access do these people lack? Is it voluntary that they choose not to have internet access?

You are missing the big point of it...when the government establishes a precedent for something you need, it can force you to have it or pay fines for not having it.
 
Since everyone sounds like they know better, what solutions would you rather see?

America is behind other countries in terms of quality of service, data speeds, and internet access for the country. We are also behind many other first and even second world countries on healthcare and education in terms of quality, availability and affordability.

I can understand taxes to help support, improve and expand infrastructure, why not have it have extended to areas that don't have access?

We have to look at the bigger picture, outside the box, and from both sides of the coin. Selfishness doesn't get us anywhere or moves this country forward.

I always go by this one phrase: "If no one helps them, then who will?"

Not everyone has the luxury of a good education, the ability and money to move to better neighborhoods that have better schools, jobs, etc. Not everyone earns a middle income class money each year. Try doing tax returns for low income families, which I do every tax season, and tax returns for middle income families earning less than a combined income of $60,000 a year. Everyone is struggling to make ends meet. You or I and many other people may not like taxes, but it's the only way to keep this country running.

No taxes means no police, no firefighters, no public education, no public healthcare, no freeways or roads, no public transportation, etc.

Everyone sounds too greedy and too selfish, and too self centered. It's why a large part of me, not only hates the politicians wrongly running this country but the many Americans in this country who think they know better. Try being that unemployed person that can't afford health insurance. Try being that single mom with two kids living off $20,000 or $15,000 a year in income.

People lack both sympathy and empathy in this country and saddens me to see this kind of attitudes out of my fellow Americans. Not everything has to be about yourself. No one is entitled to every luxury in the world but not everyone can be entitled to the same luxuries afforded by others with money.

The best solution to any problem is cooperation from both sides of the spectrum, and everyone in-between.

I saw a few good suggestions in this thread already:
  • Internet access because a legal right. (SGTGimpy)
  • Lease services to public and private educational institutions.

    A new way to provide access to and expand public and private education to rural areas, which in turn should be able to help fund a public broadband service. It'd be the equivalent of PBS on public television, but online.
  • Municipal, local-run broadband.

    Available to anyone regardless of income level, capped at a certain speed such as 1 Mbps or 3 Mbps, requires no local phone service, and is paid for from taxes you already pay to the county you live in. The service is not attached to lines from ISP companies. A portion of the fees to this will not only be paid for by current taxes already available but a small monthly or yearly fee that's capped at a certain amount. Someone suggested a flat rate of $5 a month. It can also be no higher than $10 but no lower than $1 a month.
  • Removal of local municipalities from approving and barring ISPs in providing service to a certain area.

    It would be as simple as paying for a permit to establish service in an area that is not covered by the ISP already. It'd be the equivalent of acquiring a business license, paid to the city or county, without restrictions or penalties. A simple flat fee which in turn a portion will be used to provide public broadband access.
  • All control of physical infrastructure is removed from private companies and placed in control of a government body (FCC or something new) (SGTGimpy)

    (Slight modification from his suggestion.) Adding new broadband via copper lines or fibre optic lines are done by the government as part of infrastructure to the city. No private ISP company installs or adds them. These lines are in turn leased to the ISP companies. Multiple companies will have access to the same lines. For example, the city adds fiber optic lines to provide public broadband access to new areas, a company like ATT and Verizon can lease those lines to provide additional service to those areas in addition to the already provided public broadband service serviced by the city or county. This adds another way to help fund public broadband access..
  • Proportion current infrastructure funds to expand lines to rural areas.

    I believe most of your property taxes already paid to the county go to the city's/county's infrastructure, combined with other funds outside that. This doesn't add new taxes or raises them.
  • Implement penalties to ISPs that restrict, limit usage, and/or bar access to users.

    This gets into net neutrality laws. ISPs should make available their services without restrictions, limitations, and penalties regardless of usage, competition, and income level.
  • Unrestricted and unmetered public broadband access.

    The same applies with the above but if a government were to provide public broadband service, it should not fall into the same faults as private ISP companies-- restriction and limitation of access because of usage.
  • New jobs on government salary.

    This can also be a good way to add new jobs if implemented correctly. Service technicians, engineers, etc. servicing and expanding access from urban to rural areas.
  • A set standardization levels of service are created are given equally to everyone no matter where you are. (SGTGimpy)
  • ISP are only allowed to provide gateway services. They now will have to compete on quality of service and customer service. (SGTGimpy)
If anyone has better ideas, go ahead, I'd like to read them.
 
You are missing the big point of it...when the government establishes a precedent for something you need, it can force you to have it or pay fines for not having it.

It's not a mandate. It's a tax - according to John Roberts anyways :-P
 
Since everyone sounds like they know better, what solutions would you rather see?

America is behind other countries in terms of quality of service, data speeds, and internet access for the country. We are also behind many other first and even second world countries on healthcare and education in terms of quality, availability and affordability.

I can understand taxes to help support, improve and expand infrastructure, why not have it have extended to areas that don't have access?

We have to look at the bigger picture, outside the box, and from both sides of the coin. Selfishness doesn't get us anywhere or moves this country forward.

I always go by this one phrase: "If no one helps them, then who will?"

Not everyone has the luxury of a good education, the ability and money to move to better neighborhoods that have better schools, jobs, etc. Not everyone earns a middle income class money each year. Try doing tax returns for low income families, which I do every tax season, and tax returns for middle income families earning less than a combined income of $60,000 a year. Everyone is struggling to make ends meet. You or I and many other people may not like taxes, but it's the only way to keep this country running.

No taxes means no police, no firefighters, no public education, no public healthcare, no freeways or roads, no public transportation, etc.

Everyone sounds too greedy and too selfish, and too self centered. It's why a large part of me, not only hates the politicians wrongly running this country but the many Americans in this country who think they know better. Try being that unemployed person that can't afford health insurance. Try being that single mom with two kids living off $20,000 or $15,000 a year in income.

People lack both sympathy and empathy in this country and saddens me to see this kind of attitudes out of my fellow Americans. Not everything has to be about yourself. No one is entitled to every luxury in the world but not everyone can be entitled to the same luxuries afforded by others with money.

The best solution to any problem is cooperation from both sides of the spectrum, and everyone in-between.

I saw a few good suggestions in this thread already:
  • Internet access because a legal right. (SGTGimpy)
  • Lease services to public and private educational institutions.

    A new way to provide access to and expand public and private education to rural areas, which in turn should be able to help fund a public broadband service. It'd be the equivalent of PBS on public television, but online.
  • Municipal, local-run broadband.

    Available to anyone regardless of income level, capped at a certain speed such as 1 Mbps or 3 Mbps, requires no local phone service, and is paid for from taxes you already pay to the county you live in. The service is not attached to lines from ISP companies. A portion of the fees to this will not only be paid for by current taxes already available but a small monthly or yearly fee that's capped at a certain amount. Someone suggested a flat rate of $5 a month. It can also be no higher than $10 but no lower than $1 a month.
  • Removal of local municipalities from approving and barring ISPs in providing service to a certain area.

    It would be as simple as paying for a permit to establish service in an area that is not covered by the ISP already. It'd be the equivalent of acquiring a business license, paid to the city or county, without restrictions or penalties. A simple flat fee which in turn a portion will be used to provide public broadband access.
  • All control of physical infrastructure is removed from private companies and placed in control of a government body (FCC or something new) (SGTGimpy)

    (Slight modification from his suggestion.) Adding new broadband via copper lines or fibre optic lines are done by the government as part of infrastructure to the city. No private ISP company installs or adds them. These lines are in turn leased to the ISP companies. Multiple companies will have access to the same lines. For example, the city adds fiber optic lines to provide public broadband access to new areas, a company like ATT and Verizon can lease those lines to provide additional service to those areas in addition to the already provided public broadband service serviced by the city or county. This adds another way to help fund public broadband access..
  • Proportion current infrastructure funds to expand lines to rural areas.

    I believe most of your property taxes already paid to the county go to the city's/county's infrastructure, combined with other funds outside that. This doesn't add new taxes or raises them.
  • Implement penalties to ISPs that restrict, limit usage, and/or bar access to users.

    This gets into net neutrality laws. ISPs should make available their services without restrictions, limitations, and penalties regardless of usage, competition, and income level.
  • Unrestricted and unmetered public broadband access.

    The same applies with the above but if a government were to provide public broadband service, it should not fall into the same faults as private ISP companies-- restriction and limitation of access because of usage.
  • New jobs on government salary.

    This can also be a good way to add new jobs if implemented correctly. Service technicians, engineers, etc. servicing and expanding access from urban to rural areas.
  • A set standardization levels of service are created are given equally to everyone no matter where you are. (SGTGimpy)
  • ISP are only allowed to provide gateway services. They now will have to compete on quality of service and customer service. (SGTGimpy)
If anyone has better ideas, go ahead, I'd like to read them.

I'm of the same opinion. Highways are taxed in exactly the same way. Are you using the highway that some redneck is using in Bumfuck Alabama? Most likely not, but your tax money goes there as well as your local highways and the highways you frequent. Nobody's forced to buy a car - and nobody will be forced to buy an internet connection either. But at least it'll be there.

The only problem I see with this is that the internet is privately owned - but then again the government is currently experimenting with privatizing highways and toll roads as well. Perhaps like with the post office, if the government require taxes for internet connections to provide them everywhere, Comcast, AT&T and the likes will be subjected to subsidized laws similarly to how US chartered organizations are subjected to American laws.
 
Not anywhere near as badly, no.

LOL, right.

US-national-debt-GDP.png


Wait, no that couldn't quite POSSIBLY be correct...
 
You are missing the big point of it...when the government establishes a precedent for something you need, it can force you to have it or pay fines for not having it.

Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot about SCOTUS deeming Urkelcare being a tax that congress can use almost any clause in the constitution to compel you to buy any service they want you to as a method of tax payment or pay a fine if you choose not to buy it. God, what was I thinking. :rolleyes:
 
I'm of the same opinion. Highways are taxed in exactly the same way. Are you using the highway that some redneck is using in Bumfuck Alabama? Most likely not, but your tax money goes there as well as your local highways and the highways you frequent. Nobody's forced to buy a car - and nobody will be forced to buy an internet connection either. But at least it'll be there.

The only problem I see with this is that the internet is privately owned - but then again the government is currently experimenting with privatizing highways and toll roads as well. Perhaps like with the post office, if the government require taxes for internet connections to provide them everywhere, Comcast, AT&T and the likes will be subjected to subsidized laws similarly to how US chartered organizations are subjected to American laws.

It's called infrastructure for a reason :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top