FCC eyes tax on Internet service

[thundley4]

The Federal Communications Commission is eyeing a proposal to tax broadband Internet service.

The move would funnel money to the Connect America Fund, a subsidy the agency created last year to expand Internet access.

The FCC issued a request for comments on the proposal in April. Dozens of companies and trade associations have weighed in, but the issue has largely flown under the public's radar.

"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.
Numerous companies, including AT&T, Sprint and even Google have expressed support for the idea.

Thehill

This tax and the expansion of high speed internet access is just a BS excuse to raise taxes.  The FCC doesn't count people that only have access through phones and tablets or whatever.  They only count those that have high speed internet at home.

[obumazombie]

"Expand internet access". Code for income redistribution from makers to takers. Helping the takers "up their take".

[Northern_Tory]

Allowing more people to have access to the internet doesn't seem to be a bad thing, it really depends on whether or not the cost of tax increases outweighs the bonus of having more people connected to the internet.

[BigTex]

They would have to provide broadband access 1st before they could tax it. There are a lot of countries that make our "broadband" internet look like dial-up.

[Wineslob]

Allowing more people to have access to the internet doesn't seem to be a bad thing, it really depends on whether or not the cost of tax increases outweighs the bonus of having more people connected to the internet.

Millions on welfare would agree.

[obumazombie]

Millions on welfare would agree.

More takers "upping their take".

[Freeper]

Allowing more people to have access to the internet doesn't seem to be a bad thing, it really depends on whether or not the cost of tax increases outweighs the bonus of having more people connected to the internet.

Set up your wireless router so anyone can access it then.

[Chris_]

Allowing more people to have access to the internet doesn't seem to be a bad thing.

Right.  Because there aren't enough stupid people on YouTube and Facebook... we should add more and pay for the privelige.

[Northern_Tory]

Right.  Because there aren't enough stupid people on YouTube and Facebook... we should add more and pay for the privelige.

What about the economic value of the internet? Businesses could use it to help boost awareness etc and more people would have access to shopping online.

[BigTex]

Right.  Because there aren't enough stupid people on YouTube and Facebook... we should add more and pay for the privelige.

the real question is the "access" about the taxes providing the infrastructure or the service. Im all for infrastructure it usually pays off in the long run. Many rural places would be without power lines and roads if the govt had not invested in that infrastructure.

[docstew]

Allowing more people to have access to the internet doesn't seem to be a bad thing, it really depends on whether or not the cost of tax increases outweighs the bonus of having more people connected to the internet.

There is a tax on every landline phone bill in the US that was instituted to help pay for spreading telephones to every town and eventually every home in the country. This tax is still being collected today. It was instituted during the Spanish-American War, and there are no plans to remove it.

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.

[Northern_Tory]

the real question is the "access" about the taxes providing the infrastructure or the service. Im all for infrastructure it usually pays off in the long run. Many rural places would be without power lines and roads if the govt had not invested in that infrastructure.

That's essentially what my point has been all along, if this pays off in the long run, then it's good, whereas if its just a ploy for more revenue, then I'm opposed to it.

[thundley4]

the real question is the "access" about the taxes providing the infrastructure or the service. Im all for infrastructure it usually pays off in the long run. Many rural places would be without power lines and roads if the govt had not invested in that infrastructure.

Unfortunately , infrastructure isn't likely to be the goal of this.  

How many free Obamaphones have been handed out to welfare cases?

[obumazombie]

Unfortunately , infrastructure isn't likely to be the goal of this.  

How many free Obamaphones have been handed out to welfare cases?

There are still some free Katrina formaldahyde ridden FEMA trailers available.

[Eupher]

Allowing more people to have access to the internet doesn't seem to be a bad thing, it really depends on whether or not the cost of tax increases outweighs the bonus of having more people connected to the internet.

How do you quantify and otherwise perform an ROI on "bonus of having more people connected to the internet" and how to do equate that to the cost that others who are CURRENTLY paying for internet service to pay even more for the express benefit of those who DON'T pay for internet service at all?

In other words, NT, your pitch sounds disturbingly like yet another liberal feel-good mechanism to have the providers pay for those who have their hands out.

Who pays for YOUR internet access?

[Northern_Tory]

How do you quantify and otherwise perform an ROI on "bonus of having more people connected to the internet" and how to do equate that to the cost that others who are CURRENTLY paying for internet service to pay even more for the express benefit of those who DON'T pay for internet service at all?

In other words, NT, your pitch sounds disturbingly like yet another liberal feel-good mechanism to have the providers pay for those who have their hands out.

Who pays for YOUR internet access?

I would imagine you could quantify it by looking at the economic gains of businesses having high speed internet access compared to the increase in taxation to fund it.

If this was my idea, I would cut spending in an area which isn't vital, such as parts of the welfare state to fund such a programme, so taxes wouldn't have to be increased, but I doubt that is what is going to happen?

At home, my parents pay for it and at university I pay for it with my student loan.

[Eupher]

I would imagine you could quantify it by looking at the economic gains of businesses having high speed internet access compared to the increase in taxation to fund it.

If this was my idea, I would cut spending in an area which isn't vital, such as parts of the welfare state to fund such a programme, so taxes wouldn't have to be increased, but I doubt that is what is going to happen?

At home, my parents pay for it and at university I pay for it with my student loan.

Noble thought, especially cutting spending in an area that "isn't vital," but who determines what's vital and what isn't? You? Any thought as to how much argument you'd get, whatever it is you decide you're going to cut?

Politicians very, very rarely cut a tax that they enact. They love spending that money too much to cut it. And continually seek to find other sources of revenue to fund their thirsty habits.

You're a young person. You have yet to find your own way. After some years of paying for not only your own lifestyle but other lifestyles that your taxes support, you will likely become sick and tired of paying for other people who are not only unproductive and lazy, but absolutely determined to remain that way.

[obumazombie]

When someone advocates upping the take, there's a liberal afoot.

[Airwolf]

Just what the world needs more taxes. 

[Undies]

I didn't realize the FCC made taxing decisions.  Why do we have a congress anymore?

[DumbAss Tanker]

That's essentially what my point has been all along, if this pays off in the long run, then it's good, whereas if its just a ploy for more revenue, then I'm opposed to it.

It's not an irrational point, however, after the fiasco that the free cell phone program created 'To help people connect and find work' (Which didn't happen but DID get millions on welfare smartphones - I say again, smartphones, i.e. they HAVE highspeed web access - with which they text, sext, chat, and surf with each other), the trust is gone.

[RobJohnson]

It's not an irrational point, however, after the fiasco that the free cell phone program created 'To help people connect and find work' (Which didn't happen but DID get millions on welfare smartphones - I say again, smartphones, i.e. they HAVE highspeed web access - with which they text, sext, chat, and surf with each other), the trust is gone.

The cell phone program was a transition from the land line program that was already in place for years.

When working folks had to come up with high instalation costs for land lines, those on public aid, did not.

These charges show up on land line bills as Universal Connectivity Fee  or Universal Service Fund. It's simply a tax to help the poor.

 

[RobJohnson]

I don't make over 250k a year. President Obama promised me no new taxes! 

[obumazombie]

I don't make over 250k a year. President Obama promised me no new taxes! 

He may be borrowing a term developed by clinnochio
"Broad based contributions"
It almost makes it sound voluntary, and charitable, doesn't it ?

[CG6468]

It's not an irrational point, however, after the fiasco that the free cell phone program created 'To help people connect and find work' (Which didn't happen but DID get millions on welfare smartphones - I say again, smartphones, i.e. they HAVE highspeed web access - with which they text, sext, chat, and surf with each other), the trust is gone.

While driving their Escalades to get their food stamps.