Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Cable Modem Tax Proposed by FCC 625

Posted by simoniker from the more-tax-whacks dept.
TheSync writes "News.Com has an article by Declan McCullagh that says the FCC is considering a new tax of up to 9.1% on the revenue of cable modem providers. This is an expansion of the existing universal service fund, which currently does not apply to cable services. The USF could even be expanded to wireless IP and VOIP providers as well, expanding the fund to over $13 billion."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cable Modem Tax Proposed by FCC More

Cable Modem Tax Proposed by FCC

Comments Filter:

  • Universal Service Fund (Score:5, Informative)

    by frieked ( 187664 ) * on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:14PM (#6153196) Homepage Journal
    Well, I can't really say that this surprises me and as much as it may suck that my cable bill would go up, at least the money is going to some somewhat good causes:

    About 85 percent of the fund's revenues are split between two causes: the "e-rate" program (40 percent), which subsidizes school and library Internet connections, and rural telephone companies (45 percent), which might otherwise end up paying more for telephone service than city dwellers. The remaining 15 percent goes toward discounts to low-income subscribers and funds rural health care.

    • Re:Universal Service Fund (Score:5, Insightful)

      by barkerway ( 671945 ) * on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:22PM (#6153301)
      Why should rural dwellers get help from the rest of us on paying for their phone connection? Living in rural areas has both advantages and costs. You get the advantages of clean air, uncrowded living, etc., you should also pay the costs if it's a little more expensive to string a phone line out to your place...

      • Re:Universal Service Fund (Score:5, Interesting)

        by lynx_user_abroad ( 323975 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:42PM (#6153544) Homepage Journal
        Why should rural dwellers get help from the rest of us on paying for their phone connection?

        Because of network effects. When you add a customer (either urban or rural) to the telephone network, the network becomes that much more functional for all customers, both urban and rural.

        Did you ever consider that the investment needed to get phone service to "the rest of us" urban dwellers would never have been made (would never have made sense) without the promise of Universal Phone Service to make it also useful for rural dwellers.

        It took the better part of century to convince businesses that enough people would have a telephone that it makes sense to have your business directly accessible by phone. How long did it take for everybody and his brother to have a web site? Seems to me like nobody had heard about the Internet prior to 1993, and everybody was on the web by 1998. Network effects.

      • Re:Universal Service Fund (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @03:25PM (#6154065) Journal
        Same reason there's a special Second Class postage rate for newspapers. Same reason postage is the same to cabins in Idaho as it is to the Memphis airport. Communications holds a country together. Isolation can breed separatism.

    • Re:Universal Service Fund (Score:5, Interesting)

      by molo ( 94384 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:26PM (#6153352) Journal
      Can someone tell me what a FCC telephone usage tax has to do with rural health care? How does the FCC have any authorization to do that?

      -molo

      • Re:Universal Service Fund (Score:5, Informative)

        by srvivn21 ( 410280 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:44PM (#6153570)
        It's called tele-health. Video teleconferencing so you can have one doctor covering a few hundred (or thousand) square miles. Internect connections fast enough to send X-Ray scans and digital pictures. Telephones so you can confer with specialists.

        It's not about paying for the medical workers or supplies. Hope this doesn't come across too short and/or abrasive. There's a lot of misinformation, and I'm spreading myself thin...

    • Rearden Broadband? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by scoove ( 71173 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:28PM (#6153387)
      Well, I can't really say that this surprises me and as much as it may suck that my cable bill would go up, at least the money is going to some somewhat good causes.

      Actually not.

      My company serves rural midwestern markets (largest town is 8,000) exclusively. We receive no federal subsidy (why? we're not a incumbant local telco, or rural utility service, which most of the rules are structured to and were designed to keep younger companies absent subsidy). We do serve 1/6th of one state and should cover 1/3 in the next year. We're privately funded, profitable, and provide a service that nobody else can match in our markets (for a good price).

      While the incumbant aka lethargic independent telcos and Qwest ignore these markets, we're there providing this important service. Their product? 128 Kbps DSL, fed by a single T1 for an entire community resulting in un-broadband (sub-200 Kbps). Ours is SLA'ed, 256 to 6 Mbps customer links standard in the product line. Private backbone, and 100 Mbps upstream. As usual, this private business has had the incentive to provide a better product at a lower price than the "fat, dumb and happy" incumbants. And no, we don't have a $5 million vacation house in Vail or a Gulfstream as part of our expense structure.

      So what does the FCC propose? Tax us and our customers to put money in the pockets of the RBOCs and ILECs. To buy more Gulfstreams and vacation homes for the FDH. Oh, and to ensure greater political contributions from the incumbants (the real story here).

      Just like a chapter out of Atlas Shrugged... [worldofatlasshrugged.com]

      *scoove*

    • This is utter crap.

      the "e-rate" program (40 percent), which subsidizes school and library Internet connections,

      We are already paying for these services with our property taxes and federal income taxes. I see no reason why someone who has a cable modem should pay more for these things than someone who makes as much money and owns as much property but doesn't have a cable modem.

      and rural telephone companies (45 percent), which might otherwise end up paying more for telephone service than city dwellers
    • Why should we fund Internet connections with "bad content" filters, complete with someone hovering over the students' backs at school?

      Don't children deserve BETTER, real, live teachers in the first place?

      With that said, I've never understood the hypocrisy in shunning communism (China, et al) for its inherent censorship, while at the same time, our (American) culture justifies it in the name of "child protection."

      And mods... before you label this off-topic, just remember that the tax money coming from thi
    • About 85 percent of the fund's revenues are split between two causes: the "e-rate" program (40 percent), which subsidizes school and library Internet connections, and rural telephone companies (45 percent), which might otherwise end up paying more for telephone service than city dwellers.

      75-100 years ago, when most of America was rural, subsidizing services for rural people was politically expedient and helped bridge a pretty large technology gap between rural and urban.

      I don't see the need for it an

  • WHAT!?! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ambisinistral ( 594774 ) <ambisinistralNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:14PM (#6153200) Homepage
    Somebody in government calling a tax a tax? They'll be fired by tomorrow and we'll have a new article about a 9.11% user fee.

  • universal service (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elmegil ( 12001 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:15PM (#6153202) Homepage Journal
    The Universal Service Fund is SUPPOSED to be about providing universal PHONE service.

    These assholes already have forced my DSL provider to bill me for this, never mind that there's no phone service going over my data line (right now). To force this for cable as well is insane.

    • Re:universal service (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mjmalone ( 677326 )
      It provides internet to public libraries, seems like they should tax people for using the net too... only makes sense, at least its going to a good cause.

  • Boston Modem Party? (Score:5, Funny)

    by StrandedOrg ( 664681 ) <matthew@nOsPaM.stranded.org> on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:15PM (#6153207) Homepage
    Who's with me? I can see the pile in the middle of bay now =)

  • Before you hop on your soap boxes... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by coupland ( 160334 ) * <dchase@hotm a i l . c om> on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:16PM (#6153217) Journal

    Before the rants get too intense about this being a corrupt violation of your rights (read: making you pay for something) you should read the following from the article:

    About 85 percent of the fund's revenues are split between two causes: the "e-rate" program (40 percent), which subsidizes school and library Internet connections, and rural telephone companies (45 percent), which might otherwise end up paying more for telephone service than city dwellers. The remaining 15 percent goes toward discounts to low-income subscribers and funds rural health care.

    Yes, that's right. 55% of this tax will go to school internet connections, library internet access, and low-income subscribers and health care. 45% goes to the somewhat less worthy but still valid rural subscribers to keep costs equitable. Now, what was that you were about to say?

    • 45% goes to the somewhat less worthy but still valid rural subscribers to keep costs equitable

      What in the world is possibly 'less worthy' about providing affordable broadband to rural areas? The fiber pipes don't build themselves you know.

      • It's "less worthy" than internet access for schools and libraries because you're paying for other people to have cheaper phone service. Schools and libraries benefit an entire community, either directly or indirectly. Subsidizing Rural Rick's phone service doesn't beenfit the community. It benefits Rick. I'd certainly consider that to be "less worthy".
    • Yes, that's right. 55% of this tax will go to school internet connections, library internet access
      Okay, just so they refund an equal amount of my real estate and personal property taxes, which are already paying for school and library internet connections.

      What does a third grader need a T1 for anyways?

      • What does a third grader need a T1 for anyways?
        One doesn't, but a shcool that has access to T1 can offer there student a much broader range of learning. A society that doesn't take it upon themselvs to educate their children will collpase in pretty short order.
        What we are seeing is the fallout from 25 years of tax cuts. there isn't enpugh income from property tax to pay for shcools and libraries right now.

    • Of course (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bogie ( 31020 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:37PM (#6153484) Journal
      That would imply that schools need Internet access more than additional teachers. NOT!

      So basically I'll have to pay a higher bill and children instead of getting a better education and learning the fundamentals will get a computer thrown in their face.

      Sorry but kids don't need computers as much as they need traditional education.

    • Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by st0rmshad0w ( 412661 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:43PM (#6153552)
      Have to go devil's advocate here for a sec...

      "55% of this tax will go to school internet connections, library internet access, and low-income subscribers and health care. 45% goes to the somewhat less worthy but still valid rural subscribers to keep costs equitable."

      School internet connections? Schools in this city first need a) usable hardware, b)knowledgable, decently paid teachers and IT staff, and c) an actual use for the internet in their curriculum.

      Library internet access? So we've settled all those issues about recordkeeping, privacy, restricted content and so on? Good to hear.

      Low income subscribers? Low income _cable_ subcribers? So cable tv/modem service is a right now?

      Health care? That's just a weird place to fund health care from. They use up all my cigerette taxes that fast eh?

      Rural access is less worthy? And why is it that much more expensive anyway?

      Just what the weak economy needs, more taxes.
      • Just what the weak economy needs, more taxes.

        What the weak economy needs is more liquidity. By putting money in the hands of people who will spend it (schools, poor people, rural folks, and the government(yes they are very good at spending money)) we are creating that liquidity. And believe it or not that money WILL end up back in the hands of the rick! Thats right! Give someone who has nothing $100 and they will BUY SOMETHING!!! And they will buy it from someone who has more money! By redistributin

    • The e-rate program is a rip-off. The monies that are provided to schools for Internet access end up right back in the pockets of the ILECs, in the form of "discounted" network service rates. Dave Hughes [oldcolo.com] raised the cry against this years ago when it was first proposed, claiming it was just a pork barrel for the telcos, but it wasn't on anyone else's radar back then.

      If the schools instead had gone to wireless networking (entirely possible at the time, as Mr. Hughes proposed), the schools could have cut ou

    • What exactly does getting internet service from a cable company have to do with subsidizing rural telephone companies or funding rural health care?

      I would agree that those seem like reasonably decent causes. But why are you taxing cablemodem subscribers in order to fund them? I'm not even sure what taxing DSL subscribers has to do with it either. If you want to subsidize rural phone companies, tax non-rural phone bills. I don't even know where the health care thing came from.

      The only thing in that gro

    • Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by stinky wizzleteats ( 552063 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:54PM (#6153670) Homepage Journal

      Now, what was that you were about to say?

      Only this. Taxation without representation. These taxes are not approved by Congress. They are determined and levied under the sole authority of the FCC. That is why they are referred to as a "stealth tax".

      Furthermore, as I managed the implementation project for a major municipality's E-rate project, I can tell you that the 55% in question breaks down as follows:

      • 80% - graft and corruption
      • 20% - absurdly overbid and overdesigned networking gear, computers, and WAN circuits.

      All this was done "for the children". Within months of implementation, the system collapsed because of the lack of a maintenance staff. The function of the project was immaterial. Once paid for, it had accomplished what the politicians wanted it to do.

      E-rate, like all gubmint programs I've ever known anything about, is a social edifice whose purpose it is to make money disappear into political payola and dirty back room deals. Yet another example of how it isn't the type of government that gets you, but its size.

    • Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @03:04PM (#6153756)
      "Yes, that's right. 55% of this tax will go to school internet connections, library internet access, and low-income subscribers and health care. 45% goes to the somewhat less worthy but still valid rural subscribers to keep costs equitable. Now, what was that you were about to say?" ...and 100% will go right back into the pockets of the big monopolies. Whom do you think is going to get these taxes? Sure they will go toward providing "services" at a "fair" price for the poor little children. But surely the companies will be given a market rate for their services which are being mandated, one for which they will profit.

      This is just another case of power hungry beaurocrats and money hungry monopolists feeding eachother. Yet another government subsidy of big business.

      Please nobody forget that taxes are when people are forced to pay for something they wouldn't voluntarily pay for... if someone came to your house and took your money without your consent, then I think even the most maleable among us would be offended. Why is this money grab any different? You say because we elected them... that we collectively have chosen this?

      No. Democracy thrice removed is not democracy. These people are thieves pure and simple. They do not represent me, any more than they represent you. They take our money by force and hide behind promises of job creation and benefit to children and the poor, but no good can come from a thieves gold.

      Sure we have a choice to pay for these services or not... to participate in society or to not. To pay taxes or to not, but what choice is that really? Not a free one.

      In my area free school access is just part of the price cable modem providers pay for cable's right of way. School access doesn't really cost much of anything for the providers beyond the istallation, so why not just mandate it from the monopolies? By my accounting it would take just a couple hundred subscribers in a community to easily defray even the commercial cost of educational access, let alone the real cost. Education access in exchange for right of way is a fair bargain, an exchange of value, not a theft like these proposed taxes and many others

      Eventually this corruption will stop, either we will put a stop to it or it will stop us, but it will stop.

  • What, so the government collected over 2 TRILLION in revenues last year (source: IRS about page), and they need a little more?

    Anyone wonder where all this American obesity comes from, just look towards your elected spenders, I mean officials.

  • Broadband promotion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EvanED ( 569694 ) <evaned.gmail@com> on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:17PM (#6153234)
    Exactly the initiative that the government needs to take for breadband to become widespread. Noting like an extra 10% added on to the cost of something to get people to buy it.
  • The first thing that came to my mind was - well what are they going to spend it on?

    About 85 percent of the fund's revenues are split between two causes: the "e-rate" program (40 percent), which subsidizes school and library Internet connections, and rural telephone companies (45 percent)

    How is this a bad thing?

  • Shouldnt be a problem (Score:2, Informative)

    by Soothh ( 473349 )
    I know if you contact your cell phone provider monthly and tell them you arent paying the FCC excise tax, they will take it off your bill, I dont see why it wouldnt work here. Its a tax on the provider, you dont HAVE to let them shift that burden on you, and since most of the plebs out there dont know to do this, they wont up their prices to compensate.

  • More room to inflate cable bills... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:18PM (#6153247)
    Just like the phone companies, these taxes can be used to bilk the customers. As you get more and more line items on your bill-- taxes, fees, etc... the provider has more room to inflate the bills with hidden charges. More than one phone provider and companies with access to bill phone providers have been accused of including obsolete, illegal, and fraudulent fees on phone bills. Are we seriously supposed to beleive that cables companies won't do the same thing?

    Phone bill fraud by third parties:

    http://www.fraud.org/tips/telemarketing/cramming .h tm
    • You're comparing apples and oranges here. Cramming has to do with sleezy telemarketers fast-talking people into "agreeing" to pay them "fees" for their "service". This is FAR different from phone companies screwing their customers with hidden charges, etc, in order to generate additional revenue.

  • Hmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:21PM (#6153295) Homepage Journal
    I'm not big on taxes in general, and thought we were well on our way to reform what with the recent income tax rollback. But the cable modem tax makes sense -- in many ways, this is just bringing us up to the standard of the other Internet communication technologies, and helps make them available to the less fortunate.

    Which, if you think about it, means a greater usage of broadband and an incentive to unroll ever greater bandwidth.

    I know that after starting to use broadband I'd never think about going back. It's almost required on the Internet nowadays. Anything that brings it to more people is a good thing.

  • Typical Budgeting Trick (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RTMFD ( 69819 ) <ibaird@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:22PM (#6153297) Homepage
    They take X dollars earmarked by this Fee/Tax and apply it to Y, while giving the X dollars which used to fund the program back to the general fund to spend elsewhere. It's a bait and switch that leaves the "needy program" funded at the same or marginally higher levels than before the Fee/Tax.

    For a great example of this, look at how the states "fund" education from their lotteries. It's a scam.

  • about time (Score:4, Funny)

    by BigGar' ( 411008 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:23PM (#6153311) Homepage
    I was just sitting around the other day thinking, "Damn, I'm not spending enough on my cable modem access to the internet!", but what can I do about it. Then out of the blue comes my salvation. Thank you FCC, Thank you.
  • This could force state level corporation comissions to treat broadband service the same way they do telephone service and electricity, as a regulated service. This could go toward requiring service availability if others in the same geographical area can get service, instead of hiding behind "bad cable" or "pair-gain" (for DSL folks). It would also possibly allow for more grounds for suits against poor providers, legitmizing the entire industry yet slapping it around a bit.

  • Information Services (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ioldanach ( 88584 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:25PM (#6153339)

    From the article, "If they want cable modem services to pay, they have to decide how to avoid sweeping in all other information services as well," Boothby says. "That's really the point. How do you say an information service like a cable modem has to pay, without saying that all other information services have to pay? And (how do you) do that in a way that survives court review?"

    As much as it pains me to say this, I think its time that internet access be classified as telecommunications. The medium is an active system whereby users exchange significant amounts of information in the form of e-mail, instant messengers, and other means, as well as purchase any number of items. The difference between an information service and telecommunications is in the exchange of information. An information service takes a small amount of information and gives you lots, but a telecommunications medium is primarily about the exchange of information and ideas.

    Unfortunately, I don't know what obligations this puts on the access providers, but I think its time the issue was reconsidered.

    Besides, this would eliminate the need for taxing telecom providers and a specific category of information service.

  • And for DSL Users...? (Score:3, Informative)

    by CBNobi ( 141146 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:25PM (#6153341)
    This news comes at a time when DSL prices are beginning to be slashed. Verizon has lowered their service costs by upwards of 30% [statesman.com], while SBC offers promotional offers.

    I switched to SBC/Yahoo DSL last December, and I pay $39.99/month with the promotional offer. The same service is now being offered at $29.99.

    If cable providers are forced to increase rates, I'm sure DSL companies will be willing to lower costs (at least for an extended period of time), in order to drive potential customers away from cable.

    Of course, Earthlink DSL has announced that they are actually increasing rates [com.com]; but that doesn't affect much of the broadband-aware states that have signed the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Including my state of California.
  • Just download an additional $10 worth of mp3s and pr0n every month!

  • From the FCC:
    The goals of Universal Service, as mandated by the 1996 Act, are to promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates; increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation; advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas.

    So...if you choose to live in an area(rural or whatever) wh

  • Technically not a tax... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:30PM (#6153399) Homepage Journal
    ...or at least, that's what my employers at the phone company have told me. At least insofar as we pass it on to the customers, it's a surcharge, because the govt doesn't charge the phone customers directly--it charges the telcos, and we have the right to decide to pass that on to our customers or not.

    And incidentally, it could be higher than 9.1%. Until a few months ago, it was 10.5%. It's currently 9.1% for residential customers, 9.3% for businesses.
  • ...they'll create another. Gee, and I thought that getting some conservatives in office would help lower the tax burden. Pussies. Flat out, wimpy-ass pussies. We do need a big third party, the "I got f'in ballz" party. Cowering, pussified republicans. Serves them right for letting themselves get walked all over. ::sigh:: Maybe I'll change my party affiliation to "independant".

  • This already exists with DSL (Score:4, Informative)

    by grandmaster_spunk ( 203386 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:34PM (#6153450)
    It's important to note, as the CNET article does, that DSL service is already subject to this tax, and the change will really only put DSL and cable on equal footing. Seems reasonable enough to me, especially considering that, at least in theory, the money collected goes toward things like providing internet access for libraries and whatnot.

  • As if it's not already too much? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jpsst34 ( 582349 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @02:38PM (#6153493) Journal
    When I signed up for AT&T broadband, the pricing was $34.95 for service, $10.00 for modem rental. I bought a modem, so my monthly bill was $34.95. After 6 months or so, ATTBI decided to restructure their pricing to $42.95 for service, $3 for rental. In essence, they were extorting an extra $7 per month from their most loyal customers (the ones who made the investment in hardware) while not affecting the renters who had no financial investment and could leave at any time.

    Then along came the Comcast buyout of ATTBI. The very same week, I got a letter from Comcast alerting me that they had noticed that I was a cable internet customer, but not a cable television or long distance customer. As such, my broadband internet price would jump from $42.95 to $57.95. That is, of course, unless I opted to sign up for their cable television service, in which case I could keep the "bargain" price of $42.95. I don't want Cable TV (hell, I know I already get it due to the way the technology works).

    So my cable bill has made two jumps since January, from $34.95 to $42.95 to $57.95. That's a total increase 65.8% since then! 66%! Why did my bill gone up 66% over four months? Did the cost of providing me that service really go up that much?

    Add 9.1% to $57.95, and we're up to $63.22 - that's an 80.90% increase in the cost of my service since last December!

    Imagine if the cost of everything else went up 81%. That $20,000 car would be $36,200. A gallon of milk would jump from $1.50 to $2.72. Gasoline would jump from $1.60 per gallon to $2.9 per gallon. And my sallary would increase by roughly 2%. Now, I'm not an accountant, but I think I can see that if my salary increased by 2% and the cost of living increased by 81%, I wouldn't be doing too well.

  • Because they are indistinguishable from one another in terms of what they do; They provide a transport for streams of data broken up into packets. In fact generally speaking they both only carry IP traffic (though they CAN carry other types of data; It is my understanding that DSL is just a flavor of ATM, even... I'm not sure what DOCSIS is based on) so they are even more similar to the user. Either one can be used to carry all the same types of data, which is to say, basically anything.

    As for what should and should not be taxed, the law definitely should say specifically what makes a service taxable. If you can't put it in simple objective terms then there's no justice in it, because that is the only way you can make the law apply to all equally.

  • Government is good for two things: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by crashnbur ( 127738 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @03:02PM (#6153737)
    Death (by fear of just about anything a government does, boredom of the decision-making process to do it, or by other, more direct means) and taxes.

    Since the 6+ billion people on earth generally agree that coming after people with guns and blades is morally unacceptable, the government comes after your wallet. "If we can't kill you, then you've gotta pay us more!"

    But, then again, those of us who bother to read up on our history know that a government will tax any thing that moves on its own for anything that doesn't.

    But, for the love of God or any other high (or low?) being, don't stop paying. If we stop greasing the wheels of government, it will be forced not only to fight even more wars that we don't agree with, but even to turn on those it is sworn to protect... (This, my friends, is why tax day feels sort of like a very uncomfortable physical examination. You hate to do it but you know it's best for everyone involved, especially the one collecting your money!)

  • Percentages of fees disbursed and accountability (Score:4, Insightful)

    by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @03:07PM (#6153795)
    I will agree to pay this extra fee if, and only if, two things happen:

    1. Prior to charging the public any extra fees (taxes), the telcos, and all associated parties, publish a plan to distribute $12,999,999,900 [a]. of the estimated $13b that will be collected
    No extra admin costs, no profit taking, no fund redirection. Each and every $$ collected must go towards the stated goals of the Universal Service Fund [fcc.gov]

    2. All of the associated telco CEO's, and the FCC Chairman, agree to prison terms [b] not less than 6 months, and not greater than 24 months if it can be shown that they do not follow their published plan.
    Prison terms are collective, in that if one falls, they all fall. Make them accountable to, and responsible for, each other

    [a] Each Telco may keep $1 profit each for administering the dispersal of our funds.
    [b]Federal PMITA prison, not 'house arrest'.

  • Leveling things out (Score:3, Funny)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @03:07PM (#6153800)
    While we're at it, it has come to my attention that geeks and hackers are woefully underrepresented when it comes to supermodels dating choices. I propose new legislation that mandates that at least 15% of the men any US supermodel dates be a computer geek, hacker, or at least some form of social misfit. After all, what is government for, if not to even out the horribly unfair hands that fate has dealt us?

  • This will stop when you stop electing these people (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The AtomicPunk ( 450829 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @03:10PM (#6153835)
    democrats and republicans : they're what stand between you and your money.

    STOP ELECTING THEM.

    And I don't mean by NOT VOTING either. Vote third party. Preferably, vote Libertarian. If you don't like them, vote for just about anybody but the big two.

    Send a message.

  • Gee, that's a GREAT fucking idea... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fudgefactor7 ( 581449 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @03:39PM (#6154276)
    if you want to kill consumer level broadband. The government shouldn't be allowed to regulate anything that they don't understand....

  • It Used to work like this... (Score:3, Informative)

    by PetoskeyGuy ( 648788 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @09:46PM (#6157838)
    I used to be the Technology person for a rural school district covering 3 counties serviced by 4 phone companies. About 1995. We still had PULSE dialing until recently. We couldn't get a trunk hunt for our modems unless we could find a block of physically adjacent unused switches at the local Telco for our modems.

    It was supposed to be an internship but the real Technology Directory died shortly after I hired on so it became a paying position for a year or two during college until someone else finally got hired so I could get back to my classes.

    The USF was used to help us pay for upgrades to our community and schools system. The amount of money put into our programs was based on the number of students on the Federal Free Lunch program. About 60% of the kids back then. I don't know if that's how it's done now, but there is no way we could have had any service for schools, libraries or anything back then without it.

  • Pure Genius by the FCC. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dolemite_the_Wiz ( 618862 ) on Tuesday June 10, 2003 @06:56AM (#6159560) Journal
    Put a tax on a technology in a sluggish economy.

    I'm in the wrong business. I wish I had the power to make dumb proposals such as this.

    10% tax on Espresso and Bubble Tea!!!

    Dolemite
    ____________________

Slashdot Top Deals

"The only way for a reporter to look at a politician is down." -- H.L. Mencken

Close