Would You Pay an Internet Broadband Tax? 601
An anonymous reader writes "Remember the Internet Tax Freedom Act? The whole point was to prevent the government from ever taxing the Internet. But that's the proposal from the FCC — and backed by companies like Google, AT&T and Sprint. Would you pay a buck or two extra for fast access — or vote for someone who thinks you should? 'If members of Congress understood that the FCC is contemplating a broadband tax, they'd sit up and take notice,' said Derek Turner, research director for Free Press, a consumer advocacy group that opposes the tax."
Universal service. (Score:5, Insightful)
If it means universal service provisions for broadband internet access, then yes.
There are people in rural areas right now that don't have Internet access because telcos aren't willing to spend the money to run it out to them.
Universal service provisions allowed telephone service to reach every single person in the entire country back in the day. The same thing should happen for broadband internet access today.
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, seriously. "More taxes to help people" my ass. We've seen how that goes, time and time again.
In addition to it just being corporate welfare, you can bet that it'd be more than "a buck or two". If the current tax structure is any indication, there'd be at least another 5% tax hidden in the bill.
I live in a relatively rural area. I have no problem paying $30/month for a dribble of broadband. It's what I was paying for cable internet back in '99 for a DOCSIS 1 (unmetered) line. There's a problem with that, however: I'm still getting roughly the same downstream bandwidth, no improvement to latency, and a severely crippled upstream - a supposed 40/5 Mbit line, though I rarely see anything more than 20/2. My bill is also $50/month, with a good portion of that going to taxes already.
These same taxes were supposed to 'improve rural broadband'. It hasn't happened. The entire western half of Wyoming has been operating on a single OC-3 conneection since the late 1990s. Weren't rural broadband initiatives, tax structures, etc supposed to improve this situation.
Instead, most of the various telecommunication taxes have gone to fund things like free teleconference lines which get utilized (primarily) by businesses most obviously not in rural areas. This discrepancy alone is probably enough to balance out the "flyover tax burden benefit" which supposedly exists.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again? You're calling us "opossums". I had one British guy say if we don't reelect Obama it will prove we are a "backwards nation". And on and on. Lately everywhere I go I see Europeans slagging-off on Americans.
It makes me think the U.S. should quit NATO rather than be allied with people who hate us. ("We should avoid entangling alliances with european powers that could draw us into bloodshed..... rest assured while one European leader ru
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So they are far left and far right at the same time?
Do you have no idea what those words mean, or are you out of your damn mind?
They have problems, but you using these words as namecalling is not helping anyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that you are having trouble mapping the ideas to your flawed conceptual model is your own problem, not his. The defining feature of both extreme fascism and extreme socialism is that they're authoritarian, and from that perspective they look the same.
Besides, governments are schizophrenic anyway; it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to exhibit opposite traits at once!
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Insightful)
The defining feature of both extreme fascism and extreme socialism is that they're authoritarian, and from that perspective they look the same.
That might be an appropriate observation if we're talking about the similarities between Hitler and Stalin, but it has no relevance to modern-day Europe. By normal standards, the social democracies of Northern Europe are about the least "authoritarian" countries in the world. They have free speech, free elections, strong middle classes, and far fewer people in prison than the US.
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nope, all Left (Score:5, Informative)
No fascism is the union of the state and corporate power. So said Mussolini himself.
The writings of that hack are not interesting to anyone outside his echo chamber.
Re:Nope, all Left (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not it's fascist doesn't matter because it violates the Constitution:
Article I, Section 7:
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. And in this case the bill you're looking for was passed in 1994: Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) codified at 47 U.S.C. 254(d).
Every telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve and advance universal service. The Commission may exempt a carrier or class of carriers from this requirement if the carrier's telecommunications activities are limited to such an extent that the level of such carrier's contribution to the preservation and advancement of universal service would be de minimis. Any other provider of interstate telecommunications may be required to contribute to the preservation and advancement of universal service if the public interest so requires.
Re:Nope, all Left (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like you don't know much about socialism. Common and co-operative ownership of the means of production hardly equates to the elite knowing what is best for you.
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Insightful)
Iceland is doing pretty well, thank you - as are all of the most highly socialist Scandinavian states.
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Interesting)
Their experiment in being Wall St. with glaciers didn't work out so hot, though... (to their credit, however, they (relatively speaking) just washed their hands of the issue and told people to fuck off, rather than working on the theory that if we just pandered a little harder to the people who fucked up in the first place, they would deign to fix the problem...)
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Insightful)
They have their own problems they don't want to face, like the fact that their continent is falling apart as their socialist and fascist policies have destroyed their economy such that nothing is left but the facade, and that is starting to break apart.
This is nonsensical demagoguery. There are no "fascist" countries in Europe today with the possible exception of Hungary under Fidesz. And the most "socialist" nations in the European Union tend to be the ones that are doing best. Sweden, Denmark, Finland, all are doing fine. Even Iceland recovered quite nicely after its bank crisis of a few years back. It's not the cradle of social democracy that is suffering from the current debt crunch; it's Greece, which never should even have been admitted to the EU in the first place. And Greece isn't really that socialist. They have a bunch of overpaid public employees, which is not the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not the cradle of social democracy that is suffering from the current debt crunch; it's Greece
Well, technically, isn't Greece the cradle of democracy, social or otherwise?
Granted, a different Greece in different times, but...
Re: (Score:3)
I always wonder how much impact a largely ethnically homgeneous populace has on the acceptance / presence of 'Socialist' tendencies. Maybe significant, universal social services and actual shared sacrifices (read: progressive, un-loopholed, and moral tax policies) are only accepted if everyone believes the recipients are from their own 'tribe'.
Re:Universal service. (Score:4, Insightful)
Based on your post, I'm fairly sure that you're not from America and you don't realize how ridiculously broad our political idiocy has made the terms "fascist" and "socialist" over here.
The simplest way to explain the American use of the term "socialist" is that the term is applied to anything that would benefit people below the top 5% income bracket if it doesn't also help the people in the top 5% and/or corporations. In fact, the benefit to the top 5% and corporations generally has to outweigh any benefit to the lower 95% by a very large margin before it will no longer be decried as a socialist.
The American use of "fascist" is simpler. Any time a law is past that restricts someone in any way, shape or form from doing something they want to do (even if it's obviously beneficial like "it's illegal to inject yourself with Draino"), it's fascist and the political figure they dislike the most is now exactly like Hitler.
But then you have a minority of Americans, like me, who at least try to use the terms correctly. Sadly, by doing so,, we add to the confusion over what the hell everyone is talking about.
This concludes today's lesson on America's abuse of the English language. Thank you and good night.
Re:Universal service. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again?
Why shouldn't they? Opossums is a very mild insult compared to the things the U.S. government (That was put in place by the U.S. voters.) does all over the world. When the U.S. stops meddling with the foreign nations the U.S. population will be a lot more popular around the world.
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Insightful)
And who would stop them? I hate to break it to you, but our military spending means you don't have to, and your leaders have been banking on that for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
woosh.
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again?...
For the same reason we make fun of them when they do something stupid. When our nation comes off as a series of paranoid religious zealots eagerly awaiting the next talking point from Fox News I can understand why we get insulted. Like it or not, we live in a global economy and we cannot just take our ball and go home. People like you need to develop a thicker skin and realize that it's not personal.
Re:Universal service. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I might point out that it was you guys who waded into Iraq and Afghanistan and pretty much demanded the world follow along with you ... I believe Bush famously said "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists". You'll notice that lots of other countries committed resources (and lives) to that, but in the end, absolutely none of the reasons it was done were ever proven to be valid. There never was a good reason to go into Iraq, but you guys bullied everyone else into doing it with you.
This is a two way street. And if you want to start disentangling yourselves from your allies, well, you might not find yourself with much support later.
I'm sure the Europeans aren't all that thrilled with their banking and flight data being handed over to serve US interests. So maybe everyone just says "well, since you think we're not such good allies, we're not doing that any more".
Re:Universal service. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's rich considering which is the nation dragging others into Iraq and Afghanistan.
One of the reasons joining NATO right now is a bit sketchy is that USA has already made a habit of calling anything it wants an act of war(thus requiring others to join their cause in "defense" of USA). It's supposed to be a defense pact - not a contract to join in attacks even if Americans want to interpret it as such when it suits them.
Insulting America is just so easy, thanks to your tv-show export business and fuckups in other fields like handling of cellular networks. Maximum profit with least work - that's the American way(even if building proper networks would be more profit overall).
Bums in Manhattan have better manners than in Helsinki though, I'll give you that - but it's pretty twisted to say that Europeans would use NATO to get USA into war with Iran...
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone makes an uninformed comment, just dismiss it as uninformed. If someone says something true you find upsetting, you need to examine the root of what they say.
I think you just may be selectively hearing things that displease you. From what I've seen, everyone everywhere says insulting things about everyone else. Right now there is probably some Norwegian making snide comments about Swedes that flies below your radar.
Re:Universal service. (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, it's hard not to. You've become exceedingly xenophobic, you're increasingly allowing your religious wingnuts to try to foist their morality on the rest of your society, you've never really played nice with other countries (as evidenced by the rest of your post), and you're so opposed to anything most people would consider progressive as to be a joke. As a nation, you seem increasingly anti-science and backwards, sticking with dogma over any actual facts.
Maybe the rest of the world is tired of the American sense of entitlement, your tendency to export really bad laws onto everybody else, and the fact that ... well ... as a nation you're kind of assholes on balance. At least, that's how you project yourselves. And to the rest of the world, people like George Bush, Sarah Palin, and Run Paul all reinforce that. You're a country who figures the rich should stay rich, and the poor should go fuck themselves.
Bad American debt played a huge part in the financial melt-down of '08 since you guys exported crap debt as if it had any value. America wants to tie their foreign aid to be sure nobody gets access to abortion or contraception (again, your religious wingnuts), and your food export is mostly Monsanto seeds nobody is supposed to actually plant.
It's not just Europeans -- most of the world is tired of putting up with how your country behaves, which is essentially like a spoiled rich kid who wants to be sure he has more than everybody else at the end of the day.
Americans like to think they're the good guys, but they've oblivious to what everyone else in the world wants, and seem totally incapable to having relations with a country in which they're not the ones setting the terms.
Seriously, read some news coverage that originates outside of the US and get a little different perspective. It's not that your allies "hate" you, it's that they're tired of putting up with your shit.
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the problem: the vast majority of the "Americans" doing the talking are the ones that make us look bad. Those of us who are reasonable and "European" in our viewpoints and politics aren't the ones that are getting heard.
And it's not just a "media bias" thing. Even looking objectively at our own domestic media the Right Wing is the one doing all the shouting.
Re: (Score:3)
"We should avoid entangling alliances with european powers that could draw us into bloodshed..... rest assured while one European leader runs-around mad, and the others act as if they are halfway there themselves, we shall remain at peace here in North America." - George Washington)
Who says Americans don't do irony.
My country has been drawn into two major land wars since the turn of the century and in both cases, it was by the USA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again?
As an American, we deserve it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Broad strokes begetting broader strokes (Score:3)
You just painted every foreigner with the same broad stroke that a select group of foreigners did to you. Congrats. You are part of the problem, and so are they.
Re: (Score:3)
You're calling us "opossums".
I think the parent...
What does a nation of opossums need broadband for anyway?
...was making a witty retort to the grandparent:
Or it gets burned down, like the case of Possim Kingdom
It made me chuckle anyway, the thought of a nation of possums. I didn't see any offence intended towards Americans at all, just a play on words.
As for your wider question:
Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again?
I think you'll find that's for the same reason many American's think it's ok to force their political ideals on to other countries without stopping to question whether it's an appropriate course of action. Call it ignorance, if you will. The world isn't short of people wh
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Funny)
If it means universal service provisions for broadband internet access, then yes.
What are you some kind of socialist?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What are you, some kind of narcoleptic?
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Informative)
I already pay a Universal Connect Fee on my phone bill which subsidize the phone company to go into rural areas. Never mind the fact that the AT&T was subsidized to put lines out there in the first place. When they came up with the Universal Connect Fee in 1997 ( 15 years ago ) they promised better communication access to rural customers. Not to mention, in October 2011 congress justified this UCF to stay on all of our phone bills by having the funds transition over to the "Connect America Fund" to subsidize broadband access in these same rural areas.
Why the hell would I want to pay that same fee on my broadband bill? Especially since the Fee has been collected for over a decade and I see no real competition or expansion in rural connectivity since its inception.
Sure Google, AT&T, and Sprint are for it. After all its more corporate welfare earmarked for their use. They act like they won't charge the rural customers for this access, and believe me they will.
People who say yes to this are naive.
Re: (Score:2)
It is, in fact, a realignment of the Universal Service provisions. That said, I'm not okay with this going to private companies if they retain exclusive rights to the developed infrastructure. The fiber/air should be government-owned and leased to private companies (or better still, just deployed as government-owned network service).
As we've demonstrated that forced competitive leasing by regulation is too frail (one congress can hose that up quickly), the only safe bet is persistent government ownership of
Re: (Score:3)
Universal service provisions allowed telephone service to reach every single person in the entire country back in the day. The same thing should happen for broadband internet access today.
Yes and no. You might be surprised that "back in the day" includes the very recent past. There are some areas that just recently got telephone service.http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-670748.html [cbsnews.com] Hopefully some kind of time frame would be added to the language.
And that the Universal Service Fund (USF) [wikipedia.org] is going to transition over
On October 27, 2011, the FCC approved a six-year transfer process that would transition money from the Universal Service Fund High-Cost Program to a new $4.5 billion a year Connect America Fund for broadband Internet expansion, effectively putting an end to the USF High-Cost Fund by 2018
Lets hope it doesn't take as long as it did for telephony.
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's because it was established in 1934. Putting the same wording in a modern bill would be vilified as socialist, big government, anti-capitalism, and anti-freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
But AT&T only make ~30-42% profit on cell phones. You can't cut into that number by much, otherwise we might have to bail them out.
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/08/06/169234/carriers-blame-the-iphone-for-data-caps-and-increased-upgrade-fees [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
From my reading of the FCC's Internet Access Report, that analysis came from people with >200 kbps connections. Basically, for ISPS advertising broadband service, how many are meeting the new requirements. That figure does not indicate how many people only have the option of dial-up.
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of taxing the customers, the FCC should be taxing the companies by passing a simple mandate that they Must provide 3 Mbit/s wired service to any customer who asks for it. These billion-dollar corporations can afford to fund this subsidy for a mere 4% of the population.
Who? It's easy when you have a national monopoly for a telephone company - they are required to provide the service to everyone. When you have a set of geographical monopolies as telephone or Internet companies, which one do you force to provide coverage to anyone outside a certain area? How do small companies start up in such an environment? And what happens when Verizon (for example) becomes an umbrella corporation that just puts customers in contact with wholly owned subsidiaries that actually own the network infrastructure, but only in a small area each.
And, longer term, how do you stop this from just being city dwellers subsidising rural house prices? In the UK, it's very common for house prices a few miles outside of town to cost half to three quarters of what an equivalent house would cost in the town. In a really rural area, it can cost under half as much. This difference is because most people are unwilling to pay as much to be so far from infrastructure. If you're spending public money on adding that infrastructure, then you're effectively moving money to the pockets of rural home and land owners.
Re:only 4% of Americans are stuck with service (Score:4, Interesting)
Another Slow Service user here. I did play a numbers game and pick my plan, I have something pretty low, (too lazy to detail it, maybe 1mbit?).
However I carefully considered my internet habits and discovered I can live with 5 seconds of buffering, and overall the $20 or whatever per month saved is worth more to me than having a "better experience". Generally, you can "spend for experience" until you go broke.
Misc Tips: I have a Verizon Dry Loop. That means it's Data Only. No Phone. But who needs a "landline"? $400+ saved per year. (Guess). Meanwhile, I have an AT&T GoPhone, that charges per minute, not per month. Another $700/year saved there. Here's the fun part. Get a VOIP service (I like Magic Jack Plus) and plug it in, and then you have a landline after all! Whee!
So instead of spending cumulative $150+ per month, I think I spend $40 per month tops.
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or better yet we recognize this as the NON PROBLEM it is and don't tax anyone. Seriously if you live in the middle of no where, pay what costs if you want service. The telco WILL drag T-Carrier out anywhere you want it! Might cost you 1/2 million but they will do it.
Alternatively the universal service fund has already guaranteed you dialup!
There is lot that is great about living in the sticks, no traffic, low taxes, usually cozy interactions with smallish participatory local government, and others but high speed network access is not none of them.
Re:Universal service. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Universal service. (Score:4, Insightful)
And that is why the US is destined to fall behind. Selfish pricks think even a dollar to help the nation is too much.
The people that want all of the advantages of living out in the sticks whole accepting none of the downsides, by forcing everyone to pay to eliminate those downsides, are the selfish pricks.
Nice try.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Universal service. (Score:4, Insightful)
Their national average according to speedtest is just ~25 Mbit.
I think what is important is not the average speed users get, but the speed that is available to them if they choose to pay for it. Not everyone will have use for a fast connection so many users will opt for a cheaper plan, but I think everyone should at least have the option to get a fast connection.
I live in the Netherlands, average speed according to speedtest is 27Mbit. Relatively fast internet (100Mbit+) is available to most people in the country, but many choose slower and cheaper connections and that's fine. I don't believe the goal should be to have broadband in every home, it should be to have broadband available as an option for anyone who chooses to have it. Lots of places simply don't have an option to get fast internet, and I think that is a more important metric than average internet speeds across the country.
Re:Universal service. (Score:5, Insightful)
It becomes another Tax that you don't consider as a Tax, because it's collected from you at other times and in other ways than on April 15th on a tax form. Just like your car taxes, your property taxes, your hunting licenses, your public park licenses, your telco taxes and fees, your broadband taxes and fees (I don't know about you guys, but my cable broadband bill already includes taxes and fees that are supposedly government-related).
Hey, I'm stuck in a big city where I have access to more job opportunities and super fast internet speeds, but housing is expensive as fuck here. I demand that everyone who owns a house or rents one in a smaller town be forced to chip in a few dollars for me so that I can afford one of these fancy houses. Oh, wait, nevermind. I made the choice that internet access and job opportunities were more important to me than living out in a less serviced area and having a cheap home.
You can have your cake and eat it, too. But I'm not responsible for buying it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
tl;dr - Why are folks in rural areas entitled to amenities of cities when they don't have the population density to support them?
Because the city slickers think they're entitled to the amenities of rural areas, like, say, food, and transportation across rural areas via roads.
The other part of the argument is unlike medical and museums, you don't have much of an internet without the monopoly granted easements across rural property for buried fiber...
So we'll make a deal... stop eating our food, rip up the roads between the cities, and rip out the buried optical fiber, and you can keep your internet access to yourselves.
Re: (Score:3)
NC just tried to implement a law to forbid communities from doing just this.
Only if ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if the money actually went to improving broadband access and speeds in America. The problem is that it just goes to the government coffers and is distributed, mostly, to Social Security.
If the money went to directly improving the system it taxed, then yes. I would love to see a tax that helped pay for a nation-wide fiber-optic system that replaced the aged copper system we rely on.
Unfortunately, it'll only go to lining the FCC board and chairman's pockets with money.
Re:s/Social Security/the Military (Score:5, Informative)
No he had it right the first time. Over half the budget goes towards either Social Security or Medicare. The military spending is only ~20% of the total budget and after Obama's cuts kick-in, it will drop even lower.
Re:s/Social Security/the Military (Score:4, Informative)
Is that before, or after you account for the fact that SS is taxed on is own. There is no "military tax". SS is taxed seperately, and supposed to be run out of a seperate fund from the federal budget.
Now I know this has become all messed up but...SS tax is still being collected seperately. It shouldn't be counted from the same till just because the trustee broke the trust by borrowing against it.
Re: (Score:3)
Please educate yourself on Social Secuity. There is no trust fund. FICA is not partitioned off and put aside for when you get old. All the money goes into the general fund, and then a Treasury account is funded with what the Board thinks will be necessary for the next year.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need a big standing army when you have nukes.
You need a "pretty large army" to guard the nukes if nothing else. Not large compared to current enormous USA standards, but pretty large compared to world standards. The US would need a .mil larger than Ireland's army, or Singapore's army, etc.
The other problem is nukes are useless other than as suicide/MAD devices. Say Canada felt like invading and annexing all northern tier states because we make fun of canadian bacon so much because its a silly name for the product, and our endless lunberjack jokes.
Re:s/Social Security/the Military (Score:4, Interesting)
Foreign deployments are not legitimate. We need the Coast Guard and the army. The nuclear sub fleet and their nuclear deterrent can be transferred to the coast guard, and the army focuses on maintenance of the land based nuclear deterrent, with the air force folded in there as well. Security of shipping lanes can be handled by a renewed merchant marine (ie allow merchant ships to be armed to whatever extent they like).
You don't need a big standing army when you have nukes. With no big armies anywhere, wars of all descriptions become less likely. A small special forces would be enough to deal with non-state threats.
You need a military to absorb the % of the aggressive young male population and kill some of that off, and develop some discipline and maturity in the survivors. (Alligator control [google.com] is just not big enough to take all of them). Kind a Kipling-esque view and a bit curmudgeonly, but fits the observed facts much better than we need to spend $$$ and $$$$ and $$$$$ for "national defense".
Sure why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah they would say "yes it's only $2 and you'll get everything you want"....then a few years later they'll say "in order to give you what you want we need to charge $5"....and a year after that they'll say "in order to maintain the low $5 we need to start filtering content"....then they'll come back and say "the filtering cost money so we need $10"....and the cycle will repeat until eventually you're paying $100/mo in taxes for nothing.
But what about... (Score:2)
REALLY??
But what about all those billions that were given to the telcos to upgrade their infrastructure ???
Whatever happened to "Your subscription fees make up for the ad revenue, so we won't have to have ads every 20 minutes" ??
Aahahahahahhaa 'scuse me while I piss myself laughing at the blatant avarice of it all
.
If that took control away from corporations. (Score:5, Insightful)
If that meant "we" owned the infrastructure, not the media companies. One requirement would HAVE to be net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
If that meant "we" owned the infrastructure, not the media companies. One requirement would HAVE to be net neutrality.
I'm happy to pay income tax. One requirement is that the police and all other civil servants are polite and respectful to me whenever I deal with them..
Oh, we are not in happy dream land? Guess I don't get to make demands on the thieving government then.
As long as it comes with the right strings (Score:5, Insightful)
I would absolutely pay for an internet tax, as long as any service receiving aid from that government tax coffer was forced to provide network neutrality by law.
As it stands, what this is actually earmarked to pay for is probably the "lawful intercept" features that government want to add to everyone's internet.
No (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you have public education in Europe?
Re: (Score:2)
'human rights'? There is no such thing as a 'human right' that is supposed to give you a product. Who is going to pay for this, if 'everybody is getting it for free' exactly?
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is why much of Europe is broke and and the EU is on the verge of breaking up. Of course, we American's are not doing much better. But the point is that our priorities are all out of whack. Everyone seems to want something for nothing. This attitude will not last the test of time.
Funnily enough, that's not it.
The countries in Europe with the most expansive and expensive social welfare programmes are doing relatively well. It's the countries that followed the US financial model more closely (Greece and Ireland especially, and the UK somewhat) with an over-reliance on the financial sector as the next great engine of their economies and a tax system that ensured they were sitting on a bubble that eventually burst.
The countries that are now bailing them out are the ones with the high taxes and extensive welfare state provisions, like Germany, France and (again to a lesser extent, since we fucked up too), the UK.
It's not welfare programmes that bankrupted certain Eurozone countries, it was the financial policies at the other end of the scale - the banks, the toxic loans, the irresponsible tax policy, financial deregulation and the shedding of manufacturing and other things that previously kept the economy going. The welfare state is the reason that we don't have a social underclass who lost everything when the economy crashed and had some support until they were able to get back to work again without losing everything they owned.
You're also mistaken if you think "much of" Europe is broke.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
I am European, and I think that fast Internet for free should be available to anyone in EU, as part of basic human rights. I don't care how it is technically done, but this should be long-term goal, especially for social parties, in order to prevent new kind of illiteracy of poor people.
You cannot reasonably claim a Right to be given a service for free. As there is no such thing as anything for free, what you're really demanding is that the government use force of arms to take from one set of people and give to another.
And people wonder why the EU is falling apart financially....
Will it subsidise it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The view from Canada (Score:2)
but I already do (Score:2)
I mean, getting broadband isn't free, I pay my ISP for connectivity and they provide it.. and by "extra fast", my ISP has varying levels of service they can give me (subject to the technology available where I live) so I can get faster speeds by paying more money. I can also get faster speeds by changing to a cable ISP rather than a standard ADSL one, or I could even buy satellite link. If I was really rich I could pay to have fibre put into my house too.
So, maybe this is just an Americanism. What you guys
Don't we pay tax on it already? (Score:4, Informative)
Don't we pay tax (like state sales tax) on internet and other services already?
(Assuming you live in a state that has sales tax)
Expect the expected: Past is prologue (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, let's all chip in a buck.
Maybe thirty cents goes into "administrative costs" (the inevitable bureaocracy)
Twenty cents, at least, will be sequestered for other failing programs.
Another forty will no doubt be pocketed by recipient telco shareholders and executives.
Perhaps five cents will go for surveys and studies.
Maybe, if we're lucky, a nickel will go toward the intended purpose.
And so it goes.
Not without some improvements. (Score:2)
But as it is now? Hell no.
Already been done (Score:5, Informative)
Weren't the telcos already given a crapload of money to expand broadband access, which they proceeded to piss away? I'm not paying yet another tax, on top of a USF, an FCC surcharge, a tiered-pricing plan, and all of the other ways they already nickle-and-dime us to death. We are already not getting what we're paying for.
ZOMFG! OF COURSE!!!! (Score:2)
And that new tax revenue stream would go directly to creating a nationwide wonder network of gleaming fiber and BAH HA HA HA HA! Yeah, yeah... uh huh
And we'll all get freshly baked cookies delivered by the new "Keebler Over Ethernet" protocols, and pretty birds singing sweet rock and roll will gives us free porn apps! And Stallman and Doctorow will put up shiny new HTML 6/Web 3.0 web sites detailing the coming enslavement of humanity because some people like the iPhone.
Cue the ACs calling me a horrible pers
Sooner or later (Score:2)
To live Rural is a choice for most (Score:2)
I'm sorry but we've already been sold this bill of goods by the companies themselves. They have stated on more than one occasion that they're increasing their cost to the customers to help build infrastructure. Now some (may most) is to help solidify the existing infrastructure, we've been told that it's also for the rural expansion. Those increased costs are also taxed, so in essence, we're already taxed for the rural expansion. Heck some of our regular phone bill taxes are supposed to help support the
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
We already payed the tax and continue to pay it (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called the Universal Access Fund. It's still on your telco bill.
Why would we need yet another tax on our bill just so we can give more money to people that have demonstrated they have absolutely no intention into expanding their offerings.
It's not like the bandwidth is not available. If you have cable, most likely you are already able to get 100/100 Mbps without much of an investment (maybe replace the modem). The fact that you don't have it is because the cable companies don't have any incentive to give you more than 10Mbps because they're the incumbent, they have been granted monopolies in most places and they will rather spend money fighting any competition than giving you more access for free.
Dishonest summary (Score:2)
This wouldn't provide extra or faster broadband. It would be a tax on urbanites to subsidize rural broadband.
No, I would not want to see that. Let Farmer Joe pay his fair share.
Didn't we already PAY for faster internet? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm [newnetworks.com]
I've been hearing about this for years but I was under the impression we already paid for 45 Meg up/down under the clinton presidency and while the telco's have been taking tax money for this, they still haven't built out the infrastructure we should have had several years ago.
Anyone know more about this?
It was also my understanding that the National Information Infrastructure was a result of the High Performance computing act of 1991 under Clinton and Gore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_Act_of_1991 [wikipedia.org]
So I have to ask. Why pay for more when we've been paying for it since 1991? I'm curious if other's can help me understand if I've misread what the act is supposed to do.
Sure they'd sit up and take notice... (Score:2)
Sure, what's one more tax? (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, because obviously we have no sources of funding from our other taxes, so might as well start a new one, right?
Because it's just damn impossible to find funding in the rest of the budget stemming from:
Accounts Receivable Tax, Accumulated Earnings Tax, Alternative Minimum Tax, Aviation Fuel Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Cement and Gypsum Producers License Tax, Cigarette Tax, Coal Severance Tax, Coal Gross Proceeds Tax, Consumer Counsel Tax, Consumption Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Corporation License Tax, Electrical Energy Producers Tax, Estate Tax, Inheritance, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax, Fishing License Tax, Food Service License Tax, Fuel Permit License Tax, Gasoline Tax (8 to 35 cents per gallon), Generation-skipping Transfer Tax, Gift Tax, Gross Production Tax, Hospital Facility Utilization Fee Tax, Hunting License Fee Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Penalties Tax, Land Value Tax, Liquor License Tax, Liquor Tax, Local Tax, Lodging Facility Use Tax, Luxury Tax, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax,Metal Mines Gross Proceeds Tax, Metal Mines License Tax, Miscellaneous Mineral Mines License Tax, Miscellaneous Mines Net Proceeds Tax, Nursing Facility Bed Tax, Oil and Natural Gas Production Tax, Payroll Tax, Professional PrivilegeTax, Property Tax, Proxy Tax, Public Contractor's Gross Receipts Tax, Public Service Commission Tax, Public Utility Tax, Real Estate Tax, Real Estate Transfer Tax, Rental Vehicle Sales Tax,Resort Tax, Resource Indemnity and Groundwater Assessment Tax, Retail Telecommunications Excise Tax, Sales Tax, School Tax, Self-Employment Tax, Septic Permit Tax, Severance Tax, Social Security Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax, Statewide Emergency Telephone 911 System Fee Tax, Surtax Tax, Tariffs, Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, TDD Telecommunications Service Fee Tax, Tobacco Products Tax (Other than Cigarettes), Toll Road Fee Tax, Toll Bridge Fee Tax, Toll Tunnel Fee Tax, Tonnage Tax, Traffic Fines, Trailer Registration Fee Tax, Use Tax, Vehicle Registration and License Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Wholesale Energy Transaction Tax, Workers Compensation Tax.
We are taxed to death.
I already pay for that! (Score:2)
I pay a tax when I earn money (income tax).
Then I pay an extra tax when I spend those taxed money (VAT).
Then I pat for goods/services themselves.
So, what'd be the point for this extra tax? Pointless!
If I want super fast giggo broadband, I buy premium.
If I want normal, I buy vanilla. That's it.
Spanish American War (Score:3)
Given that we're still paying a tax on our telephones that originated from the Spanish American War, I think we're taxed more than enough right now, thanks.
Plus it appears that fully 50% or more of my tax dollars goes to pork or horseshit that nobody cares about. Well, nobody that isn't a billionaire.
What would I get for it? (Score:3)
I'm not fundamentally opposed to paying a broadband tax, but what would I get for it? I would happily pay a 5% tax if it meant that my broadband received government-imposed price controls, minimum bandwidth guarantees, and net neutrality.
Don't you mean *another* tax? (Score:3)
I thought Internet access was already "taxed" in the form of ad banners and being spied upon by various government and corporate entities.
Also, that people already pay for more faster access and higher bandwidth caps.
Um . . . just to point something out . . . (Score:3)
Physical
Data
Network
Transport
Session
Protocol
Application
Which layer looks like it cares about symmetry?
Re:No, I would not pay another dime. (Score:4, Insightful)
Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt earned a $16.4 Million salary last year.
I fail to see any innovation from my Internet provider.
He got paid 16.4 Million. I doubt he _earned_ that much money for any normal definition of the word.
Re: (Score:3)
To earn: to be paid in return for services rendered.
The market sets the price. If they hadn't paid him that much he would likely work elsewhere, and they'd hire someone else. They pay him that much cause he and they got together and agreed that he, with his background and knowledge and experience, was worth that much as a CEO.
You may not like how he "earns" his pay or think he does, but that's ok, it's (99.999% likely) not up to you. If the board of directors ever thinks he hasn't earned his pay, then he'd
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
without broadband access DO NOT want high-speed internet
hahahah!!!! thats rich.
They want it. They just do not want to live in a city... You are confusing living like that, with living 50 years ago.
They just do not like cities. They usually do however like modern things. Its worse than that though. There are *many* who want it. But will never get it because of lack of infrastructure. Also what you and I consider high speed, and what that survey considers high speed are 2 different things.
Mod the parent up (Score:3)
The parent has the truth well in hand. Rural US is not what you think it is. This is not about shoe-less waifs huddled in plywood cabins. The sort of rural households that might benefit from 'universal internet' are typically well off.
Besides, this 'problem' is easily solved without a tax. Just open the right-of-way to competitors and then jump back and let the dirt fly as phone/cable companies suddenly discover new enthusiasm for complete coverage.
That solution does nothing to feed the statists, howeve
Re: (Score:2)
Things I'd support the money being put into:
You misunderstand, this is a tax.
That means the government takes the money and keeps it. You don't get to make a list of things you will get in return.