Slashdot Mirror
Wireless Providers to Pay Universal Service Fees?
andyo writes "Mailing lists are abuzz with the news that
wireless Internet providers may have to pay fees to support plain old telephone service.
My own perspective is at the O'Reilly Network." The Universal Service Fees are taxes set up long ago to assure that telephone service was provided to everyone, even people who it would normally be uneconomical to serve. The theory is a good one, the execution maybe not. (Maybe if the fees went towards Universal Broadband?)
because they suck more
Linux graphics software may not be as glorified as some of the Windows or MacOS programs. They are, however, useful. And the underlying fact is, Hey, they're free. If you want to spend money on graphic software, thats your business. The rest of us, on the other hand, will master the skills required to produce awesome images on what we have.
Yet another signature that refers to itself. The irony and humor is dead.
But, then again... Societal rights also give no person a specific right to something more than someone else...
No matter which way you argue it, you cannot grant someone a right by stepping on someone else....
Your gonna lose this argument with me, I promise.
we value making sure the under-served (the people who corporations lose money serving) are still served
First, yes you are correct. I am a Libertarian. How do you justify though the violation of the rights of the people that now are supporting those under-served
I do understand that you have stated that you are a socialist. And I will attempt to sway you away from your value system.
As a Libertarian I want you to believe what you wish, unlike Socialism which forces choices onto people. Those who are now taxed serving your value system have now been striped of their rights. You have to understand that whenever you attempt to give someone something else others are hurt by that action.
Am I cold and heart-less about those who are under-served, a little bit, I'm greedy. So what to do about them?
If the populus of our nation wasn't so harshly taxed and Americans had more dispolsable income donations to non-profit organizations would drastically increase (it would, people in general do like to do good, they just don't like being forced to do so). With a private non-profit which is smaller and more efficent than any government can hope to be those resources are distributed with a greater effect than it would be through Socialist type systems like Social Security.
Study Economics. The wonderful quality that money has is power. Your argument against mine above one would be these non-profits would become greedy and steal money from those donating. So be it, those with the money have the power and will give somewhere else that will do what the donators wish. The world can be nice and serve all without it being forced upon you.