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

[kbrickley]

So, explain how community internet services can offer much faster speeds at much lower costs without relying on cable, and still pay for themselves?

A community internet service can leverage tax funds from all members of the community (regardless of whether they use the service) to fund the installation of the infrastructure (a private company must pay to install the infrastructure up front and recover the money over time) ... a community can also require some level of mandatory subscription (like all home are connected to the city sewer and water system and pay for that access) which a private company doesn't have (even if they are the only provider, not everyone converts to their service) ... and as already mentioned, a community service must be non-profit (as government services are not allowed to make profits) where a private service must make profits (whether they are publically or privately owned)

 

[/dev/null]

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?

You think they they use taxes to actually fix/run things? HAHAHAHAHA.

Our state income taxed got raised 67% 2 years ago. 67%!! And the state has more debt than it did then!!

I've also had property tax go up 30% in 5 years.

Last year my city raised sales tax another 0.5% because of a lack of funds(!!!!)

 

[/dev/null]

No edit button: The toll-road I use every day had tolls increased 87% OVERNIGHT. 87% And now they want more taxes?

LOL

 

[Autopia]

The FCC isn't a private entity.

But under Title II, the FCC does NOT take over the utility it regulates. It simply gets more power to regulate it. The utility is still owned, controlled and operated by the private company it currently belongs to.

so the government doesn't completely take over the business just tells it what it can and can't do. so then when a company wants to offer new products who allows this to happen, does the company have to go to the FCC then local governments apply for permission to offer new products? how about price changes? does the company have the ability upgrade it's infrastructure without asking for permission?

 

[Stiletto]

Weird. Almost like, as some of us have been saying for years now, that giving the government more control over the internet is a bad fucking idea.

 

[TwistedAegis]

People can't tell the difference between regulation and ownership, this is why we can't get anything done when people don't understand the basics.

 

[redrage]

Weird. Almost like, as some of us have been saying for years now, that giving the government more control over the internet is a bad fucking idea.

This

 

[TwistedAegis]

Look how poorly it turned out for landline phone service!

 

[Autopia]

Weird. Almost like, as some of us have been saying for years now, that giving the government more control over the internet is a bad fucking idea.

Ill tell you whats scary there a more people that think having the government take over is good than people like myself that think it's bad. makes me think that people feel powerless

 

[kbrickley]

People can't tell the difference between regulation and ownership, this is why we can't get anything done when people don't understand the basics.

Often the government can't tell the difference either, which is why some folks are skeptical about increasing government oversight and regulations

 

[TwistedAegis]

Right, then let's talk about that issue, which I can agree is a valid one and is a big issue in banking right now. But honestly, at this point, it's what giant entity do you want to be fucked by? The companies are big enough and rich enough it doesn't make much difference either way, they'll just "speak" with their congressperson with millions of dollars and it'll go their way anyway.

 

[Retronym]

People can't tell the difference between regulation and ownership, this is why we can't get anything done when people don't understand the basics.

The owner of a server should be able to run it as they see fit. That's why the reference to property was made. Its not lost on me that a regulated server still belongs to a private entity. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

 

[TwistedAegis]

Wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you. The problem lies in that the owner of the server does not own the means of transmission to the end client; even the owner of the transmission lines must pass through public property and is given certain preferences due to this.

 

[Retronym]

It makes no sense that the owner of a transmission line would have their contract with the ISP conditional to the relationship between the ISP and a third party on another contract.

Contract A: Transmission line owner and ISP

Contract B: ISP and internet user

This is one reason why public ownership of property is illegitimate.

 

[Autopia]

Right, then let's talk about that issue, which I can agree is a valid one and is a big issue in banking right now. But honestly, at this point, it's what giant entity do you want to be fucked by? The companies are big enough and rich enough it doesn't make much difference either way, they'll just "speak" with their congressperson with millions of dollars and it'll go their way anyway.

the issue just isn't the companies, it is both the governemtn and the companies, companies can walk in and give cash to legislatures then companies get what they want (legislatures call this lobbying). I assume you feel this is good, i on the other hand dont think this is good, yet it happens. the only way things work is if there were people with character in legislatures. I personal think, is if we keep one away from the other in this case the government away from companies then we the people can fix things but using our pocket books (money) picking wireless, hopefully with enough time google fiber, but once the ISP become a public utility you freeze anyone else from entering into an area to offer services to the people.

 

[dandragonrage]

the issue just isn't the companies, it is both the governemtn and the companies, companies can walk in and give cash to legislatures then companies get what they want (legislatures call this lobbying). I assume you feel this is good, i on the other hand dont think this is good, yet it happens. the only way things work is if there were people with character in legislatures. I personal think, is if we keep one away from the other in this case the government away from companies then we the people can fix things but using our pocket books (money) picking wireless, hopefully with enough time google fiber, but once the ISP become a public utility you freeze anyone else from entering into an area to offer services to the people.

Wow. Still thinks that the government is looking to do a complete takeover of the internet.

Some people just refuse to let their misconceptions be corrected no matter how much you simplify things for them.

 

[Autopia]

Wow. Still thinks that the government is looking to do a complete takeover of the internet.

Some people just refuse to let their misconceptions be corrected no matter how much you simplify things for them.

wow you still refuse to answer questions the only thing you have been able to offer is a snotty response, typical elitist.

 

[spintroniX]

Wow. Still thinks that the government is looking to do a complete takeover of the internet.

Some people just refuse to let their misconceptions be corrected no matter how much you simplify things for them.

what makes you think they don't want to take over the internet? Because that's something only other countries do? Because they said that's not what they want, and would never lie?

what are you basing that on? why WOULDN'T the government want to takeover the internet, given all that we have learned in the last few years?

 

[dandragonrage]

Why, by that reasoning, wouldn't the government want to take over the phone companies and cable, too? Because they don't need to. They already have access to just about everything and they can already spy on your traffic as well as access much of your data for US-based services and in many cases non-US-based services. It is not a small step to go from what is proposed to what you are talking about. In fact the proposed steps are a very small fraction of the work needed for a complete takeover. They don't need to do a complete takeover and it's not in their best interests, even when you consider that their best interests are usually not the same as ours.

I will say that the most important reform would be to drop the stupid regulations (such as exclusivity contracts and other stuff that prevents competition) but what is being proposed here is not unreasonable. If they don't dump the other, more stupid regulations, the situation is still going to suck overall, yes.

 

[Autopia]

Why, by that reasoning, wouldn't the government want to take over the phone companies and cable, too? Because they don't need to. They already have access to just about everything and they can already spy on your traffic as well as access much of your data for US-based services and in many cases non-US-based services. It is not a small step to go from what is proposed to what you are talking about. In fact the proposed steps are a very small fraction of the work needed for a complete takeover. They don't need to do a complete takeover and it's not in their best interests, even when you consider that their best interests are usually not the same as ours.

I will say that the most important reform would be to drop the stupid regulations (such as exclusivity contracts and other stuff that prevents competition) but what is being proposed here is not unreasonable. If they don't dump the other, more stupid regulations, the situation is still going to suck overall, yes.

it is in the best interest to control more of what is being done and that is natural progression of things. so the government can see what we are doing big deal, that's not enough, in this case they will use the public utilities model, the company keeps the name ceo board members so on BUT they have no say in what they can and can't do the government does. so lets say they want to control speech they don't like, what better way to do so, it is a public utility the company and the people have no say in what happen only a bureaucrat does, what we have here is a frog and the government wants to cook it. someone else put it great we are still paying for wwII in taxes the government never eliminates anything they continue to take over more and more.

 

[McFry]

what makes you think they don't want to take over the internet? Because that's something only other countries do? Because they said that's not what they want, and would never lie?

what are you basing that on? why WOULDN'T the government want to takeover the internet, given all that we have learned in the last few years?

Uh because that's not how our country is run & we have no history of doing this. Dont compare the USA to 3rd world nations.

 

[JMccovery]

what makes you think they don't want to take over the internet? Because that's something only other countries do? Because they said that's not what they want, and would never lie?

what are you basing that on? why WOULDN'T the government want to takeover the internet, given all that we have learned in the last few years?

Because they don't NEED to 'take it over' for what they have been doing. Why take it over, when ISPs will give them what they want? All that needs to happen is the dog-and-pony show where the ISP publicly says "no".

I don't post all that often on here, but that post drug me out of my lurking cave.

 

[Autopia]

Uh because that's not how our country is run & we have no history of doing this. Dont compare the USA to 3rd world nations.

in light of what has happen in the last 15 years I would say your wrong (NSA spying on everyone, IRS auditing groups) like of hate those groups they still have the freedom to say what ever they want. we may not have a history but at the rate things are going now those because they want to protect the public will take over anything. lets not forget that if it becomes a title II public service that gives the president the powers to shut it off in a time of war, so the question is now, has the war on terror ended? this president may not do it but what about the next one, each new person pushes the limits of abuse more then the previous one. history proves that!

 

[Ultima99]

You both seem to assume that there is no waste in the budgets and that more spending on roads would require tax increases.

NY has some of the highest gas, income, property & sales taxes in the country, not to mention more fees and hidden taxes than you can shake a stick at, and yet the roads are some of the worst in the nation.

You seem to assume that you can come up with some unfounded assumptions about my viewpoints which really just shows your political bias. Of course there is waste, and tons of it.

I said nothing about waste or lack thereof. In fact I was clearly referring to the federal government and you proceed to complain about New York. If I were to try I'm sure I could pick a state that has fairly low fees and taxes and infrastructure that isn't so bad, but again my comments weren't about the state level. The truth is that you probably live in NY which is very liberal and you have an axe to grind. Good for you.

Fact is the gas tax has been raised in 20 years while we've undeniably had inflation.

There is even some Republican support for raising it now: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/228986-momentum-seen-in-push-for-gas-tax-hike

Again, spending on infrastructure is an investment, in ourselves, in America. Any conservative or Republican who doesn't understand this has lost their way as much as the liberal/Democrats who think its OK to legislate that a 20 oz coke is illegal or that McDonalds can't give out toys in happy meals.

 

[Ultima99]

Hasn't been raised in 20 years.

Damn no edit.

 

[nilepez]

You seem to assume that you can come up with some unfounded assumptions about my viewpoints which really just shows your political bias. Of course there is waste, and tons of it.

I said nothing about waste or lack thereof. In fact I was clearly referring to the federal government and you proceed to complain about New York. If I were to try I'm sure I could pick a state that has fairly low fees and taxes and infrastructure that isn't so bad, but again my comments weren't about the state level. The truth is that you probably live in NY which is very liberal and you have an axe to grind. Good for you.

Fact is the gas tax has been raised in 20 years while we've undeniably had inflation.

There is even some Republican support for raising it now: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/228986-momentum-seen-in-push-for-gas-tax-hike

Again, spending on infrastructure is an investment, in ourselves, in America. Any conservative or Republican who doesn't understand this has lost their way as much as the liberal/Democrats who think its OK to legislate that a 20 oz coke is illegal or that McDonalds can't give out toys in happy meals.

On infrastructure, you're absolutely correct. Good roads, and mass transit are investments in our future.

I'm not sure about 20 oz cokes, but on the drinks in Theaters, the only reason they're so ridiculously large is because they charge so much. I'll add that when they offered 16oz bottles for a buck, I bought the smaller size. It looks like they've largely been phased out. 12 oz cans have been priced to a point where most will buy the bigger size. It's an intentional move, because the cost of carbonated sugar water is very low. Note: I drink a lot of them. Once when I was in DC, I went in a store and they had it priced so that a 24oz bottle was your most likely buy. 30 years ago, a 10oz bottle was my most common purchase.

I'm not going to agree with legislation in NYC, even if I agree with its goals, but there is a problem and part of it is the way sodas are marketed and sold.

As for Happy Meals, I suspect the issue is when toys from movies and TV shows are used to drive sales of those meals. If they were just a generic toy, I don't think there'd be any issue at all. But if you have a fast food chain tied in with Frozen, for example, there's only so long a parent's going to hold out. Note that I have no idea if any Frozen toy was marketed in a kids meal, but I recall it for other movies.

I could even see having the toys from Frozen, just say no advertising outside of the 4 walls of the store. That won't work though, because McD or BK wants to drive sales and Disney want's to keep Frozen on every kids mind and hopes that the Fast Food ads will drive more movie/video sales as well as toys and costumes.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but an outright ban probably isn't it. Then again, if NYC's ban lasts, then you may have a case study to see what happens. nothing will change with soda in theaters and restaurants (they'll provide free refills), but I'd be interested to see the impact of the the fast food move. It's an interesting experiment, even if you disagree with the law.

 

[Autopia]

You seem to assume that you can come up with some unfounded assumptions about my viewpoints which really just shows your political bias. Of course there is waste, and tons of it.

I said nothing about waste or lack thereof. In fact I was clearly referring to the federal government and you proceed to complain about New York. If I were to try I'm sure I could pick a state that has fairly low fees and taxes and infrastructure that isn't so bad, but again my comments weren't about the state level. The truth is that you probably live in NY which is very liberal and you have an axe to grind. Good for you.

Fact is the gas tax has been raised in 20 years while we've undeniably had inflation.

There is even some Republican support for raising it now: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/228986-momentum-seen-in-push-for-gas-tax-hike

Again, spending on infrastructure is an investment, in ourselves, in America. Any conservative or Republican who doesn't understand this has lost their way as much as the liberal/Democrats who think its OK to legislate that a 20 oz coke is illegal or that McDonalds can't give out toys in happy meals.

everyone wants a piece of something I have very little of, so you say 18 cents big deal, but then you add another 30 cents at the local and state level, increase sales tax to pay for schools and roads both local and state and now there is a problem, wages stagnant but the government doesn't care they force everyone to give more out of the abundance of their pathetic hearts.

 

[nilepez]

everyone wants a piece of something I have very little of, so you say 18 cents big deal, but then you add another 30 cents at the local and state level, increase sales tax to pay for schools and roads both local and state and now there is a problem, wages stagnant but the government doesn't care they force everyone to give more out of the abundance of their pathetic hearts.

This is why bridges crumble.

 

[Deleted member 204526]

Ill tell you whats scary there a more people that think having the government take over is good than people like myself that think it's bad. makes me think that people feel powerless

A lot of people—more every day it seems—just want to be taken care of in all things by the government. I really do think these sorts would be happy being one of the fat, lazy, worry-free people from WALL·E.

I enjoy all the hurdles life throws at me and having to find a way to deal with it myself. It's like a puzzle game writ large. I think most people who want the government off their backs and out of their wallets are problem-solvers by nature.

 

[Deleted member 204526]

everyone wants a piece of something I have very little of, so you say 18 cents big deal, but then you add another 30 cents at the local and state level, increase sales tax to pay for schools and roads both local and state and now there is a problem, wages stagnant but the government doesn't care they force everyone to give more out of the abundance of their pathetic hearts.

Think about all the things the things over the years the left has wished the government to fund. If they were given everything they wanted, it would quickly crush the cost of those two wars they constantly harp about. Their foolish belief is that if you cut all military spending and tax the bejesus out of everyone of means, all their Utopian dreams could be fulfilled.

 

[nilepez]

Think about all the things the things over the years the left has wished the government to fund. If they were given everything they wanted, it would quickly crush the cost of those two wars they constantly harp about. Their foolish belief is that if you cut all military spending and tax the bejesus out of everyone of means, all their Utopian dreams could be fulfilled.

I think people bitch, because military spending went from 300 million to almost 700 million in the span of 10 years. The peak was almost 6x-10x (in real/inflation adjusted dollars) over what we spent in the 70s. After the cold war, spending (again, in inflation adjusted dollars) held steady from 86 (Reagan) through Bush and Clinton. It fluctuated, but it was mostly 280-310 million through Clinton's last budget (FY 2001).

As for taxes, unless you're making a shitload, the Feds aren't taxing you that much. Most are paying under 20% income tax.

 

[Jagger100]

Because they don't NEED to 'take it over' for what they have been doing. Why take it over, when ISPs will give them what they want? All that needs to happen is the dog-and-pony show where the ISP publicly says "no".

I don't post all that often on here, but that post drug me out of my lurking cave.

You realized ISPs were likely pressured and gagged by they government. Anyone remember the guy who shut down his mail service rather than play along. But most are public are businesses after all, so they will play along rather than go out of business.

Why take over a company when you can turn a company into a marionette of the government regulations and hidden legal pressure. At the same time publicly they are perceived as separate enough to take a share of the heat.

 

[Jagger100]

I think people bitch, because military spending went from 300 million to almost 700 million in the span of 10 years. The peak was almost 6x-10x (in real/inflation adjusted dollars) over what we spent in the 70s. After the cold war, spending (again, in inflation adjusted dollars) held steady from 86 (Reagan) through Bush and Clinton. It fluctuated, but it was mostly 280-310 million through Clinton's last budget (FY 2001).

As for taxes, unless you're making a shitload, the Feds aren't taxing you that much. Most are paying under 20% income tax.

The problem with those numbers is the creative accounting people use to misrepresent the cost of the military. The first one is typically a disproportional assignment of the historic debt and therefore debt payment to the military.

The other is social services assigned to the military like veteran's benefits and the VA which have gone up in cost for the same reason Social Security and Medicare payouts have gone up, people are living longer. Also we could never buy another bullet and we would never cut vets off from their benefits. If we did cut them off, they would end up drawing on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid anyway. So when those expenses are considered part of Defense spending I just shake my head and when they are included to misrepresent our current level of defense investment

Also its real easy for a President to consume military resources and not seek to replace them. Makes your budgets look good. Leaving the depletion to be a problem for the next President. Our military activity in the 90's was not zero and avoiding troops on the ground with aerial bombings and various flavors of cruise missiles is freaking expensive.

 

[Autopia]

reading all this I thought of something, those who advocate increasing taxes for a better internet, lets say the government gets what they want. think of this soon you will be paying again higher price for gas to fix roads, you know the feds aren't going to be the only ones that want a little piece of that pie, so the local and state governments will increase lets say a dime, then you have ISP taxes whats that 5-10 more, lets not forget insurance everyone by law has to have that crap, thats going up another 40-50 again wages are stagnant so where does someone like myself come up with another, I'll round this up to 75 a month for all this crap? I think those that want this crap should be forced to pay more, and I bet you won't just like you never answer the question people post here.

 

[Ultima99]

reading all this I thought of something, those who advocate increasing taxes for a better internet, lets say the government gets what they want. think of this soon you will be paying again higher price for gas to fix roads, you know the feds aren't going to be the only ones that want a little piece of that pie, so the local and state governments will increase lets say a dime, then you have ISP taxes whats that 5-10 more, lets not forget insurance everyone by law has to have that crap, thats going up another 40-50 again wages are stagnant so where does someone like myself come up with another, I'll round this up to 75 a month for all this crap? I think those that want this crap should be forced to pay more, and I bet you won't just like you never answer the question people post here.

Thing is sometimes companies go beyond a healthy desire for profit and become the anathema of things I'm sure you tout such as free market, and capitalism. Well it just so happens we're talking about cable companies/ISP's. Guess what kinds of companies these are? The ones that will conspire to create oligarchies with little to no real competition, do everything they can including buying politicians to prevent real entrepreneurs (the ones you should really be supporting) from going into competition with them thus greatly harming the free market, their own customers (the American people), technological progress (which hurts America as a whole), and ultimately themselves. Thus I have less fear about some new taxation and government classification of Internet as a utility than I do letting Comcast and co run wild.

 

[Semantics]

Love how people here think ISPs work under any sort of free market. One thing that's been said again and again about the idea of comcast time warner buyout is that they don't compete with each other because they already have regional monopolies.

 

[rudy]

ISPs do not have a completely free market but they are subject to several of the realities of a free market.

You can choose not to buy cable.
You can choose to go with a crappy competitor like DSL or even 56k
You can use cell service instead.

All of these limitations while not that great at least put a sort of limit on ISPs for what customers will put up with. If the government takes over and limits everyone to one choice and even rolls that into taxes you will have no choice. And the other thing is that due to it probably being rolled into something like property taxes you might easily not even realize that people on average are paying way more than what they were before.

I know of one town in MI that runs municipal cable, Wyandotte. I looked over their prices and plans and it looked really close to what Comcast charges. It seems when government takes over all that happens is the profits are shifted from some executives over to the buddies of some politician or simply flushed down the toilet in the form of waste.

This is why Americans are scared, I mean we already blame the ISP monopolies on the government why do we think it will get better when the same people who enabled the monopolies run the internet?

 

[dandragonrage]

I don't know a single person that considers DSL, cellular internet or no internet even remotely acceptable. You're being ridiculous, rudy.

 

[Autopia]

I don't know a single person that considers DSL, cellular internet or no internet even remotely acceptable. You're being ridiculous, rudy.

he says they are crappy

 

[dandragonrage]

he says they are crappy

Right, but he still seems to think that they are a viable option. Lots of people can't even get DSL, either. Even though it is not as bad as it used to be, you still need to be WAY too close to the telco for DSL to work. In most of the places I've lived, only crappy IDSL was available. Not acceptable.