FCC Eyes Tax on Internet Service

Status
Not open for further replies.
octoberasian said:
No taxes means no police, no firefighters, no public education, no public healthcare, no freeways or roads, no public transportation, etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the differences is all that shit isn't a luxury, high speed internet is.

My biggest gripe with this is this is going to be a "fee" (so they can skirt the tax word) that will create a huge pot of gold that when the time is right (i.e. they feel like it) a large TelCo that already has billions in assets can go stick their fingers in the pot to take some money to build at what they think it should cost (regardless of the reality of it) then on top of that profit off those they actually connect to.

The sad thing about this, is that if they would simply charge for "the last mile" they probably could get around needing to tack on a fee. If I have a rural home that's far from the electrical lines I don't get electricity unless I pay for it to be brought to my property. There are no laws or requirements that everyone gets electricity hooked up, and this is something that's pretty damn fundamental. Yet for some reason high speed internet is?
 
www.TheVenusProject.com/

This would solve ALL of our problems!

If only it were possible...too many greedy and thickheaded people in this world. It is truly sad if you really think about it.

Unless things change sooner rather than later and better rather than worse we're all doomed. This is just a fact of life. Sure there will still be "civilization" but the human spirit and drive will be gone once everything is run by corporations and the government is merely a shadow of its formal self with no real power left.

The simple answer to all our problems is technology and just the want for the well being of everyone. Not for profit or some ulterior motive, mind you, but just because helping one another is just the right thing to do. If everyone gave a damn about one another because we're all human beings and equal would that not dramatically change everything for the better?

We also need to expand and improve technology for it is our only one true savior. Imagine nonpolluting renewable resource that power the entire planet. Imagine plentiful amounts of clean, fresh food for every man, woman, and child in every continent on the earth. Imagine schooling and college being completely free for anyone with no closed doors on what you can do. Technology can provide anything and everything that you need if we would actually USE it for the common good instead of trying to profit off of it, patent it, restricted use to it, etc.

The Venus Projects' premise may not be perfect in every way shape and form, but damn does it make a lot more sense over all...like, in every aspect of human life.
 
Wait... so on top of the billions of tax dollars already given the telcos to build their infrastructure... we get to pay them a new tax to do what we already gave them billions to do...

Got it.

In the words of George W. Bush: "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."
 
TheWeazmeister said:
LOL, right.

US-national-debt-GDP.png


Wait, no that couldn't quite POSSIBLY be correct...
Click to expand...

Since the HOUSE controls the budget, plot that vs. who controlled the HOUSE.
 
BTW, Reagan's revenue increases outstripped the money spent on rebuilding our military to end the Cold War (peace dividend anyone?). The increase under Reagan was primarily the Democrat controlled HOUSE.
 
As for the original post, money raised for purpose X goes towards purpose X for about year maybe two if you're lucky. Just look at the box full of IOU's that is the Social Security trust fund.
 
so all those other extra fees i get charged for internet isnt taxes??
 
iansilv said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you think it is worth it, then perhaps you should start a charity and raise money that way. Stealing money from one group of people to give to another is wrong, no matter how you phrase it. You wouldn't (I hope) break into your neighbor's house and steal their jewelery to feed homeless people on the street and the only difference here is that you do it by the proxy of the state.

octoberasian said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. Just...No. The last thing we need is for the government to have even more control of the internet. They have already demonstrated that they will spy on and censor people at any given opportunity and now you want them to become the ISP?

The problem is that the state uses coercive force to grant illegitimate monopolies to utility companies. The solution is to eliminate those monopolies in favor of a free market system that fosters competition and gives a choice of ISPs to people.
 
damicatz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ditto 100%!!
 
sfsuphysics said:
Yeah but the differences is all that shit isn't a luxury, high speed internet is.

My biggest gripe with this is this is going to be a "fee" (so they can skirt the tax word) that will create a huge pot of gold that when the time is right (i.e. they feel like it) a large TelCo that already has billions in assets can go stick their fingers in the pot to take some money to build at what they think it should cost (regardless of the reality of it) then on top of that profit off those they actually connect to.

The sad thing about this, is that if they would simply charge for "the last mile" they probably could get around needing to tack on a fee. If I have a rural home that's far from the electrical lines I don't get electricity unless I pay for it to be brought to my property. There are no laws or requirements that everyone gets electricity hooked up, and this is something that's pretty damn fundamental. Yet for some reason high speed internet is?
Click to expand...

Agree with this 100%. Just like a housing developer is expected to provide certain basic functions beyond the municipality to integrate, the same could and should be done on the high speed internet front. If you don't think that high speed internet is needed in our future endeavors, there is nothing that I can say that will change your mind, but if on the "off chance" that high speed internet will lead to more innovation, more education, more etc etc and the betterment of our society...Is the plan great as is? Absolutely not, the idea of applying the same level of expectation for ISPs that we do of other providers seems reasonable to me, but infrastructure MUST be addressed in this country.
 
It's only feasible for companies to invest in infrastructure in areas with high population density. It seems to me that those people who live in BFE nowhere would be better off with some kind of wireless thing. Running copper all the way to their houses from the nearest junction is a waste of resources. Satellite internet seems like the most logical choice from a capital cost perspective.
 
FndTheRver said:
It's only feasible for companies to invest in infrastructure in areas with high population density. It seems to me that those people who live in BFE nowhere would be better off with some kind of wireless thing. Running copper all the way to their houses from the nearest junction is a waste of resources. Satellite internet seems like the most logical choice from a capital cost perspective.
Click to expand...

Launching satellites are cheaper than running a line to someone's house? :-P

But I know what you mean - use existing internet satellites.
 
How about less taxes and being comically bad with how they are spent? Hmmm. Nah. Doesn't help the corporations.
 
JoeUser said:
www.TheVenusProject.com/

This would solve ALL of our problems!

If only it were possible...too many greedy and thickheaded people in this world. It is truly sad if you really think about it.

Unless things change sooner rather than later and better rather than worse we're all doomed. This is just a fact of life. Sure there will still be "civilization" but the human spirit and drive will be gone once everything is run by corporations and the government is merely a shadow of its formal self with no real power left.

The simple answer to all our problems is technology and just the want for the well being of everyone. Not for profit or some ulterior motive, mind you, but just because helping one another is just the right thing to do. If everyone gave a damn about one another because we're all human beings and equal would that not dramatically change everything for the better?

We also need to expand and improve technology for it is our only one true savior. Imagine nonpolluting renewable resource that power the entire planet. Imagine plentiful amounts of clean, fresh food for every man, woman, and child in every continent on the earth. Imagine schooling and college being completely free for anyone with no closed doors on what you can do. Technology can provide anything and everything that you need if we would actually USE it for the common good instead of trying to profit off of it, patent it, restricted use to it, etc.

The Venus Projects' premise may not be perfect in every way shape and form, but damn does it make a lot more sense over all...like, in every aspect of human life.
Click to expand...

The entire hinging lynchpin of the Venus project rests on the resource based economy. There is nothing in their thesis that lists what the resource based economy does, how it has to be achieved, who shares in those resources or how they are distributed and by whom. As soon as that fundamental idea gets fleshed out, then I'll take another look at it.
 
Azhar said:
Launching satellites are cheaper than running a line to someone's house? :-P

But I know what you mean - use existing internet satellites.
Click to expand...

This actually makes the most sense ... the primary downside of the satellites is latency but if people are just using their internet for normal worky type activities and not playing games there is no big issue with latency ... given the size of the US and the population density in some of the problematic areas this would probably be the biggest bang for the buck ;)
 
TheWeazmeister said:
I love this one. So blame Obama when he's in power, but blame Congress when it's Reagan...Got it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...isenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Click to expand...

Urkel had control of the house for 2 years in 08, 09, and 10 until he lost the house. He's still got the senate, but in those two years he had the house and the senate he got nearly nothing passed, much less a budget. Instead they pass continuing resolutions after continuing resolutions to keep the lights on. Republicans have been offering budgets and legislation to get to a budget, but the senate controlled by Harry Reid shoots them down by not even letting them get to the floor of the senate for debate. Reagan at least was able to get budgets passed. Urkel can't even do that when he had both houses.
 
Taldren said:
The FCC has no authority to tax.
Click to expand...

They only have authority to suggest and pass that on to congress to put into legislation. At this current budget stalemate I'm not really worried about whatever the FCC proposes.
 
Azhar said:
Launching satellites are cheaper than running a line to someone's house? :-P
Click to expand...
Micro satellites might be the wave of the future, smaller satellites costing significantly less to put into space (per pound), not sure how useful they'd be for internet, but hey seems like a cheaper alternative than laying cable that might cost $50k per mile (can't go copper, some jaggoff with a chainsaw will see fit to make a killing at the metal scrap yard otherwise)
 
sfsuphysics said:
Micro satellites might be the wave of the future, smaller satellites costing significantly less to put into space (per pound), not sure how useful they'd be for internet, but hey seems like a cheaper alternative than laying cable that might cost $50k per mile (can't go copper, some jaggoff with a chainsaw will see fit to make a killing at the metal scrap yard otherwise)
Click to expand...

Electrify the outside of the copper so that anyone that tries to steal it gets a nice zap.
 
Methadras said:
Urkel had control of the house for 2 years in 08, 09, and 10 until he lost the house. He's still got the senate, but in those two years he had the house and the senate he got nearly nothing passed, much less a budget. Instead they pass continuing resolutions after continuing resolutions to keep the lights on. Republicans have been offering budgets and legislation to get to a budget, but the senate controlled by Harry Reid shoots them down by not even letting them get to the floor of the senate for debate.
Click to expand...
Seem to recall another factoid is that the republicans have invoked the filibuster a record number of times while they had "no power". So it's a little more than the cut and dry "dems held both congress and the white house"
 
damicatz said:
Electrify the outside of the copper so that anyone that tries to steal it gets a nice zap.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make a difference, they'll use a truck to rip down the poles that have said lines, they've done it with electrical lines in the past, granted occasionally someone does get electrocuted but IMO not enough to curb the crime.
 
TheWeazmeister said:
LOL, right.

US-national-debt-GDP.png


Wait, no that couldn't quite POSSIBLY be correct...
Click to expand...

The eternal disgrace of the Republican Party is that they're as much fans of big government as Democrats. The GOP just prefers to borrow-and-spend vs. the Democrat's tax-and-spend.

Private companies will get internet to everyone eventually, without taxes. And, those taxes will last forever, even when internet access is universally available.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Seem to recall another factoid is that the republicans have invoked the filibuster a record number of times while they had "no power". So it's a little more than the cut and dry "dems held both congress and the white house"
Click to expand...

Those filibusters were used in general protest against democrats for their failure to pass any number of budget resolutions over the past 3.5 years. They can't and couldn't pass a damn thing even after filibustering. Filibusters aren't some long lasting process. Even Urkelcare was passed on a weekend in the middle of the night, regardless of the overt bribery to Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska getting the 60th vote and getting cloture. Politics is a fickle female, and while he devil is in the details, the over reaching arc of who is in charge vs. what they've gotten done or not gotten done cannot be ignored.
 
Methadras said:
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?
Click to expand...

Dialup is insufficient for today's Internet. And, people who live in the country often have low-quality phone service, making dialup service even worse.

Anyway, this internet service tax would mostly be used to help poor city dwellers get free internet rather than getting a job to pay for the internet, or inconveniencing themselves to go somewhere with free internet.
 
Looks like we need to hit 120% debt (ie: rock bottom) then everything will be gravy for the next 40 years.

p.s. you can't just put an "if" into a graph like that, ignoring all of the massive economical changes the world underwent from 1975-2012 (such as say...computers and stuff?)
 
DejaWiz said:
Taxation can only be implemented with representation.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter anymore. If a tax is illegal, they can call it a fee or something else. Look at what they did with Obamacare.

I just call it B.S.
 
Methadras said:
The entire hinging lynchpin of the Venus project rests on the resource based economy. There is nothing in their thesis that lists what the resource based economy does, how it has to be achieved, who shares in those resources or how they are distributed and by whom. As soon as that fundamental idea gets fleshed out, then I'll take another look at it.
Click to expand...

All of your questions are answer in their new video.

http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy

There, that was simple enough...
 
To quote the last few sentence of the link I sent:

Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.
Click to expand...

Tru dat.
 
TheWeazmeister said:
LOL, right.

US-national-debt-GDP.png


Wait, no that couldn't quite POSSIBLY be correct...
Click to expand...

Funny that when you consider who was in control of congress (the people who actually create the bills and spend your tax dollars, you come to a completely different conclusion.

Under Reagan and Bush 1 it was the Decomcrats in charge. The chart levels out but then starts to go up again under Clinton's first 2 years (Democrats in charge of Congress), then it declines the next 6 when the Republicans where finally in charge.

The chart start to rise again (although much slower than during the 80's) during Bush's first 6 years (Republicans still in charge of Congress), but then shoots up sharply in his last 2 years, when the Democrats where in charge of Congress. We see what happened in the next 2 years with the Democrats in charge of everything, and of couse with the Democrats still in charge of the Senate nothing has changed yet.
 
You know..........you can call it feces, you can call it crap, but it's all stinks the same. The Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. We're screwed in this two-party system.
 
I would gladly pay the tax with some caveats.

First, the internet access would have to be unlimited.

Second, i get to decide what is fast, not the provider. Unless it's Google, (1 Gbps is ok in my book)

Third, the service has to be abide by a strict Network Neutrality policy.
 
As a brit I have no stake in this but seriously, If you want internet throughout your country with fair pricing, then you need to cut the monopoly crap these private corporations have on your infrastructure. Say whatever you want about privatising other things but imho, your infrastructure should always be owned by the state, not some money grubbing corp who has no problem jacking up prices to £50/GB. Ultimately, capitalism doesn't benefit the consumer when the 'competing' companies have no problem overcharging as a sort of silent agreement.

Finally: You don't need a constant flat out tax to run it with the government either, you simply pay a government body of some sort just like you pay Comcast or whatever now, in the ideal world it would be optional. I'm not saying this would be easy to implement or change, but frankly It's how It should have been done in the first place imo. The amount that internet providers charge in some places is such that your government could profit off of your payments (while still being cheaper) and then invest further into infrastructure for other places naturally.
 
JoeUser said:
All of your questions are answer in their new video.

http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy

There, that was simple enough...
Click to expand...

Got it. Watched it. Understood it. In essence a resource based economy would set up a meritorious technocratic collective, by which the competent drive the economy of the resources of a given 'island' of resources to set up as they best see fit to fit within the domain of the area they wish to live in. Food, water, wood, resources, etc. are all surveyed and cataloged and a plan to develop a society around those resources is developed, worked out, and executed. Eventually those functions would be ceded to an app that would handle and manage said resources (I'm just extending a possible logic extension here).

In essence what I'm seeing here is that the venus project is merely Civilization 5 in real time.
 
JoeUser said:
To quote the last few sentence of the link I sent:

Tru dat.
Click to expand...

Money is no different than any natural resource. As long as confidence exists for a given currency, it will always have a value. Whether it's paper, gold, feathers, water, whatever.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Micro satellites might be the wave of the future, smaller satellites costing significantly less to put into space (per pound), not sure how useful they'd be for internet, but hey seems like a cheaper alternative than laying cable that might cost $50k per mile (can't go copper, some jaggoff with a chainsaw will see fit to make a killing at the metal scrap yard otherwise)
Click to expand...

Its the last mile fiber that prevents most cities lacking proper broadband from getting it though.

Right now the best option anyone lacking broadband has is future LTE development. LTE can setup in very remote places and with a repeating system its much cheaper to deploy , it only requires fiber at the main site as well.

Wireless will be the true option for people stuck in the boonies in the future.
 
Methadras said:
Got it. Watched it. Understood it. In essence a resource based economy would set up a meritorious technocratic collective, by which the competent drive the economy of the resources of a given 'island' of resources to set up as they best see fit to fit within the domain of the area they wish to live in. Food, water, wood, resources, etc. are all surveyed and cataloged and a plan to develop a society around those resources is developed, worked out, and executed. Eventually those functions would be ceded to an app that would handle and manage said resources (I'm just extending a possible logic extension here).

In essence what I'm seeing here is that the venus project is merely Civilization 5 in real time.
Click to expand...

Works in Civ 5 doesn't it? :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top