If The Internet Becomes A Public Utility, You’ll Pay More Taxes

Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
570
Corporations have to compete with each other for your dollar in a free market. They are accountable to their customers. Government has no competition and thus has no accountability.

I can petition the government and vote for new leadership. I have not such actions with a corporation who's only concerns are to their shareholders. Also, government does have competition, from other governments (disatified people will move and they lose their tax-base) as well as potential private agencies.

Corporations have to compete with each other for your dollar in a free market.

HAHA, did you type that with a straight-face? We are talking about ISPs after all. Competition, hehe, that's gold!
 

magoo

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
14,472
I don't understand why everyone is so against taxes increasing. It's part of life. Do you want to drive on safe roads and bridges? Or would you rather save a dollar a month?

We already pay taxes on gasoline and tires. Not to mention state income tax, or tolls.
The citizens who use the roads essentially pay for them with those taxes.

There's already a budget for roads and bridges, which increases yearly. I don't want an additional tax for the same roads and bridges.
Do you have toll roads? Those tolls are on top of your gasoline taxes and income tax.
What about an E-Z Pass or whatever they call it where you live?
What about car inspections?
Added taxes on your car insurance?

There would be a giant cluster-fuck in Washington to see which department the Internet taxes would fall under so they could hire a thousand new beaurocrats and spend every fucking dime on meetings and rules.

Nothing would improve and nothing would change, in fact it the internet would be more regulated and less effective. How would you feel about your deadbeat neighbor getting his feed for free because he's "unemployed" and you now pay twice as much?
 

OP20

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
354
I can petition the government and vote for new leadership. I have not such actions with a corporation who's only concerns are to their shareholders. Also, government does have competition, from other governments (disatified people will move and they lose their tax-base) as well as potential private agencies.



HAHA, did you type that with a straight-face? We are talking about ISPs after all. Competition, hehe, that's gold!

Government doesnt have a high turn over rate. Most people dont pay attention and so the same people stay in power for long periods of time.

Isp's have monopolies because of government regulation. They controll the government and right there own rules keeping potential competition put of the market.
 

ROTO

n00b
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
25
great article and all if you like to eat stupid as a rule, states CANNOT impose taxes on the internet in that way, period, so go ahead and discuss your stupids all you desire, it isn't gonna happen
 

Chunder

Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
519
Public utilities are generally better kept then private utilities.. Look what happened to Americas landlines, water infrastructure, etc when it went from public to private... Total catastrophe with ever increasing rising prices with more problems occurring all the time now. And the "higher taxes" part is true, but it'll be lower than the bills paid for private utilities... This has been proven time and time again around the world, and our own history.
 

spintroniX

Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
974
I can petition the government and vote for new leadership. I have not such actions with a corporation who's only concerns are to their shareholders. Also, government does have competition, from other governments (disatified people will move and they lose their tax-base) as well as potential private agencies.
!

couple of points here:

1) while you can vote in new faces, nothing fundamentally changes. You can't get as diametrically opposed in rhetoric as george bush vs barack obama, yet there is no practical difference between their presidencies. We still have a monstrous war machine and runaway debt with an acceleration of civil liberties. The democratic theory of governance is obviously invalidated to anybody that looks at the evidence objectively.

2) most functions of government are carried out by bureaucracies with little oversight. Changing the politicians won't matter, because once they pass a law its implementation is beyond their control

3) You can only move with permission from your host country, and your destination country. You will be paying taxes in BOTH countries, then. Besides that, the opposite of being in a zoo isn't being in a different cage... it's NOT being in a zoo.
 

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
17,794
It's is bad as the Feds wanted to TAX low Gas prices the Feds make more off of Gas then the Gas companies do which is just wrong.
 

adrift02

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2006
Messages
467
Is that increase assuming prices stay the same? We're being price gouged so I'd think lower prices will offset that tax increase once it's regulated
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,823
You know, this whole thing with the FCC is turning into "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. :(

I'm not sure who is right on the fee issue, but let's keep in mind that PPI is a largely pro-business think tank and Grover Nordquist is the same nutter that's convinced Republicans that increasing taxes a buck for every 10 in cuts is unacceptable (not that Democrats would ever accept that deal, but that's beside the point).

Definitely something to look out for and it's also something that we could all fight against while fighting for neutrality.
 

/usr/sbin

Successfully Trolled by Megalith
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
3,927
There would be a giant cluster-fuck in Washington to see which department the Internet taxes would fall under so they could hire a thousand new beaurocrats and spend every fucking dime on meetings and rules.

You have a point about Washington being corrupt, but I'd like to frame it a different way. Given the choice I'd rather have a bunch of wasteful twits in charge of ISPs than a group of competent Execs that are out to screw me.


Nothing would improve and nothing would change, in fact it the internet would be more regulated and less effective. How would you feel about your deadbeat neighbor getting his feed for free because he's "unemployed" and you now pay twice as much?

The government could increase real operational costs by 4x, give "free" Internet to the deadbeat next door to you and still save you money. Don't believe me? Internet Profit margins are 97% (before maintenance expenses). Accounting for maintenance expenses margins are above 80%. Would I like to keep the deadbeat from getting "free" Internet, yeah... but if giving it to him also lowers my bill, I'm all for it. Fuck their 80% profit margins.
 

Godmachine

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
10,472
Fine with me. I'll either pay taxes to the Government to keep corporations from charging me taxes for a fast lane connection.

So we're screwed either way. What's the difference?
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
I can petition the government and vote for new leadership. I have not such actions with a corporation who's only concerns are to their shareholders. Also, government does have competition, from other governments (disatified people will move and they lose their tax-base) as well as potential private agencies.

Unless you have the same amount of money those evil corporations have, you will never be able to get your new leadership elected.... :)

I find it pretty easy to take my business elsewhere (to a different corporation) if I don't like a specific company.
As for government, if I'm dissatisfied, it would be very expensive to quit my job, sell my home and move my family away from everyone they know just to try and find a representative that actually cares about the people.
 

twelveparsex

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 30, 2000
Messages
12,955
Corporations have to compete with each other for your dollar in a free market. They are accountable to their customers. Government has no competition and thus has no accountability.

what accountability do monopolies have to their customers like this guy? Pick your poison.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,724
We won't do that, but that is the right model ... it keeps government mostly out of the picture and allows competition (if companies want to compete) on a level playing field

I know the libertarian utopia of everything just working without any rules, regulations, taxes, or well resources sounds enticing, but the reality of it doesn't really match up to reality.

Texas ranks dead last in reliability of power delivery and ranks within the top 5 for the most costly per KWh. So basically you are advocating for the ISP's to suck more.
 

twelveparsex

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 30, 2000
Messages
12,955
Public utility = government monopoly

The way high speed internet is set up in America right now is a monopoly. I lived in Korea for 18 months, when I first moved their my landlord told me internet service is rolled into the rent unless you want to go with a different provider; she gave me a list of 5 but I'd have to pay a small connection fee.
 

mmarsh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
397
Pure scare tactics to frighten the public into giving the Telecoms control of the Internet.

I'd rather pay more taxes than let Comcast and Verizon have total control.
 

CreepyUncleGoogle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
6,871
Taxes are pretty low already and really amazing if you have like some idea of how to manage your money to legally avoid paying some of them so an increase of like say 2-7% isn't a big deal. The problems with tax increases come in when the lower parts of the socio-economic strata who just don't understand and refuse to smartly manage their money get upset because they don't like changes. *shrug* It's the plight of the masses, I guess.
 

mmarsh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
397
Public utility = government monopoly

Government Monopoly like what exactly? Can you actually name an industry the government has a monopoly on? You can't because it doesn't exist.

And the Alternative is what..a CORPORATE Monopoly (which is exact what corporate lobbyists like Norquist want) and its not like we don't have a dark past of corporate monopolies screwing the public do we?

Hint: (AT&T, Standard Oil, DeBeers, US Steel).
 

Autopia

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
246
once the internet becomes a public utility, say good bye ot google fiber, i will become even harder for companies to lay line for an ISP. if you don't believe me think about this, how many telephony companies are in your state, or natural gas companies?
 

Kaitian

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
4,870
We're still fighting World War I because there's still a tax on telephone lines from that era.
 

dandragonrage

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
8,298
This article: "Let me just invent some numbers to make my cause sound good."

None of it is backed up and it simply makes no sense.

Ridiculous.
 

Cerulean

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
9,475
Corporations have to compete with each other for your dollar in a free market. They are accountable to their customers. Government has no competition and thus has no accountability.
Free markets suck. So do competitionless governments. Both result in monopolies. At least at the local municipal level your vote actually counts. What better solution do you suggest OP20?
 

CreepyUncleGoogle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
6,871
Free markets suck. So do competitionless governments. Both result in monopolies. At least at the local municipal level your vote actually counts. What better solution do you suggest OP20?

I don't think governments create monopolies at all. Someone can always just get in their car and drive somewhere else if they don't like where they live (or use a boat or walk -- but most people are too lazy to walk since that like, requires standing up). Instead they moan and groan about how things are so terrible and how everything is awful instead of building their own giant space ark and going away to live on some other planet where they can complain and none of us have to listen to their non-constructive criticisms.
 

redrage

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
503
I don't understand why everyone is so against taxes increasing. It's part of life. Do you want to drive on safe roads and bridges? Or would you rather save a dollar a month?

[ getting Off topic ]
Most are not against taxes.. they're against paying more taxes when there is so much waste and then not receiving the promised services.

when in my home area i pay 60+cents ( 18 cents to fed, rest to state ) per gallon of gas to supposedly keep the roads in decent shape. Yet i have to have my car fixed every summer because of all the pot holes on the road that costs anywhere between $200 - $1000 and this is driving on major routes and interstates.

in '13 about 134billion gallons of gas was consumed in the US so that is at least $24billion to the fed in 2013 in gas tax to "fix the roads"

TL;DR more taxes does not equate to safer roads and bridges. Taxes on Internet does not mean better Internet
 

Autopia

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
246
And we'll get google fiber much faster because of it.

YOU WILL NOT GET GOOGLE FIBER! if you don't believe me think about this, how many telephone companies are in your state, or natural gas companies, water companies? please just answer this question. once internet becomes a public utility you are stuck with what ever company there is in your area.
 

dandragonrage

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
8,298
YOU WILL NOT GET GOOGLE FIBER! if you don't believe me think about this, how many telephone companies are in your state, or natural gas companies, water companies? please just answer this question. once internet becomes a public utility you are stuck with what ever company there is in your area.

Could you just stop? Please, just stop. You've heard of net neutrality and automatically jumped to the assumption that the government wants to completely remove control of ISPs and make it government-controlled but that is not what is proposed. You're preaching to us about something you do not understand.
 

misfitsfiend

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
1,293
What I'm trying to say is that tax increases are virtually inevitable. There's really no sense in trying to fight it, we can only fight WHAT the tax increases are being used for. In this case, I think I would be ok paying a small tax for public gigabit (or similiar, super speed) internet service that is constantly maintained.
 

spintroniX

Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
974
I know the libertarian utopia of everything just working without any rules, regulations, taxes, or well resources sounds enticing, but the reality of it doesn't really match up to reality.

Texas ranks dead last in reliability of power delivery and ranks within the top 5 for the most costly per KWh. So basically you are advocating for the ISP's to suck more.

libertarianism has nothing to do with "no rules, regulations... "

Please learn wtf you are arguing against
 

redrage

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
503
What I'm trying to say is that tax increases are virtually inevitable. There's really no sense in trying to fight it, we can only fight WHAT the tax increases are being used for. In this case, I think I would be ok paying a small tax for public gigabit (or similiar, super speed) internet service that is constantly maintained.

No it is not. taxes can, have and will go down. probably any significant decrease won't in our life time but will not happen as long as spending is out of control better spending is much better than more taxes i think we would agree :)

I work for a government who offers free WiFi to its citizens (there are almost no taxes here), so as far as getting a local government to setup something like fiber.. i would say a big negative to that there is a lot more to it than just getting money and paying people to install it.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,408
Corporations have to compete with each other for your dollar in a free market. They are accountable to their customers. Government has no competition and thus has no accountability.

Except the cable industry as no competition either in most markets. They have carved up the turf between themselves like cartels, so that there is little to no overlap and they operate as virtual monopolies.

They even stated this themselves as their main argument why Comcast and Time Warner Cable should be allowed to merge, as they have little to no overlap in markets, and thus it would have no impact on competition.

I'm all for free markets and competition. True competition leads to the most efficient use of resources, the best services and the best prices.

However, if I had to pick between a corporate monopoly and a public utility, I'd go for the public utility 100% of the time.

I'd rather have incompetent government working for me, than highly competent industry working against me.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,724
libertarianism has nothing to do with "no rules, regulations... "

Please learn wtf you are arguing against

Feel free to educate. I haven't met a libertarian yet where minimal to no government/regulation wasn't apart of the mantra.
 

dandragonrage

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
8,298
Zarathustra[H];1041341639 said:
Except the cable industry as no competition either in most markets. They have carved up the turf between themselves like cartels, so that there is little to no overlap and they operate as virtual monopolies.

They even stated this themselves as their main argument why Comcast and Time Warner Cable should be allowed to merge, as they have little to no overlap in markets, and thus it would have no impact on competition.

Many cities sign agreements with cable companies that the company is to be an exclusive provider in that city. Combine that with regulations that sound good to most people but are actually written by large cable corporations to keep newcomers out - such as regulation that requires cable companies to serve 'poor' areas - something that a new company isn't going to be able to fulfill as well as something which makes no sense as a regulation when scrutinized.

Like I said, Worcester, MA just switched to Comcast. But the thing is... Worcester should have no say in this. There shouldn't be a contract at all. Any company should be able to provide service in any city. Period.

FCC is considering some regulations about this. It is NOT considering making internet a "public utility" and I don't understand why so many people intentionally misunderstand this. There is no push to take over internet service completely and give it to the government. What we are pushing for is regulations for requiring the lines to be shared so new companies can come in and compete without having to run cable everywhere.

Keep in mind that cable wires have not been run by the companies that own them today. They were run over many decades by various companies that have since merged, merged, merged, and further merged. It's not possible for a new company to come in and run lines everywhere to compete with a company that didn't have to run new lines at all. You can't compete against established players where lines were run over such a long period of time.

But hey... you guys can all go ahead and continue to misunderstand and think that we're pushing for "Obamacare for the Internet." Go back to whatever garbage Ted Cruz is telling you today. Nobody else cares.

We need to find some medium between realizing that phone and coaxial cables cannot be monopolized by small amounts of companies that did not build them and companies that really are spending their own money to roll out new lines like Verizon's FIOS. Personally I think that new lines financed privately should be private for a certain amount of time, and should potentially then be subject to regulated line-sharing. Other than that we need to let Capitalism do its job, which involves removing some existing regulation such as the aforementioned poor area BS and exclusivity contracts.

We need more than zero regulation, but in many ways we already have too much regulation. We need new companies to be able to compete.
 

dandragonrage

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
8,298
And it is NOT Capitalistic to allow corps like Comcast and Verizon to charge anyone a fee because there isn't Capitalism to begin with. Capitalism means no stupid regulations (again, providing service to poor areas) that prevent competition. Capitalism means competition. It does not allow for exclusivity contracts. If you have such a contract, you do not have Capitalism.

Anyone against all this BS should be pushing not against the idea of net neutrality, but against these non-Capitalistic regulations.

Imagine that roads were privately built and owned. The company that provides roads in your town signs a deal with Fedex so those packages get to you OK. But then they charge UPS and USPS ridiculous fees because they have no contract. All the while, you are paying fees to them for the roads to be maintained anyway. "Well, I'd just move," you might say. But what if the same company was in charge of nearly the entire country's roads because our government gives them exclusivity contracts nearly everywhere?

I can't understand these Ted Cruz-loving idiots who think that Comcast and Verizon are actually fighting for Capitalism here. Stand down.
 

Dreaz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,656
Whoa, a pro-business organization rallies against government intervention. News at 11.
 
Top