Cable Modem Tax Proposed by FCC

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."

Comments

Only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Before they tax everything as usual
Enjoy it while it lasts!

Re:Only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty soon we'll be paying taxes on taxes that get payed by taxes to raise funds for a gov't agency to tax us on paying taxes.....meanwhile any American who's job was not shipped overseas only gets about 10% of their paycheck after all these taxes.

Universal Service Fund

[frieked]

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

[Smidge204]

Which begs the question... why is telephone service more expensive in rural areas?

(Seriously, I'd like to know...)
=Smidge=

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Binestar]

Which begs the question... why is telephone service more expensive in rural areas?

For arguements sake:

You have 100 people living in a city, that city is 1 square mile. The cable it run and more drops in a smaller area requiring less cable and less repeaters etc.

To get to the same 100 poeple in a rural area you have perhaps 10 square miles.

Same amount of possible customers but a larger initial capital investment and ongoing upkeep.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[barkerway]

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

[keep_it_simple_stupi]

Because there are fewer subscribers to share costs in a given area, each subscriber has to pay more for their service to cover the company's costs.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Surak]

More cable. That's the biggest reason. With neighbors sometimes MILES apart, they have to run LOTS of extra cable per customer, not like in the city where you closest neighbor is usually only a small number of feet away.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[cdrudge]

Economy of scale. A single CO can serve several thousands of customers. If they are all fairly closely packed, they can all share a common set of telephone poles, trunk lines, etc. With remote terminals and the likes, costs go down even further. In a remote setting, those same costs are there, but they service far fewer people. So the cost per customer is much higher compaired to the urban folks.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[gantzm]

Lower customer density.

Hmm, I mean the aggregate customer count is lower, per infrastructure used. Not that individual customers have a lower density.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Jucius Maximus]

"Which begs the question... why is telephone service more expensive in rural areas?"

I am not 100% sure, but I believe it's because there's more analogue equipment involved and this it is harder to maintain, harder to remotel administer and so on. I live in a rural area and because of all this analogue sh~t I can only get 28.8 dialup. Too bad cable and ADSL are not available. (Fortunately I am temporarily living in a big city for business purposes and I have 1.5 Mb cable from Rogers. It's not in the USA so the FCC does not have hold here.)

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Khomar]

Generally because of infrastructure. In the cities, you have a much higher number of people per mile of phone line than you do out in the country. For example, here in Montana, you could have a phone line running for 15-20 miles just to reach two or three ranches. Building and maintaining all of those miles of phone line is very expensive, and if the people in rural areas were required to pay for this, they would likely not be able to afford phones at all.

That said, when I hear about the billions involved in this project ($6 billion), my mind just screams pork-barrel. Like most governement projects, I am certain there is a very large percentage of waste.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[HowlinMad]

this is just a guess, but it makes sense to me. In a rural area, take the same amount of equipment (lines, etc...) and compare it to a denser region. The number of customers in the denser region wil be much higher, along with the possibility of more customers, meaning the overhead of the infrastructure can be spread out among more customers. Basically it costs them more to get you the service.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Which brings about the question: Why are you misusing "begs the question"?

Begging the question means that you are using a tautology, i.e. circular reasoning.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from longer cables as another poster mentioned, there are similar switching equipment costs for a rural central office as for an urban one, but less customers to sell service on that equipment to.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[molo]

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

[cgenman]

How about a Universal Housing Fund, so that rural people can help pay for some of the outrageous apartment costs in the city?

The fund might have been important years ago when there were areas of the globe that were threatened by a lack of telecommunications, but now with cellular towers going up everywhere one can only consider the fund an anachronism.

It costs 1400 dollars per month to rent the tiny apartment above ours. Out in rural California it was 600 dollars to rent a huge house. A few more dollars are going from my TCL to subsidize someone else's, who lives for half of what I'm paying?

I'm all for taking from the rich to give to the poor, but I don't think this is the most direct way to go about it.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[srvivn21]

Think about shopping at Costco in a big city. You get low prices because you buy in bulk. Now think about shopping at a small general store out in the sticks. Their costs are more (both for buying smaller quantities, and for the extra transport costs), so the charge more.

Telephone (and internet) service are very similar. In a large city you can "buy" access in bulk, and pass the savings on to your customers. The infrastructure (fiber optics, copper pair) is also already laid out.

In rural communities, you still need a pedistle, but it might only serve one or two houses instead of twenty or a hundred. The really rural communities (look at a map of Alaska some time) have to be served by sattelite. That's even more expensive.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[donutello]

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

This is even more ridiculous. Living in a rural area is a choice - as is living in an urban area. There are costs and benefits associated with those choices. I don't see a tax on rural properties intended to make property more affordable for those of us who live in cities and would outherwise end up paying more for an apartment or house than rural dwellers.

The remaining 15 percent goes toward discounts to low-income subscribers and funds rural health care.


Again, this has nothing to do with cable modems.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Foochar]

I don't know for sure, but I would think it has something to do with lower population densities. If we assume that a central office can serve 10,000 people, then in the Lake and Peninsula Borough in Alaska you would be providing service over about 100,000 square miles, and would need the copper local loops to serve them. On the other hand in New York County you would only be providing service over 1/5th of a square mile.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

False.

Cable costs is really nothing. Maintaining and setting up the cable is a different matter. Truck roll and equipment costs suck. You're talking pole installation, running the wires. The increase in boosters/repeaters/gain equipment.

Hell, the health care and retirement benefits that the company gives to the employees that string up the wire is likely to cost more than the wire itself, esp. in relation to years in use. This is one of the reasons why electrical companies moved to automatic meter reading--they spent millions doing the transition, but will save millions from all the people they laid off since they don't have to worry about their pension plans.

People time costs lotsa dough.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Smidge204]

Seems everyone agrees on the reason :)

This also sounds like a good reason for telcos to:

A) Move their infastructure over to IP based networks. Switching becomes much less of a problem.

B) With the inclusion of A, perhaps a wireless P2P system could fill a nitch here. Some flavors of wireless networking can work reliably over 10-15 miles, right? What about satelites?

That could bring the infastructure cost per-subscriber down in rural areas quite a bit.
=Smidge=

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Col. Klink (retired)]

In other words, supply and demand. Which leads to the question: WHY does the government feel it is important to manipulate the market prices for these people?

And assuming there is a really good reason to subsidize their phone service, why are we not subsidizing ALL their goods and services. Surely it costs more to deliver groceries and other goods and services to rural areas. Why don't I have to pay a Federal Universal Toilet Paper Tax to make sure that rural folks don't have to pay more for their toilet paper than I do?

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Cramer]

Yes, but the rural infrastructure is far cheaper (as in quality) in it's construction. In a city, there's a fiber loop (or two...) with muxes feeding much shorter copper runs. Out in the sticks, there maybe fiber run to the CO for the entire county, but everything from the CO out is copper -- many, many miles of it. And most of it is many decades old today.

Don't let the FCC and RBOC's fool you. Most of the UFC charges are, by definition, a scam. See that line item on your phone bill? Think it goes to the FCC? WRONG. It goes right in Bell's pocket "to offset the costs of providing universal services."

Re:Universal Service Fund

[lynx_user_abroad]

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

[srvivn21]

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...

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

> Think about shopping at Costco in a big city.

So people who live in cities not only get cheaper phone service, they also get cheaper groceries? How unfair is that!

Re:Universal Service Fund

[jazman_777]

Which begs the question...

Warning: language police in the room!

It does _not_ beg the question. It may _raise_ the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy where one assumes the conclusion is true in proving it is true (more or less).

Re:Universal Service Fund

[srvivn21]

And how are the rural dwellers going to make money to pay this fee? There's no Corporations to employ them. No Walmart for them to get jobs as greeters. Look up "subsistence lifestyle". Most of your food comes from hunting and gathering.

Just because your parents choose to live like this, should you be penalized? How is a rural kid going to get a job in the "civilized" world without some experience with computers and the internet? How would they apply for scholorships and college?

You aren't thinking rural enough. Try rural New Mexico, or Montana, or (best example) Alaska.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[TopShelf]

But don't they save money by just leaving the phone up on the pole rather than running wire into the house?

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Monte]

WHY does the government feel it is important to manipulate the market prices for these people?

Because it's very bad politics when a six year old has to run two miles down the road to the nearest phone to tell the operator that his house is on fire and his parents are trapped inside.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Funds allocation are not always based on funding sources. When the U.S. Government decided a need for rural health care, rather then impose a new tax (and garner the anger of voters) Congress just re-allocated exsisting taxs from a source where the money was to be used in rural areas already.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Say you need $200 to fund your library or whatever. Assume further that you have two people, one making $20k and one making $100k. Consider an income tax vs. a fee.

Now, if you tax as a percentage of income, you would impose a 0.167% tax and take $33 off the $20k earner and $167 from the $100k earner. With the fee system, you just hit them both for $100. In short, the fees are there to pay for the income tax rate cuts.

As to why this fee is being imposed, guess who has more influence in writing the laws, the $20k earner or the $100k earner?

The whole point is to shift the tax burden from weathly people to poor people. Whether this is fair or not is an exercise for the reader.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[OrangeGoo]

Because rural areas grow their own potatoes and shoot their own cows. S'why urban areas pay more for fresh food than rural areas. :P If anything, the government should be subsidizing fresh food to urban areas. ;)

Re:Universal Service Fund

[jellomizer]

"at least the money is going to some somewhat good causes"

Like they say the money from the lottery goes to schools. Sure they say this is how the cash will be allocated. But once they get their hand on the money they will reallocate the way the really want it. There is a lot of wasted tax money out there. Before they start taxing us more I want them to clean up on the wast first. Putting more money to a problem doest solve anything when the money doesn't get allocated to the people and products that need it. I don't have an issue of paying more taxes but I should see a return on my investment and should get advantages from my tax money, not just place it in dead end money sappers that effects no one.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Monte]

Why should rural dwellers get help from the rest of us on paying for their phone connection?

For the same reason that everyone in a city pays taxes to fund the police and the fire department, even though they might never need either.

A telephone in a remote area is not a luxury, it's a lifeline.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[cgenman]

But what you are talking about is a rural poverty fund, not a rural service fund. I know many rural dwellers who make a good living, and many rich city-dwellers who keep rural houses for vacationing.

Haphazardly giving money to phone companies as compensation for a mandate that they serve everyone isn't going to help that subsistence farmer who can't afford to pay 30 dollars a month for a phone bill anyway. Likewise, there are many kids in the city without access to technology and whose families regularly appeal to my grandmother's church for help paying for electricty and water bills, let alone phones.

The point of the original bill was that the cost of service for those who can afford it should subsidize those who cannot. The current system does not do that, and should be changed.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[ak_hepcat]

> This is even more ridiculous. Living in a rural area is a choice

Wow. You are about the most ignorant person I think I've ever come across.

Tell me how a indigenous person, living in a village of 25 people on the north-western coast of Alaska, who has no "job", feeds his family by hunting, fishing, trapping, and foraging; tell me how that person can suddenly "choose" to move to an urban environment?

Not even bringing up the question of their job skills or finances, but what about their heritage and community? What happens to the community when 1/5 of the tribes' providors suddenly leaves?

As a person who works for a telco providing service to these rural communities, I can tell you that they are __extremely__ grateful to have internet service -- which has only been available due to the USF. It has previously been cost prohibitive, and while there is still no profit to be made here, the rewards substantially outweight the losses.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[n-baxley]

but now with cellular towers going up everywhere one can only consider the fund an anachronism.

Since I'm in the process of finding a cell phone provider that gives good digital coverage in rural Illinois I can tell you that they are not as ubiquitus as in the city. I'm not saying that I'm sseing any of this money, but rural is definetly different. We also pay a boat load more for basic telephone than in the city.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Asprin]

Sure - both are subject to the political whims of the U.S. Congress.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Cinematique]

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 this initiative will fund the very actions stated above.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Ok, first, if his house is on fire and there's no other house for two miles, having a phone inside the burning house isn't really going to help him...

Second, using the necessity of basic phone to justify a different subsidy doesn't seem right.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[cdrudge]

Telephone poles are not cheap. Manpower is not cheap when the poles are knocked down, ice stormes, etc need to be repaired.

In the city, the cost per customer is probably still cheaper even with the newer technology.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[SmackCrackandPot]

If this tax were going to provide broadband access (cable modems) to rural communities, it would be worthwhile. But if it's going to subsidize the existing telephone monopolies, that seems to be waste of money.

Any tax on a telecommunications service should be used to bring that type of service to rural communities and poor neighbourhoods.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[einstein]

it's not that it costs them more. it's that the telephone companies won't run service out that far without proding from the government..

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

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

[dattaway]

Doesn't the high cost of medical coverage already cover this? My employer pays $220 a week for insurance. How many taxes do we need to keep people alive these days?

Re:Universal Service Fund

[GlassHeart]

Just because your parents choose to live like this, should you be penalized?

To a certain extent, yes.

If your parents chose to invest your college fund in a dot-com and lost it all, you are penalized. If your parents chose to live a life of crime, you might have to grow up in a foster home with your chances in life somewhat stacked against you. If your parents chose to use contraceptives, you wouldn't be alive to start with.

I don't think it's possible to have every kid start off on the same footing, short of some truly draconian (and likely ill-fated) governmental meddling. Moving to a rural area is not nearly the only way parents can screw up their children's chances in life, in any case.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[rsborg]

"I'm all for taking from the rich to give to the poor, ..."
So you are a thief? Thanks for clearing that up.
The rich by and large earn their money.
The poor are poor due to their choices in life, nothing more.
Marxism is DEAD, lets move on.

Who the f*ck modded this cruft as insightful? The only thing this could be is INSITEFUL, right wing propoganda with no links or meaningful references. Which should get a -1 Offtopic mod along with all the other left-wing conspiracy theory bullshit. This thread is about FCC taxing cable modem users, not trying to spin your extremist worldview.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Cramer]

Most telephone wiring is underground, not on the "telephone" poles. Back home, maybe 100ft of the miles of cable feeding my parents phone is above ground -- basically everywhere it crosses water. Besides, those poles are property of the power company, not the telco.

When the last ice storm blew through, everyone had to wait for the power company to fix the poles before they could fix the phones, cable, etc. that were on those poles. (of course Time Warner took a few weeks to finally fix everything.)

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Lumpy]

Cripe, just like the overpaid, rich suburbanite to bitch about how the high technology is going up to fund getting the country's infrastructure finished.

Yes ther ARE advantages to rual living, but 70% of those people in rural america are DIRT POOR you insensitive clod.

How about bitching about the fact that it's nothing more than a thinly veiled excuse to TAX yet another thing in our world instead of bitching about the one part of it that has any merit.

No I no longer live in the rural area.. Yes I DID have paradise out there for the 2 years I spent living on 3 acres on a nice large sport lake that my land and house cost less than your Yukon XL or BMW wannabe SUV. Making a paltry $40,000.00 a year I was considered one of the well-to-do in town. Many made less than 1/2 of what I made and were usually laid off for the winter.

so yes, if a part of this "tax" after the politicians rob it blind for their own uses goes to finishing the telephone infrastructure in rural america... It's a GOOD THING (tm) and you sure need to see it as such. Just like how you pay $1.00 a month on your phone bill for 911 service.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, not everyone living in a city is a rich yuppie. I'm not rich, but my rent costs a relative fortune. Pay for your own telephone service, you insensitive clod. :)

Re:Universal Service Fund

[jmauro]

The fund might have been important years ago when there were areas of the globe that were threatened by a lack of telecommunications, but now with cellular towers going up everywhere one can only consider the fund an anachronism.

There is large tracks of land out in the Western United States that don't have cell phone towers and most likely will never have them. It's really not profitable to run the lines out or set towers up for rural service because the number of customers per line is really really small. The phone companies would be guarenteed a loss. Because of those reasons the losses are offset. Without the offset the phone companies would stick to cell towers in the cities, towns, and along the major highways. Without the fund, if you don't live within "range" of those places you'll be completely out of luck.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[cdrudge]

Maybe where you are at. Where I am at, rural areas are still mainly on "telephone" poles. Urban areas are buried though. Either way, you still have the considerable cost of having to bury the cable. It's a lot of cable for a few customers. This is the same reason why cable companies often don't service a large rural area...it's cost prohibitive for a relatively few customers.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[srvivn21]

Do you really think that your insurance payment goes to the well being of people not affiliated with your insurance company? That payment subsidizes workers comp. claims by other people covered by the same insurance provider. It has no bearing on providing health care to remote locations.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[mkldev]

Whoa. Deja vü..... That would be true if they actually serviced the lines. Where I used to live, it was nearly impossible to get a line repaired. Three years and lots of phone calls later, they finally fixed the problem after it rained and we were able to hear our next door neighbor's conversations clearly.

Give me a break. If the same phone companies provided the same service to rural customers that they do for urban customers, it would be more expensive. Of course, if pigs could fly, we'd all carry umbrellas.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[srvivn21]

No argument there. I'm not happy with either a rate increase or the possibility of having my cable modem "taxed". The process could be so much better, but that would take effort. And effort costs money.

The money doesn't go to helping a farmer who can't afford a $30/month phone bill, it's/(should be) going torwards making sure that farmer doesn't have to worry about affording a $130/month phone bill.

The current system DOES do that. Unfortunately that's not all it does...

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no sympathy for someone bitching about the price of their internet connectivity when he/she chooses to live in the middle of bfe Montana. This same person is probably paying at least $1000/mo less on rent than a person in a good sized east or west coast city. Cost of living and services vary depending on the area in which you live. I see no reason why city dwellers should be expected to subsidize internet access for rural customers.

Ask them when they are going to start chipping in for my rent and property taxes.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Moving to a rural area is not nearly the only way parents can screw up their children's chances in life, in any case.

Oh, please bestow upon us simple country folk more of your urban intellect. We wait for more of your enlighting ego rant to understand the glory that is you.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[senrik]

~I have no sympathy for someone bitching about the price of their internet connectivity when he/she chooses to live in the middle of bfe Montana.

How about this one: I live on the other side of Puget Sound, approximately 8 nautical miles east of downtown seattle. The only reason there isn't fiber travelling the sound is because of the US Navy fleet. Why should I have to pay for Bush's war over oil?

Re:Universal Service Fund

[srvivn21]

Point taken.

Think of it this way. For any of those other examples, there are programs (government and otherwise) in place to help them out. There is foster care for the parent less (as crappy as that is, it's likely better than living on the street), scholarships and student loans for the non-well-off, libraries (with internet access) for everyone.

*shrug* I certainly don't have all the answers, but I think that the prisoners dilemma applies here.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[spirality]

I got a solution for that family. Move, or pay the price by paying your fair share of the telephone bill.

-Craig

Re:Universal Service Fund

[senrik]

~I got a solution for that family. Move, or pay the price by paying your fair share of the telephone bill.

dude, I left the city i was living to get away from terrorists (I was in the buildings during 9/11). Where I live is close enough to a city to be a suburb, but isn't. (there are places farther away from the downtown from me that are part of the city limits). Its a geography and political issue.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[jcrouse.com]

Well, I have cable Internet, and I also live in a somewhat rural area. I *do* live in the village limits, making me a bit of a city dweller. My concern about this TAX is that it is going to end up like my phone bill - I have two lines (run a home office for my business). I pay for 3. My two lines are around $60. My taxes on these lines are $30. I pay $91+ - and that is before I pick up the phone to make a call. I question why the USF cannot be funded through my $30 and the $30 every other poor sap that uses a phone. The addition of another tax makes me question where the rest of this money is going.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares if it costs more?!
I'm from a rural area.
Why should urban residents subsidize rural areas?

Why should suburban residents subsidize urban or rural areas?

In anything. Phones, roads, etc.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coed]

Oh, please. And city dweller's housing and other costs are far higher than rural people. I'm not saying that it "all balances out" or that everything's fair, but since when is life supposed to be fair?

Re:Universal Service Fund

[spirality]

No, it's an issue of market economics. Only when you don't buy the notion of a free-market does it become a geographic or political issue.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done Sir! A very good point to which I agree.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

> but since when is life supposed to be fair?

Apparently, when high speed internet access costs too much...

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a complete moron. We don't have a flat tax, we have a progressive tax. So in reality, the person making $20k would not pay any tax and would in fact receive money from the government. On the other hand, the person making $100k would end up paying between $10k - $20k in taxes.

Guess who is picking up the slack for whom?

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Phurd Phlegm]

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.

Aren't these extra people the ones that can't afford to pay the full price of a network connection? In what way do they increase the economic prospects of the net, then? Either they don't have any money as others have claimed, or they can pay for their connection.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

You moved to get away from terrorists? No offense, but you're a fucking pussy. Suck it up, dude, and move back to the city.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[TeraCo]

Because you need to keep those people living in Rural Areas to provide you with food and other raw materials.

Although from a country that pays farmers not to grow things, I don't know what to expect.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[GlassHeart]

Oh, please bestow upon us simple country folk more of your urban intellect.

The point of the statement you quoted was that there are many ways parents can really mess up their children's chances in life, and we don't have legislation to fix all of them. Therefore, even if "moving to a rural area" really has that effect, it's still not necessarily a situation where the government should get involved in.

Not everyone is out to insult you.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[GlassHeart]

For any of those other examples, there are programs (government and otherwise) in place to help them out. There is foster care for the parent less (as crappy as that is, it's likely better than living on the street), scholarships and student loans for the non-well-off, libraries (with internet access) for everyone.

Oh, I'm not saying they shouldn't be helped. I was just commenting on your apparent assertion that kids should be free of the consequences of their parents' actions. For example, as you noted, foster care can often be a poor alternative to a loving family environment, and a kid sent to foster care because of criminal parents is in fact suffering those consequences. That's what I mean by "to a certain extent, kids have to suffer the choices their parents make." That "extent" is the extent to which government is willing to use public power (parental abuse, etc) and money (scholarships, etc) to help them.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Guppy06]

"and rural telephone companies (45 percent), which might otherwise end up paying more for telephone service than city dwellers."

That's all well and good on paper, but you forget who we're talking about here: The Baby Bells. Part of giving the Baby Bells their existing local monopolies was with the promise that rural customers would have the same services as urban dwellers. It's the same philosophy behind the USPS' monopoly on first class letter delivery: their monopoly generates enough income to let them charge the same low price to deliver a letter to someone in Guam as they do to someone in Manhattan.

The Baby Bells already have more than enough government incentive to improve rural (and urban!) telephone service. They have local monopolies and they have telephone use taxes to help them. But they still piss and moan about their "lack" of money simply because they want more money (gotta keep them stockholders happy, donchaknow). So they get their boys Billy Tauzin and Michael Powell to push this crap through, because politicians are cheaper than capitalism.

Dammit, I wouldn't have a problem with President Bush if it weren't for some of his appointees. And I'm not impressed with the Democrat hopefuls and my knee doesn't jerk enough for most third parties (yes, that includes the Libertarians).

Re:Universal Service Fund

[srvivn21]

Sorry to come across so heavy handed. I am (at least partly) a product of my environment. If my parents had not been as loving as they were, I would not be the person I am today. I am affected by my parents choices (though I can hardly be said to suffer).

I was just trying to state that in this instance there is a way to make the playing field a litte more equal between those who live in urban environments and those that don't. I work for a company that takes advantage of the USF and I see benefits to the communities we serve on a daily basis.

Obviously my perspective is massivly skewed to the "pro" side. It helps pay my salary and I see direct positive results.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[jafiwam]

Gee.

It sure would be nice if those country folks would help offset the cost of my in-city house, $300k city vs. $120k country house. (3 bedroom, 2 bath same house, different location) Housing costs in the city are WAY more than those bumpkins are paying for the same stuff, taxes, the price of land and buildings included.

When they start paying 60% of my mortgage every month with a subsidy paid for by edge-of-towners by an additional tax on mortgage interest, we can talk about a subsidy tax on cable modems.

Shelter, is a basic need after all. Internet broadband is not.

Country features, city features... make your choice and deal with the pricing. I chose where to live based on how I want to live and now pay for my choice of living space. Part of the deal. If someone else makes the choice to live on the outskirts and does not like the price of broadband, fuck em.

Stick to your modem you cheapskates! Shove the tax up your 28.8 butt!

Re:Universal Service Fund

[TheSync]

I don't know about letters, but it costs a lot to ship freight to Guam. I work for a network that has shifted from sending video tapes of broadcast material to Guam to shipping DVDs. The reduction of freight costs paid for the DVD burners and players in one year. American Samoa as well...

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

Not only this, but since the cable company laid their wires without any government compensation, solely off profit they made from offering the service, I do not see why the cable lines should be taxed to subsudize their COMPETITOR's lines laying to the same house. That is just fucking ridiculous.

Telephone lines are taxed because that exact tax is what brought most people that line. If cable lines are taxed as well, they should be able to draw from the same fund as the fucking monopoly bells that lay their wire for free in the wilderness using taxpayers money.

I'm not defending cable companies. They could be considered just as evil. But the fact that I cannot get digital internet cable is because they don't get money from this fund. But the fact that I CAN get DSL internet for roughly 4 times the price as my local cable provider charges 1 block away from me really fucking pisses me off. Especially when I know my lines these $65/month lines were laid with taxpayers money, and the $30/month (and higher bandwidth, lower pings, better QoS) lines are laid using nothing but profit of the cable co.

Telephone companies already have an unfair advantage over cable companies in the internet arena (at least in my state: arkansas) And taxing cable another 10% to give the money back to the bells is just the most insane idea I have ever heard (SBC owns all the last mile telephone lines in arkansas, and paid practically nothing for them compared to the cable companies, who paid full price for their higher quality lines, and are able to charge LESS for service)

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Guppy06]

"I don't know about letters, but it costs a lot to ship freight to Guam"

I specifically said "letters" instead of "parcels." Their monopoly only applies to non-expedited letter delivery (although their Express Mail rates are also flat). If it weighs more than a pound, price varies with destination.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Running fiber up from Tacoma to Bremerton would be easy (or hell, Olympia to Bremerton if you want to avoid the Narrows Bridge). There would be no hassles from the U.S. Navy, and even with the added distance it is probably cheaper than running it underwater. The real reason it hasn't reached your neighborhood is because the expense isn't justified by the (relative) handful of people and lack of big business in the Bremerton area.

Let's face it, if the Navy wasn't there, Bremerton would be a tiny backwoods community surrounded by trees. Not a bad way to live, but certainly not a prime candidate for network connectivity.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't pay for it themselves because it would cost a bajillion dollars, dumbass. Maybe what you're saying is that people in rural areas should simply learn to do without phones, television, Internet access, etc. Why do those idiot people need to live in rural areas anyway, huh? How 'bout this: you be a big man and help those poor folks have a telephone, and they will give you food, paper products, coal, minerals, etc.? In exchange for a little subsidization, you get to live in la-la-land. By the way, what do you contribute to the world?

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Cramer]

In NC, they are officially designated "utility poles". While the power companies plant and maintain them, the NCPUC licenses and controls them. In effect, as soon as Duke Power finishes erecting it's poles, Bellsouth and Time Warner (among others) have access to the right-of-way.

As for the cost of cabling (buried or otherwise)... a surprising majority of the rural US was cabled decades ago. Explosive growth in urban and suburban areas are where most of the expense can be found today. (If you listen to the telco's, your great grandchildren will still be paying for that cable. Bellsouth collected in the neighborhood of a billion dollars from the "touch-tone service" fee they were allowed to charge for two decades. (they stopped that shit a few years ago.))

Case in point... my phone line (urban Raleigh, NC) was buried in 1997 -- all 4.7 miles of it. I watched their progress. My parent's house was built in 1966. Asuming the cable hadn't already been run -- very likely as there were no other houses on that side of the creek -- their phone line is 36 years old. It hasn't been replaced in my 31 years. The line to my grandparent's on the other side of the creek was put there circa 1940. And it has never been replaced as was confirmed by a bell tech who had to move the junction box in the early 90's after lightning and a severed transmission line fused about 20ft of cable in the front yard (they just dug the box up and moved it to the other side of the yard.)

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

The option of "move" is a cheap cop-out from people who can't come up with REAL solutions. I don't think anybody is going to move based solely on the telephone system. Have you ever moved? If you did, you'd realize what a huge hassle it is!

So, the next time you're about to tell somebody to "move" to solve their problems, just bite your tongue and think of an economical solution or just don't post at all.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Thats funny, I thought that last part was on Bill Gates tab... I use a cablemodem, and I think this blows, the entire tax blows goats... As if its remotely possible to compete with the national telcos already. Bah.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Hatta]

Paying $40 a month is easy, paying 100s of dollars to have cable laid down is not.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummmm ... it's the same distance from the airport to the cabin as it is from the cabin to the airport. And what cost 3 cents when I was a kid now costs 37 cents ... yet wages have not risen 12x in the same time span.

The growth in e-mail did not happen in a vacuum.

I actually think it might be a good idea to get rid of all postal rates except 1st class and book.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[multiplexo]

There was talk of running a fiber backbone through Kitsap County and leasing it to ISPs for cheaper access. But I have to wonder what the fuck are you babbling about with the Navy? Why are they going to give a shit about fiber under the sound? They don't seem to have objected to the underwater power cables that run under Puget Sound from South Kitsap County to Vashon Island.

Running cables under Puget Sound is not as easy as you might think, the sound is rather deep in places, over 900 feet in some areas and with an average depth of 350 feet. Running a cable from somewhere in Seattle such as Alki Point to somewhere in Kitsap County, such as Manchester, is not as easy as running a 50 foot 10BaseT to your basement pr0n server. I realize that you are probably some sort of Peacenik who has grabbed on to "Desert Storm - The Sequel" and the perfidy of the Bush administration and the oil industry as the complete explanation for everything that is wrong with your life, but I have to tell you that at least in this case you're full of shit.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[FunkSoulBrother]

they increase the economic prospects of the net by simply being connected.

For example if ones family is completely rural and none are connected to the phone network, where is the incentive for you as a city-dweller to pay for the network if you can't use it to call Mom, Dad, and Grandma?

Its similar to the Instant Messenger situation. We'd all love to exist on some completely free, encrypted open-soure IM network, but when all of your friends are on AIM and MSN, you stick around even though AIM or MSN is an inferior solution.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[JPriest]

Rural health care?? It costs money in overhead every time money changes hands. Why are we going to tax a fraction of a % of cable internet revenue to fund rural health care? The government needs to defrag its taxing structure. I have heard that in order for a government to operate at peak efficiency it needs to be overthrown every 300 years. Maybe what the constitution lacked was a mandatory 200 year partial overhaul (defrag).

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats the most retarded red herring ive ever heard.

You just described maybe 10000 people out of 280 million.

Everyone has choices.
If you stay in Alaska then thats your choice.

Taxes are not OPTIONAL dipshit.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

I note you didnt present one valid counter point to his argument.

So your point is: hes a thief, and thats ok?

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Tiroth]

You mean that $1/month 911 service I paid on my ISDN? Which didn't have any phones attached? Yeah...

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Suuuuure it will. Just like the local lottery. You bet.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[lynx_user_abroad]

Aren't these extra people the ones that can't afford to pay the full price of a network connection?

What's the "full price of a network connection" for a rural telephone user? Do you really think the phone compaany can install, maintain, and upgrade 40 miles of copper pair, repeaters, line concentrators, trunks and switching equipment for the $15 a month they currently pay (as a rural user)? Could they do it for $100 a month an urban business might pay for phone service? Doubtful.

But then again, without the prospect of servicing rural customers, most urban businesses wouldn't pay the $100 a month. And without the large customer base, the phone companies couldn't even maintain an urban telephone network for $100 a month.

In what way do they increase the economic prospects of the net, then?

Through economies of scale, and shared benefit. Think about the common pencil. You you think you could manufacture pencils, and deliver them to local retail stationery stores for 5 dcents a piece? No? Then how does one explain the fact that pencils are commonly available for 5 cents a piece? I don't understand why so many urban dwellers miss this. I can't understand why anyone would choose to live in an urban setting unless they understood about economies of scale, and shared benefit. Maybe they just like crowds, pollution, and traffic jams.

If you're an urban dweller, do you really think you could get beef at $1.50 a pound were it not for the billions of dollars worth of highways between you and those rural hicks who apparently can't even afford to pay for their telephones? Clearly those people aren't going to use a billion dollars worth of highways, so why should we even bother putting in highways in the first place?

Either they don't have any money as others have claimed, or they can pay for their connection.

That, or perhaps theres something in the question you don't understand. In the end, it's not about whether they will benefit from being connected, but whether you will benefit from their being connected.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Reziac]

Last time I priced it (some years back, and it's doubtless gone up), above-ground wires cost $16/foot (wire, poles, and all). Buried cable (required in most urban areas) cost $40/foot.

BTW, those big corner-anchor poles used by power transmission lines cost about $100k apiece.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[Degrees]

Actually, I used to work for a county Health Department that tried very hard to get classified as a 'Rural Health Provider'. We were successful, and you would not believe the number of T-1 lines they have going all over the place. There are more than twenty, but not quite thirty. Some of these sites have all of two PC's at them - and those are laptops that show up on 'clinic day' (maybe twice a week,) But without that Rural Health Provider funding, we would not have been able to afford such lavishness. (I say lavish, because for example, our Road Yard (Public Works) cannot afford a faster link than a 56 Kbps line for twelve PC's - the difference is that Public Works gets paid out of the local budget. The local administrators actually feel the need to pinch pennys.)

My biggest complaint with taxing the apples to fund the oranges, (so to speak) is that it becomes near impossible to tell how much money the oranges are getting.

One other problem is that this type of funding invariably comes with exclusiveness restrictions. The funding is for Health datacomm, and nothing else. Certainly, because of abuse in the past, I can understand where this comes from. But look at what it got us:

The town of Farmersville, CA has a building that houses its City Hall and Police Department. The local Health agency is using the other half of the building. Because of these special funding sources and their exclusivity clauses, there are at least three datacomm lines from the County into that building. 1) Health has a T1 line (and they do have a substantial presence there - a T1 probably is justified.) 2) The District Attorney has a 56 Kbps line into the Police Department for their gang project. A single PC, pulling up photographs out of a database through the 56 Kbps line - ridiculous. 3) The Workforce Improvemnt Department (job training and placement) has a kiosk sitting in the lobby so people can surf job listings - and that is an ISDN line. BTW, I believe there is another line going into the building for the Farmersville Police Department to access the Sheriff's Office mainframe (that mainframe provides access to the State of California DOJ records.) I don't work on the Sheriff's datacomm, so I don't know the details of thier connectivity.

Because of the task-based funding, these datacomm lines cannot be combnined. Each organization got its own separate routers, CSU/DSU's, and leased lines. Each piece of equipment has maintenance costs / service contracts. It is, by design, more expensive than it needs to be.

Of course, if the private sector was so stupid, it would go out of business.

Re:Universal Service Fund

[splante]

Hey! Real estate in rural areas is so cheap, they can afford to pay more for their telephones!

WHAT!?!

[ambisinistral]

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.

Re:WHAT!?!

[dpille]

9.11% user fee

Indeed, think what the government could make charging people to use the phrase "nine-eleven'!

Re:WHAT!?!

[Firestorm_Rising]

9.11% service fee - I don't suppose the extra .01% is somehow patriotic?

Re:WHAT!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, especially since the decision to levy this tax seems to rest solely with the FCC, which is in the executive branch. Last time I checked, only Congress can levy taxes--they better rename this a fee.

Re:WHAT!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you look at your phone bill lately? I'm sure that fee is already there.

Re:WHAT!?!

[kfg]

I've always thought the British terminology was the acme of government doublespeak.

"Hey, we're not taxing you, we're 'adding value'."

No Sparky, you're raising the price.

When did price become a synonym for value anyway?

A friend was once talking about the 'value' of his house being effected by his neighbors. I had to point out that he was refering to his house's price. It's value was that it housed him and his family.

It was a concept completely foreign to him.

I guess for him a tax actually rasises the value of something.

KFG

Re:WHAT!?!

[SwissCheese]

Then why did my bank calculate a loan-to-value ratio when processing my mortgage application? Apparently the bank sees a financial value in my house as well.

Re:WHAT!?!

[kfg]

Q.E.D.

KFG

Re:WHAT!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

When did price become a synonym for value anyway?

When you darn Brits started selling lousy dark beer for four times the normal retail price, and called it premium.

"Hey - sell it to the Yankees. Mark it up a few times and slap that premium label on it. They'll buy anything if they think it gives them class status."

universal service

[elmegil]

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

[mjmalone]

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.

Re:universal service

[bassett]

the USF is not just about telephone service according to http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/universal_service/

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....

Re:universal service

[OrangeGoo]

Alright, I'm all for providing high-speed 'net access to everyone in the whole big country, and the government has to be involved to make that happen because, without poking, industry will never provide service to rural areas. But... wasn't the Agricultural Adjustment Act (1932) struck down (1936) for taxing one group for the benefit of another? Hello? What's the difference?

Prod one group without gouging another's eyes out... sheesh.

Re:universal service

[elmegil]

And read this post about where the money really goes. Not to those people, unless they happen to be using the incumbent monopoly.

Re:universal service

[JCMay]

Hrm! They keep adding on these fees, and the rates I pay won't be just reasonable or affordable anymore!

My wife and I were looking at cell service last weekend; one service provider charges a "gross receipts surcharge" that the sales staff didn't know about and couldn't explain. We still don't have cell service.

Re:universal service

[Anonymous Coward]

It also provides rural health care. A good cause, but a stupid way to do it.

Re:universal service

[afidel]

Except to the public libraries like mine which have the fortitude to tell the federal government to shove their money up their right wing ass along with their content filters. The fact that the federal government takes my money and then attaches all sorts of political criteria to it before returning it to the state and local level pisses me off. It's like the federal highway funds, the pissants in Washington forced the state to lower the speed limit to 55 even though no one in the west was ever going to drive that slow, it would take forever and serve no usefull purpose, or the raising of the drinking age to 21, or the lowering of the BAC limit to .08, now my cousin can be arrested and have her liscense revoked after 2 stiff drinks. Sorry that was a bit long of a rant to make the point that the federal government will always take as much money as we allow them to and doll it back to us based on criteria set by minute special interests.

Re:universal service

[Reziac]

Right, I guess this is why I already pay several hundred dollars a year in property tax that's earmarked for "libraries".

Re:stick it to the consumer

[Randolpho]

God, I wish I could get a cable modem that cheap! Gotta love legal monopolies, dontcha?

Boston Modem Party?

[StrandedOrg]

Who's with me? I can see the pile in the middle of bay now =)

Re:Boston Modem Party?

[nadsley]

I'm in, but only if we crudely dress as indians.

Re:Boston Modem Party?

[scovetta]

how about as execs from the RIAA. Oh wait, I didn't realize this wasn't part of the RIAA-bashing discussion.

Re:Boston Modem Party?

[WinDoze]

I'm in, but only if we crudely dress as indians.

Just call me Big Chief Fiber Loop.

Re:Boston Modem Party?

[Silverhammer]

Are obsolete IDSL bridges welcome? (Thanks a heap, Northpoint...)

Re:Boston Modem Party?

[gearheadsmp]

Yeah, and also the tidbit that the RIAA would be happy if half of Slashdot's user base dumped Internet access.

Re:Boston Modem Party?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my ancestors was part of the Boston Tea Party, in fact.

BUT, the problem with a Boston Modem Party is that we long-suffering taxpayers just spent a kajillion dollars cleaning up Boston Harbor (since Michael Dukakis wouldn't), so I'd hate to see it cluttered up with a bunch of cable modems.

OTOH, if someone wants to drop _one_ in, we'll see how long it takes to dissolve and then decide if we should/can drop the rest in.

Either that, or run them up to Kennebunkport in time to spoil someone's Father's Day weekend that he has planned...

Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[coupland]

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?

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[WinDoze]

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?

I was about to say that this isn't a socialist state and I don't give a flying hoo-hah if low-income rural subscribers can't get cheap cable.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Abcd1234]

Queue rabid righties who whine about their rights being violated in order to prop up the poor who should be able to help themselves, the lazy slobs.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[rebelcool]

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.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't aware we were a socialist country. You either can afford what you have or you can't. The rest of us aren't here to support those that can't afford what we can.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[throbbingbrain.com]

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?

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Dr. Spork]

I'm not saying that libraries and schools shouldn't get government money for internet connections. I think they should, and in most civilized countries they do. But why does it have to be money from the one industry that is actually propping up our economy?

If there is are going to be government payouts to corporations, cable internet companies seem like very logical recipients. Getting people on the internet will do a lot to drive our economy, definitely in the long run, but probably in the short run as well. Then we could finally catch up with countries like Finland, South Korea and Canada.

For the Bush administration to propose a tax hike on this important technology is yet another piece of evidence that they have shit for brains.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[coupland]

I was about to say that this isn't a socialist state and I don't give a flying hoo-hah if low-income rural subscribers can't get cheap cable.

Fortunately your government disagrees with you on both points. That's why you have libraries: education and access to information to people who can't afford it. That's why public school is free. That's why you have a welfare system. That's why you have food stamps. That's why universities have scholarships. How on earth did you get the impression you didn't live in a socialist state? What country do you live in and unless the US has eliminated all the above, don't say the USA...

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care if anyone less fortunate than me can get internet access. Kids in school abuse the privlidge, it becomes a distraction. Libraries don't need it they have enough weird peple roaming around to add online porn in the mix, read a damn book instead. If it costs too much to make a kill in the sticks then move, don't ask me for a hand out.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[shaka999]

Well, can you explain to me why I should pay for someone to live in the sticks? If you choose a lifestyle you need to take the good with the bad.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

The bush administration didn't propose this tax hike you liberal shit for brains fucks.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[shaka999]

I think I agree with what your saying. I'd much rather see this money come out of a general income tax than from other broadband users.

The whole idea of funding this with funds from broadband are offensive. It smacks a little to much of some sort of Robin Hood syndrome.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

You conviently left this out:

" Instead of handing out corporate welfare to fund recipient Walt Disney"

So your basic premise is bullshit.

Besides, I already pay exhorbitant property taxes. That covers school & library connections. I also pay exhorbitant transfers to the so-called poor (I have trouble calling a class of people whose greatest nutrition problem is obesity poor, as is the case in the US). I have to cut back on basic necessities. Why can't they cut back on luxuries like internet access?

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Carbonite]

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".

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

That money is wasted on programs that fail. The rural hospitals I used to do some work for had stacks of cisco routers hooked to csu/dsu's on dead fiber lines, that were *never* used because they never bothered to train the locals, or import the talent to hook up the video conferencing boxes. They just did the network installs and left. The equipment still sits in the hospitals gathering dust.

Lesson #1: Any money given to the government is wasted.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll, huh? Wow, fair-weather Libertarians!

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[aldousd666]

I may be wrong, but didn't I read somewhere that canada was bankrupt because of all of their social services? I think that the rural customers (like me) should pay extra, not the people in the city. It's not the governments job there. For me though, it's not a matter of cost, I simply can't get broadband period, and I would pay extra, and satelite doesn't count, it's only good for browsing the web, and streaming shitty media.( beleive me I tried it, on top of all the latency issues, it only works for windows)

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[st0rmshad0w]

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.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

pr0n of course!

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[ewhac]

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 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 out the ILECs entirely and provided their own network infrastructure at lower cost. And it wouldn't have required a tax hike... excuse me, service fee to do it, either.

Schwab

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Now, what was that you were about to say?

I was about to say I can't wait for someone slightly left of center to hop up and jeer about how naysayers should shut their faces since this will help the less fortunate. Heh...oh well... :-)

I think this is a bad move. I don't have a problem with financial help going to libraries, but subsidizing for rural development is totally a utility company matter (ask your local phone provider). Who says they aren't already charging for this? In other words, current subscribers may be paying for this already.

IMHO the main problem with this is the health care. This is *not* the way to obtain and/or funnel revenue for health care.

Knock down all this ridiculous defense spending and focus on domestic security....fricken tards. That'll get more than $13B and ensure freedom for expansion in the tech sector. The tech sector...you know, the area showing all that darned growth and enabling other industries to function..?

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Shagg]

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 group that makes even a bit of sense is the part about school and library internet connections.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[mjmalone]

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 redistributing some of the money the higher classes get to the lower classes the economy is actually boosted and the rich actually get richer!

I believe it was Warren Buffett who said the recent tax reform would give him an additional $310,000,000 annually. That is rediculous. He said himself that it would make much more sense to give 1,000,000 people $310, and as far as I can tell he is a pretty bright man when it comes to the economy.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

>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:

Look its nice that it would go to a good cause (at least in theory, who knows where it will end up) but I'm a full time student living at home with several family members, I can just barely afford my connection as it is, and I use it primarily to access things for classes, your dealing with a crappily regulated industry that already has prices sky high. Maybe we should get all these idiots together and get them to decently restructure the existing regulations so that they actually work then worry about taxing it.

-troy

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[cpeterso]

Maybe the rural folk should pay extra food taxes to help us city folk pay for food transportation costs. Just because (some) food is grown in the rural areas, does that mean I should pay more for it here in the city?? It's not fair!

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[stinky wizzleteats]

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...

[srvivn21]

How about the offspring of those people? Yeah, I hate to say "think of the children", but really. Why should they be limited by the choices their parents make? Shouldn't they have access to the courses available across the internet? Shouldn't the rural clinics have the ability to tele-conference (or at least trace hi-res pictures) with specializing hospitals?

I certainly see your point (and agree with it for the most part). I just think that there might be less choice than you may realize.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Schion65]

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

This has to do with the "Digital Divide". The idea being that, the rich have had access to the Internet for a while, so they and their children are more tech savy. Thus, their children are more comfortable with computers, so they are more likely to get the high paying tech jobs. So, think of it as education, and education is a right.

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

It's more expensive because of the decreased population density. Infrastructure has a base fee just to have it in, then you add a certain per person cost. So, in other words, it costs a base amount (more or less) to lay/string/whatever those big cables. Since you have less people per square mile to pay for it, there's a higher cost per person. So, yeah, that's what that's for.

As for the taxes, did you miss the tax break we just had?

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[bigpat]

"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.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[s4m7]

Cancel your self-righteousness. It's not upsetting that they are "making me pay for something" so much as this will be the third rate increase in as many years, meanwhile the quality of my service has done nothing but decline. I don't care what good causes it supports, I'm not going to become interested in paying more for less under any circumstances.

furthermore, i know plenty of educators in impoverished school districts(namely rural Iowa) and I've been told that ISP's gave them better discounts on services because they were a school, before they were FORCED to by law.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[srvivn21]

What does a third grader need a T1 for anyways?

They don't.

What does a third grader need with school?

They don't.

What does a sixth grader need with internet?

They don't.

Did you have AP courses where you grew up? They only way that could happen is economies of scale. You can bet your bottom dollar that in a village of 200 (or 500 or 1000) there aren't going to be enough students to justify an AP corriculum. Now give them internet access, and they can take distance learning courses. High school students can get a jump on college.

It's not guaranteed to happen, but what investment gives guaranteed results?

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[jazman_777]

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?

Oh! It's for the Children! And it's for the Poor! And for the Farmers! What kind of skinflint would be against the Poor and the Children and the Farmers (what power a Poor Child of a Farmer truly wields).

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[senrik]

~You either can afford what you have or you can't.

Exactly. You can either afford to live in an area where everything is already wired, with a choice of providers, or live somewhere else, and do without.

You don't perchace live in the City do you? I live exactly 8 miles from the nearest Big City (Seattle)(as the crow flies across Puget Sound), and here we are limited as to what we can get in terms of telecom. Its a community of perhaps 20,000 people cut off Telecom wise, even as we can see the lights. The reason for this is Geography. Although we are 8 miles from downtown, fiber must run a good 200 miles (around Puget sound) to get to us. Why oh Why should we get a broadband Backbone? Maybe because many of the programmer here, who commute to Seattle on a daily basis might be able to find a use for it. The question is how much is the for-profit Telecoms willing to pay to put infrastructure. Laying cable is expensive. Because of this, I can see Speakeasy's office fromy my house, but I cant use their service.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[FroMan]

Where it goes does not matter.

How would you like it if I decided to root through your house and send your stuff to ethopians since they are poor.

What you are talking about is redistribution of wealth. Its fine that you want to use money to help those in need. Do it with your own money though, not mine.

I already give my money to causes I find worthy. You give yours to causes you feel is worthy. We are both happy. But when I start taking your money and giving it to causes I feel are worthy there is a problem.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[fenix down]

Well, they already do. Where do you think all the money the feds use to manipulate food prices comes from? And unless you've been planning on eschewing dairy products, I think it's well worth it to you.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[cpeterso]

Maybe the rural folk should pay extra property taxes to help us city folk pay for our expensive urban property. Just because land is cheaper in the rural areas, does that mean I should pay more for it here in the city?? It's not fair!

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[st0rmshad0w]

"As for the taxes, did you miss the tax break we just had?"

What tax break? I'm single, no kids, I get no break. None, nada. I choose not to burden myself with the outrageous cost and responsibility of raising children, so appearantly I get to help pay for other people's. Joy.

And the "Digital Divide" is a total smokescreen, the rich kids are more apt to get the higher paying tech jobs because they are more apt to afford the grotesque expense of a good college education. Notice tuitions keep rising 9-10% every year? A little out of line with cost of living don't you think?

Digital divide, bah, what is it $240 or so a year for dail-up? So they can surf with what exactly, I don't see any of this new tax revenue subsidizing the necessary hardware.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[DarKnyht]

Last time I checked, the United States was still a democracy and the public decided to put all of those systems into place. Likewise, although average Joe doesn't get it, we have the power to remove all those systems.

But I think those systems are good ideas, they just need to be cleaned up. Jose the illegal alien should not be allowed to get food stamps and medicare, yet 9 times out of 10 he gets them. Of course, Jose the illegal should of been deported the first time he was found to be illegal, but that is a different topic.

Universal access fees on Cable Modems isn't something I look forward to, but I understand why it is necessary. Just as the telephone changed the way business was done when it first was widely adopted, the internet has done the same. It is a rare occurance now for me to mail a check, instead I use e-drafts online. It is quicker, easier, and more likely to get there on time.

But, having lived in a rural area, it is annoying to be stuck on a 33.6k connection. The answers we got when we asked about the services was that cable companies don't want to bother to run the cable, phone companies don't see the need to upgrade. The only other option was Satelite DSL and it was unreliable. If there is a way the government can force the big companies to change that, then I am for that.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, then you can move your silly ass across the Sound into the Big City and get broadband. Lemme guess - you pay probably half in rent or mortgage than you would in the Big City...

And the last I heard, unless the laws of physics somehow work differently in your abode, not having broadband != "...cut off Telecom wise..." You still got TV, radio, telephones, satellite dishes, etc.

Quit yer bitchin'

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[fenix down]

Ooooh, look at meeee! I'm abandoning a million years of evolution in favor of a mathematical theory that would never work in the real woooorld! Oooooh! I don't need the help of others, despite all the well-documented evidence to the contraryyy! Lets just exterminate the weaker members of our species and eliminate the buffer zone that keeps us from going extinct when unexpected large-scale disasters occur! Then we'll be able to through the valuable members of our social group at a threat instead of the expendible ones! Fucking ooooh! I'm so fucking sure there's no reason for empathy outside the parent-child relationship, even though it occurs so fucking often! Whoop-de-fucking-oooh.

Anthopological troll #6! Booyah!

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[fenix down]

Through should be throw. Not that that fucking means anything, whores.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[geekoid]

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.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[senrik]

~And the last I heard, unless the laws of physics somehow work differently in your abode, not having broadband != "...cut off Telecom wise..." You still got TV, radio, telephones, satellite dishes, etc.

You mean those nice Line of Sight things (Radio, TV), and things that go nicely in clear weather, unlike ferexample the seattle area (you've heard of the hills here right? kinda limits line of sight and um, the rain???

The question is about Adding tax (anti-capitalist) to subsidize monopolies (anti-capitalist) put internet (or even more than one phone line per house) in an area.

I'd love to have more than one option for internet. Heck I've heard of this concept called 'Competition' which is alleged to lower prices over time? Tell me when did your cable bill go down for the basic service? How about your Phone bill? Electric? DSL? Water? Gas? Oil?

Where is that promised market forces that are supposed to drive competition? In some cities it doesn't really exist. (like try getting someone to provide DSL in NYC aside from verizon).

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[throbbingbrain.com]

Did you have AP courses where you grew up? They only way that could happen is economies of scale. You can bet your bottom dollar that in a village of 200 (or 500 or 1000) there aren't going to be enough students to justify an AP corriculum.

I went to highschool in a rural community and we did have AP curriculum. It had nothing to do with the internet.

We didn't have internet and there was one computer lab (15 Apple 2gs's) for the entire school. Those who wanted to be computer geeks were and still are.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

also, going by your logic, let's also get rid of all social services, public education, public transportation, and Student financial aid. those, too are handouts.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[senrik]

~And the last I heard, unless the laws of physics somehow work differently in your abode, not having broadband != "...cut off Telecom wise..." You still got TV, radio, telephones, satellite dishes, etc.

The other reasons that the gov't might want to bring broadband to this area;

SUBase Bangor, SUBase Keyport, and the Navy's pacific flt (in Bremerton).

Water company wants to lay cable, but qwest doesn't permit access (they claim its their public right of way). You do the math.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[jratcliffe]

I believe it was Warren Buffett who said the recent tax reform would give him an additional $310,000,000 annually. That is rediculous. He said himself that it would make much more sense to give 1,000,000 people $310, and as far as I can tell he is a pretty bright man when it comes to the economy.

That being said, I didn't hear him planning on handing out 1MM $310 checks...

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[senrik]

~also, going by your logic, let's also get rid of all social services, public education, public transportation, and Student financial aid. those, too are handouts.

Lets not forget to get rid of the military as well

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[d3faultus3r]

Why to use file sharing of course, and we know how much the government loves that.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

When you take money from the middle class and the upper class to redistribute to the lower class, in order to buy goods and services from the middle and upper class, you're engaging in a nice example of the broken window fallacy. You're not "making them richer," when you take their money to pay themselves for goods and services they produce. If the poor instead used their money for investment, it's possible that this would increase the aggregate wealth of the nation through funding innovation, however you have no reason to believe that this would be more efficient than if the previous owners of the money did the same, and more importantly, the poor rarely invest in any such manner.

Warren Buffet made his money buying up companies (like insurance) that had a lot of on-hand cash and comparatively little expenses, and then buying other companies with the assets. What Warrent Buffet said was that through the short term reduction and temporary elimination of taxation for dividends, if Berkshire Hathaway started giving a $1 dividend (which it doesn't) as a holder of like 31% of the company, he could make a considerable amount of money. That doesn't mean anything.

Warren Buffet owns a lot of 'normal' consumer businesses. I'm sure that he expects that a large piece of any lower class tax credit would return to his companies. This provides a source of revenue, and reduces possible increases in investment capital competitors could see as a result of a reduction in the tax rates for investors and the middle and upper class. It also doesn't make companies that offer a dividends a more attractive investment for the wealthy.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[cpeterso]

so my food prices are reduced by taxes paid only BY rural folk that are returned TO rural farmers? What is this extra tax that rural folks pay that urban folks don't?

btw, cow's milk is for baby cows, not humans.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[senrik]

~so my food prices are reduced by taxes paid only BY rural folk that are returned TO rural farmers? What is this extra tax that rural folks pay that urban folks don't?

Oddly enough, the food costs more in the stores near where it is grown, then they do in the city.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[throbbingbrain.com]

I believe it was Warren Buffett who said the recent tax reform would give him an additional $310,000,000 annually. That is rediculous. He said himself that it would make much more sense to give 1,000,000 people $310

Why? First, remember that a federal income tax cut won't help lower income people. They don't pay any federal income tax. Throw in a couple of dependants and a mortgage writeoff and the taxable portion of a family imcome approaches zero.

Yes, if you gave $310 to 1,000,000 people in some other form (Earned Income Credit or something similar), they would probably spend it on Walmart trinkets or pay off debt.

If you reduce the tax burden of a rich person, they could, for example, run out and buy a new H2 Hummer. Now all the workers at AM General get a smaller portion which, for example, an assembly line worker could use to buy a new home PC. Now the money moves to the local computer store. The computer store owner uses the profit to paint a new sign on the building. The sign painter uses that cash to buy groceries at the grocery store. The clerk at the grocery store uses the wages to buy trinkets at Walmart.

In the end, the money ends up in the same place, but it has stimulated the income and standard of living of countless other people along the way. The person who earned the money in the first place decided where the chain began and everyone in the chain earned their wage through gainful employment.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[coupland]

Well, while I think you make a very good point (particularly in regard to the FCC not being an authority to levy taxes) your reference to "taxation without representation" is taken out of context.

First of all, your Constitution (yes yours, I am a Canadian) does not say that Congress must approve taxes, it says that congress is *authorized* to approve taxes. It simply grants the right to congress, it does not remove the right from any other body.

Secondly taxation without representation is not addressed at all in your Constitution although reference is made in the Declaration of Independence. (Can anyone tell me where the phrase originated, I drew a blank on its origins..)

Finally, "taxation without representation" refers to the fact that Britain was taxing their American colonies however residents of America did not get to vote for members of Congress. It had nothing to do with Congressional approval of taxes, rest assured Britain's Congress approved taxation of the colonies. The issue was that the colonies these approvals were coming from a properly elected official with the interests of the colonies at heart.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[srvivn21]

I went to highschool in a rural community and we did have AP curriculum. It had nothing to do with the internet.

How rural (i.e. how many students)? How common do you think your situation was (what percentage of rural schools offered/offer AP courses)? Do you think there are enough teachers capable of providing an AP curriculum for all of the rural communities? Can you see how it would be better for a group of AP students to be able to get together (through email, IM and even video teleconferencing) and collaborate?

We didn't have internet and there was one computer lab (15 Apple 2gs's) for the entire school.

Let me guess... You liked it that way.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[mjmalone]

Actually, the rich tend to invest adittional income when they recieve it. People who have discresionary income tend to save, and when they stumble upon any additional income (in the form of bonuses, tax refunds, etc.) they tend to put that away in a savings account or the stock market. This locks the money up, its there for good. However, if the money was given to people who are living from paycheck to paycheck they will most likely run out and buy a new TV, dishwaster, etc. This increases liquidity.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[srvivn21]

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

See here and here.

Short answer is it's not about paying for the medical workers or supplies, but paying for infrastructure to allow remote diagnosis and collaboration.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[throbbingbrain.com]

Good questions. I'll answer in order:

> How rural (i.e. how many students)?

660 square mile county with 1500 students in the single high school. Mainly farming and local employment. Some long distance commuters to city employment.

> How common do you think your situation was (what percentage of rural schools offered/offer AP courses)?

It's the norm for the state. All offered AP courses.

> Do you think there are enough teachers capable of providing an AP curriculum for all of the rural communities?

Sure. Why would a teacher in the country be any less qualified than one in a city? My AP CompSci (Pascal) teacher was just as bad as one in a city.

> Can you see how it would be better for a group of AP students to be able to get together (through email, IM and even video teleconferencing) and collaborate?

It wasn't a disadvantage for me. Remember, we're not talking about email and IM. That's almost universally available. We're talking about high speed internet. Glorious full color IP teleconferencing is not an essential tool for taking an AP course. Collaberation with fellow students was enough for my course.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[throbbingbrain.com]

Actually, the rich tend to invest adittional income when they recieve it.

Yes! Then you understand! Money in the bank is used by the bank to fund small business and home buyers. Money in the stock market funds business. Businesses create jobs. Jobs create more spending. It's a cycle.

they stumble upon any additional income (in the form of bonuses, tax refunds, etc.)

A tax refund is NOT additional income. If I was originally going to reach into your pocket and take out $100, but I decided to take out $90 instead, that $10 difference is NOT income.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[srvivn21]

Good questions. I'll answer in order:

> How rural (i.e. how many students)?

660 square mile county with 1500 students in the single high school. Mainly farming and local employment. Some long distance commuters to city employment.

My highschool (not classified as rural) also had 1500 students. Most of the schools that I work with don't have 500 students. Total. Across all the grades. Rural, but not rural enough.

> How common do you think your situation was (what percentage of rural schools offered/offer AP courses)?

It's the norm for the state. All offered AP courses.

That's wonderful. Really it is. But, I would be willing to bet there were federal grants subsidizing the salaries of some (if not all) of the rural AP teachers.

> Do you think there are enough teachers capable of providing an AP curriculum for all of the rural communities?

Sure. Why would a teacher in the country be any less qualified than one in a city? My AP CompSci (Pascal) teacher was just as bad as one in a city.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that location had any bearing on ability. I've met some teachers in Rural Alaska that are really doing it for the love of teaching, and are VERY good at what they do. Then again there are teachers in Anchorage who are little more than glorified baby-sitters. The opposite is, of course, true.

> Can you see how it would be better for a group of AP students to be able to get together (through email, IM and even video teleconferencing) and collaborate?

It wasn't a disadvantage for me. Remember, we're not talking about email and IM. That's almost universally available. We're talking about high speed internet. Glorious full color IP teleconferencing is not an essential tool for taking an AP course. Collaberation with fellow students was enough for my course.

That's not what I asked. I asked if you could see benefit to it. Besides, email and IM require internet access. At a bare minimum that requires a phone line. If that phone line is not affordable...

You had fellow students to collaborate with. Your high school had more students than a majority of the Alaskan Villages have PEOPLE.

I choose to use Alaska as an example, because it is my home. I'm sure that these cases relate to other places around the USA.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you honestly believe the money will go towards any of these programs? When was the last time you heard the Government say they wanted to raise our taxes so they could give themselves a nice raise? Both parties will tell you the money is going to the children, the elderly or the needy. These group never seem to do any better, yet the politicians seem to be getting more and more. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping those in need. I'm sick of being lied to. This money will go towards the deficit, programs that are favorable to major contributors and towards special interest programs that will help officials get re-elected in their states. The schools will see nothing or next to nothing.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[mjmalone]

Yes! Then you understand! Money in the bank is used by the bank to fund small business and home buyers.

Except that banks dont give out loans when the economy is in a slump, the boost has to start with additional demand, not additional supply.

Money in the stock market funds business. Businesses create jobs. Jobs create more spending. It's a cycle.

More money in the stock market does not drive the prices of stocks up! Companies have to be making money, selling goods. And you are forgetting the fact that most large corporations that people invest in are hireing workers in places like korea and mexico, not in the US, this doesnt significantly boost our economy.

A tax refund is NOT additional income. If I was originally going to reach into your pocket and take out $100, but I decided to take out $90 instead, that $10 difference is NOT income.

A tax refund is additional income. People plan their spending on how much income they make after taxes. If they then get a refund of $100 that is additional, they didnt plan on having that money.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[stinky wizzleteats]

Well, while I think you make a very good point (particularly in regard to the FCC not being an authority to levy taxes) your reference to "taxation without representation" is taken out of context.

Not at all. The FCC is an appointed agency. Its members are not elected. Therefore, the fundamental concept of direct accountability of the government to those who are taxed (which came about as a result of the British Stamp Act, among others, and the body in question was the British Parliament) is broken.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[throbbingbrain.com]

That's wonderful. Really it is. But, I would be willing to bet there were federal grants subsidizing the salaries of some (if not all) of the rural AP teachers.

Federal money subsidizes all teachers. Perhaps I'm missing something. What's the difference between an AP and a non-AP teacher? In my days (not all that long ago) an AP course just meant there was a test at the end that could result in some college credit. The coursework was more difficult, but we're talking 100 level college material. It's not rocket science.

That's not what I asked. I asked if you could see benefit to it.

No, I don't see a benefit to it. I've always seen the push for technology in schools as a crutch for unmotivated students with behavioral problems, absentee parents, and "teachers who are little more than glorified baby-sitters". I can't imagine why some people think every 1st grader should carry a laptop computer (I realize that's a whole different level than this discussion). We've seen the last generation of people who can work a math problem by hand and write without a spell checker.

Besides, email and IM require internet access. At a bare minimum that requires a phone line. If that phone line is not affordable...

Valid point. That's why we pay the Federal Subscriber Line Tax on telephone service. Are there really still rural communities without any phone service?

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[jejones]

So, think of it as education, and education is a right.

Education is not a right--not in the sense that people have the right to steal from others to pay for it. There's no such thing as a so-called "positive right."

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[throbbingbrain.com]

Except that banks dont give out loans when the economy is in a slump, the boost has to start with additional demand, not additional supply.

Oh yes they do! If the stock and bond market is down (low returns), they are far more likely to invest the money in people (home loans, credit cards, etc) where they can make higher returns. Just look at the housing market. Where did all that money come from? Banks.

More money in the stock market does not drive the prices of stocks up! Companies have to be making money, selling goods.

The price of stocks isn't the issue. It's the amount of money in the system. That's money that businesses can use for product development which can pay salaries and stimulate demand. Everyone pulled their savings out of the stock market and now business doesn't have as much to work with.

A tax refund is additional income.

Nope. A tax refund does increase your usable income but not your total income. If you get a tax refund after filing your returns, that check from the Department of Treasury is NOT a gift, or additional income, or payment of any kind. It's your money and always was. It just means you filled out your W4 wrong and they've been 'holding' it for you.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[srvivn21]

Federal money subsidizes all teachers. Perhaps I'm missing something. What's the difference between an AP and a non-AP teacher? In my days (not all that long ago) an AP course just meant there was a test at the end that could result in some college credit. The coursework was more difficult, but we're talking 100 level college material. It's not rocket science.

Where do you get the notion that federal money is used to subsidize teachers? That's news to me. The teacher that taught my AP course did nothing but. In addition, I am under the impression that teaching in college has higher requirements. If my understanding is skewed (AP teachers are more "learned" than elementary through high school teachers) then my argument is flawed.

No, I don't see a benefit to it. I've always seen the push for technology in schools as a crutch for unmotivated students with behavioral problems, absentee parents, and "teachers who are little more than glorified baby-sitters".

I do. There are classes of three or four kids at a school (sometimes less) who can get together with other kids from their district and a teacher from out of state on a weekly (or daily) basis, and learn topics that would be completly out of reach for them otherwise. I see the benefit every week.

I can't imagine why some people think every 1st grader should carry a laptop computer (I realize that's a whole different level than this discussion).

I don't see it as a replacement (not that you are saying that I do) but as a teaching aid. Personally I think that the current schooling system is a farce, and promotes a dislike of learning, but that is neither here nor there.

We've seen the last generation of people who can work a math problem by hand and write without a spell checker.

We've also seen the last generation of people who can use a slide rule. The world hasn't ended...

That's why we pay the Federal Subscriber Line Tax on telephone service.

Nope. The Federal Subsciber Line Charge is for maintenence of the local copper. The Federal Government doesn't see a dime of this. The Universal Service Fee (what this article was about) is described in more detail here.

Are there really still rural communities without any phone service?

I doubt it. There are fewer and fewer without the ability to contract affordable internet accesss. That's what the USF is (in the most altruistic, Robin Hood sense) supposed to do.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[TheSync]

Economics 101;

1) All free market transactions represent an increase in wealth for both parties, otherwise they wouldn't partake. The buyer thinks he is getting more than he paid, the seller thinks he is paid more than an item is worth to him

2) Redistributional taxes are wealth-neutral. $1 is still $1 regarless who spends it. Recent tax history shows no real GDP benefit or damage from tax cuts or increases of reasonable sizes.

2.5) Of course, if you nuts with tax rates, you can make everyone life a living hell and cause some GDP growth damage

3) On the other hand, periods of low inflation are orrelated with GDP growth, periods of high inflation correlated with GDP stagnation or decline

4) There is a 10-year boom/bust/boom business cycle in the US

5) Wealth destruction of taxes is when it is spent on things people don't value (how much is a B2 bomber worth to you?)

6) Spending is up at the Federal and Local levels. Some of it is probably going to waste...

7) Social Security and Medicare will go into deficit over the next 20 years, and massive changes will have to occur. Hold on!

8) US Farmers receive massive amounts of Federal subsidy, enough to cram out imports from many countries. EU farmers get even more.

9) The world is becoming more democratic and free-market, slowly. Growth is way up in formerly protectionist socialist India and formerly communist China.

10) It tok 50 years for South Korea to go from a dirt-poor country to an economy that rivals some European ones. Growth and poverty reduction take time.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[TheSync]

I wrote that on stationary bike. Very tired. Sorry poor english. If I stop, generator go out, kernel panic. Lost 40 pounds this way, Slashdot makes my workout much shorter.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[mjmalone]

Maybe you should hook your bike up to a generator for your computer... a little extra incentive to work hard :P

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Check again. It's been a constitutional Republic since 1776.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[throbbingbrain.com]

Where do you get the notion that federal money is used to subsidize teachers?

Uh, not really sure. A quick Google shows reports for "Federal Primary Education Funds". I don't expect that a teacher gets a check from the federal government, but funds are used. Around here, most funding for schools come from property taxes, a subject I've recently become quite concerned with. That's probably why I jumped into this thread to begin with.

In addition, I am under the impression that teaching in college has higher requirements.

The teachers I had in highschool had at least a Bachelors degree, plus some kind of teaching credentials. Some of the college instructors I encountered had less than that.

If my understanding is skewed (AP teachers are more "learned" than elementary through high school teachers) then my argument is flawed.

Again, "back in my days", there wasn't a difference. Often the coursework was identical to the non-AP class. It all had to do with the exam at the end. That could have, and should have, changed since then.

There are classes of three or four kids at a school (sometimes less) who can get together with other kids from their district and a teacher from out of state on a weekly (or daily) basis, and learn topics that would be completly out of reach for them otherwise.

That happened back in the BBS days at 300bps. Does it need a T1 today? Not that it would be bad, but it's not a requirement. We're talking solid copper versus fiber.

I don't see it as a replacement (not that you are saying that I do) but as a teaching aid.

I believe that people who truly don't understand technology think that by shoving enough of it at an elementary school student, that they'll become a successful engineer. We do what we want to do.

The Federal Subsciber Line Charge is for maintenence of the local copper.

Oops. Just one of many line items on my phone bill...

Good discussion, by the way. Don't be alarmed, I have only one vote and some karma to burn on slashdot.

...and all the best IT people I've worked with grew up out in the country. Is there a coincidence?

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[SiliconJesus101]

Well, I for one am a Republican and I don't support the massive amounts of money that are filtered from me to fund those that CHOOSE to live in underprivileged areas, CHOOSE to not get an education or higher paying job and CHOOSE to think that somehow, since I have become successful and have earned my money that I OWE them a free meal ticket. At this rate we will no longer be a republic and we will start to become a socialistic society (as the Democrats would have it).

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxation without representation. These taxes are not approved by Congress. They are determined and levied under the sole authority of the FCC.

The FCC was created by Congress, dufus. The FCC is therefore accountable to Congress.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[rpillala]

Call me a cynic but I think this view that cable tv/internet is a "right" is more motivated by the capacity to deliver ads. You see something similar when a multinational corporation electrifies a small village in India. They're trying to bring these people into the world economy in order to make it bigger. The bigger the economy, the more room there is at the top.

You're right about schools. It's a completely different mindset to try and teach using the internet in class than it is to just use it as a resource. Besides, look at what I'm doing with my connection.

Ravi

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[srvivn21]

Where do you get the notion that federal money is used to subsidize teachers?

Uh, not really sure. A quick Google shows reports for "Federal Primary Education Funds". I don't expect that a teacher gets a check from the federal government, but funds are used. Around here, most funding for schools come from property taxes, a subject I've recently become quite concerned with. That's probably why I jumped into this thread to begin with.

Go figure. I always thought that a locality was responsible for paying for their own educational expenses (through property taxes and the odd lottery). *shrug*

There are classes of three or four kids at a school (sometimes less) who can get together with other kids from their district and a teacher from out of state on a weekly (or daily) basis, and learn topics that would be completely out of reach for them otherwise.

That happened back in the BBS days at 300bps. Does it need a T1 today? Not that it would be bad, but it's not a requirement. We're talking solid copper versus fiber.

It's much easier to convey mathematical formulas on a blackboard (or a white board) and relay that via a VTC vs. typing such notations using a keyboard. NASA also has a (canned, sadly) presentation that involves a fair amount of video. OTOH, less than two months ago one of the schools that I deal with had a live conference with the ISS. That was pretty wild. The kids have talked with zookeepers in San Diego, and forest service personnel in Montana. Face to face (sort of). Some very neat opportunities.

The Federal Subscriber Line Charge is for maintenance of the local copper.

Oops. Just one of many line items on my phone bill...

Amen to that. I'd hate for it to be lumped under "miscellaneous fees" though...

Good discussion, by the way.

I certainly concur. Thanks.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[stinky wizzleteats]

The FCC was created by Congress, dufus. The FCC is therefore accountable to Congress.

Genius, pure genius. The next time I see an anonymous coward on fire, I'll throw water on his mother.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Schion65]

Digital divide, bah, what is it $240 or so a year for dail-up? So they can surf with what exactly, I don't see any of this new tax revenue subsidizing the necessary hardware.

Well, when you have very little, $240 a year is $240 a year, you know? Plus, it's a lot harder to subsidize hardware, then it is to subsidize a service.

the "Digital Divide" is a total smokescreen...grotesque expense of a good college education

Not sure why you say that the "Digital Divide" is a smokescreen, just because there is a cause for something (high college tuition), doesn't mean that there isn't another cause (lack of computer experience).

What tax break? I'm single, no kids, I get no break. None, nada. I choose not to burden myself with the outrageous cost and responsibility of raising children, so appearantly I get to help pay for other people's. Joy.

Yeah, same here, so I feel ya. However, a shitty tax break is still a tax break.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Schion65]

Education is not a right--not in the sense that people have the right to steal from others to pay for it

I'm assuming that you're refering to a tax "thieving" rather than a direct "stole $50 for Jimmy's new math book". So, you don't like paying taxes, not exactly a minority opinion.

There's no such thing as a so-called "positive right."

Oh, come on. We pay property taxes, and that (more or less) pay for schooling. Every child gets access to the schooling, so every child gets access to the money. That sounds like a so-called "positive right" to me.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[st0rmshad0w]

"Well, when you have very little, $240 a year is $240 a year, you know? Plus, it's a lot harder to subsidize hardware, then it is to subsidize a service."

True, perhaps, but when the hardware is a a prerequisite for the service, subsidizing the service is meaningless unless provisions are made to address the hardware issue. Besides, contrary to what alot of people have been saying (pay attention Mr. Gates), you can use a computer without the internet.

"Not sure why you say that the "Digital Divide" is a smokescreen, just because there is a cause for something (high college tuition), doesn't mean that there isn't another cause (lack of computer experience)."

The truth is there _isn't_ a real cause for the radical increases in tuition, at least as far as I can tell. Some kids are lucky to have their prof even teach their classes these days (isn't that what you pay tuition for?). And I have had to deal with a lot of college freshmen from all backgrounds, it doesn't seem to matter, rich or poor, which has a better grasp on computers when they get to college, the ones what gravitate toward them pick it up real quick even if they have had little to no experience. Just like anything else.

And congrats on graduating.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[jejones]

Oh, come on. We pay property taxes, and that (more or less) pay for schooling. Every child gets access to the schooling, so every child gets access to the money. That sounds like a so-called "positive right" to me.

Ah. So, since murders occur, they are right, too?

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Schion65]

Ah. So, since murders occur, they are right, too?

Oh ho! The falicy of "Straw Man", where you distort what I've said to make it easily dismissed. Good one, because murder and property taxes/schooling for all are pretty close on the "right/wrong" spectrum.

Look, I think I can save us some time. You're "conservative", I'm "liberal". This way we don't have to keep going in circles.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy and socialism can coexist. But anyway, as the post above me says, we are a consitutional republic.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[jejones]

Perhaps I misspoke. People do in fact steal from others to fund what are claimed to be "positive rights." However, so doing is an immoral act.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

...try directway..from directtv...it is good 2-way sat connection..and it cost just about the same as cable...hencforth..no need for the tax...the market place has provided an answer

Great More taxes...

[stanmann]

I switched to cable internet for cost purposes, and now taxes on top of everything else. Of course if this requires that Cable providers start sharing their wires better, and get some competition in, then I guess it will be worth it. Mayhap we will see a net drop in costs.

No, no, no....

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Get the fsking snout out of the trough.

DSL vs. Cable Modem

[_Sharp'r_]

Another good reason to get DSL instead of a Cable modem if you can, not that the phone companies are much better about their part of DSL!

Perhaps someone can explain to them in no uncertain terms that people are tired of being assessed new taxes for government enforced monopolies instead of letting these services live and die on their own.

Re:DSL vs. Cable Modem

[Torqued]

*BZZT* Thanks for playing..

I recently received an email from Earthlink stating that they were going to start collecting "additional taxes and fees" from DSL users.

An article ("Earthlink yields to net taxes") on MSNBC recently detailed some of the information. From the article:

EarthLink on Tuesday said it will stop picking up the tax bill for some dial-up services and its digital subscriber line (DSL) broadband services, resulting in higher bills for many of its customers.

The taxes will affect dial-up users in states that are not subject to the Internet Tax Freedom Act--namely New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin. States that have approved the act exempt users from paying taxes for most Internet access and transactions.

Earthlink's Frequently Asked Questions about DSL Taxes and Fees also contains links to tax tables for home DSL users and business DSL users. I emailed Earthlink using their special tax questions form asking if they were going to start collecting fees from cable modem users. This is the reply I received:

Dear Valued Customer,

Thank you for contacting us.

No, the taxes do not apply to cable users, as EarthLink does not handle
the billing for cable accounts. You may want to check with your local cable
company to inquire about taxes for cable service.

Gregg L.
Electronic Support
EarthLink, Inc.
Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.
CSR ID#: 989
Case ID 26018934

I was considering switching to a cable modem until I saw the cable modem tax article this morning. :(

Re:DSL vs. Cable Modem

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps someone can explain to them in no uncertain terms that people are tired of being assessed new taxes for government enforced monopolies instead of letting these services live and die on their own.

Because by the very rule of nature, there eventually will emerge a singular surviver; the monopolist that in absent of government regulation will be happy to eat us alive...

Re:DSL vs. Cable Modem

[Anonymous Coward]

I just cancelled my DSL in favor of a cable modem. The cost of DSL in my market was close to $160/month...

so screw the cable company

[Anonymous Coward]

no nobody wants cable modem, if it wasn't bad enough already, lookinga t your neighbors email & sharing the bandwidth, and now taxed beyond reasonable limits. So we go dsl, but then we dont' live within 3 miles of the phone company so then we all use 2 way dish and its a happy world with a considerable ammount of lag time

~ryan

Re:so screw the cable company

[Anonymous Coward]

Then youre ISP is misconfigured. Our one here you can only see YOURSELF, nothing else. Why dont you tell them to fix it rather than accept it. You should NOT see anybody elses traffic except youre own.

So broadband gets more expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo!
Down with the FCC...

They need more money??

[Azghoul]

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.

Re:They need more money??

[Anonymous Coward]

THat is just from the MS fines for the passport bug.

Re:They need more money??

[Anonymous Coward]

well, geez. Bush's tax cut was 1 trillion dollars presented to us as 350 billion. we need to pay that back somehow.

Re:They need more money??

[gearheadsmp]

Gee, I thought they were more related to Weasals.

Broadband promotion

[EvanED]

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.

Re:Broadband promotion

[viking099]

Oh, you mean like gasoline and cigarettes?
c'mon, man, be reasonable. If people want something badly enough, they'll spend money on it, regardless of the taxes that are imposed on it.
If you were to refuse to use or pay for everything that has odd or obscure taxes attached to it, your life would probably be a little less exciting than it is now.

*of course, all this only applies to the US, since I don't know about the tax codes of other countries, but I'd bet it's fairly similar.

Re:Broadband promotion

[EvanED]

Yeah, of course many people would pay it. I'd bet almost everyone who has breadband now would. At least I don't see myself going back to dialup unless forced. However, the price is already driving people away when AOL is about half the cost and some other services are half of AOL's price, and adding another $5/mth certainly isn't going to help things.

Re:Broadband promotion

[Anonymous Coward]

???

Broadband is a luxury to many. Doesn't mean it should be taxed. And if the cost goes up x%, the rate of adoption tends to reduce by x%.

For example, cigarette taxes are there to DISCOURAGE people from smoking. They look at from a revenue AND a public health standpoint. People seem to forget that tax isn't just about money and income for the government; it's about control. They know very well the economic rules of this; increase the cost, the usage goes down. This is what they want and it's desired.

To this end, the FCC is looking at cable modem taxes. I think it stinks--the government has hardly been able to solve the rural "problems" they say exist. We farm people aren't stupid and you should't be either; do you honestly believe that the cable modem tax is going to allow folks out here to have broadband? VoIP services? *HAH*

Re:Broadband promotion

[Anonymous Coward]

or you can buy these things over the internet tax free :)

Damn running low on gas again, hope my order arrives quick.

Re:Broadband promotion

[Anonymous Coward]

No cigarette taxes were imposed before the health risks were generally known, cigarette taxes are just like any other taxes, a way of rasing revenue. Once apon a time, gas taxes went to roads etc. then taxing bodies (States, Cities) decovered this wonderful thing call the general fund, now your gas taxes go to fund all kinds of things not related to roads, the same with cigarette taxes and any other tax you may care to name.

Re:Broadband promotion

[deadsaijinx*]

mmmmmm, BREADband ..... seriously though, I don't know what I'll do. I refuse to pay some gay-ass tax, but I won't give up my 200kbs download speeds either

Re:Broadband promotion

[EvanED]

Breadband... It's the newest rage. It delivers your choice of plain, oat, wheat, cinnamin, or rasin breat, toasted at your desire, to your cd drive much faster that traditional toasters can.

(Or it could just be a symptom of me not yet being quite used to the Dvorak keyboard, which has 'a' and 'o' right next to each other.)

I wouldn't refuse to pay the tax because, as people say, it's used for very good purposes. I just don't think that it's the right thing at the right time.

Re:Broadband promotion

[PetoskeyGuy]

Once you try it though you can't do without it. And broadband is already a utility for me. I couldn't run my business without it. Like the cigarette tax, I'm hooked.

My biggest complaint is that if I want cable internet I had to get ALL 100+ channels. They want about $99 / month - $35 for internet and $60 or so for cable. I don't watch TV so we went with the slightly more expensive DSL about $40 / month.

Well that and the fact that cable lines aren't going to be laid my way for another few years. Only about 5 houses / mile in my location.

Taxes are not always bad

[Sean80]

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?

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Because its rammed down youre throat sideways. What if somebody do not agree with those CHARITIES? Please, keep youre yanky policical correctness mouth shut. Remember the library filtering fiasco, yes its to a good cause - crappy filtering software that doesnt work and censors.

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[mtrupe]

Uh, because the federal government already has plenty of money and local governments should fund schools and libraries, not the federal.

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[Sean80]

I always enjoy the crowd that expects the government to provide services, but refuses to fund them with their taxes.

OK, so you don't agree with these charities. In 15 years, are you gonna shut your mouth when a bunch of kids with poor educations raid your house to steal money for food? Or how about when the rural communities in the US are being devastated by the lack of basic services? The government has to get its money somehow.

Yanky politically correct mouth? I'm an Australian. Let's all spell it out together. A-u-s-s-i-e.

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[Carbonite]

I always enjoy the crowd that expects the government to provide services, but refuses to fund them with their taxes.

Yes, and I always enjoy the crowd that expects the government to provide them with services, but plays no part in funding those services. For example, the bottom third of US taxpayers. They expect free schooling, subsidized housing, welfare checks, and yet don't pay a dime in federal income tax. In fact, they may get a few thousand dollars back if they have kids.

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[Carbonite]

Sorry, forgot to close the bracket. Speaking of brackets, take a look here to see how the tax burden is divided in the US.

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[Anonymous Coward]

plenty of money... whats the federal debt again... hmmm seems to me they do not have PLENTY of money, but thanks for playing.

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[Bakaneko]

My first reaction was instead "Why do they need to tax this? What unseen costs are they incurring that requires the government to levy a charge against that service in order to defray its cost?"

I don't subscribe to the "well, it exists, it might as well be taxed for SOMETHING" school of thinking.

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[Geccoman]

Perhaps our vocabularies differ, but in my book Charity is when I give something freely out of the kind generosity of my huge heart.

I don't remember offering to "give" up this money.

QUOTE: "The government has to get its money somehow."

Perhaps that should be rephrased to: "The goverment has to get YOUR money somehow"

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[OrangeGoo]

Hooray for socialism... FDR wanted "hand up, not a hand out." Well that idea got screwed, and now for some reason the whole country has this idea that we're supposed to be socialistic. BAAAAH!

Me for President!

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[Mansing]

The e-rate subsidy for libraries and schools, however, comes with several strings attached. One of them is any zany "protection" act is required to be met before the funds are given to the library or school. What this means, simply, is that a library can receive the funds, but they must abid by all of the Internet filtering laws that have come around recently.

e-rate is good thing for libraries and the like. However, I wish the librarians did not have to choose between the money and their integrity.

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[Anonymous Coward]

A friend of an associate received approximately a $7000 tax return last year, because of the number of children he had, even though his working was fairly haphazard and assuredly didn't pay anywhere near that much even including payroll taxes. So of course he spent this money on his impoverished children, living in public housing, right? No, he spent this money on an expensive electrical guitar, computers, and video games.

I asked him why the he didn't spend the money improving his prospects so that he could offer a better life for his horde of children, to which he replied that he didn't have to, and since he never had any disposable income, that this was it for him. "This is my money, I can spend it however I want."

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[Bobman1235]

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?

So, because I want fast internet in my house in a relatively urban area, I have to pay 5 bucks a month extra so someone in the middle of nowhere can have a cheaper phone bill? Makes sense.

And yes, subsidizing school and library Internet connections sounds like a good thing, but I'm sure it can be done with some of the other wasted tax money rather than taxing some new thing even more. Pick a noble cause and tax a random 10% tax to something for it isn't always a "great idea." There are probably more causes than there are services to tax.

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this a bad thing?

If you want to live in the country, you pay for your own extra phone costs. Why should I help? I'll help schools, libraries, and the poor (even rural poor), but I don't want to help everyone.

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[Lt Razak]

So? Good for, um, him and his kids.

People use the freedom of speech in stupid ways too, but it's the price we pay to have those rights.

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[Lt Razak]

Really, the whole "this is a great tax because it goes towards something cute and cuddly, blah blah" doesn't cut it. What really happened is most of our taxes went towards death and destruction, supporting beurocracy, and other crap we don't want to support.

This is an "oops, we ran out of tax money for the important stuff", so let's raise taxes somewhere else. In a few years, they'll silently requisition these "good" taxes to the evil funds, and we'll start over.
I mean, what's next, taxing the internet? D'oh!

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[jasonditz]

Ummm... yeah You know, I'm looking forward to the point where the use fees are so high that the only way to even get telecom services is through subsidies.

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[jejones]

How is this a bad thing?

If I have relaxing music to listen to, I'm more productive...so I'll take your money to expand my CD collection. How is that a bad thing?

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[jejones]

OK, so you don't agree with these charities. In 15 years, are you gonna shut your mouth when a bunch of kids with poor educations raid your house to steal money for food?

So, you're admitting that fundamentally we're talking about an extortion racket here? ("Give us your money or we or our descendants will mug you.") That's fine; I appreciate your admitting that there's no moral claim involved, just the threat of force.

Re:Taxes are not always bad

[jaoswald]

This number, typically quoted by Wall Street editorial page writers, and assorted other conservative commentators conveniently and completely IGNORES the fact that there are other Federal payroll taxes than Federal Income Tax.

Perhaps you have heard of the Social Security Tax, and Medicare tax? These also come out of paychecks, but have caps of roughly $90k annual wages. So the people up in the top bracket have a marginal rate on these taxes of ZERO percent.

Add in 7.65 percent to your lower income bracket tax rates, and it no longer looks so imbalanced, does it? Keep in mind also that this tax only applies to wages, not unearned income or capital gains.

uhm...

[rebelcool]

with DSL you need phone and thus you already have the universal service tax added on.

Re:uhm...

[Torqued]

So I'm going to get charged the same USF fee twice - once by the telco and once by my ISP- for using the same strand of copper? WTF is up with that?

Link

[Anonymous Coward]

And here's a link to everyone-else-but-the-FCC's opinion on this.

Re:stick it to the consumer

[Binestar]

As if I don't pay enough for my cable modem already ($40)

In my Area, $40 is just about the cost it would be for me to get another phone line and an internet account. So it is very much worth it to me to pay the $40 for a cable modem.

As for the FEE proposed, it would almost certainly be lower than the 9.1% listed, but I don't think it will go through in it's current state.

The FCC would have to reclassify cable access or the measure would give a broad scope of who pays the new fee, all the way down to people who use an ATM machine.

Shouldnt be a problem

[Soothh]

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.

Re:Shouldnt be a problem

[LostCluster]

The "FCC tax" you see on your bill is the cell phone provider trying to pass on the costs of complying with FCC requirements such as E-911 on to you. If you call them and ask them to take it off your bill, it's up to the provider whether they want to give you the price break for being a complainer, or if they'd rather you take your business elsewhere. If you don't fit their model of a high-profit customer, no price break for you...

More room to inflate cable bills...

[Bonker]

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

Re:More room to inflate cable bills...

[Abcd1234]

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.

Re:More room to inflate cable bills...

[Reziac]

I read something about that a while back. The way the regulations are structured, telcos have to pass along certain federal fees. But if the fee is $n.nn, that doesn't mean the telco can only charge you $n.nn. In fact, they can add as much onto the $n.nn as they think they can get away with, and pocket the difference. This free money apparently averages around $4.00 per monthly bill for local service.

How many times is a single dollar taxed?

[grasshoppa]

I wonder how many times they intend to tax a single dollar. bastards

Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Dr. Spork]

I just can't get over the stupidity of this administration. Bush gives a huge tax cut, most of which goes to very rich people, while Michael Powell wants to do a tax hike on one of the few technologies that might actually fix the economy?

Seriously, this just boggles the mind.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[rolla]

hey buddy. I would like to tell you that pres. Bushs tax cuts help me very much. And I am very far from rich. Maybe you should stop believing everything those dumbass democrats say and read the stuff for yourself

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Dr. Spork]

How much are you getting? And how sure are you that there isn't someone else in the country who needs that money more?

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[mtrupe]

Yup. Its easy to get in a tissy about "tax cuts for the rich." Bush's tax cuts will help me out a bunch too- and I am far from rich, although the Democrats in Washington DC disagree. Democrats label any tax cut that gives relief to lower middle class and up a "tax cut for the rich."

How do you cut taxes on people who don't pay them in the first place?

Anyway, with the the money (my own money) that I get to keep, I will be buying things and stimulating the economy.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[rolla]

Buddy this is not a communist state. So I want to discredit the fact that the tax cut only helps the rich. Heck you proablly want to give ILLEGAL aliens healthcare and free school. Love them Democrats. What part of ILLEGAL do they not get. except when it is campign contribs from the PROC.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Abcd1234]

Anyway, with the the money (my own money) that I get to keep, I will be buying things and stimulating the economy.

Well it sure seems to be working so fa... no, wait, the American economy is in a massive slump the likes of which we haven't seen the the 70's.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[mtrupe]

I am sure there are people in this country who need MY money more than I do. The thing is- those people didn't earn MY money. I'll never understand you bleeding hearts.

You liberals are so quick to want to give away the hard earned money of others.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Give it time... You will eat your words. Besides, the most recent cuts have not even taken affect yet. Economies go up and down, its that natural course of thigs. JFK and Ronald Reagan both proved to us that tax cuts tend to make economies grow.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[jumpingfred]

No it is in a slump the likes of which we haven't seen since 1992.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[elefantstn]

I just can't get over the stupidity of this administration. Bush gives a huge tax cut, most of which goes to very rich people, while Michael Powell wants to do a tax hike on one of the few technologies that might actually fix the economy?

Michael Powell is not part of the administration; he is (nominally, at least) independent, and was appointed by Clinton.

And I've never quite figured out how "not taking as much as we used to" and "giving away money" are the same thing, no matter how many times the Democrats have tried to explain it to me.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

And guess what? I earned that money, not that other person.

Why don't you go give all your money to him, since you've obviously got some spare (or you wouldn't have free time to read /.)

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[ivan256]

I just can't get over the stupidity of this administration. Bush gives a huge tax cut, most of which goes to very rich people

The people who need the money the most are the people who are unemployed. When you are unemployed you have no income, and hence pay no taxes. The only way to help those people with a tax cut is to cut taxes of people who will either:

• Spend the money by hiring more people
• Invest the money so that somebody else can hire more people

If you're one of the 8% or so of people out there in the US with no job, that's the only kind of federal tax cut you should be looking for, because it's the only kind that's likely to have any chance of helping you.

Cutting taxes for people with low income won't help the unemployed people because the money will be spent on retail items that will probably come from China given our current trade deficit, so while such a tax cut might help those low income people, it won't help the economy or the unemployed.

All that said, I think this most recent tax cut is stupid. It's not the tax cut Bush asked for, and because it was renegotiated to go more to the lower end of the income scale it's essentially $350 million flushed down the giant hole that is our trade deficit.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[ivan256]

it's essentially $350 million flushed down the giant hole that is our trade deficit.

Yes, I meant billion... Oops..

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[heli0]

http://www.cato.org/fiscal/2002/factsfigs.html

"The share of all individual income taxes paid by the highest-income 1 percent of households was 36 percent in 1998."

"the top 5 percent of households pay 56 percent"

"In 2001, 36 percent of U.S. households, most earning less than $40,000, had income tax liabilities of zero"

Yes that's right, 36% of households pay NO income tax!!!

Would you like their tax rate to be below 0%? For many of them it is, in the form of the EITC.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Abcd1234]

because it was renegotiated to go more to the lower end of the income scale it's essentially $350 million flushed down the giant hole that is our trade deficit.

Yeah, 'cuz giving the money to the massively rich will REALLY stimulate the economy. Really, where the heck do you get this from? The rich don't need more money. They're rich! A tax cut won't stimulate them to spend more money or hire more people! They'll pocket it is pure profit, since your average corporation is focused primarily on the bottom line, to produce the greatest wealth for their stock holders, NOT their employees! All a tax cut for the rich will do is widen the already massive wealth gap which exists in American society.

Now, providing relief for the people who are actually spending money and driving the economy, THAT makes some sort of sense. But shovelling more cash at the top 1% of American society is absolutely senseless.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[arkanes]

Okay, but first pay back all the subsidies on phone, electricity and natural gas that made the wiring possible, all the funds for highways and roads, the lowered cost of food because of the reduced transportation costs because of subsidized rail and highways, etc, etc. It's called living in a society. If you don't want to play, go buy your own island somewhere. And, actually, assuming that you are not dying of starvation, disease, exposure, infection, or injury, yes, there are people who need your money MUCH more than you do. Whether they deserve it or not is a philisophical discussion, and not one I'm interested in having because it's basically impossible to change someones beliefs once they form them.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[senrik]

~I just can't get over the stupidity of this administration. Bush gives a huge tax cut, most of which goes to very rich people, while Michael Powell wants to do a tax hike on one of the few technologies that might actually fix the economy?

You forget.... Bush doesn't like the internet. It was a particular article on the internet that made him say that famous quote "there ought to be limits to freedom".... Becides, he doesn't like the internet because Gore invented it, right?

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

How many really rich people do you know? Everyone I know who has over a million dollars typically invests. If they get an extra 100k, they'll put it into their stocks, not pocket it.

Anyone who has money knows that invested money is worth more than the money in their pockets.

That invested money is what help fuel companies, and get unemployed jobs!

A poor person who gets an extra thousand will most likely spend it on retail goods, which does nothing to help the economy.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

First make those subsidized companies pay back their profits they earned by being government sanctioned monopolies.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it YOUR land that you are living on? Does the land that you reside on when you are working BELONG to your company? Maybe that land should be given back the the original inhabitants?

Might makes right doesn't it? They government has more might than you.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[cpeterso]

I have always wondered how tax cuts for PERSONAL income help create jobs. Will there suddenly be a huge market for butlers? If the tax cuts reduced costs for EMPLOYERS (i.e. companies), then I could imagine a more direct effect on job creation.

Sure, some rich people might invest their tax savings in some companies (stock market does not count as it does not directly create new jobs), but that seems a very indirect (trickle down) strategy that suspiciously benefits the fat cat cronies of the Bush administration. If these tax cuts went directly to businesses, then I would believe that the Bush administration cared more about job creation than about lining their campaign contributors' pockets.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[spectecjr]

"The share of all individual income taxes paid by the highest-income 1 percent of households was 36 percent in 1998."

Yes. Those people who earn $100,000,000 a year end up spending $36,000,000 one income tax.

Leaving them earning $64,000,000 a year. Oh, poor babies!

Whereas someone earning $60,000 a year give up $20,000 on income tax, leaving them with only $40,000.

Compare $40,000 with $64,000,000 and see who the tax affects *more*.

Simon

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Big_Breaker]

Cato is a very conservative think tank but their numbers are basically correct.

Personal income is very skewed in the US, rightly or wrongly, and taxation is highly progressive (rich pay a higher %). That means that a very select number of people's taxes pay for everyone else's government services.

Bringing this post back on topic however the Cato institute fails to include use and service fees that do count as taxes like the one mentioned in the article. I'd have to check whether they are including social security, medicare, medicade and payroll taxes paid by both the employee and employer as well.

This tax on telecom service is basically a head tax on anyone with a phone and therefore hits everyone equally, regardless of income. That is very regressive (hits low earners more than the rich).

Historically the universal access policies are driven by the structure of our government. The mid-west has lots of senate seats and is often a swing vote in presidential elections. The universal access policy basically takes money from dense coastal states and gives it to mid-western states.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

How much are you getting? And how sure are you that there isn't someone else in the country who needs that money more?

I assume you live a life of poverty because you have donated all your available cash flow to those people who need your money more than you do?

Just think.. for every dollar you have left over after taxes, there is somebody in this country that needs that dollar more than you do. I hope you are happy with yourself.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[wfberg]

The people who need the money the most are the people who are unemployed. When you are unemployed you have no income, and hence pay no taxes.

No federal income tax, perhaps. They do pay sales tax for example (which in the US is not a hugely big deal, but in EU countries can be as high as 19%, and each hike is "compensated" fiscally, i.e. with incometax cuts, which do not benefit the poor). Unemployed people with a phone (really, it's quite handy when you're looking for a job..) also pay ridiculous DTMF surcharges and universal service fees. And municipal and state taxes, fees and surcharges to things like rent. Anything non-income related and you're screwed basically.

There are programs to give some of that money back, but hey, the most screwed people typically have better things to do with their time than hunting down each and every subsidy and rebate they can get (like single parents taking care of their kids).

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[senrik]

~What part of ILLEGAL do they not get. except when it is campign contribs from the PROC.

As opposed to our friend Kathleen Leung who was a major Repub contributer, FBI agent, Adulterer, and incidently a spy for the PRC.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the choice between giving money to the rich or the poor, you suggest giving it to the rich will help the economy more?

Your logic being that the poor would just spend the money on foreign goods while the rich will invest it.

However, what makes you think that the rich won't just invest it in foreign companies too? As fewer people in the lower income brackets have money to spend, less money is spent.

Inflation slows to a crawl and we are dangerously close to a deflationary period. Smart investors will not put their investments into a deflationary economy, the value goods or services produced would with respect to the dollar would decrease.

Instead they would put their investments into a foreign company whose currency would be growing vs the dollar. Also, if those goods are being sold outside the US, they would also retain their value better than anything in the US economy.

If you want to stimulate the economy, you need that money spent. Relying on investors to try to pump up a failing economy won't work. They still have the fredom to invest wherever they want and will just invest it in the better performing areas of the world.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[MacDork]

Cutting taxes for people with low income won't help the unemployed people because the money will be spent on retail items that will probably come from China

Yeah, cut taxes for the rich and they will spend it on American jobs and improvements. Sure they will. You made my point with your post. The tax cut for the rich wasn't enough so they had to hire chinese labor? We'll give them a bigger cut next time and maybe they can afford Indian labor instead huh?

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[The Analog Kid]

Yes give money to the unemployed, well lets think about it for a minute, what do you think the unemployed are going to do with the tax money they recieve, their going to save it, they're not going to invest and they're not going to buy a new T.V. or build a new kitchen. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. First you should fix the unemployment, that inturn will fix the economy. Secondly, the goverment isn't suppose to fix the economy, all their really suppose to do is stop fraudulent companies like Enron and WorldCom, and break up monopolies like Microsoft which they didn't do, and I hope the under the next administration Microsoft will be broken apart like they should have been in the first place.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[senrik]

~"In 2001, 36 percent of U.S. households, most earning less than $40,000, had income tax liabilities of zero"

And how many households that earned MORE than $40,000 had Income tax liabilities of zero?

How many Large Businesses has zero or even negative tax liabilities? Enron anyone? in 2001, the government owed Enron money.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[ivan256]

They'll pocket it is pure profit snip Now, providing relief for the people who are actually spending money and driving the economy, THAT makes some sort of sense.

What do you think rich people do with their money, put it under the mattress in small non-sequencial bills? Of course not, they invest it. They're also more likely to invest it in US interests than your average wallmart shopper is to spend it on goods produced in the US. Think about it this way: When you cut taxes by $350 billion you can either give everybody and extra $5 a week, give people that make less than the median income level an extra $10 a week, or you can try and give some unemployed people a steady paycheck. Since we have a MASSIVE trade deficit, consumer spending is *not* driving our economy as you say it is. It's driving the economy of Asia and Mexico. Even at minimum wage ~$5-10 a week is statistical noise compared to the cost of living. It's not going to improve anybodies confidence. Worst of all, it's going to put $0 in the pockets of the people who need it the most: the people without jobs who aren't paying any taxes that can be cut.

I would agree with you completely if a tax cut for the lower income groups were combined with some way of getting people in the US to spend the money on things from the US, but a big "Buy American" campaign right now would just piss the rest of the world off towards us more than they already are. If we're not going to keep the money in the US (the only place it'll stimulate the US economy from) than we shouldn't cut taxes at all.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[ssdairy]

It's not the tax cut Bush asked for...

Why is this important? Bush was elected president, not king. The difference seems to be lost on this administration. Or, now that Bush "didn't get everything he wanted", is this political-speak for "the job market's failure to recover isn't my fault"?

...and because it was renegotiated to go more to the lower end of the income scale it's essentially $350 million flushed down the giant hole that is our trade deficit.

I hadn't heard this argument before, but it makes a little bit of sense. Not ALL the money is going overseas, but you're right that a bunch of it is. American business owners (small and large alike) WILL MAKE MORE MONEY from increased spending from the working class, which theoretically should result in more investment in capital equipment, workers, etc.

Unfortunately, these are not textbook conditions -- we have some serious risk aversion among the entrepreneural class. A large segment of business owners are afraid to invest in their own businesses. They need more than a little more money to overcome that fear. In fact, money is cheap right now for those with the guts to use it. There just aren't enough people with the guts.

I don't think there's much more that can be done with either fiscal or monetary policy to move the U.S. economy along. In fact, the last year and a half has seen a LOT of stimulus. I think Bush and Greenspan just need to sit tight for a while and give the medicine they dispensed earlier a chance to work.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, providing relief for the people who are actually spending money and driving the economy, THAT makes some sort of sense. But shovelling more cash at the top 1% of American society is absolutely senseless.

The largest rate reduction is at the lowest income tax bracket. Explain how that benefits only the richest 1%.

Or maybe you're referring to the fact that the reason the "rich" see more tax relief (in the long run, most of the tax relief hasn't been phased in yet) is because they pay the most taxes?

Also, if you really think that a tax cut is the same as the government "shovelling" money at you, then you don't have the foggiest idea of what an income tax is.

Logic. Try it sometime. You'll like it.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

If the tax cuts reduced costs for EMPLOYERS (i.e. companies), then I could imagine a more direct effect on job creation.

At which point you'll have slashdotters bitching about how companies are getting tax relief while poor peons aren't getting squat. There's no way to please everybody.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[ivan256]

Yeah, cut taxes for the rich and they will spend it on American jobs and improvements. Sure they will.

Do you live in the US? If you do, and you're employed, take a look at who writes your paycheck. It's probably some rich American guy. Which would you prefer, a few extra dollars a week, or no fear of being laid off soon? The types of jobs that can be farmed out of the country are a small percentage of the overall job market here, and tax cuts can be made to favor those types of businesses. How about a payroll tax cut for manufacuring companies? Sure, it would be considered a tax cut for "the rich", but you'll never convince me that the extra money wouldn't be used to hire more workers in this country. My family owns a manufacturing business, and I know for a fact that if their payroll taxes were cut every penny would be spent on additional local labor. Even if it wasn't all used for that, it's likely that a higher percentage of it would be spent here than if the same amount of money were given to cash strapped consumers who are vertually guaranteed to by inexpensive foriegn goods...

If you want to stimulate the economy with a tax cut for low income individuals, you have to give them some incentive to keep the money in the country. If you can find a way to do that then I'm all for whatever kind of tax cut you want. Otherwise, if you want to give government money to people who are unemployed you may as well start some "New Deal" style government work programs. Being wishy-washy won't get us anywhere though. It'll just give people on both sides of the issue ammo for the debate about who's economic policy sucks more.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[praedor]

Will not, and does not work. Local paper had an Op Ed piece written by a local CEO. He indicated that the tax cut he would be getting vs that of his secretary. She made a pittance and he made millions. His tax cut was a whopping $800k+, her's a mere $400+/-. He indicated that this extra money to him would not do any good, that it was tossing more money his way, money he simply didn't need, and it would in no way boost the economy or benefit anyone like his secretary.

It's nice to see that some people who are rich actually accept that they do not need more, that there comes a point when more money becomes pointless and wont improve their lives (nor anyone else's) and that there are better ways to shape taxes so as to directly benefit those who will actually spend/need the money vs those who already have anything/everything they want. Hell, even at a 50% tax, they would STILL be rich and STILL be able to afford pretty much any unnecessary luxury (which doesn't help the economy) that they could before. Greed is a failing. Greed is an evil. Greed is a character failing. Greed is ugly. No exceptions.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[rolla]

Senrik. Good point :). Atleast someone reads the news and is up on things. But either way you go must people in poltics are rich and will get richer but the democrats try to make is sound like they are poor and only want to help the poor. Give me a break they want to help the poor they should give more their money to the poor not take it from us.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[ivan256]

Why is this important? Bush was elected president, not king. The difference seems to be lost on this administration.

It was important because he proposed a plan to stimulate the economy, and I think his plan had at least a chance of working. The latest tax bill doesn't implement his plan, and it's practically doomed to failure.

but you're right that a bunch of it is. American business owners (small and large alike) WILL MAKE MORE MONEY from increased spending from the working class

Unfortuantly given the tax cut that passed I don't think they're going to benefit enough to justify the cost.

Unfortunately, these are not textbook conditions -- we have some serious risk aversion among the entrepreneural class. A large segment of business owners are afraid to invest in their own businesses. They need more than a little more money to overcome that fear. In fact, money is cheap right now for those with the guts to use it. There just aren't enough people with the guts.

Exactly. You're practically making my argument for me. If you want to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes, you have to put the money where it will work best under the current conditions. These business owners don't want to take on the risk of loans in the current climate, but they'll probably spend the money from a tax cut. Judging by the recent statistics, they're at least more likely to keep that money in the US than the average US consumer these days. It almost doesn't matter who has the money, as long as it stays here. If we're going to take a $350 billion risk, I think we should be betting on the horse that's most likely to win.

The only other practical options I see are a tax cut for the least wealthy and a huge "Buy American" advertising campaing, or just sitting on the cash and hoping things work out on their own...

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[ivan256]

Unfortunately, these are not textbook conditions -- we have some serious risk aversion among the entrepreneural class. A large segment of business owners are afraid to invest in their own businesses. They need more than a little more money to overcome that fear. In fact, money is cheap right now for those with the guts to use it. There just aren't enough people with the guts.

He couldn't be more short sighted. His $800k will probably be given to an institutional investor who will put his money in a company (comapnies more accuratly) who will spend it on paychecks. His secretary will probably go to the store and buy things that were made in another country. Her $400 tax cut will have helped her, but not the economy. His $800k tax cut will not have helped him, but will definatly help the economy at least a little.

I still think the tax cut that passed was stupid; just for different reasons than you apparently.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[jafac]

How about a massive tax hike for corporations, bundled with a massive tax credit for hiring people?

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[SwissCheese]

Any some CEO's are simply closet socialists who are for whatever reason guilty they make so much. Writing fluffy op-ed pieces makes them feel better about themselves and enables them to sleep at night. Instead of writing essays, why doesn't he pay his secretary some of that money he feels is being wasted on him. While its not the governments job to redistribute wealthy, there is certainly nothing wrong with an individual helping others out.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[ivan256]

Given the choice between giving money to the rich or the poor, you suggest giving it to the rich will help the economy more?

No, I think in today's environment giving it to the rich will help the economy more. If you asked me in a different economic climate I may give a different answer.

Your logic being that the poor would just spend the money on foreign goods while the rich will invest it.

However, what makes you think that the rich won't just invest it in foreign companies too? As fewer people in the lower income brackets have money to spend, less money is spent.


Given the current statistics (too many to quote here. Go read any financial publication) it is more likely today that a dollar will remain in the US when given to an investor than when given to a consumer. To stimulate the US economy the dollar has to stay in the US economy. It almost doesn't matter who has it.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

why not a flat tax? or is that just too american?

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[ivan256]

HAH! Good luck getting that passed.

Besides, there's an equal chance that would get companies to leave the country instead of staying and hiring people. It also unfairly punishes sectors of the economy that have remained strong dispite the downturn.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[ssdairy]

The latest tax bill doesn't implement [Bush's] plan, and it's practically doomed to failure.

I kinda doubt the tax cut we got will have the intended effect, but I'm not so sure that Bush's cut would have done much better. The only prayer it had of working was the abolition of taxes on dividends, but we didn't get that.

I suspect the only thing that will really kick-start the economy is a boom in some class of assets. Real estate kept the recession from getting REALLY bad, and the little run-up in stocks over the last few months is making a world of difference in the psychology of the average investor.

Getting rid of dividend taxes makes some sense to put the cost for a business to raise equity on par with debt, but it seems to me that it was sold mainly as a way to boost the stock market. I think that reason makes for lousy public policy.

Absent that, it's a slow climb from here. That's not all that bad, unless you're out of work. Maybe the unemployed, with less to lose, will become the next class of entrepreneurs?

These business owners don't want to take on the risk of loans in the current climate, but they'll probably spend the money from a tax cut.

They certainly won't sit on the money -- my guess is most of it would go into debt repayment to further reduce their risks. This frees up more money for the bank to lend to someone else, but that someone else isn't asking for a loan. That's why this economy is really tricky.

The only other practical options I see... just sitting on the cash and hoping things work out on their own

Remember that we aren't exactly "sitting on the cash". Most of the tax cut is being financed by government borrowing. Maybe the economic boost is worth the cost of the borrowing, but remember that debt = risk. That money has to be repaid someday, with a non-zero chance of future taxes having to be set higher than they'd otherwise be.

There's a big economic benefit to stable government policies that's getting overlooked here too. Why make a big investment with your current and future tax cut dollars if the cut is phased out in a couple of years, and taxes might even increase in the future to repay the borrowing? For any sort of long-range planning, the devil we know might well be better than the new one just created.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Chris Burke]

So, let me get this straight. You're saying that tax relief for lower income families is useless because they'll only spend the money on retail items that were probably made in China. Contrary to this, tax relief for the rich will help because they will invest it in U.S. companies who will then create more jobs for Americans.

That makes no sense.

If the retailer's products are all coming from China, where do you think the investor's dollars (and the jobs this supposedly creates) are going to go? What stops them from simply investing in foreign markets anyway? At least when you buy retail, you're paying a company with a physical presence in the U.S. and necessitating the need for workers in the retail store, the warehouses, the distribution network, the ship yards, not to mention IT departments which need staff (more jobs) and equipment (more money for the makers, meaning more jobs).

As opposed to a rich guy buying a bunch of low-priced stock, which will create jobs how? My company didn't lay off thousands of people because their stock price was too low. They did it because not enough people were buying their product!

Saying that giving people a tax break so that they can buy products that they wouldn't otherwise buy won't help the economy and create jobs is the most foolish thing I've heard today, and I've been reading /.!

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[phuturephunk]

You are right that the lower income brackets in this country will probably spend it. They don't have enough money to exist much less put some away for tomorrow. The middle class (say 40K single, 60-75K for families) will however put it in the bank. Saving money in a Bank DOES actually simulate growth tho, because banks take the money you deposit and then turn around and invest it in the market...Thats why you make interest.. ..And as we all know, interest makes the world go 'round... ;-)..

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[seichert]

http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-15-03-3.html

April 15, 2003

10 Outrageous Facts About the Income Tax

by Chris Edwards

Chris Edwards is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.

As you struggle to prepare your taxes this year, you may take some comfort in knowing that your headache is being felt across the country. The following odd and outrageous facts show how widespread income tax problems are:

1. The U.S. "tax army" is bigger than the U.S. army in Iraq.
   Income taxes are so complex that there are up to 1.2 million paid tax preparers in the country -- six times more than the number of troops in Iraq. The tax army includes legions of accountants, lawyers, and computer experts -- some of the best minds in the country. Unfortunately, their brainpower is adding little to the nation's standard of living.

A tax form for every special interest.
As the income tax grows more complex, the number of IRS tax forms has jumped from 402 in 1990 to 526 by 2002. Congress hands the accountants business on a silver platter when they create special interest tax forms such as "8845-Indian Employment Credit" and "8834-Qualified Electric Vehicle Credit." When Congress penalizes an activity, we get tax forms such as "6197-Gas Guzzler Tax." It's time to end the micromanaging and adopt a simple flat-rate tax. Until then, Congress needs to supplement "6478-Credit for Alcohol Used as Fuel" with form "XXX-Credit for Alcohol Used for Drinking."

Double-tax on dividends: 60 years and still not fixed.
Sixty years ago, a Treasury report noted that "double taxation of corporate profits is the principal problem raised in connection with the corporation income tax." In the 1930s, a Treasury report argued that the tax disincentive to pay dividends caused corporate management problems. Recent scandals proved them right. Congress should bite the bullet and reform dividend taxes now -- before the next round of corporate scandals begins.

Congress promotes discrimination through the tax code.
The front of the Supreme Court building boldly declares "equal justice under law," yet the income tax has hundreds of discriminatory provisions. For example, homeowners are treated more favorably than renters since they can deduct mortgage interest and other itemized deductions. Consider that a higher-income homeowner can effectively deduct car loan interest by shifting around his finances but a lower-income apartment dweller cannot. Americans would not stand for such discrimination on other taxes -- imagine if each shopper at Wal-Mart was assigned a different sales tax rate!

Congress on tax complexity: Who us?
Congress frequently holds hearings on tax simplification so members can denounce the tax code's complexity. Each time, congressional experts and outside think tanks provide useful simplification ideas. Then when the TV cameras are turned off, Congress promptly ignores them and votes for more special interest breaks. The result: The number of pages in the tax code and regulations doubled from 26,300 in 1984 to 54,846 by 2003, according to tax publisher CCH.

AMT designed to catch 155 taxpayers will soon catch 37 million.
The alternative minimum tax is an unneeded parallel tax system alongside the ordinary income tax. It began life in 1969 after Congress was shocked (shocked!) to learn that 155 wealthy individuals were not paying tax because they used too many of the deductions that Congress had provided them. The AMT has been a complex nuisance ever since. But this dumb idea aimed at the rich is set to explode on the middle-class as the number of AMT taxpayers skyrockets from 3 million today to 36 mi

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[superyooser]

The thinking is: I need what *I* have. People who have more than I have don't need it, so it is okay to pilfer it. The Rule of Fairness that flows from this is: It's okay to confiscate someone's assets up to the point that their economic standard of living is below mine [yours].

This effectively saps the incentive out of people to become wealthy and establish businesses (and provide jobs, pay salaries). Why work hard yourself when you can let someone else do the heavy lifting to generate wealth and have the government confiscate it and deliver it to your doorstep? At some point, the government will have to force people to work so that there will be a pool of wealth to redistribute, and moreover, to keep the country going.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[spectecjr]

The thinking is: I need what *I* have. People who have more than I have don't need it, so it is okay to pilfer it. The Rule of Fairness that flows from this is: It's okay to confiscate someone's assets up to the point that their economic standard of living is below mine [yours].

No. That's not what the thinking is. The thinking is that "the top 5% of people put in x% of the tax". That's just hooey. In terms of the effect it has on their quality of life, they are much *less* affected than someone earning a much lower amount.

Look at the amount of money it costs to have a reasonable standard of living in (say) the Seattle area. $45,000 a year is a reasonable minimum for comfort - ie. not having to struggle, being able to go out and enjoy yourself a few nights a week... you know... comfy.

Compare someone's earnings after tax to that base figure. As long as it's higher than that base, you're doing well.

Now compare the discrepancy between those figures.

If someone is earning only $1000 after tax above the 'comfort' line, then they're much worse off - for the same tax percentage - than someone who earns $64,000,000 after tax above the comfort line.

Is it unfair to tax those people earning huge amounts more? Yes. Is it an awful burden that makes it impossible for them survive? Well, once you're being limited from buying 300 airplanes that year to only 200, who gives a flying...?

Seriously, I'm a capitalist. But at the same time, I also believe that figures like "X% are paying X% of the tax" are completely ludicrous statements. Compare it to how much one needs to live on, and you see that the people in the lower end of the scale are much *worse off*.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[mcwop]

A lot of rich people give away (or plan to) their entire fortunes. Or they spend it on goods that contribute to jobs. Like Bill Gates' huge house. He paid a few people to build it. Or the rich invest the money in businesses, maybe giving someone like you capital to start a business. Either way it is a wash. If the government gets it they spend it or "invest" it. If a rich guy gets they spend it or invest it. One way or another it gets back into the economy. The question is who spends or invests more wisely?

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[spectecjr]

A lot of rich people give away (or plan to) their entire fortunes. Or they spend it on goods that contribute to jobs. Like Bill Gates' huge house. He paid a few people to build it. Or the rich invest the money in businesses, maybe giving someone like you capital to start a business. Either way it is a wash. If the government gets it they spend it or "invest" it. If a rich guy gets they spend it or invest it. One way or another it gets back into the economy. The question is who spends or invests more wisely?

I don't take issue at that -- what I take issue with is the idea of using the "5% of people pay 95% of the taxes" statistic to justify lower taxation for people with large amounts of money. Those 5% of people also have 95% of the money.

Simon

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you explain when keep more of the money they earn is 'giving the money to the massively rich'? 'The rich don't need more money. They're rich!' That is great you feel entitled to make decision on their possessions. Give me your checkbook and I will make some for you. That is just about as 'fair'.

The only money that is being shovelled is to the lower class. Such as the people who will be getting the child credits that don't pay any taxes.

Your ideas are what screws up the economy in the long run. Look how we have helped the African American communities in urban centers. With the handouts you seem so eager to dole out, over 75% of the children born are to single mothers. The male has lost his place as provider and with that his sense of purpose within a family structure. The results of this have been devastating.

In effect, the social experiment that the democrats have engaged in has removed the ambition for upward mobility. Sure they want better, but not enough to earn it, to work for it.

We, as a society, should make sure they have enough to eat by providing food only. I want they to be dissatisified with their current lot in life. I want them so dissatisified they work their shitty job and either take night classes or learn a trade that pays better to improve themselves and earn what they want.

If we cut off the welfare system, the message will sink in not to breed them if you can't feed them.

We are getting more dead weight than should be taken. What is not need is to kill the ambition so that people who are willing to strive don't achieve more than someone who isn't and is provided for.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Guppy06]

"If you're one of the 8% or so of people out there in the US with no job, that's the only kind of federal tax cut you should be looking for, because it's the only kind that's likely to have any chance of helping you."

While I generally agree with you, I'd like to play devil's advocate here and say two words: Herbert Hoover.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Akhiro]

Man! Where do you get off telling anyone about who needs their money more than them? You had no part in earning their money! If they want to be charitable with their money, wonderful; and if not, that is their choice. Who made you judge of the amount of money someone needs and doesn't? From whence came your almighty omiscience and omnipotence? Don't misunderstand me, the government obviously has roles it must fulfill as you point out. Yes, roads and highways are appropriate. A strong military is very important. But come on! We're discovering new rights and entitlements in this country everyday and the cost of such is driving us further and further into a debt we don't need to be in. Enough! If you want to be charitable with your funds, more power to you! If I desire to be charitable with my money, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! Have a great day! Akhiro

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[MacDork]

Do you live in the US?

Yes, I sell retail items that come from China.

If you do, and you're employed, take a look at who writes your paycheck. It's probably some rich American guy. Which would you prefer, a few extra dollars a week, or no fear of being laid off soon?

My boss getting a tax cut and my job security are anything but interdependent.

The types of jobs that can be farmed out of the country are a small percentage of the overall job market here, and tax cuts can be made to favor those types of businesses. How about a payroll tax cut for manufacuring companies? Sure, it would be considered a tax cut for "the rich", but you'll never convince me that the extra money wouldn't be used to hire more workers in this country.

Then I have some waterfront property in Arizona to sell you. Manufacturing jobs are some of the most likely to be outsourced to other countries. When was the last time you bought a shirt that was made in the USA? Shoes? How about a car? The most 'American made' car you can buy doesn't even come from the big 3 (or is that the big 2 since Diamler Chrysler).

My family owns a manufacturing business, and I know for a fact that if their payroll taxes were cut every penny would be spent on additional local labor.

Well that's great, I'm sure you and yours are top notch folks. And I don't doubt what you say about your specific case. But in the 'big scheme of things' most of the money from a tax cut to the manufacturing industries would probably end up in Mexico and China.

Even if it wasn't all used for that, it's likely that a higher percentage of it would be spent here than if the same amount of money were given to cash strapped consumers who are vertually guaranteed to by inexpensive foriegn goods...

Sold by domestic retail employees of mostly domestic retailers. It's really difficult to outsource retail jobs. Also, if it cost's a store owner $5 to buy chinese retail goods that he turns around and sells for $25, who wins? A good deal of that money will go into the hands of the salesman and the store owner, both of which are probably Americans. Besides, right now consumer confidence isn't exactly at an all time high. My guess is a lot of a low income tax cut would go into paying off high interest credit card debt, second mortgages and keeping borderline people out of bankruptcy.

If you want to stimulate the economy with a tax cut for low income individuals, you have to give them some incentive to keep the money in the country. If you can find a way to do that then I'm all for whatever kind of tax cut you want.

Allow me to clairfy my position. I don't think anyone should be getting a tax cut given that the national debt is about $6,700,000,000,000 right now. I think we should cut spending drastically, keep taxes where they are or raise them, and use the money to pay down the debt. I realize that I'm young enough that I'm never going to see a dime of social security, but at least I'd rather not owe approximately $22,500 + 45 years of interest compounded with additional government spending when I reach retirement age. As a nation we are living well beyond our means.

Otherwise, if you want to give government money

Government money? Where do you think this government money comes from? Taxpayers. They aren't giving squat, they're just taking less. So don't goad me into a three page rant about taxation without representation.

to people who are unemployed you may as well start some "New Deal" style government work programs.

'Trickle down' economics doesn't work. Herbert Hoover started it, and we got Hoover flags in return. Unless my history teacher/books lied to me, the New Deal work programs helped pull this country out of the Great Depression.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[praedor]

It was immoral because you don't steal from the poor to give to the rich. EVER. It was stupid because a number of nobel prize winning economists declare it is bogus and wont do squat for the economy - it merely makes the rich richer (which increases the disparity between upper and middle and lower classes). This WILL ultimately lead to revolution. It was this sort of privaleged, super-rich disparity that helped drive the French Revolution and has caused violence and turmoil in virtually any and all societies in which it occurs. You CANNOT have a stable social structure with a super-rich privaledged class and a heavily burdened and exploited working class. It WILL blow up in your face.

The cut was stupid because what it WILL do is explosively balloon the national debt beyond anything in world history. It will screw each and every one of us. Some of you in the slashdot crowd will get to see it screw your parents. A stable society will provide for the common health (basic healthcare for all), a safety net (it is destabilizing to have starving people dying in the streets while trust-funders drive around in limos and say "let them eat cake."). You want to destroy everything in your society? Keep giving and giving to the wealthiest and keep screwing the lower classes. This IS class warfare, class warfare is NOT a dirty word, it simply is. It does not serve society to feed into the war by firing all your shots at the more numerous middle and lower classes while engendering a sense of superiority and grand entitlement in those who happen to inherit disparate and needless amounts of wealth through no good of their own. Most of what CEOs and the like do is NOT worth the money they give themselves.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Hatta]

If you give money to poor people, they will spend it on cheap foreign goods.

If you give money to rich people, they will spend it on cheap foreign labour.

What does this tell us? Both american goods and american labour are overvalued. We are too rich, we consume far more than our share of the worlds resources. It is only fair that the wealth flow down its concentration gradient and benefit the rest of the world for a change. Americans are not the only people that matter after all.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[superyooser]

In terms of the effect it has on their quality of life

That's where your thinking goes off course. The extent to which someone's comfort level is diminished should not be a consideration in tax policy. The issue is property rights.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

hey spend and pretend, we got some money back, but guess what? It doesn't add up. My wife's a state employee and for the second year running will not receive a cost of living increase. I don't blame the state legislature though. Less money from the feds and less money from tax revenues means you have to cut spending. Everybody's in the same boat. Federal employees. The private sector. Real wages are not growing. Unemployment is growing. Prices, well, why exclude energy prices? You do pay for it. How much have you been paying for gasoline? How much money would you have saved last winter had the Shrub not been on the warpath?

Tax break. Oh, yeah, that makes it all better. Keep dreaming, dumbo boy.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

look I think you're grossly misunderstanding how consumer spending drives the economy. This is how it works. Give the little fish some dough. They more buy stuff immediately. That increases revenues for businesses --not just foreign manufacturers, puhlease-- who in turn invest in more equipment and facilities and workers to meet increasing demand.

here is the ugly truth. Right now the wealthy are not particularily enamoured of the stock market. They don't want to invest in business. They'd rather buy bonds or gold or perhaps real estate. One of the chief impediments is low earnings numbers. P/E numbers still seem too high, and, unlike 1999, there's not much confidence that things will get real good real soon.

The dividend tax cut is likely stimulating some investment in business, but it is small potatoes compared to what one would expect from an actual economic recovery. And, this should be obvious, it is incredibly prejudicial against lowcaps and young companies that have no prospect of paying dividends in the near future, but that would stand a good chance of benefiting from a general increase in economic activity, and in turn, creating jobs and prosperity.

Passing this debt increase off as a stimulus package is an affront. Maybe it's defensible if you have some twisted sense of fairness and no regard for the plight of the American populace. But economic stimulus? That's just stupid.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[Abcd1234]

Wow, someone is completely blinded by the American Dream...

Can you explain when keep more of the money they earn is 'giving the money to the massively rich'? 'The rich don't need more money. They're rich!' That is great you feel entitled to make decision on their possessions. Give me your checkbook and I will make some for you. That is just about as 'fair'.

Okay, when some rich guy comes out and says "I don't need more money, I don't know what I'd do with it" that seems like a decent sign that the rich don't need a tax cut. At least not as much as the lower and middle class people do.

The only money that is being shovelled is to the lower class. Such as the people who will be getting the child credits that don't pay any taxes.

You do realize that one of the major cuts that DIDN'T make it was a child tax credit for single parent families, right? You know, the ones who probably need it the most.

Your ideas are what screws up the economy in the long run. Look how we have helped the African American communities in urban centers. With the handouts you seem so eager to dole out, over 75% of the children born are to single mothers. The male has lost his place as provider and with that his sense of purpose within a family structure. The results of this have been devastating.

This is silly and simplistic. I grew up in a single parent family and I turned out fine. The same goes for one of my best friends. The fact is, the problems in black communities in the US are far more complicated than you'd like to believe. The projects that you talk about were a massive failure, but that has more to do with lack of government will than anything else.

The fact is, your average black youth (or anyone who is destitute and trapped in a poor community) is caught in a nasty feedback loop. Basically, if you grow up in a bad neighbourhood with no decent role models, you'll end up staying in that bad neighbourhood and becoming the type of person who won't be a decent rolemodel. Lather, rinse, repeat. There are many other factors, but the fact is, it's far FAR more complicated than you appear willing to believe.

In effect, the social experiment that the democrats have engaged in has removed the ambition for upward mobility. Sure they want better, but not enough to earn it, to work for it.

Bullshit. Canada is what you'd call a "wellfare state", and we have far less poverty, unemployment, violent crime, and drug use than the US. The same goes for a large part of Europe. Sorry, things are not as simple as you'd like to believe.

We, as a society, should make sure they have enough to eat by providing food only. I want they to be dissatisified with their current lot in life. I want them so dissatisified they work their shitty job and either take night classes or learn a trade that pays better to improve themselves and earn what they want.

Yeah, take night classes which costs money they don't have. Or learn a trade which costs money they don't have. Sorry, education, especially in the United States is a luxury of the rich. Well, at least richer. The poor have very little access to it.

So, yeah, lets leave the poor wallow in their own misery. Then, they'll get depressed and convinced they have nowhere to turn, because they have no money and they have a shitty job, and thus no way to improve their lot in life. Try to get a different job? Lack of skills. Try to educate to get those skills? Lack of money. Ad nauseum.

Geez, man, have you ever actually BEEN poor?

If we cut off the welfare system, the message will sink in not to breed them if you can't feed them.

We are getting more dead weight than should be taken. What is not need is to kill the ambition so that people who are willing to strive don't achieve more than someone who isn't and is provided for.

Well, I suppose that says it all, doesn't it. See, I'd rather try to help my fellow man. You'd rather cut 'em loose. Cut out the dead weight, as it were. Well, I happen to think that's sick and wrong... we'll have to agree to disagree here.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[spectecjr]

That's where your thinking goes off course. The extent to which someone's comfort level is diminished should not be a consideration in tax policy. The issue is property rights.

If it's property rights at issue, then let's not use statistics like 5% of people pay 80% of the taxes. It's an emotional appeal to the fact that this is "unfair", as much as my idea of weighting it by how much money a person has above a certain baseline of "enough to live on".

At the same time, let's get rid of all of the tax-breaks and use a flat tax. Let's simplify the system so that it's obvious what money goes where. Then, after that, complaints can be made about whether it's fair or not. Let's also ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to get into that top tax bracket. I don't know if you've tried getting funding to start a project or an idea, but it's incredibly difficult. It's the golden rule - those who have the gold make the rules.

Simon

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[superyooser]

let's get rid of all of the tax-breaks and use a flat tax

Amen!

I don't know if you've tried getting funding to start a project or an idea, but it's incredibly difficult.

Maybe you need to see this guy. :-)

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[jjhlk]

Actually, Canada has a higher unemployment rate than the USA... as of 1999 (Stats Canada's latest statistic I could find) it was almost twice as much. Though, we [Canada] do have much less crime. Last time I checked it was a tenth as much of America's, proportionately.

Re:Yeah, way to stimulate the economy!

[jaoswald]

These figures completely IGNORE the presence of other Federal taxes that affect paychecks, namely Social Security and Medicare. That household which you claim has no income tax almost certainly has a 7.65% federal payroll tax, which is reduced to zero for wages above $87,000.

Not to mention sales tax, gas tax, etc., which are taxes on consumption which are proportionately higher for low-income households.

Re:stick it to the consumer

[$alex_n42]

That's why you have neighbors. Sell them a part of your bandwith. I pay nothing for my cable (would be $50 something).

Best things in life are free, no?

The motherload of Universal Service debate.

[deathcow]

Is it about connecting phones with phones? Or people with people?

Re:The motherload of Universal Service debate.

[cybermace5]

It's about connecting your wallet with the FCC.

I'd much rather deal with private companies than the government. Sure, they may be expensive, but look to the government for the ultimate in waste and overhead.

I don't have a land line, I use Roadrunner (which is $40 per month, and consistently above 2Mbps) and a cell phone. Unfortunately the tax is on cell phones now, and I'm not quite sure I understand why the Feds need to take about 36 bucks from every cell phone customer every year. Most likely to fund the extra work it takes to monitor cell conversations and pipe them back to the Big Ear.

nope

[SweetAndSourJesus]

When I get my bill from speakeasy, there's a USF charge on it. Somewhere around four bucks a month.

Re:nope

[Cramer]

Exactly to whom does speakeasy provide "universal service"? Where exactly is that money going? In the traditional telco world, that money is collected and kept by the telco. The FCC allows a maximum line item amount for the telco to recover some/all of their costs for providing universal service. 99% of the time, that line item is many thousands of times their cost and thus one hell of a profit padding. I'll add, the FCC does not require telco's to pass the charge on to the customer.

Re:stick it to the consumer

[vasqzr]

I canceled my service

$59 for the service
$5 'rental'

Yuck

I signed up when it was $39.99 and FAST and the modem was free.

Its gets slower and slower and more expensive.

Hmm..

[Sheetrock]

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.

Re:Hmm..

[shaka999]

But this isn't just going to the less fortunate. Why should the rural lifestyle be funded by others? If you want the peace and quiet of living in the sticks...fine. Just don't as me to pay for it.

As for the "real" less fortunate, I'd much rather see this paid for from a general income tax. Just because I enjoy a fast connection doesn't mean I should be the one to pay for others. If its that important then all Americans should be "asked" to contribute.

Typical Budgeting Trick

[RTMFD]

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.

Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so blanking tired of all the new taxes. It's like everytime the state or federal governments spot something that people are prone to keep buying "no matter what" they have to dig their greedly little fingers into it. Cigarettes, Liquer, Cars, and now Internet. And what do we get back from it? Not a damn thing, that's what.. Fucking stupid... Then again, I guess it's just one more reason reason all these big corporations get in bed with politicians... and as usual, it's the citizens who get screwed in the end. As if sales tax, payroll tax, social security tax (yes, TAX, we're none of us are going to get anywhere near what we put into back), and medicare taxes (see the last "yes, TAX" statement) weren't enough.

about time

[BigGar']

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.

its not about low income...

[rebelcool]

even a middle income person would be charged an arm and a leg for the service. Building services to rural areas requires miles of infrastructure - lots of pipes. And thats expensive.

the idea behind the universal service fee was originally to provide basic telephone service to those areas at a similar cost to those who live in cities. highspeed internet is quickly becoming a almost-necessary service. Certainly by the time this tax actually starts getting levied it will be.

Re:its not about low income...

[WinDoze]

the idea behind the universal service fee was originally to provide basic telephone service

Cable modem doesn't fall unnder my definition of "basic telephone service". No way do I buy that internet access is the same sort of necessity. Got your leg caught in a thresher? My first reaction would be to pick up a phone, not a cable modem. It's just not a necessity. So much so that I'll gladly drop it if this tax materializes.

Re:its not about low income...

[i_am_nitrogen]

leg caught in a thresher

Not everyone who lives in a rural area lives a rural lifestyle. I'm surrounded by lettuce, onion, and carrot fields, and pastures. I'm a computer programmer. Why do I live out here? Because a 5000 square foot home costs $200,000 to build. The home I live in would cost over a million dollars in California. This way I have more money saved in the bank, and I can afford more enjoyable activites.

High speed Internet access is a necessity for me, and e-mail is the primary means of communication for a lot of people around here as far as distant friends and relatives are concerned.

Re:its not about low income...

[captain_craptacular]

So because you chose to be cheap in live in the country, those people still in cali having to pay oppressive mortgages on their 1 million dollar homes in order to live like you do should have to contribute extra for their phone and broadband so that you can pay less?

By the way, I just moderated and posted on the same thread. I thought that wasn't possible?

Re:its not about low income...

[WinDoze]

Yes, but you, as a technical person, knew going into this that you were making a lifestyle choice, part of which was (possibly) worse/expensive access to things you need to do your job. That's all fine and dandy. I don't think you'd fall into the category of those who the Universal Service program was intended to help. I don't feel the need to subsidize a cable modem for someone living in a 5,000 square foot house so that he can "afford more enjoyable activites"!

Not trying to flame you (I am jealous of your green fields and pastures), but I hope you get my point.

Re:its not about low income...

[theradixhunter]

If you managed to save over $800,000 on your home by moving into the country then I think you can afford to pay the extra cost for a cable modem.

Re:its not about low income...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your moderation was undone when you posted.

Re:its not about low income...

[YrWrstNtmr]

Fair enough. You choose to live in an area where telco services may be more costly than in another area. Fine.

Then you pay the extra costs of where you choose to live.

You have a larger, more expensive home than I do. Why should I pay part of your costs?

Re:its not about low income...

[ianjk]

building a $200,000 house in the country doesn't mean he had $1,000,000.

anyway, coming from a rural area (in a metro now), I would gladly pay a extra dollar or two to help schools and rural areas get infrastructure/access. I am not sure how it is now, but when I graduated in '98 we were still sharing books as well as a 33.6 modem. (kinda sad when the public school 1/2 hour away, in the city had an aviation program).

Re:its not about low income...

[KRL]

The internet is becoming a necessity as the government moves more and more public information to the internet in its stride towards reducing paperwork and overhead.

like it or not... it's telecommunication... your moving data in two directions across an electrical line. Basically the same thing... as opposed to push tech like cable TV, broadcast radio.

e.g. IRS forms available online
Government procurement announcements
The fact that most commercial enterprises have most information available online now.

Re:its not about low income...

[srvivn21]

Have you tried getting a job lately? How many jobs can you get without SOME knowledgo of computers? How are you going to get that computer knowledge in a rural village of 200 people? Books?

Wouldn't it be nice if you had an internet connection, and could attend some distance learning courses?

Say you do have that leg caught in a thresher. Wouldn't it be nice if your local clinic could comunicate (via video phone, or at least sending some hi-res pictures) with a hospital that specialized in tramatic limb injury?

Perhaps not.

Re:its not about low income...

[srvivn21]

How does equivalent phone service equate to larger homes?

How about looking at how the more expensive living costs relate to the larger opportunities to make money? More expensive phone services don't correlate to high paying areas.

Fsck the third world countries. They would dig themselves out if they really wanted to. Fsck the rural communities. If they wanted modern conveniences like telephone and internet they would move to the cities like us civilized people.

BTW, you don't have to pay the "tax". It's a fee levied on the providers of lines. Tell your provider you don't want to pay it. Problem solved.

Re:its not about low income...

[Rob Simpson]

Um. Actually, houses in rural areas tend to be a LOT cheaper. But actually, that sounds fine - as long as I don't have to pay for your stadium, skytrain, airport, Olympics, and all the other services/institutions that just happen to be located where the population densities (and the housing prices and associated costs) are the highest.

Still, my ADSL is actually less than 40$ Canadian and I'm not aware of any taxes other than GST/PST. I haven't seen any lower prices mentioned by US ./ers in this thread, and I've seen some that were much higher. Perhaps your problem is poorly regulated telco monopolies, not this silly fee.

Re:its not about low income...

[Hatta]

In my ideal world, I would go to the network before the phone. In fact, I wouldn't have a phone because VoIP would be ubiquitous. This is a step in that direction.

I hardly use my phone for much anyway. It's certainly not worth $20 a month.

Re:its not about low income...

[Reziac]

Ah, now I see. Most people here don't have a clue what "rural" really means.

"Rural" isn't building a $200k house in the country. That's "suburban" in the original sense (not the urban-sprawl sense as it's now used). Just because urban types all move out to the country together doesn't make that a "rural" area. And those people generally DO have a choice.

Rural means there's not much there besides farmland, grazing land, timber and mining areas, wasteland, and the occasional small town that provides infrastructure for the farmers and ranchers and loggers and miners. It means places that got basic phone service within *our* lifetime. It means riding the bus 40 miles each way to the nearest school of any sort. It means people who don't exactly live there by choice, but because it's where their work is. (Most of the world doesn't "choose" their career; they have it pretty much chosen for them by the circumstances where they grew up. And so long as urban dwellers like to eat, someone has got to be the rural folks who grow the food the rest of you eat.)

And yeah, a REAL rural area usually means lower-cost housing, but the tradeoff is that wages are equally low. In most rural areas and their associated small towns, the best-paid everyday wage-earners take home $10/hour or less. You can't afford a $200k house on that. You can barely afford a $50k house, and more likely are living in the same house your parents did before you.

Re:its not about low income...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious, but why do you feel you need to live in a 5,000 square foot house? Do you have 10 kids or something?

Re:its not about low income...

[i_am_nitrogen]

I don't live in a 5000 square foot house. I live in a 3500 square foot house. Every room is used fully.

Before you hop on your soap boxes...All about Me.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I was about to say that this isn't a socialist state and I don't give a flying hoo-hah if low-income rural subscribers can't get cheap [electricity, water]."...as long as I get what I want.

learn something about your subject before you post

[hndrcks]

DSL, like most everything else that travels over telco copper, is already subject to the Universal Service Fund charge, and has been for some time.

There is one possible advantage...

[TWX]

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.

what the f@#$

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy the FCC just loves to make one blunder after another

Information Services

[Ioldanach]

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.

Re:Information Services

[rusty0101]

There are a couple of problems with classifying cable modem service as telecommunications. At this time nearly every telecommunications provider (phone company) is regulated at some level by state regulators. Cable service providers are regulated at the city level. If you want the attention of your cable service provider, cc your correspondence with them to your city councilmember.

The other problem is that cable TV and associated services is operated at a loss. Capital expenditures are always going to exceed revenue, even for the most prductive markets. This means that your cable company will never show a positive ballance on their financial records. Subsequently if they are subject to the Universal Service Fund taxet, they very well may end up being the primary benificiaries, rather than the mom-n-pop-phone-co in Remote, ND, who has amortized his equipment, and would like to look into providing a connection through a DSLAM for high speed internet for his 25 townsfolk.

If you wonder why cable companies operate at a loss, it is because doing so allows them to avoid state and local taxes.

-Rusty

And for DSL Users...?

[CBNobi]

This news comes at a time when DSL prices are beginning to be slashed. Verizon has lowered their service costs by upwards of 30%, 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; but that doesn't affect much of the broadband-aware states that have signed the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Including my state of California.

I'm sure we can offset the cost

[Go Aptran]

Just download an additional $10 worth of mp3s and pr0n every month!

I hope they do stick it to ya'

[missing000]

While you guys gripe about cable internet costing you ~$40, I'm still paying around $70 for my DSL (I count the phone line I have to buy and never use here).

I like this part of the article:

"One important point to note: If the FCC goes ahead with its proposal and cable users end up paying more in taxes, DSL users will end up paying less. Because more people will be contributing to the same $6 billion fund, under FCC procedures, each person's contribution gets reduced. So, while DSL taxes currently are 9.1 percent, that rate could fall substantially."

Re:I hope they do stick it to ya'

[Binestar]

Actually, I'm not complaining at all... I'm very happy with my $40 T1-speed downloads.

I can't really include my cable TV bill in with my Cable internet bill because #1: I could get the Inet without the TV and #2: I use my TiVo to watch all the TV I can fit in =)

Re:I hope they do stick it to ya'

[deadsaijinx*]

then ditch the DSL and stop bitching

Re:I hope they do stick it to ya'

[missing000]

Not as long as Comcast's AUP forbids 'running servers' and blocks inbound port 80 / 443 / 23

Nope. If I can't use common services, it ain't broadband.

Re:I hope they do stick it to ya'

[deadsaijinx*]

uhhhhh, dude, what are you talking about, try my website, it's listed above, running on port 80 behing my cable modem. Maybe it's just your area

Re:I hope they do stick it to ya'

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you are content paying 70 dollars doesn't mean everyone else will be. What are you not griping about!

Find something new to Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Politician: Gentlemen, our MP saw the PM this AM and the PM wants more LSD from the PIB by tomorrow AM or PM at the latest. I told the PM's PPS that AM was NBG so tomorrow PM it is for the PM. Give us a fag or I'll go spare. Now, the fiscal deficit with regard to the monetary balance, the current financial year excluding invisible exports, but adjusted of course for seasonal variations and the incremental statistics of the fiscal and revenue arrangements for the forthcoming annual budgetary period terminating in April.

First Official: I think he's talking about taxation.

Politician: Bravo, Madge. Well done. Taxation is indeed the very nub of my gist. Gentlemen, we have to find something new to tax.

Second Official: I understood that.

Third Official: If I might put my head on the chopping block so you can kick it around a bit, sir...

Politician: Yes?

Third Official: Well most things we do for pleasure nowadays are taxed, except one.

Politician: What do you mean?

Third Official: Well, er, smoking's been taxed, drinking's been taxed but not ... thingy.

Politician: Good Lord, you're not suggesting we should tax... thingy?

First Official: Poo poo's?

Third Official: No.

First Official: Thank God for that. Excuse me for a moment. (leaves)

Third Official: No, no, no - thingy.

Second Official: Number ones?

Third Official: No, thingy.

Politician: Thingy!

Second Official: Ah, thingy. Well it'll certainly make chartered accountancy a much more interesting job.

(Cut to vox pops.)

Gumby: (standing in water) I would put a tax on all people who stand in water ... (looks round him)... Oh!

Man In Bowler Hat: To boost the British economy I'd tax all foreigners living abroad.

Man In Suit: I would tax the nude in my bed. No - not tax. What is the word? Oh - 'welcome'.

It's Man: I would tax Racquel Welch. I've a feeling she'd tax me.

First Business Man: Bring back hanging and go into rope.

Second Business Man: I would cut off the more disreputable parts of the body and use the space for playing fields.

Man In Cap: I would tax holiday snaps.

Re:stick it to the consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

try 59.99 fee PLUS a 5.00 "service" fee since i own the modem... no one at comcast will explain to me why it costs $5.00 / mo for me to own my modem. and then there's the fact that the tv cable is 45$/mo and you get 1 pissed off cable subscriber.

WTF? The internet needs to be FREE!

[Anonymous Coward]

As in the Wild Wild West... Man-O-Golly-Gee what fun we can have by not regulating and taxing the internet. Is the RIAA getting any of the tax as compensation for downloaded/uploaded piracy from the lastest (ACK!) Justin Timberlake (come on, this isn't his REAL name, is it?) MP3? They [the music companies] already get a tax compensation on the purchase of blank CD's. Bastards. I say we rape them hard boys, come on, Woo, Woo, Woo, WooHoo!

urban myth

[falsification]

Come on! This is an urban myth. Everybody knows that there is never going to be a tax on your modem. And the President of the United States is George Bush. Read my lips....

The Don would be happy

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the mafia's ways are alive and strong...

Universal Service Fund can go to general budget

[Anonymous Coward]

The Universal Service Fund can be redirected to other items at the state budget I have seen it become part of the general budget. It just takes a special request.

No, you will never pay LESS

[Anonymous Coward]

taxes only ever go up, not down.

Rearden Broadband?

[scoove]

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...

*scoove*

Re:Rearden Broadband?

[cpeterso]

Where can we find more info about the rules to receive Universal Service Funds? Can a new company even qualify to receive money? Or, like you said, are only "incumbent" telcos allowed to sit at the trough?

Re:Rearden Broadband?

[scoove]

Or, like you said, are only "incumbent" telcos allowed to sit at the trough?

It's sort of a public relations vs. reality issue. The fuzzy program materials sound great. In fact, programs such as the farm bill and RUS grant/low-interest loan provisions have gotten so many folks excited about easy money that I've had 3-4 calls a week from startups, angels, small communities, etc. that want me as a partner to obtain some of this money for their project. (One two weeks ago had already started hiring technicians to get going, you know - step 1. fill out RUS low-interest loan app, step 2. ???, step 3. make billions!).

The reality is much different and clearly benefits the incumbants. RUS, for instance, specifies capital reserves and other operational details that are structured towards a certain kind of operator (hint: incumbant).

We monitored the farm bill/broadband process very closely. Without giving my location away, I'll say that several board members have good contact with a key driver of the farm bill. Always, the devil's in the details and when the rules were finally published, the details were written to benefit incumbants. (Not that I would defend this particular Senator, but he didn't write the rules that gave away the store to the incumbants).

While I can understand the argument that "incumbant = low risk" and better track record for integrity (like Qwest? :-) aww... restating revenues is something everyone does!), the problem is that this avoids reality. In the upper midwest, we've had incumbants actually threatened with license recovation because they refused to deliver a single T1 to a commercial entity in an underserved/ignored market. In Qwest's defense, they have so many major fires, that a little town of 2,000 people is something it just something it doesn't have time to worry about. "Ignore them and they'll go away" is the new operating statement.

The smaller incumbants have another equally troubling issue. While they're more engaged with their community and usually do care about the local people, they're terribly incompetent. They have an aging engineering staff that's eyeing retirement, have avoided infrastructure reinvestment for 20+ years, and quite simply do not understand wide area carrier networks. To them, a AT&T Internet T1 + DSLM = broadband for thousands. In their defense, a one to a dozen market incumbant is a post-regulatory oddity that survived in spite of evolution. You can't expect to be competitive on this tiny scale. A Cisco CCIE should be handling a region as large as a state (and needs the portion of revenues from that area to be cost-effective). So they don't have CCIEs. They've got guys who used to repair tractors working as router "experts." Seriously... one competitor's top engineer also maintains the fleet vehicles and is the groundskeeper as well. Need I say "DHCP enabled on a wireless AP serving a community on an omni antenna"? Ugh!

Please understand I'm not whining about the Federal loans/grants - I don't take any of it because I know better than to ask for it. It's not intended for me, as I don't pay an attorney in DC thru the various ILEC/RBOC lobbying firms. I don't aspire to receive this money either, as the price I have to pay for it (regulation, political donations) is not acceptable.

But to tax my small town customers and punish my business under the guise of "helping incumbants find a way to provide broadband to small towns" is criminal and is a very good way to turn red fly-over country blue (god forbid). If they really wanted to figure it out, they'd sell the house in Vail, drop the country club membership for upper management, and tell the five engineers that serve one small town that they need to produce or get the boot.

And the FCC had better remember that right now is a really bad time to put a tax on these small town folk. They don't have the dollars to give, and you can expect I'll let them know who added the tax.

*scoove*

Re:Rearden Broadband?

[cpeterso]

thanks, very informative!

Re:Rearden Broadband?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when are you coming to connecticut!! :-D

Re:Rearden Broadband?

[srvivn21]

More information on the Universal Service Fund can be found at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/universal_service/welcome.h tml.

Short answer is "as long as you meet restrictions on delivery, you can qualify". The pie is getting larger, but the number of "diners" is increasing even faster. As scoove said, there are lots of people interested in chasing the "easy money".

Re:Rearden Broadband?

[HiThere]

It's worse than you claim. Even when the rules are specifically written to NOT benefit the large companies, they manage to get those provisions overlooked. And eventually rewritten. Look up water rights in California's Imperial Valley.

Re:Rearden Broadband?

[Lt Razak]

Your ideals sounds good for now. They'll never hold up if your company ever goes public.

Re:Rearden Broadband?

[scoove]

Your ideals sounds good for now. They'll never hold up if your company ever goes public.

You're very right...

*scoove*

Re:Rearden Broadband?

[Guppy06]

"(Not that I would defend this particular Senator, but he didn't write the rules that gave away the store to the incumbants)"

For the kind of money he earns (not even counting his "pension" if/when he leaves or gets kicked out), he damned well should! After all, he's the one voting on it.

Re:Rearden Broadband?

[Reziac]

And with the higher rates (looks like the overall average increase will be 10-15%, per the article), in most areas the price will tip over the next "natural price increment" in consumer perceptions, so a lot more people will think twice about paying for cable service that they can live without. Meaning that marginal providers will go out of business because their customers can't justify the increased cost, and major providers will raise prices to compensate for both the tax hike AND the lost revenue. Do you see a nasty spiral here??

Kinda reminds a person of the luxury yacht tax, don't it!

BTW, I can't remember which fly-zones were red or blue; could ya refresh my memory?

Choice

[YrWrstNtmr]

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) where the tellecommunications costs are higher, you can expect the government to subsidise your communications fees, by charging everyone a little more.
Great.

Now..If I choose to live in a high cost area, can I expect the government to subsidise my mortgage payment?
If I choose to drive an expensive car, can I expect the government to help me pay for it?

Why subsidise only one segment, and not the others? Not that there is any great hatred for spreading costs around...but why this segment of industry and not others?

Further:
In addition, the 1996 Act states that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to Federal universal service in some equitable and nondiscriminatory manner;

Nowhere in there does it say you and I must contribute. But of course that is what happens. The telcos contribute little if any, and instead simply pass the charges down to thee and me.

Re:Choice

[mjmalone]

Now..If I choose to live in a high cost area, can I expect the government to subsidise my mortgage payment? If I choose to drive an expensive car, can I expect the government to help me pay for it?

If you live in an area with a high cost of living you get paid more. Even if you have a government job, they have a "cost of living ratio" which is multiplied by the base salary to determine how much you will be paid.

Re:Choice

[LamerX]

Well, if you CHOOSE to be a farmer, and provide food to people around the world, or if you CHOOSE to ranch cattle, or raise any kind of animals as your job, why should you be punished by the telcos by not getting phone access?

People who live way out in BFE would not have telephone access if it weren't for programs like this. The telcos don't give a flying fuck about people who live in sparse areas. They would rather not even run a pair of copper out to these people because the profits for them would be too low or in the negative.

You think that the farmers don't deserve equal access to emergency communications? How about the border guards who live along the sparse Canadian borders along Washington, Idaho, Montana, etc? Should they not need communications access? Or should we just not have a border patrol at at all?

I'm sure the costs of buying hundreds of acres of land is probably not too much less than your silly mortgage payment. Why not just give these people a break, since the farmers are already slowly dying off...

Re:Choice

[Gorm the DBA]

Now..If I choose to live in a high cost area, can I expect the government to subsidise my mortgage payment?

Why yes, yes you probably can...investigate HUD, FHA, or any of the dozens of other housing programs out there, most of which have no income restrictions at all, and base the amount they will underwrite on "local markey conditions", which means that they'll underwrite a higher loan on your 2 BR loft in San Francisco than on the 4 BR ranch in Nowheresville, ND

If I choose to drive an expensive car, can I expect the government to help me pay for it?

Perhaps not directly, but you are certainly benefiting from the better roads paid for by the Highway program, fixing the potholes to protect your $35,000 Mercedes.

It's in the government's interest to encourage rural development. If it becomes mandatory for those in the Computer Industry to live within a suburb or better in order to keep their jobs (since they need the DSL connection to be able to maintain their 24 hour on-call status), then the rural communities will be left with the poor and those unable to get those decent jobs, which will lead to a lower tax base, therefore lower levels of services such as schools, leading to less education, leading to poorer people, leading to a lower tax base, etc, etc, etc.

These sorts of movements are meant to try and level that out...and they are good.

Re:Choice

[rusty0101]

Rural telco is not the only service subsidized in this maner. Electricity and postal service are two other examples of services where taxes or payments made within a city are used to subsidize rural customers.

To be sure, this is not purely for the benefit of the rural customer. Part of why these subsidized is to provide the rural service provider with an incentive to hire someone to actually provide that service to the rural customer. Over the long haul providing the job, with the experience gained will provide more of a boost to the ecconomy than providing the tax is a burden.

-Rusty

Re:Choice

[YrWrstNtmr]

Phone service, fine.
That is pretty much a necessity.

This being tacked onto our cable modem service is a different story. Is cable internet a necessity? No. Very nice to have, but a necessity?

How much of this actual money will go into infrastructure out to the hinterlands? Far less than $13B, I'd expect.

Re:Choice

[srvivn21]

Your choice to live in a area with high cost housing also brings the choice of working someplace that will allow you to make enough to cover your expenses. Let's look at the census data for Alaska for 2000. Wow, it sure paints a rosy picture:

Less than 9 percent unemployment, only 60,000 people living below the poverty level (only 32 thousand if you only count 18 and older), out of an over 16 population of around 460,000. That's pretty good odds. Whoops. Those percentages are of people in the labor force. Nearly 29% of the Alaskan population OVER 16 is excluded from the labor force. Care to guess why? There are NO JOBS IN THE BUSH. Certainly none that would pay enough to afford your living quarters. At least not until internet in the sticks is reliable and pervasive enough to allow telecommuting...

I don't wish to come off as an ass, and I sincerely hope that I didn't offend you.

Re:Choice

[Reziac]

Not to mention that if you live in a truly rural area, you can't get cable (TV or modem) or DSL no matter how much you're willing to pay...

Technically not a tax...

[Robotech_Master]

...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.

Yes, there is...

[Anonymous Coward]

But being able to spend more on charity as a result means I decide who is best served by that money. Less overhead that way as well.

Posting AC because it's a stupid argument with no resolution or intelligent discussion to be had.

Lower customer density : a ridiculous support myth

[Anonymous Coward]

I would figure the hicks would be just as stupid as the rubes, just in a different way.

FCC Charges Go Where?

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy]

If you think these charges and taxes actually go somewhere, think again.

Re:FCC Charges Go Where?

[Anonymous Coward]

I make a legitimate comment and it gets modded as flamebait. Beautiful. I guess I'll switch to BLAH BLAH BLAH IS DYING posts like everyone else, they seem to get modded up on a regular basis. Jesus CHRIST! What the HELL is wrong with you moderators?

Well, if they don't raise one tax...

[doppleganger871]

...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".

Re:Well, if they don't raise one tax...

[Anonymous Coward]

We do need a big third party, the "I got f'in ballz" party.

We've got one. Engineers often think in a way far more compatible with the Libs than with the Reps or Dems. And you can't beat a party whose mascot is the penguin! ;)

Re:Well, if they don't raise one tax...

[esampson]

Sounds like the Libertarian party to me.

The problem is that you have to have some taxation. What else are you going to pay your standing military with? Donations? That's a great idea. Considering the American propensity to donate to worthy causes we might have an army strong enough to hold off an invasion by Paraguay.

Yes, taxes are evil, but they are often a necessary evil. I'm not going to go into whether this particular tax is necessary or not. There's plenty of people making arguments for it and there are some making arguments against.

As for your statement that getting conservatives into office would help reduce the tax burden, and at the risk of flame baiting, what color is the sky on your planet? Yes, conservatives can be expected to cut back on social services which would typically reduce tax burden, but they could also be expected to ramp up our military spending which had been drastically cut over the preceding 8 years. Where did you think the money to do that would be coming from?

If they would get service in my area

[aldousd666]

I wouldn't mind paying that. I can't get friggin broadband, and satelite SUCKS. (I even tried that, and was sadly disappointed when the upload was only 2kbps) Hell, I tried every kind of broadband service out there, and none of them work in my area. I even begged the cable company. They won't run me a cable, even if I do pay extra. If the government would add service for poor 'just out of reach' consumers like me, then we (the just out of reach) should have to pay a little extra. I don't think the general public should have to foot the bill though.

Universal Dis-Service

[BJZQ8]

The Universal Service Program is a sham. Just go look at how many billions people like IBM have shilled out of the public on over-bid projects funded by USAC. It was created to basically hand money to get schools and libraries on the internet. Now it's just a giant payola program for big companies and government agencies, and rife with corruption. I know it first-hand. But I can't imagine a corrupt government program...?

This already exists with DSL

[grandmaster_spunk]

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.

Re:This already exists with DSL

[DCheesi]

Err, do DSL users pay twice, once for the DSL and once for the telephone service (usually bundled with the DSL)? That's what will happen to most cable-modem users, who have completely separate telephone service.

Re:This already exists with DSL

[Anonymous Coward]

DSL service is already subject to this tax, and the change will really only put DSL and cable on equal footing

Whew, I feel so much more balanced now. It was terrible paying the tax only once for my DSL, and not again for my cable modem. Thanks a lot, FCC!

Somebody shoot me...

[mjh]

Someone take me out of my misery. I find myself on the same side as AOL Time Warner!

AOL Time Warner, which owns cable companies, submitted a response to the FCC, saying that the agency "should not reverse decades of sound legal and policy conclusions"

Re:Somebody shoot me...

[entrager]

Someone take me out of my misery. I find myself on the same side as AOL Time Warner!

You agree because the tax applies to the telecos providing the service, not the customer. Time Warner doesn't want to pay this tax, so of course they are going to fight it. However, don't think for a second that if this goes through that Time Warner won't go ahead and raise rates to compensate.

Re:Somebody shoot me...

[mjh]

Wow, did you misunderstand me! I agree that the TAX is bad - as does AOL Time Warner. I also agree that AOLTW will simply pass any tax that they get straight down to me.

Common good? General welfare? BAH!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's just following the sterling example set by his leaders!

Before you hop on your soap boxes...NIMBY

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, can you explain to me why I should pay for someone to live in the sticks? If you choose a lifestyle you need to take the good with the bad."

Very well. I'll have a talk with the rural people and see if we can get your food shipments stopped. Hey! Your choice.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...NIMBY

[shaka999]

Or maybe I'll just pay the MARKET PRICE!

What a novel concept. If it costs more to live in the sticks then the price of food goes up and I pay for it that way.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...NIMBY

[mjmalone]

And then nobody grows food in the US anymore, all food is imported, and we rely on the middle east and communist china for all of our food. That is exactly what our country needs!

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...NIMBY

[arkanes]

You couldn't even afford the market price for your phone in the city if it wasn't subsidized, so deal. Some things are considered important enough to socialize and/or regulate, and universal communications are one of them.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...NIMBY

[shaka999]

Exactly who is doing the subsidizing here?

Hmmm, let me see. Oh, ME! Yes me, the taxpayer. God I hate it when people act like the federal goverment is giving us something. We pay for our government, it doesn't pay us.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...NIMBY

[arkanes]

YOU, personally, don't pay nearly full value for any number of services. Everyone, as an aggregate, helps pay for it. Some people recieve greater value from a subsidy than otheres, thats how they work. It's pretty simple.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...NIMBY

[shaka999]

Very true.

In my tax bracket I'm pretty sure I'm paying for more than I'm getting though. This is probably true for most of the Engineers/Programmers on here. We aren't the most underpaid bunch.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The so called tax cut works out to about $3 per week. Hardly a dent to a $2,300,000,000,000 budget.

Wait a fscking minute!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Congress can levy taxes. Where does the FCC get off on raising taxes illegally?

I know, I know, they've done it before, but when are we going to raise HELL enough with our CongressCritters to make them STOP!!!!

Write, email, visit, or throw a rock with a message on it through their windows, but contact your representatives in D.C. and tell them how pissed off you are.

Of course

[bogie]

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:Of course

[Asprin]

I would argue that with the sole exception of teaching computer programming (starting around the 8th grade or so), classrooms do not need computers -- they are an unnecessary and destructive distraction.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

The PR/research firm I work for was hired by the local school district to promote its agenda. This is a rather large school district, in the top 25 in the country.

The material we were asked to produce was to shine a light on the plight of the school district with regard to the lack of teachers. They wanted to show how many more students per teacher the public school system had than the average private school.

The system had been getting clobbered in the local media for their extreme underperformance compared to the local private and religous schools.

Sure enough, after extensive research, we found that the public schools did in fact have a slightly higher number of students per teacher. The amazing thing we found was the differences in the district's employees per student compared to the private sector. In this specific school district there were close to 3.5 students per employee, yet there were over 25 students per teacher. While in the local private sector schools, there were around 23 students per teacher and 17 students per employee.

It's obvious the problem with this school system is not a lack of funding, it is more so a misuse of funding. The district spends a ton of money per student, but most of it is for overhead(ie.. administrative waste) not on teachers and students. Before we throw more money at school districts, perhaps we request that they first make a simple attempt to wisely spend the massive amount of money we already do throw at them. Really, how can a district that has 3.5 employess per student complain about having too many students per teacher?

We took a preliminary look at nearby large public school districts and found this situation is common.

Of course, in the end we gave them material supporting their claims, as the CEO is a slave to the almighty dollar, but it was an eye opener for me.

Re:Of course

[Phroggy]

That would imply that schools need Internet access more than additional teachers. NOT!

Yep, that pisses me off. Schools receive money earmarked for technology, that they have to spend or lose, so they spend it, and the stuff they buy sits unused collecting dust because they can't afford to pay anybody who can teach children to use it (or pay an existing teacher to learn it). Meanwhile the bureaucrats think they've just done a wonderful thing.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...All about M

[Anonymous Coward]

can't get cheap [electricity, water]."...as long as I get what I want.

And what exactly is wrong with that?

As if it's not already too much?

[jpsst34]

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.

Re:As if it's not already too much?

[ostiguy]

Have you looked at earthlink? in MA they resell comcast cable service. it might be cheaper for you as a modem owner and as a non cable tv subscriber

Re:As if it's not already too much?

[Anonymous Coward]

not only that but when was the last time that any of us got a 9.1% increase in our pay?

My last raises were 2% or under.

So now I am going to end up paying 57.95+9.1% and I still only made 2% more.

Wow. Nice.

Re:As if it's not already too much?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is progress! Costs go down and prices go up! Good business model.

Re:As if it's not already too much?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. You can unsubscribe if you are unhappy.
2. They were underselling the service in the first place. You were being UNDERCHARGED for that service, hence why Excite@home went kaput. Hence why AT&T sold off their broadband unit. It's VERY EXPENSIVE to provide you that service, and the only reason it's not gone up more is because of obvious common carrier laws in effect in different states. Just to bring the techs out to your door for initial install is about 6-12 months worth of service to recoup, that they must eat if you decide to cancel. Let's not even talk about tech-support.

Take your business elsewhere. You'll find that there is no place in hell or earth that will give you as as fast a connection comparitively to your doorstep. Period.

Re:As if it's not already too much?

[jpsst34]

"You'll find that there is no place in hell or earth that will give..."

Posting anonymously for obvious reasons, eh? I'm guessing that you know from experience, having sold your soul to the dark leader to allow your telecommunications company the power to buy out all of the others and charge the minions more than their penance worth. Isn't that right, Mr. President and CEO of Comcast Communications?

Re:As if it's not already too much?

[eniu!uine]

I also am forced to pay a $10.00 fee for not giving the cable companies $21.00. I don't think this could happen in a free market.

Re:As if it's not already too much?

[drunkenbatman]

1. You can unsubscribe if you are unhappy.

Actually I am, at the end of this month. Went through the same thing, it's being jacked to $60+ dollars, an in fact they tried to back-charge me for a month. I'd been looking at DSL anyways, and for $70 I can get double the upspeed. The only downside has been the longish wait for install, but considering the AT&T told me it would be 1 week and it ended up being 2.5 months till they got it working, I'll take honesty in how long it'll take anyday.

2. They were underselling the service in the first place. You were being UNDERCHARGED for that service, hence why Excite@home went kaput. Hence why AT&T sold off their broadband unit. It's VERY EXPENSIVE to provide you that service, and the only reason it's not gone up more is because of obvious common carrier laws in effect in different states. Just to bring the techs out to your door for initial install is about 6-12 months worth of service to recoup, that they must eat if you decide to cancel. Let's not even talk about tech-support.

Says who? The financial docs I have seen all pointed to @home doing fairly well, being profitable, the whole bit. The problem was that they made the large deal of buying excite for a few billion or so, which went from iffy to worthless and swamped them with huge debt. Kinda like AOL/Time Warner.

I can understand that it might take awhile to recoup the costs of sending out a tech for an install, but consider how clueless the tech's were that have been here, I'm not crying any tears for them... they have to send out tech's for regular cable service for an installation too, and I don't see cable companies going broke left and right.

As for AT&T, my understanding is that they got out of a lot of services due to some deals they're trying to put through, and the FCC said "ok, fine, if you want to do that you have to not do some of this"... AT&T is refocusing.

Take your business elsewhere. You'll find that there is no place in hell or earth that will give you as as fast a connection comparitively to your doorstep. Period.

Wow, ok. Who the hell are you exactly? All you have to do is look a little north west, or, well, much more north at canandians, or Japan of all places.

slashdumb.com

[Lester67]

Check it out.

You've got it all wrong!!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with this is that the government (US anway) has NO business helping private enterprise. A company should sink or swim on its own. If the rural service would be too expensive, and few people subscribe, then the company would simply raise the rates for the city dwellers to offset the cost for country folk. Same for so-called low income people, if they can't afford phone service (and they can, they just want all the bells and whistles that cost a fortune) then I guess they don't get a phone. I object to the government poking its nose into places the Constitution gave it no right to enter.

I bake my own bread

[Anonymous Coward]

I brew my own beer.
I grow my own wheat.
I don't own a television.
I bicycle into town twice a week to sell my vegetables at market to stupid yuppies.
I raise my own sheep.

I am better than you, puny hu-man.

Re:I bake my own bread

[Lt Razak]

If i brewed my own beer, then I would have to spend ALL my time keeping inventory up. I might even have to hire a few people to keep up with demand.

Nice Causes But...

[neildiamond]

The FCC just voted to allow futher consolidation of media companies. Aren't they getting enough kickbacks right now? I'm pretty pissed about that already.

But... I'll pay the tax if they force cable companys to let broadband users drop basic cable service and still maintain cable modem servic for @ 40/month. For me the cable modem is really about $60/month, because I don't watch much tv and what I do watch is network news anyway. (I'll glady let them take away cheesball Fox News.)

It's the RIAA I tell ya!

[chia_monkey]

Makes sense, doesn't it? CD sales have dropped because those pesky kids with those pesky cable modems are downloading music. The nerve!

Kinda funny how my screen turned poopy-brown too. It's a sign...

ps...it's all sarcasm up there...no...really

Rural Users

[yintercept]

The Universal Service Fund is extremely important because it will help make cable available in rural areas that are better serviced by wireless connections. The people in these rural areas that are better serviced by wireless deserve to have the option of DSL and cable. Isn't this the fundamental foundation of a free market? That is everyone in every market should have the same options regardless of the cost of serving that market? The alternative is the unthinkable option of people on farms just having cell phones, satellite dishes and wireless connections to the internet just because that is the most efficient way to provide service.

The harder trick, of course, is that people in the city should have equal access to wireless. However, since there are more people bidding to use the available bandwidth in the city it is cost prohibitive. So, what we need to do is add a Universal Service Fee to the wireless internet in rural areas and use that money to subsidize wireless connections in the city. It is only fair. This is another example of how taxation helps make the free market free!!!!!

Re:Rural Users

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the fundamental foundation of a free market? That is everyone in every market should have the same options regardless of the cost of serving that market?

No, that is not the fundamental foundation of a free market. Try again.

Re:Rural Users

[isorox]

Hmm, what scares me most - people that thought you were serious or moderaters that modded you up "Informative". Funny, perhaps.

Re:Rural Users

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the fundamental foundation of Socialism.

Re:Rural Users

[jejones]

Isn't this the fundamental foundation of a free market? That is everyone in every market should have the same options regardless of the cost of serving that market?

Eh? That has nothing to do with the notion of a free market. Check out this web page--even the government of Canada understands. Note how they contrast it with a controlled market, "where prices are determined by a regulatory or administrative authority." Taxation is, in part, just such a determination of prices.

Re:Rural Users

[yintercept]

It is also interesting that, after your post, the posting got hit with a slew of over ratings. Hmmm, I need to adjust down my assumptions about the IQs of /. readers. The behavior is much more lemming like than rational.

The point of the post was to point out the failed reasoning behind regulations, and to emphasize that rural users are better served by a different technology...which makes the whole point of the Universal Service Fee obsolete.

Re:Rural Users

[isorox]

hmm, so I have the fabled powers of brainwashing mods...

Note to mods: This is an "underrated" post

If DSL is taxed, Cable Internet should be taxed

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:If DSL is taxed, Cable Internet should be taxed

[startled]

"If DSL is taxed, Cable Internet should be taxed"

That's one way of looking at it. Here's another:
If DSL is taxed, DSL should not be taxed.

Re:If DSL is taxed, Cable Internet should be taxed

[Technician]

I think the library's should provide an internet kiosk on every block so when I can no longer afford a phone or Internet, I can walk down the street and use it for free. Man it's 6 miles to the local Library! Maybe instead of spending to build the extra buildings, maybe they could just put up a WI/FI point on each street to save me from having to walk to the library.

Just kidding.

However, a nominal usage fee (TAX) should apply to library users for Internet just as they apply to me.

Idealy they should both be 0.00. I do pay property tax.

On a side note. I live in Vancouver WA. It's a fair size town. I can not get DSL. My wife's sister who lives in Canby Oregon on a dairy farm gets DSL. I think the rural program works too well. I may have to move to the country to get DSL. Cable is just too expensive as stated in other posts. I don't subscribe to Cable TV so they want and extra $10+ to subsidize the TV viewers. Tack on an extra cable modem tax and it will be a long time before I switch from dial up. Wi-Fi may become my only option. My dial up line hasn't been under $20/month in decades. I may have to drop it for a cell phone. Dial up is almost more expensive than a cell phone with all the extra charges now on it.

Re: Yes they are.

[AnotherBlackHat]

Taxes are always bad.

In certain very rare circumstances they are better than the alternative.
In those cases, the best that can be said of them is they are the lessor of two evils.

I'm not convinced this is lessor evil.
How do you know that what the money is earmarked for will really go there?
What if they force schools or libraries to install censorware before than can have the money?

-- this is not .sig

Re:Taxes are not always bad - just misdirected

[danlor]

Explain to me these two things:
1) Why should my phone bill help pay for someones heathcare(15% of the fees)?
2) Why should my gas taxes be spent on war memorials, and not the pot hole in my street?

BECAUSE:
1) Because people (voters) are stupid, and ALLOW these things to happen.
2) Everyone loves pork.

Maybe, just MAYBE cables modems shouldn't taxed so a few poor people can get heath care. Wouldn't it be a much better idea to tax them so poor people who can't afford CABLE get CABLE for free? Then we could dump the wasted VHF/UHF bands.
I'm a big fan of spending taxes on things related to the taxation. I have a real problem with tripling my california car registration fees social the social service programs don't have to cut their bloated administration.

PARENT IS A GOATSE.CX LINK

[Anonymous Coward]

mod down appropriately!

you don't understand free markets

[count0]

free markets don't require "everyone in every market regardless of the cost of serving that market". Free markets are free of regulatory restriction and provide whatever service the market will buy, at whatever pricepoint the market will buy it at. If the pricepoint the market is willing to pay is less than the cost to provide that service (like wired rural broadband), then a free market would suggest that said service shouldn't exist.

That said, I support rural broadband, but think that wired rural broadband will not happen in a free market for a long long time.

Re:you don't understand free markets

[Adrenochrome]

"They didn't have sarcasm on Betelguese, and Ford often failed to notice it unless he was concentrating." - D. Adams.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful.

Government is good for two things:

[crashnbur]

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!)

Re:Government is good for two things:

[Reziac]

"Property tax: a fine for improving your property." -- R.A. Heinlein

By extension, income tax is a fine for improving your lifestyle; DSL/cable/modem tax is a fine for improving your connectivity; etc, etc.

Some days a person can understand why some people take the dole.

Monopoly? What monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey I understand were you're coming from, but as John Navas (yes, that one) would say. "There's no monopoly, you have phone line, satellite, cable , DSL, wireless, and in some cases power line" and the last-ditch of doing without. There's always a choice even if it's not the desired one.

Double-speak

[jemele]

Not everyone has missed what the FCC's proposal might mean. AOL Time Warner, which owns cable companies, submitted a response to the FCC, saying that the agency "should not reverse decades of sound legal and policy conclusions" and warning that taking such action would also reduce regulations on the regional Bell companies that are necessary to spur competition.

Most interesting is that while AOL Time Warner would prefer not to undo decades of sound legal and policy conclusions, they never miss an opportunity to grow their media empire ...

Paul T. Cappacio, general counsel of AOL Time Warner, told the New York Times that the rules were "an anachronism" and were "not remotely necessary to protect competition."

strange times.

'F' Stands for 'Federal'

[cyb3r0ptx]

They can do whatever they want with money that's not theirs. Enough said.

Damn democrats

[MikeDataLink]

STOP TAXING MY ASS... This is a robin hood mentality. If you decide to live in rural areas, expect to have some drawbacks to life. Life is a tradeoff.

wrong

[dh003i]

Free markets are a way to provide to the consumer the most cost-efficient solution.

Cable modems are most certainly not the most cost-efficient solution for rural areas.

If cable companies were to service rural areas unsubsidized, then they would have to charge extremely high rates, in which case the rural areas would simply use satellite.

Satellite is the best solution for rural areas. Don't charge the rest of us unnecessary taxes to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Re:learn something about your subject before you p

[Cramer]

(check your local PUC tariffs) DSL is run over an "Unbundled Network Element" (UNE) which is telco speak for an unloaded ("dry") copper loop. There's no services on the line. (For IDSL, it's basically the same thing... an ISDN loop not attached to a switch. It's transported through the PSTN wiring just like any other ISDN loop. It can be a dry loop, but usually isn't...)

Had I ordered by ISDN line as "data only", I wouldn't be (or wouldn't have been -- they've changed the rules several times over the years) charged for universal service (or the 911 access fee.)

[I've worked with these things for several years. Actually, now that I think about, since the very beginning of DSL.]

it's $4

[SweetAndSourJesus]

For four dollars, I'm not willing to look up the number and spend half an hour finding someone who can answer that question.

Re:it's $4

[Cramer]

Exactly. Nobody's going to actually check their bill and ask where a few pennies are going. Repeat for a few dozen line items... Multiply by the number of subscribers, and you get a very large amount of pure profit.

More hidden fees?

[Saynt_fuu]

"Boothby says that the information services category that would be taxed includes credit card validation networks, airline reservation systems, Web hosting providers and e-mail service providers." So if I use my VISA card to buy an airline ticket on cheaptickets.com over my roadrunner connection, exactly how much additional tax am I going to wind up paying?

Percentages of fees disbursed and accountability

[YrWrstNtmr]

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

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'.

Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

The poor negros and spics don't need any more of our money, they only need to learn how to handle a mop in school.

Leveling things out

[El]

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?

Re:Leveling things out

[chefbimbo]

Make that girls instead of supermodels so we all get a chance...

Why?

[defishguy]

I'm all for a reasonable economic redistribution in the US. I am a conservative, but I support helping out folks that need it. Broadband isn't, won't be, couldn't be, and shouldn't be considered a need. Exhibit A =

• http://www.glasgow-ky.com/lan/

. Residents Glasgow Kentucky pay a RIDICULOUSLY cheap sum monthly for broadband, and I didn't have to get taxed for it! I appreciate the desire for broadband, and I use it myself. But I pay for my own access at sixty dollars a month, and I'm not very keen on contributing to someone else's access.

• http://telephonyonline.com/ar/telecom_why_best_d eal/

is another link for more information. If the public and private sectors of our telcom industries would work together instead of maintaining their current service/client relationship then we could have broadband become pervasive without taxing those specific few who are already paying a high rate for access. If Glasgow Kentucky (as rural as you really can get) can do it anyone and more importantly anywhere can do it!

Tough shit, rural life should be expensive

[swb]

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 anymore. Basic technology infrastructure (dialtone, power) has already been built for rural America and has been for some time. Why should we urban dwellers continue to subsidize a built infrastructure? And it's not like it's helping get DSL or any other expensive last-mile technologies to farmers, anyway.

At some point, it's necessary to just tell people that *yes*, if you live in extremely low-density areas it is VERY EXPENSIVE to provide you with technology that has a measurable cost per FOOT, let alone mile. It seems that we're actually subsidizing a rural lifestyle that some people choose to lead (or choose to continue leading). If you want the technology at an affordable cost, you need to go somewhere it's affordable to deliver.

Or maybe we should start taxing off-road vehicles owned by rural people so we can build an affordable infrastructure in urban areas for urban people to use off-road vehicles. Urban people paying for rural people to have urban lifestyles is just as ludicrous.

This will stop when you stop electing these people

[The AtomicPunk]

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.

truly regrettable

[s4m7]

the FCC is nothing but a parasitic organization which seeks to profit off regulating something that is for all intents and purposes functionally infinite, that is, our ability to communicate.

While I'd like to believe this rate increase to be good and charitable, what it amounts to is pay increases for FCC chairman Powell and his cronies, and Rate increases for the consumer VASTLY EXCEEDING the proposed 9.11% tax. After all, Broadband compaines are in this for profit. Under the guise of combatting it, this type of non-democratic, closed door policy making will only serve to deepen the so called "digital divide" which is already dangerously wide.

They already have a low cost of living

[siskbc]

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...

Yeah, like Harvey Keitel said in Pulp Friction, "Move out of the sticks, fellas."

And where is the Universal Service Fund for rent subsidies, eh? People who live in rural areas and can get a two-bedroom apartment for $450/month. Shouldn't they help subsidize the rent on my $1000/month one-bedroom place? Why does this not occur?

I'll tell you why: because this country (yes, I'm referring to USA) has always had a strange affinity for farmers. These days (especially) farmers are businesspeople like any other, yet they get price controls, buyouts, subsidies, and all kinds of crap. And in the minds of Congressmen, who are almost universally idiots (I'm sure that's a surprise to someone out there), rural=farmers=nice wholesome people who deserve a break. Therefore, we city dwellers, who pay universally higher prices for everything except possibly utilities, have the privilege of subsidizing utilities for people who get rent, food, and virtually everything else cheaper than we do. Just great.

Re:They already have a low cost of living

[Anonymous Coward]

No the city dwellers are given food subsidies (indirectly). The gov, subsidies the farmers in order to keep food cost down.

Re:They already have a low cost of living

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason farmers get subsidies and price controls is because we like to eat. And we want to do it at a reasonable price. Forgetting our agricultural history, it makes no business sense to be a farmer if you can't make money doing it. And believe it or not, a lot of those price controls keep prices down for consumers, not up for the farmers. Do you really want a free market economy determining the price of your milk and bread? You want to see a monopoly that will kick your ass, remove those controls and encourage family farmers to move to town.

Re:They already have a low cost of living

[afidel]

newsflash, you don't have to live in the sticks to get decent rent. I live in a major suburb in the 10th largest metroplex in the country and I only pay $550/month for 1150 sq ft 2 bedroom apt. Not everywhere has crazy pricing like LA and NY.

Re:They already have a low cost of living

[Anonymous Coward]

Suprising, that's cheaper than here in the sticks.

Re:They already have a low cost of living

[emptor]

Erm, it's those "rural=farmers=nice wholesome people " who grow and produce the food we stuff in our maws every day. It's in everyone's interest to ensure a good, steady supply of food and fiber (as in bran, not optic :). And if you want to talk about farm support policies, take a look over the pond, where them dang Europeans really subsidize thier farmers.

Re:They already have a low cost of living

[siskbc]

Erm, it's those "rural=farmers=nice wholesome people " who grow and produce the food we stuff in our maws every day.

I - Don't - give - a - rat's - ass. They do a job, I do a job. The government gives them tons of breaks and freebies, whereas they don't me. If I were to start a business and it floundered, I would be SOL. A farmer does it, and the government props him up. What a crock.

It's in everyone's interest to ensure a good, steady supply of food and fiber.

Admittedly, but we have such a monstrous overcapacity that it can be attributed largely to Congressional pork programs. Farm subsidies could be cut significantly, saving us a whole lot of money. But senators from rural states make sure that doesn't happen.

And if you want to talk about farm support policies, take a look over the pond, where them dang Europeans really subsidize thier farmers.

Still doesn't make it right.

Re:They already have a low cost of living

[siskbc]

newsflash, you don't have to live in the sticks to get decent rent. I live in a major suburb in the 10th largest metroplex in the country and I only pay $550/month for 1150 sq ft 2 bedroom apt. Not everywhere has crazy pricing like LA and NY.

Whatever, I don't really care to study rent patterns of the entire country. The point is still: why should only one group of people have all other groups of people subsidize their costs for one particular thing? Why should I pay for Johnny Redneck's internet access but he not pay for my apartment?

Re:They already have a low cost of living

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah the governments been so good to farmers, especially the dairy farmers here in the Midwest (specifically Wisconsin) until several years ago. Really great to mandate prices paid to farmers be considerably lower here. I'm sure it helped those farmers out a lot.

Re:They already have a low cost of living

[Anonymous Coward]

They grow food. You masterbate in some useless service (self-service, if you ran it) industry. Maybe a little tit-for-tat for the dodo-brain: you stop helping them, and they stop helping you. No phones, no food. Fair enough? Really - who needs who around here?

Re:They already have a low cost of living

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again why should johnny redneck have to pay for slick willies unemployement insurance, which disproportionaly subsidies the cities. Hey you know, you win some you lose some it all works out in the end.

Re:They already have a low cost of living

[siskbc]

Then again why should johnny redneck have to pay for slick willies unemployement insurance, which disproportionaly subsidies the cities. Hey you know, you win some you lose some it all works out in the end.

Not seeing that logic - unemployment in rural areas is generally phenomenal. See "Eastern Kentucky." So in other words, we in the suburbs get to subsidize EVERYBODY! Yay!

oh the poor poor rural dwellers

[CrudPuppy]

Nobody forced these people to move to a shack in Montana. Why are we now stuck paying their telephone bill???

I pay 10 times the amount as them for a house in the first place (average house in this area is now around $500,000).

I don't feel sorry for them at all. Let them move to the city if they want cheaper phone bills!

Re:oh the poor poor rural dwellers

[Anonymous Coward]

God, I wish I hadn't just blown all my mod points so I could mod you the fuck down. What kinda crap troll is that?

Re:oh the poor poor rural dwellers

[Anonymous Coward]

you must be one of these lame fucks that think I should finance your phone line.

I was not writing flamebait, I was being completely, 100% serious. I have absolutely had it with people thinking they are owed something. This is NOT communism, and society doesn't owe you anything!

If someone chooses to me to bumblefuck, USA, let them deal with all the other pleasant things that come with living in the middle of nowhere, including higher phone bills. After all, they get to ENJOY lower prices on houses.

Or maybe they should have to fork up some money to help me buy a house??

Screw Broadband

[Anonymous Coward]

As if I don't get ass-raped by Uncle Sam enough as it is, now that prick expects me to bend over *again* if I want broadband? Fuck it; I'll just let apt-get run overnight on my dialup.

its not about low income...It's about me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of people complaining about the government taxing the one thing that's suppose to help the economy, while on the other hand excluding a particular group because they don't want to pay for it? So does that mean you guys want to only help the part of the economy you're in?

I really want to kill them.

[tf4]

Why should I pay for lower income families? They can surf their pr0n at the library, my cable already runs me $50 per month which I can barely afford with 2 kids...I paid $100 per month before the days of broadband to get ISDN...If they want it they will find a way to afford it! What next? I have to buy the computer they use to surf on too?!

Re:I really want to kill them.

[geekoid]

with any luck, they'll learn that when you got 2 kids and can barely afford a cable odem, you GET RID OF THE CABLE MODEM.
Dumb-ass

So, what do you think of the higher income families that want to kill you?

Re:I really want to kill them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, dumber ass. I AM one of the higher income people. I don't want to kill the original poster; he's supporting himself WITHOUT my money. It's only the deadbeats and people like you we want to waste.

His kids probably need the use of the internet to get a better education so they can get a high-paying job. Then, maybe, they'll earn enough for themselves and the deadbeats THEY have to support. (most probably YOUR children)

A computer and internet service is more than the porn you surf all day. They are also a tool for education. Have kids and learn what it means to sacrifice for their benefit. Apparently your parents didn't want to part with any of their time or money for you to get a better education.

BTW, it's "modem" not "odem".

Re:I really want to kill them.

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way I never wanted to kill anyone in a different tax bracket I want to kill the damn politicians who don't make this world any better to live in, only aggrevate the people who are trying to MAKE a living. They freaking leeches. Let them pay for the cable modems of some crack whore and her 21 year old trailer park brood. Leave my money alone.

Re:Before you hop on your soap boxes...All about M

[fenix down]

Damn straight. Now shut up and burn your house to the ground for me. All you non-asbestos-coated freaks and your firefighters are draining my new laptop fund.

Re:stick it to the consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

When I signed up for AT&T@Home a few years ago, it was $29.95/month, for an uncapped connection (I would average 6 megabit down, and 1 megabit up).

Now that everything has changed over to Comcast, they're charging me $59.95/month, plus an additional $5 for owning my own modem, and I'm capped at 1.5 megabit down, and 256 kilobits up. WTF?!

Its a bad thing because...

[tgd]

I could care less if someone can afford a phone or not.

Their house cost 1/5 what mine does living near Boston. I have no desire to pay a DIME of my money so their phone bill is the same as mine. If you want a cheap phone bill, move. Period.

Phones are a luxury, cable is a luxury... and I have a real problem paying taxes for welfare, more taxes for social security, and yet more taxes for damn phone service, medicare and all the other crap I have to pay. Why the hell should I donate two days a week of work so people in these rural areas, whose cost of living is a tiny fraction of mine, can afford these luxuries?

In regards to schools, etc, how about instead the federal government requires the telcos or cable companies to provide access to schools and libraries? We the people give them the right to run their lines on *public* land. Make them pay for it out of their grossly overinflated profits.

Re:Its a bad thing because...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is spread of wealth, in the US its too great. THats the problem along with corruption. Greed. Filthy rotten greedy people.

Re:Its a bad thing because...

[hungfarlow]

"Why the hell should I donate two days a week of work so people in these rural areas, whose cost of living is a tiny fraction of mine, can afford these luxuries?"

Because you are our love slaves.

Seriously I live about 30 miles outside a major city and my costs of living are significantly higher than living 10 miles closer in a suburb. Mostly because of high taxes due to few people and fixed costs. But it is a choice and I am gladly paying it. I agree cable is a luxury and this is stupid. However, I think taxation is a good thing in general. It helps "redistribute the wealth " (those dirty words), which actually is required to maintain healthy captialism. or so I have concluded after years of careful analysis.

quite simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

And I've never quite figured out how "not taking as much as we used to" and "giving away money" are the same thing, no matter how many times the Democrats have tried to explain it to me.

If you tell a friend that you are going to buy him a $50,000 car, and then later you only buy him a $30,000 car, haven't you just stolen $20,000 from your friend?
That twisted logic is similar to explaining why "tax cuts are gifts to the rich." Wow, the government letting you keep more of your own money is now a "gift." It's amazing how warped some peoples' thinking is.

When an evil republican wants to reduce the rate of increase in spending on a particular program, it's referred to as a "draconian cut." Or "slashed" or "gutted" or pick-an-adjective. Spending still goes up, just not by as much, and it's referred to as a "cut." The mind boggles.

Of course, these are probably the same democrats that referred to the Clinton tax increase as "contributions."

Re:quite simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you tell a friend that you are going to buy him a $50,000 car, and then later you only buy him a $30,000 car, haven't you just stolen $20,000 from your friend?

Of course not. You have given him a $30,000 car. On the other hand, if you had contracted with your friend to pay him $50,000 for some service, but you only paid him $30,000, THEN you have indeed stolen $20,000 in services from him.

Taxes are not your gift to the government. They are your consideration for the social contract.

MOD PARENT DOWN -1 Troll

[LostCluster]

And just how would the Libertarian party (or any other third party) do any better? They'd slash taxes, but to do so they'd also have to slash spending. Yeah, there are plenty of things in government that need to be cut, but getting a bunch of people to agree on a list of which things those are is outright impossible. (Just try to talk about eliminating NASA around here...)

Running a government isn't as easy as it looks...

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN -1 Troll

[The AtomicPunk]

Yeah, there are plenty of things in government that need to be cut, but getting a bunch of people to agree on a list of which things those are is outright impossible. (Just try to talk about eliminating NASA around here...)

Yeah, so let's cut government by not even trying ! That'll work. Brilliant plant.

Rural = Wireless

[yintercept]

but think that wired rural broadband will not happen in a free market for a long long time.

Personally, I think rural areas should be wireless, and that the market should create independent rural cooperatives to provide the wireless connections for phone and internet. Rural areas can also make use of back up services through satellite.

Stringing wires to every remote farm is an inefficient use of capital. If wire is not the best way to provide service, then the free market is correct to skip that option.

Think for a moment how much better off a farm would be to have a fuel cell generating electricity, wireless phones and internet? You could get rid of all the wires that you have to maintain, and avoid costly mistakes when you accidentally drive the tractor over the cable.

The universal access fee is based on a false assumption that you need all options in all markets. The most efficient means to access rural markets is with independently owned rural communication cooperatives that provide local service to its members. The Universal Service Fee tax is taking money from the city market, and using it to subsidize the efforts of Baby Bells to take over these markets and service them with a lower quality inefficient technologies.

Huge?

[Anonymous Coward]

The number is inflated pruposely to artificially boost the numbers. 330 billion over 10 years is 33 billion per year. Since a tax law this year has NO EFFECT on subsequent years, you can only count the first year.

So it works out to $3 per week.

Tax break for Dummies

[Anonymous Coward]

I got this off of the Internet so I'll post it AC.
---
Tax break for Dummies

I was having lunch with one of my favorite friends last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts. "I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the retired college instructor declared, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair."

"But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back." I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument.

So I said to him, let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80.

The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.

The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.

Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."

The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short! And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes should get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more.

Tax it.

[Martigan80]

I think the government should tax dee's nutts! Wait a minute they already do. Never mind.

Simoniker ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck is the new guy ?

LNUX is bleeding money left and right, and they put *another* hungry mouth on their payroll?

Talk about total abandonment of fiduciary duty.

Hey, This Again?

[Alex Pennace]

This sounds similar to the dial-up modem tax rumor of the early 1990s. Is there any truth to this, or are we going to panic for no reason again?

Re:Hey, This Again?

[HTH NE1]

Then perhaps the write up on Snopes should be updated.

Then again, perhaps Snopes should do something to their pages so that they finish loading in finite time. Those damned remote-sourced Javascripts in the body of the pages never load, and too much of the web now requires Javascript to work for me to disable it! Client-side CSS does nothing to prevent them from trying to load.

This isn't that old Urban Myth?

[AndroidCat]

Remember the old "modem tax" myth that was curculating on the BBSs for year? Ah, here we are. No? Ah well...

So then..

[destiney]

That means my already too high monthly rate of $75 is gonna increase by 9.1% more? I already pay too much as it is.

Hell.. I might as well spend a few more bucks and get a real T-1.

Predictable

[Anonymous Coward]

The article highlights this quote as a pullout:

Now the FCC is wondering whether it's high time to tax both DSL and cable modems at the same rate.

Has anyone noticed that it never occurs to a government agency that another way to achieve this result would be to reduce the tax on DSL?

SVM, ERGO MONSTRO

Re:Predictable

[Oper Sorcerer]

What I don't understand is why we continue to pay the salaries of the people who think up these ludicrous ideas.

Gee, that's a GREAT fucking idea...

[fudgefactor7]

if you want to kill consumer level broadband. The government shouldn't be allowed to regulate anything that they don't understand....

Payroll taxes

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

As long as we're offtopic anyway, it might help the unemployed to cut payroll taxes and make it more affordable to hire people. Right now it costs about nine dollars per hour to pay someone $8 per hour. That's before workmen's comp and unemployment insurance.

If you think employers don't notice the difference between eight and nine, you've never met a payroll.

Re:Payroll taxes

[ivan256]

I couldn't agree more.

We say this with love.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Or maybe we should start taxing off-road vehicles owned by rural people so we can build an affordable infrastructure in urban areas for urban people to use off-road vehicles. Urban people paying for rural people to have urban lifestyles is just as ludicrous."

Agreed and sending subsidized low-cost food to the cities is ludicrous. You guys should actually pay what the food (and our "ludicrous" lifestyle) is worth. So what will it be? This tax, or higher food bills to go with your other "lifestyle" costs? Hey! As you said "Tough shit" if you guys want to live on top of each other.

Re:We say this with love.

[Darby]

Agreed and sending subsidized low-cost food to the cities is ludicrous.

I'm not surprised that you posted such an ignorantly wrong statement anonymously.

There is no subsidised low cost food sent to the cities. The government takes money from the city dwellers and gives it to the rural farmers to throw out the food they grow to keep the prices artificially jacked up.

So this is another in a long list of ways that the urban areas subsidize your lifestyle. So essentially you are on welfare being payed by my dime.

What a delusional rube you are.

Re:We say this with love.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no subsidised low cost food sent to the cities. The government takes money from the city dwellers and gives it to the rural farmers to throw out the food they grow to keep the prices artificially jacked up.

that's actually incorrect.

agricultural subsidies include such mechanisms as price guarantees, income guarantees (though most of this is now being done through crop insurance subsidies which are partially assisted by the goverenment but require majority copay by the producer), counterproduction subsidies like crp which attempt to limit production, and other items.

who does this go to? mostly large corporate interests. see the Environmental Working Group website and try your own searches.

what effect does this have? overproduction. crop insurance results in overproduction.

they benefit large producers while hurting smaller ones.

why is this? a city is a voracious consumer of raw goods - none of which it produces. it needs a sustained, uninterrupted supply of those goods. what better than empowering large corporate, city-driven farming interests to rule over the production - people you can control and influence.

Re:We say this with love.

[Darby]

So essentially, you seem to agree with me.
The city subsides the farmers.
The small farmer gets screwed over in this, in favor of large corporate farms which is SOP.

...such mechanisms as price guarantees...

Which means prices are fixed higher than the laws of supply and demand would have them.
So people in the city pay artificially higher prices for food rather than artificially lower as you stated.

Re:stick it to the consumer

[Doppler00]

$40????? You're very lucky. As a result of the ATTBI/COMCAST merger, my bill is now $57!!! That was without my consent, they just one day started charging me more. With this tax, that would raise my bill to $63/month!

That's a good way to kill technological inovation. Just keep taxing new technology till no one can afford it.

Re:Damn democrats-Goatse.cx man getting taxed.

[Anonymous Coward]

"STOP TAXING MY ASS... "

Ugh! I'm NOT pulling any money out of there.

FCC levying taxes?

[Scutter]

I don't remember voting for anyone in the FCC. I thought it was the job of Congress to levy new taxes. Oh, that's right, it's not a tax, it's a tariff. *sigh*

Re:FCC levying taxes?

[smack_attack]

You know, a revolution was started in this country a couple hundred years ago because of taxation without representation. Of course, we were considered British subjects then, but the fact that it was unfair didn't seem to stop anyone from killing a bunch of the government bastards.

Of course these days, most Americans are too stupid or lazy to stand up for their rights, so it's no wonder they are being taken away one by one.

Re:FCC levying taxes?

[ironfroggy]

We would be marked terrorists.

But, honestly, the FCC does need a large overhaul. They think too much like they are regulating (or rather not) bussiness, as opposed to the regulating the control of information.

they are in an identity crisis.

What the hell is the FCC smoking

[n1ywb]

and where can I get some?

Seriously, Congress is busy passing bullshit laws that supposedly "promote" bandwidth while mandating DRM tech. Meanwhile the FCC is trumpeting broadband over powerlines which is the WORST FUCKING IDEA EVER!!! GOODBYE HF BANDS, BEEN NICE KNOWING YOU! And NOW they're considering taxing the SHIT out of cable modems?????? OMG WTF?! HELLO, MCFLY!

Ye Olde Modem Tax

[sohp]

When I first read the headline, I was thinking, not that old urban legend again! Well it appears it's coming true -- sort of. Unless this is another go-round of the same.

What about you city dwellers..

[TigerTime]

..who have $300 million dollar arenas that are partly paid for by the state. Most rural people will never even see your damn arenas/stadiums/fields and they have to fork out money to pay for your entertainment.

This also applies to all the tax that has to pay for government workers that demand higher salieries to live in your city because of the cost of living.

And don't even get me started on trash. Do you realize how much trash a large city produces. Do you know where it winds up going?? Rural areas.

So don't be so conceited as to think that this is a one way street. We have to smell your shit and give you money for entertainment at the same time.

Re:What about you city dwellers..

[Phurd Phlegm]

We have to smell your shit and give you money for entertainment at the same time.

This sounds like a really bad job a friend had once.... You need to explore your options.

Re:What about you city dwellers..

[jjhlk]

Trash can be used to fuel generators and create (surprise) electricity. The process isn't used too much, which surprises me. Sure it produces a lot of ash, but ash is easier to deal with than acres of trash. It takes quite a lot of garbage to make it worthwhile, but any big city ought to make enough.

As for the shit, it should be treated and used in rural areas as water (for crops, that is).

Weird...

[Tudil Di'Masharen]

Oh the FCC won't let me be
or let me be me so let me see
they tried to shut me down on MTV
but it feels so empty without me!

Also, I'm reminded of this

King George

[asscroft]

Is this where I get to blame King George, seeing as how the FCC is ruled by a Republican Majority. Republicans are for smaller government, yeah riiiggghht.

Pubs steal from everyone and give to the corporations (which we've pointed out is where most of this will go, corporate welfare for the incumbant telcos in rural areas).
Dems steal from everyone and give to the poor.
These are only the extremes, and the real reality lies somewhere in between for both parties.
So, if you are a corporation or own a large company, being a pub is good. If you are a real person, being a dem is good. (even if I'm not poor?) yeah, because poor people who get benefits are less likely to screw you, the middle class working guy, where as companies who get benefits are MORE likely to screw you, meanwhile, the poor getting even poorer are also more likely to screw you.

Just one way of looking at the economics of politics. Trust me, if I owned a large corrupt company, I could consider being a pub, but I don't. Poor and middle class republicans never cease to amaze me? "Why should I give money to support some poor kid's education?" umm, ok, but "Why should I give money so that halliburton can clean up Iraq and World fucking Com can supply them with 8,000 dollar cell phones?" At least if my money gives some poor kid an education, there's one less crack smoking fuckup in the city and one more educated enterprising American.

Oops, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to point out that, of course, "income tax liabilities of zero" mean that you don't have to pay any *additional* taxes other than those taxes already taken out of your paycheck. This is typical of people who do not have external investments.

Re:Oops, you don't know what you're talking about.

[seichert]

That is incorrect. Those figures include withholding. An income tax liability means how much income tax is required based on your income, deductions, credits, etc. Withholding goes towards paying this liability. At the end of the year you may still owe more money or you may have paid too much (i.e. you get a refund). In addition to withholding you can make estimated tax payments every quarter to cover the difference.

seems odd?

[Anonymous Coward]

why isn't this strait across the board for every internet, including dial-up and business...

just wondering? seems to be another tax we could live with out but some one feels the need to make my money someone else's because they deserve it more than me....

conversation tax

[Anonymous Coward]

I think i'm going to start my own tax. Why not? Apparently, anyone and everyone can. That's right. Ok. I am starting a conversation tax to collect money for information control. Everytime someone converses in some form they must pay it.

Fortunately, raising taxes boosts the economy

[Anonymous Coward]

According to liberals.

I bet there will be more people than ever subscribing to cable modem service now!!

Re:Fortunately, raising taxes boosts the economy

[senrik]

~I bet there will be more people than ever subscribing to cable modem service now!!

Not yet, but maybe after the deflationary spiral that bush put us on hits.

Re:Fortunately, raising taxes boosts the economy

[smack_attack]

According to conservatives:

This will increase revenues for cable companies and allow them to expand, creating more jobs. Smaller companies in rural areas will now also be able to grow as well.

Yes, both sides are stupid.

Fuck this shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am getting raped for $56 a month for RR!
I pay a monthly penalty because I do NOT have TV service, I have RoadRunner ONLY and I pay an extra $10 a month penalty because of that!

They can stick that tax up thier asses sideways with a chainsaw....

FU FCC !!!

Re:stick it to the consumer

[spirality]

Yeah, more fucking taxes. Just what I need.

-Craig.

Universal Service Fund

[stuartkahler]

People who live in rural areas generally move there to get away from other people, enjoy a life not driven by technology, and own large tracts of land at rates next to nothing.

This means they have to pump their own water, dispose of their own trash, take care of the septic tank, drive on gravel, cut wood, fill the propane tank and sometimes even generate their own electricity. This is the price of living on land that only costs $2000 per acre instead of $200000 per acre. If their only internet connection is 256k via sattelite with a half second latency, then boo-hoo. If they want convience, they would live within 10 miles of a Walmart, not 100.

When I can pick up a quarter acre worth building a house on in the city for $5000, then I'll feel sorry for the people out in the boonies.

For now, I pay the extra to live in the city (and thus alot more property taxes too). I like being near a 15 screen theater, amusement parks, hundreds of restaurants, multiple shopping malls with 100+ stores each and a gas station or grocery store on every corner. I like being able to meet people that care about more than hunting and tractor pulls. But I think I pay quite enough as it is.

A USF for people in the ghetto, maybe. Country life is quite cheap enough as it is.

Consumer friendly taxation?

[Hamster Lover]

I've had this idea in the back of my head for several weeks and it started after I really looked at my electrical bill here in Calgary, Alberta. There are consent fees and transmission costs, and storage riders, etc. A thought occured to me: why not require that these costs be included in the per unit charge or fixed monthly charge? That is, my per unit cost for electricity or natural gas or my fixed monthly cost for telephone or cable included all taxes, fees, etc. except perhaps State, Provincal, or Federal Sales Taxes that are calculated on the bill as a fixed percentage.

The advantage of this is I can compare prices between the various electrical utilities, gas providers, telephone services, etc. with the full knowledge that I am comparing apples to apples (or as close as you're going to get). In addition, I can be sure that the itemized "taxes", which are nothing more than an excuse to raise prices, will remain hidden in the cost of the product. Face it, all those fees and taxes just add to numberification of the consumer and very few people ever sit down to analyse just what the hell these fees are really covering and the utility companies love it, for a fee or a tax can increase incrementally, but the unit charge will remain the same.

Just an idea I had floating around in my head since I received very little help from the electrical company trying to explain all those nitpicky little fees that never existed before the great mantra that is "competition" came into being.

Re:stick it to the consumer

[Lt Razak]

I agree. Not to mention how slow the channels move when you have digital cable.

Now I've moved: Goodbye cable, hello DSL + DirectTV

Why should the government have to collect this?

[aquarian]

I see no reason for a tax. If the government is truly interested in getting everyone connected, all they have to do is mandate it. Broadband providers can raise their rates as they see fit. Why waste time and energy arguing over this, spending more money creating a bureaucracy to oversee collection of the tax, and introduce even more inefficiency in the process of doling it out? If cable/phone companies want the right to dig up our streets and make money off of us, we have the right to demand something in return. So let's just demand it, and let them figure out the rest.

Maybe they should clean up their act first.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the same fund that's currently under fire for the wasteful manner in which the money is spent? They'd better be squeaky clean before they try to take more of my money. Fucking sparkling.

cable modem tax

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the 50$ a month was mostly tax...

Re:Percentages of fees disbursed and accountabilit

[Anonymous Coward]

Prison terms are collective, in that if one falls, they all fall. Make them accountable to, and responsible for, each other

You can't dilute poison with more poison. And giving someone less poison only kills them slower. The solution is to remove the poison (FCC).

This guy doesn't get out much...

[srvivn21]

The idea of universal service is certainly a worthy one. But when cellular phones are so popular, do we really need to spend billions of dollars a year on subsidizing rural America's landlines?

I wonder if he has tried using his cellular phone across the US. All 50 states of it. Let's see. He must be a real world traveler to be such an authority on the state of the cellular network.

Declan McCullagh is the Washington correspondent for CNET News.com, chronicling the ever-busier intersection between technology and politics. Before that, he worked for several years as Washington bureau chief for Wired News. He has also worked as a reporter for The Netly News, Time magazine and HotWired.

Or not. I wonder if he has ever even left the East Coast? Verizon's commercials are cute and all, but they don't reflect reality. And I quote:

Because an area is shaded does not necessarily mean that there is complete cellular coverage; in fact, there are "no coverage" areas (including areas too small to depict) within the shaded areas.

And not even the whole of the CONUS is shaded! Yeah. Cellular service is the perfect replacement for land lines. Idiot.

Universal Food Fund.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I got a solution for that family. Move, or pay the price by paying your fair share of the telephone bill."

1-Move to the city and drive up everyone's cost of living. (Supply-demand). What's that? You say the cost of living's high?

2-Pass the cost onto our city bretheren (Remember what businesses do with cost?), who apparently like to eat.(Cheaply I hear)

3-To make all this "fair" (Whomever's definition should we use?). Get rid of the subsidies that artificially lower the cost of food, and let it rise to realistic levels. (You city-bound dwellers are going to love this part).

Hopefully you can live off a garden, or even grow one for that matter. (Now why did human society specialize again?).

I'm really glad to hear this...

[Eric Damron]

It makes me feel good to know that the government is going to give the average person a new tax. Unlike the neglected wealthy who are having their taxes taken away.

Getting something new makes me feel good. Don't you feel good about this? I doâ¦

Cable Internet Service Expensive As Is

[Cruxus]

I don't know what has been done in other regions, but in St. Louis, Charter Communications has tiered service. That means, if you want more than a few hundred kilobit per second downstream transfers, you'll have to pay both arms and both legs for it. I can only imagine how expensive bronze service will get if the FCC approves this tax. People living in rural areas may be complaining about the cost of broadband, but it's already expensive enough in the cities! This, farm subsidies, and other abuses are the result of rural inhabitants getting undue representation in government. The federal government needs to be democraticized, starting by eliminating the Electoral College and by allowing nationwide referendums coinciding with presidential elections. ---

Don't trust "trust funds"

[John Jorsett]

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:

I'd like to see the actual records of expenditure before making an assessment like this. The money in government "trust funds" presents an attractive target for money-hungry politicians in search of a funding source for pet projects. The national highway trust fund has many billions on paper, but a big chunk of it has been "borrowed", and will be repaid about the time they're serving snowcones in hell. It's also useful to see how the money that IS spent actually gets used. The universal internet funds have gone to remodeling classrooms (ostensibly because carpet had to be ripped up and walls knocked down to "run the wires" - yeah right). These things have a way of becoming just another slush pile that people will lie their asses off to get. And why not? Nobody really audits how this money is spent.

No, I'm not cynical ...

Marginal cost is greater than marginal benefit.

[glrotate]

Network effects my ass. The only reason politics, ,the rural special interest has used every trick in the book.

Yes there is some benefit into adding a few farmers to the network, but is it worth billions of dollars? It's doubtful.

Re:Marginal cost is greater than marginal benefit.

[scoove]

the rural special interest has used every trick in the book.

Actually, that's about as accurate as saying the homeless lobby is one of the most powerful in DC. Both (homeless & rural interest) are more appropriately considered as sympathetic targets rather than actual interests.

Posting from flyover country as I speak (80 miles from civilization), there are very few "interests" that embrace folks around here. More accurately, you've got powerful corporate and political entities that use rural as their rallying cry for increased subsidies, income redistribution and other thievery.

RBOCs use it all the time. Large chemical producers (e.g. Monsanto) play their rural pitch (wanna bet the Monsanto CEO doesn't live in a trailer down by the river?). Just like helping the homeless, it's a convenient rallying cry for funds taken from others via taxation.

Really, the only "rural interest" around here is getting the government out of things. Isn't it amusing that we have no shortage of folks who want to help us to our money?

*scoove*

Re:Marginal cost is greater than marginal benefit.

[Robotech_Master]

Yeah, and while we're at it, what's the point of the government subsidizing a grand postal network that delivers to everyone in the country, so you can send a letter to or from even the most rural of locations for little more than 1/3 of a dollar? Do you know just how much more economical and profitable it would be for the postal service not to deliver to those areas?

The only reason we have a postal service at all is because it's a government-mandated and subsidized monopoly. If we had businesses doing it, you can bet that they'd stick to the cities where all the money is, and all those people out in the country can just drive to the nearest population center to post their letters. Likewise with the phone service. Who's going to want to string thousands of miles of cable out to hicksville if they don't have a darned good economic reason? But for network effects, and for public safety (can't call 911 if there's no phone out there), it's important that folks everywhere have at least the opportunity to get phone service.

Maybe someday, after it's considered more of a necessity of life the way that mail and phone service are now, they'll subsidize high-speed Internet to rural communities. Wouldn't that be something?

Re:Marginal cost is greater than marginal benefit.

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONGO! The US Postal Service is COMPLETLEY self-sufficient as far as paying for itself. It is NOT funded through TAXES. Pull head out of ass.

Re:Marginal cost is greater than marginal benefit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Farm subsidies, anyone?

So we're expected to pay for the phone lines that go to their farms that only stay in business because we subsidize the food they are growing. That makes a ton of sense.

Re:Marginal cost is greater than marginal benefit.

[lynx_user_abroad]

The only reason politics....

Up until August, 1993, the only way most people could "get onto the Internet" was through a large institution, a government facility, or a university network. The thing which made the Internet something most people paid attention to was PPP (the Point-to-Point Protocol) which allowed dial-up users to access the Internet through their ISP. Before AOL began their carpet-bombing campaign, most people hadn't even heard of the Internet. Hell, in the beginning, even AOL hadn't heard about the Internet.

Combined with low-cost personal computers, they created a ready market of millions of Internet users. The Internet became accessible to anyone with a copper pair to their home; and that's just about everyone. It was only after a million-person user base existed that companies like Toyota, or Proctor and Gamble (which have nothing to do with computers) decided they needed to set up web sites for their customers.

According to a recent government study, 80% of all people who access the Internet do it through dial-up. Do you honestly believe any cable company would be offering IP services, or that any DSL company would even exist, if the only people on the Internet were people who already had Internet access through a large institution, a government facility, or a university network?

It may be hard to admit, and even harder to swallow, but if you remove dial-up users, the Internet ceases to exist. This has been proven time and again (unfortunately) by failed dot-coms that make the mistake of thinking they won't alienate their customers with 10Mb Flash intro pages, and then wonder why nobody ever visits their web site.

Re:Marginal cost is greater than marginal benefit.

[jejones]

Conversely, if there weren't a government mandated and subsidized monopoly on delivery of mail, you can bet that most of the letters people send would cost less, since they wouldn't be subsidizing other mail. What's the real rural image these days--Appalachia, the Joad family, or yuppies and celebrities with high priced houses out in the woods and mountains?

Re:Marginal cost is greater than marginal benefit.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the real rural image these days--Appalachia, the Joad family, or yuppies and celebrities with high priced houses out in the woods and mountains?

If you are suggesting that the latter group makes up even 1/1000th of the rural population, then you are truly out of touch.

But if it suits your political outlook to pretend that there aren't any more poor people in America, go for it. Just please, as a service to humanity, please stop voting.

Heh.

[Rob Simpson]

In B.C., the cost is about $35 Can. for Telus ADSL, regardless of where you are in the province. The local cable company charges about $40 with modem rental. Sounds like your problem is with your telco monopoly, and this "redistribution" tax is just another way of gouging you.

Communist

[Anonymous Coward]

Communist

This is a good thing...

[ekool]

The company I work for uses subsidies to provide better service to rural areas where it would not otherwise make financial sense.

What does this mean? It means that people that do live in the middle of nowhere can get DSL, and other high speed services (such as T1's, etc) -- It means we can provide DSL out of "remote" boxes, that the larger RBOC's ignore... we dont just serve from the CO, we serve from the tiny little boxes on your street corners, etc.

What else does this mean? It also means that the cable companies no longer have a 9.1% price advantage over their phone competitors.... All phone services must charge this. DSL, Phone, etc... so the cable companies have been enjoying 'being out of the taxified circle' and now things are starting to even up.

This is obviously good for our company, but since the tax does go to a good cause, its good for everyone.

Another portion goes to help pay for phone lines for low income housings. The program is called LITAP (Low Income Telephone Assistance Program) -- and it helps poverished families... I can think of a few older women who are handicapped and homebound that this fund helps in our serving areas.

For those of you that suggest "People in the Rural area dont need hardwired phones, they should just use cell phones" are way out of the know. You deserve a swift hit with the clue bat.

1. Cell providers have no interest in serving rural areas... cell coverage in truly rural areas is horrible.

2. Two Words: Lifeline POTS -- The cell phone companies are not regulated in the sense that if they have an outage affecting customers, they pay a fine. Almost all telephone companies must submit performance figures to the PUC of that State -- If they have even a single customer outage of more then 24 hours, you can bet they are going to take some heat for it. This does not include "Designed" services, but regular POTS service is covered by this.

This means the telephone company better get your service working or pay the price. This is done so that everyone has the potential to call 911 in the event of an emergency.

Cell phones have no such obligation, and as such.. you are basicly screwed until they feel like getting to it.

These are just a few of the reasons... I could go on, but these are sufficient to show that the fund does work, and will benefit many people.

I wont even touch on the fact that Public Schools and Libraries that have a hard enough time putting books in the shelves can also help pay for high speed internet, computers, etc. to level the playing field with "rich" schools.

Dead wrong

[Rob Simpson]

1. CRTV is my local cable company. It only serves the town of Campbell River, is locally owned, and is not subsidized from any outside source. They charge $40 Canadian for cable internet, including modem rental. From the rates I've seen from U.S. ./ers, this seems very low...

2. A telco monopoly is not a free market situation.

Re:Dead wrong

[dh003i]

Ok, so then if it can give you cable at such cheap rates unsubsidized, why do we here in the US need to subsidize it?

Re:Dead wrong

[Rob Simpson]

Because you're being screwed by huge unregulated monopolies, aided and abetted by your own government.

Can you BE any more naïve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a amalgam-true story (meaningless details changed) of how Gore's distribution of your phone-line tax worked (but it applies to anything).

As a councilman in the county seat (republican county, it doesn't matter one whit), you (not me, I only saw a couple) get approached to start a company to wire a grade school with a couple of T1 "equivalents" because, "hey, a smart guy like you, didn't you work with radio in 'nam?". But get your brother's latin wife to put her name down as president (double-preference, and twice removed). Of course, you'll have to buy obsolete, unreliable and ill-suited equipment from a specific vendor, and hire Vinny's crew to do the work, but, hey, you can still clear $400k on a $1m project.

Dum de dum, everything done (and not really used or working, but who cares?), money's all spent, when a year later you get a certified letter that you violated some obscure law on the project, and are being fined $100k. Oh-oh. Once in court, neither you nor your attorney are allowed to speak while the judge rubber-stamps the $100k fine and $200k of non-itemized consulting legal fees incurred by the county. So, the county officials have stolen $900k, and you've about broken even stealing your $100k.

Ummm... It's the Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should put the Democrats in power and see if they do any better. Hell, they sure can't do WORSE than the current Bush administration/Congress.

Re:Ummm... It's the Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't say I agree with you there. The economy managed to tank a few months before Clinton jumped ship. Thanks to Bush's policies the Dow is making a strong comeback.

Poor People Pay Taxes Too!!!

[SeattleGameboy]

It is very mis-leading to just site the Federal Income tax to make the argument that rich are paying to much taxes. Of course, rich pays more taxes (in amount) - THEY MAKE MORE MONEY. Top 10 percent own 90% of the wealth, asking them to pay their share is not so draconian. And YES POOR PEOPLE PAY TAXES TOO!!! Unlike the Federal Income Tax, state and local taxes are regressive taxes that takes greater bite from poor people. Go and check this out http://www.bls.gov/cex/home.htm#overview. It tallys up ALL taxes paid at the federal, state, and local levels. You will find that when you factor ALL taxes, every major tax categories (from top fifth to bottom fifth) all pay about same percentage of income in taxes. It is simply a misleading to say that 36% of household pay no income tax - they still pay a whole lotta of other taxes.

Rate Hike! YAY!

[Anonymous Coward]

not again.... I'm already paying 80/month for basic cable +internet. I'd just LOVE to make that 90. Oh please oh please let's have another tax!

Subsidizing what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see no reason why city dwellers should be expected to subsidize internet access for rural customers.

Internet's not the only thing being subsidized; the U.S. government *heavily* subsidizes your dinner. Why are you taking dollars out of poor farmers pockets just so you can eat cheap? I see no reason rural folk should be expected to subsidize you cityslickers' meals.

All seriousness aside, it's true. The ag subsidies have been constructed to ensure a price floor at or under the cost of production. It has continued overproduction, yet prods up ineffecient producers, punishing the successful and innovative farmers. Now the FCC is proposing expansion of a similar mechanism in order to reward its RBOC lobby - at the expense of the rural broadband consumer.

Both ag and broadband subsidies are good example of how policy-based income redistribution works. While it actually works against the stated goal (broadband subsidy: "help get broadband into rural America" - ag subsidy: "help the farmer"), to be surprised by this is foolish - in essence, the host to this parasitism isn't supposed to complain.

Geez... I'm starting to sound like a John Bircher. *sigh*

Re:Subsidizing what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you taking dollars out of poor farmers pockets just so you can eat cheap? I see no reason rural folk should be expected to subsidize you cityslickers' meals.

The agriculture industry *is* heavily subsidized, but the effect you describe is exactly backwards.

The U.S. government often pays the agriculture industry to either destroy their yield, give it away to 3rd world countries, or to warehouse it and not bring it to market in order to keep the supply lower and maintain a "healthy" price in the marketplace.

So us city-slickers are getting it from both ends. Farmers overproduce themselves into oblivion (supply greatly exceeds demand, driving prices to the floor). To "fix" this, our tax dollars are being *given* to farmers who overproduce, and at the same time, this gift results in higher prices for us at Safeway, Albertsons, QFC, etc etc.

U.S. agriculture benefits from subsidies at a cost to urban centers, not the other way around.

It may be time to cancel my cable account.

[msoftsucks]

The cost of having my cable account has steadily been increasing. Its just too much money for too little value. I just can't afford it. Time to go back 56K modems.

Quite the opposite

[siskbc]

No the city dwellers are given food subsidies (indirectly). The gov, subsidies the farmers in order to keep food cost down.

Actually, food subsidies are given to farmers to keep food prices UP. The government pays farmers not to grow things to keep the bottom from falling out of the food market and bankrupting farmers. So there's another example - we pay higher food prices than we should to sustain an inflated market.

Re:parents chose to use contraceptives

[Technician]

They are not 100% effective. ;-) My parrents did use them.

I'm all for it!

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is still almost competitive in high tech.

Even though small American firms already have no freedom to study or create security and e-commerce products, they can still compete with us and the rest of the world in the creation of artist work and a few other areas. This and a massive tariff on blank media should put paid to that though. heh.

canada goes bankrupt???

[Anonymous Coward]

For your information... While the USA is struggling with a 100$ billion deficit this year alone, Canada is making money. A lot of money. The true numbers aren't known because all of the federal financial crap (they have been known to hide some extra money in organisations they create each year and that are not included in the budget, but that's another story). Anyway, for this year, the Canada's surplus is estimated at more or less 20$ billion. So no, Canada's not going bankrupt in any way. Economy is stronger than american counterpart, canadian dollar is flying upward, etc.

Healthcare is free for ALL (no matter what), education is cheap (a year of High-grade education - think Laval University (Quebec), the best university in Quebec province - is about 1 500$-2000$ a year for a major or a PhD.
Kindergarden is 5$ per day for ALL children, no matter what.

So even if I pay 40% of my income in taxes, I think it's worth it. Plus, if i'm badlucked some day, it may save my life.

Re:canada goes bankrupt???

[Anonymous Coward]

Jane, you ignorant slut....

"Canada is making money. A lot of money. The true numbers aren't known because..."
BWWWAHAHAHHAAAHHAHAHAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAA!!!!

"they have been known to hide some extra money in organisations they create each year and that are not included in the budget"
See: any other corrupt dictatorship,dumbass

"Canada's surplus is estimated at more or less 20$ billion. So no, Canada's not going bankrupt in any way"
Uhhh...no, dumbass...the govt is taxing it's citizen's to death!! MORE THAN THEY NEED TO!!
The canadian govt isn't going bankrupt,but it's people are...like I dunno,just about half the people i've known since college who've declared bankruptcy in one way or another...

"canadian dollar is flying upward"
only because the american one is falling...check dictionary under 'ratio'

"Healthcare is free for ALL (no matter what), "
BULLLLLLLSHITTTTTTTTT!!!
What are you? some commie troll??!?
As a canadian, i can assure you health care is NOT FREE!!
-Try waiting five hours with a serious problem (bleeding included)in a sweaty emergency room to see an intern(all the real doctors left for the states-see:brain drain)
-Try paying $50 for basic medicine...FREE??!?!
-Try going back next week after the mis-diagnosis and waiting SIX hours,seeing a 'doctor' that looks like he just came from woodstock (for about 6 seconds before he's dragged off to another emergency) and have him say:"we'll try -this- now and see if that's any better"
-Then pay $70 for something else...and praying, don't forget the praying...

So, tell me marx, how much does all that wasted time, mis-diagnosis, medicine bills,etc cost?
In my case,it cost me MY NEW FUCKING JOB!!!!!!

"the best university in Quebec province - is about 1 500$-2000$ a year for a major or a PhD."
Try $2200 in the college it went to,for ANYTHING..$570 for a single soc. course...pfffhhtt

"Kindergarden is 5$ per day for ALL children, no matter what."
What a surprise...more BULLSHIT...what,you don't read the news about parents complaining that their 'free' education doesn't include basic pencils or PAPER?!?!

"So even if I pay 40% of my income in taxes, I think it's worth it. Plus, if i'm badlucked some day, it may save my life."

You pay more like %70... www.taxpayer.com
You ARE badlucked...you're in canada...and i'ts slowly taking your life...get out while you can..

Didn't you ever wonder why canada's leading export was it's people?!?!

Thanks, George!

[Carnivorous Carrot]

The only reason I vote Republican is because they generally are for lesser taxes and smaller government and less regulation.

Thanks, George!

do dah!

[August_zero]

Wow, good to see a FARK sized flamewar going on with lots of ill informed banter and name calling.

Quite the opposite-Struggling to understand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone disagrees with you. Now go smack him, you farmer you.

It Used to work like this...

[PetoskeyGuy]

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.

VOIP Tax

[aardwolf204]

Whats next from the FCC, a VoIP tax? This is ridicilous, but I'll end up paying for it anyone because the only person in my neighborhood that has an open wifi AP and shares bandwidth freely is me. Shucks.

Can't even get it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would glady pay a tax on it if the stupid cable company would just run the blasted wire to my house and give me service!!!

capitalism and politics and colonization

[Anonymous Coward]

People like you are the reason the great rural strike is coming. Hope you enjoy eating your broadband then. I hear plenty of calories in it. We'll see how you like having unsubsidised food once a real capitalist price is set. Oh, you didn't know that, that you get food and water and a lot of your energy because of the colonization and exploitation of the rural areas? You really think only a few million people tops "control" politics? No, they don't, they DO control the food though. Politics is controlled by the tens of millions in the major urban areas, not by a few people rural here and there. And those people are by and large..not nice, and ignorant. They tend to over value themselves and their products and marginalize everyone else and are...well..bad people, greedy.

But you can't eat or drink politics. It won't supply wood for your homes or sand and limestone for your concrete, or iron ore for your steel. It won't get coal dug up. It won't get any of that transported, if the people with the trucks say "no".

Most of them live rural,too, did you know that? I bet you didn't. In fact, you are so...strange...that I bet you think the entire planet gets shipped over wires, that it's "click..delivered". You live in a videogame fantasy land. These people who drive trucks are very annoyed right now, because your politics and your "globalist" stock market is letting mexican truckers at ten dollars a day take over. Bankrupt them, make them lose their homes, lose their investments in their quarter million dollar road tractors, force them to turn to thweir wives and children and tell them they are finished.

This makes people feel...well.. maybe you can imagine, but I doubt it, you probably need to see your imagination on a screen, it has to be imagined for you. You probably need to download your imagination from hollywood as a set of images, because your brain has lost it's ability to create it's own images, to wonder what things might be like, without being told.

That's annoying to those truckers and farmers and miners and woodsmen.

This is very annoying to them.

Very, very annoying.

Say "hello" to 100$ pizzas and 5$ a lb spuds and dollar a piece carrots sometime soon. Your hamburgers...ohh, perhaps 10 to 20$ apiece, maybe. that's a fair price.

Oh, you didn't know slaughter cows get less than they did in the early 80s, but operating costs and taxes have gone up over 250%? You didn't know that?

Too bad, the information is out there, but you were too busy being entertained, weren't you?

The best deal is to let the "customer demand" build up a little. Say--a month or two, no shipments in? Maybe..three?

Go to you favorite grocery,find the general manager, ask him roughly how many days of food they have on hand anytime. Go ahead, try it. You'll find out, but don't believe me, research it yourself. It's around 5 days, tops, for half of what is in the store. Less for some items, a little more for others, but that's a nice close estimate.

Now think "two months" before any prices are even negotiated. Just for starters. Build up a little customer demand.

What are you going to pay for food then? What would be a "fair" price then, I mean, after all "anyone can grow food in the cities, all they need", correct? I mean, you are very well paid, and have such a remarkable and marketable skill, so that will "provide you with food" automatically, even with the grocery stores...empty. Why, you'll just put it on your credit card...no.. wait, or withdraw food from your bank, right? No... wait.. Your stock broker will give you some, right? Maybe bestbuy and circuit city have food, ask them, maybe you can get a rebate on a spindle of food. I now! Your cell phone provider has food, and you can download free "open source" food from the mirrors!

Think it can't happen? It happened in france a little while ago, the government and the hungry urbanites caved-real fast. Real fast. Real. Damn. Fast.

Want to know why? Because farmers an

Re:capitalism and politics and colonization

[lynx_user_abroad]

Damn! I wish I could rant like this.

Go! Go! Go!

Re:capitalism and politics and colonization

[mvizos]

This rant is fan-freakin-tanstic! I love this one line: Your cell phone provider has food, and you can download free "open source" food from the mirrors! thats great! rock on!

Screw 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

"The remaining 15 percent goes toward discounts to low-income subscribers and funds rural health care."

Rural health care? Ok. Discounts to low income subscribers? Hell no. Give 'em discounts, but you sure as hell better not charge me extra in order to give them their discounts.

That's as screwed as the US income tax system. What is that statistic.. 20% of the taxpayers cover more than 70% of the taxes paid?

Nice.

The Real Story

[NatZi]

The "Universal Service Tax" is not a benevolence fund and is inappropriately applied to cable modem or other services.

1) The UST was created to increase profits for "rural" telecos -- few which still exists due to the mega mergers (I do not consider Verizon a rural telco). The UST was heavily lobbied for by legislators with telco ties in the name of the poor rural folks (I am one). However, what the tax actually does is underwrite business costs -- not provide access. It works like this: everyone is taxed for teleco services. The tax is then given to telcos to offset the alleged costs of providing services to rural areas. The telcos continue to collect the funds but stall and complain about the burgeoning costs and delay any roll-outs due to the lack of demand. In other words, this tax has little to do with providing services to rural consumers. It is designed to enhance profits for telcos.

2) In many cases, for rural consumers, cable modem access is the only choice due to the strict technical limitations of DSL. That is, the promised competitivness where telcos will benevolently deliver DSL, and cable companies cable modem options is simply a fraud. Rarely is DSL available in rural areas by a telco (some rural governments are installing their own services). So where is all this money going? Really? I live in a rural area and only have cable as a choice. (I am thankful for it.) If the UST is truly designed to provide broadband to rural communities, I have seen no evidence of it. In the past two places that I have lived, one had cable modems as an option and one had no broadband access (the "local" telco would not even provide an estimate of access due to low demand).

3) In my example, I will actually be paying (as a rural consumer) under the new provisions an additional tax for rural access. I do not see the logic. Who then is defined as rural -- someone who does not have broadband access? The definition is absurd as is the whole UST. I selected cable because DSL is not an option in my rural area even though the FCC insists that it is an option or will be in the near future (oh, let's say by 2009 [no joke, this is the time estimate -- $6 billion per year for 12 years to make this happen--hopefully]).

4) I have not seen one published report that confirms that rural consumers have benefitted substantially from this fund. Not one. I am sure that their are anecdotal cases, but nothing to substantiate a $6 billion per year fund. where is the money going? (Nothign sinister. A simple question.)

5) The funds for schools are also questionable. Rather than a telco lowering costs or providing the connectivity for free to schools, the telcos continue to charge high rates because they know that the costs are underwritten by the UST. Again, money is directly funnelled to the telcos through this program and is guaranteed by the government -- who also legislated that all schools must have broadband. So this becomes a solid profit center for telcos -- government guaranteed money essentially.

My comments may sound sinister, but they are not intended to be so. A lot of legislation is written in this manner -- seemingly benevolent on the surface but in reality, the results are a simple corporate profit center.

It is time to abandon the UST entirely (and make the telcos refund the payments to consumers) unless solid progress is made by telcos in creating legitimate and real universal access in real rural areas.

Nevertheless, expanding the current program to cable franchises is simply absurd. Unless the telcos (who are really only concerned about collecting larger fees from the program -- cable companies are exempt from the funds) can show overwhelming proof that DSL and cable are competitive in a overwhelming majority of truly rural markets (Allentown and Hershey, PA are classified as rural for goodness sakes), the cable modem tax should not proceed. The additional tax will simply increase the profits of telcos but requires no increase in the roll-out of broadband to rural areas.

Corporations Rule!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Im pretty sure Michael Powell will let this slide by. Thanks federal govt. Lower the corporations taxes and then stick it to us commoners. Just like the tax cut lowered the fed taxes for the rich but the common people will end up being stuck with higher state taxes.

Your details

[CowBovNeal]

You know, just enter scoove in google and out come your details, you got a profile at yahoo. Your from Omaha, Nevada. email- w0jrs+arrl@net. Other email- scoove@area51+research+nv+us.

What did I learn from computers in school?

[fireboy1919]

I learned BASIC the summer after second grade from a school program. That year, because of the computers, I learned flowcharting, the order of operations, and the nice flavors of conditional logic that where available in BASIC. I was fortunate enough to have a teacher who gave me one of the sample programming workbooks (which the school didn't buy a set of), and let me work on a computer for the year when we didn't have anything else that was pressing.
I learned how to write animations the next summer.

All that was when my school had one computer in each classroom, and with teachers who knew nothing about them. Read up. Bill Gates had a similar start.

Unfortunately after that I moved into a school with your obtuseness and had to wait until seventh grade so that I could sit in on the eighth grade programming elective and learn LOGO.

My high school was even worse and required taking three useless electives before getting to the only programming class, and no one was allowed to use any of the schools computers outside of class time.

I could have learned so much during those early years, and I was SO eager to do so.

Computers offer pearls of knowledge when teachers are unable to illuminate, and the brightest minds can take them.

Also, why deny poor students the opportunity to learn from the wealth of knowledge on the internet?

DirectTv

[Anonymous Coward]

This tax and the change media ownership rules is designed to payoff Rupert Murdoch and his recently acquired DirectTv for their support of the bush administration.

Pure Genius by the FCC.

[Dolemite_the_Wiz]

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
____________________

You like to eat, don't you?

[Reziac]

Well, guess what. Food is produced by farms. Farming is a RURAL activity, with no options. You can't feed millions with urban window gardens.

So yeah, let's make life so hard and expensive in rural areas that everyone moves to the city, and then either all you city folk starve, or you pay whatever some other country wants to charge for imported food. Plus shipping, handling, import duties, and local tax.

Farmers have to pass increased costs along just the same as any other business. Think about that the next time you whine about the rising cost of groceries.

Fact is, very few people live in a rural area because they have the *option* of living wherever they want. They live in rural areas because their work demands it. Just like city folk -- you need to live reasonably close to your work, and your work is largely determined by what you personally can do. And at bottom, the world doesn't run on urban-type work. It runs on its stomach.

And if you don't think farming is *work*, I defy any keyboard-bound geek to follow a farmer around for a week without dying of sheer exhaustion. PS -- you don't get weekends off, vacations, or overtime pay.

Re:You like to eat, don't you?

[17028]

I think the problem is that there's a food over production, meaning there is too much farming going on. This is because of different kinds of subsidies artifically keeping production up.
It would be more healthy to let the market determine how much food is produced.

Re:You like to eat, don't you?

[swb]

It's not a question of not liking farming or rural living. It's about not subsidizing all the technological benefits of high-density living for people living in low density areas.

By the way, farming is *heavily* subsidized by non-farmers. This is part of the overall package deal of subsidies for rural residents that were politically expedient and perhaps justified in the 1930s when a significant number of people were rural residents, and it was in the (government/society/rural/urban/politician)'s best interest to not have a society sharply split between urban and rural.

We don't live in the 1930s anymore, the rural subsidization has already done its job, and its not necessary to continue a subsidy that doesn't really help anyone but ILECs.

Re:You like to eat, don't you?

[Reziac]

Subsidies are NOT for *producing* a crop. Quite the reverse:

Farm subsidies pay farmers to NOT produce a crop, which in turn does indeed keep the market price artificially high by creating artificial scarcity. When the program started, the alternative was farms going out of business en masse, because prices weren't high enough to offset costs, let alone make a profit.

But in the current world market, we could export everything farms can produce, which would be better for farmers, the economy, and the world, and subsidies could probably go away while production goes up AND farms can still make a profit -- probably more than they do now. (As a rule, farms do little better than break even. Owner/operators seldom take a salary for their work.)

And remember, a lot of farm subsidies go to have farmers NOT produce non-food crops such as tobacco and cotton.

Re:You like to eat, don't you?

[Reziac]

See my reply to another response where I speculate that the farm subsidy program could indeed go away, possibly to the benefit of all concerned. However -- I may misremember, but I vaguely recall seeing a stat to the effect that farm subsidies and all related costs amount to less than 1% of gov't expenditure (ie. of taxes collected). So even tho it's a lot of money if you had it all in one pile, its impact on average folks is not much on a value vs cost basis, compared to crap like this 9% tax.

I'm not generally in favour subsidies or social/economic welfare, but there are some service and access points (such as roads and telco) that you can't drop just because it's inconvenient or more expensive to take it to more-remote locations. But I don't think added taxes are going to accomplish much toward expanding service, given how special-use taxes and fees tend to get siphoned off before they ever get to whatever they were meant for.

But what does grind me is that we get all these people posting about the "choice" of living in a rural area, and how that "should be expensive" who clearly haven't the vaguest clue what they're talking about. To them it's like the "choice" between renting an apartment or buying a condo, without ever having seen a single-family house. At most they might have driven thru or flown over BFE on their way to another city, but they've no idea how life really is away from urban centers. (Sorry if this sounds like a flame, but having lived a couple decades apiece in and near both rural and urban environments, I suspect I'm a bit more qualified.)

Re:Your details

[Lt Razak]

Another failed public school product.

NE = Nebraska, genius.
NV = Nevada.
Not to mention Omaha is a pretty well known city. For anyone that's moved out of their mama's basement that is.

I'll drop Comcast if this comes to fruition.

[MrJerryNormandinSir]

Hey.. It's bad enough that Comcast sucks, but add
a tax and I am going to drop their service!

Re: Why should rural dwellers get help

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. Do you know what the cost per foot to run above ground telephone wire? Let's say it costs the phone company $1.75 per foot (you get the first 500 ft. free) to run and install above ground phone lines.

So if someone lives say 2 miles outside of town that's going to cost 2 x 5280 - 500 = $17,605 just to install their telephone wires.

I don't know about you, but I doubt many people can afford to pay that just to have phone wires run. That's why they subsidise rual service since there is no way the phone companies can afford to install phones for country people unless they get subsidised.

They try to standardize the cost to something reasonable so that people out in the country can afford to get a telephone / hydro installed.

Otherwise nobody in rual areas could afford to have a telephone since the phone company doesn't want to service them.

Heck, most of these people can't get high speed Internet access anyway. No way they'll get DSL or Cable Modem out there even if they want to pay for it nobody will sell to them.

two words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Technological Welfare

Rural telco facts (rant)

[Anonymous Coward]

You pay more. Qworst's "distance fee". Huge premiums for a second line.

You get less. 24K dial-up, if you're lucky. Not even 14.4K, if you're not. DSL? fuggetaboudit. Line noise. Frequent (and longer) outages. Overloaded exchanges (can't get a dial tone).

Does cellular makes rural land lines obsolete? Think again! Go off the well-beaten paths and the cellular coverage is gone.

You may see the universal access "fee" as a subsidy, but we rural residents know it for what it is. A tax . The money goes one way (to DC), and we get lip service in return. From all the major politcal parties.

Re:stick it to the consumer

[mlong]

You know I had the 2nd post in this thread and I am rated "redundant". You moderators need some serious meta-moderating.

You're missing a major point

[robogun]

How many in the rural areas live there for reasons other than not having the money to live in the big city. How about clean air, lack of crime, laid-back lifestyle, uncrowded spaces? Many parents move to the sticks because they want to get their kids away from suck influences and the steaming cesspool of spam, crime and porn called the net is one of them.

The opinion that people who live in rural areas do so because they lack the means to join you in the city is, well, underinformed.

Re:You're missing a major point

[srvivn21]

Huh? Sorry, but I don't quite see how you interpreted my comments in that fashion. I was not referring to the reasons that people choose (or are "forced") to live in rural areas, just the fact that most of those rural areas support a completely different lifestyle than most Americans are used to. Upon looking my statements over more thoroughly, the only place I can see that would even have a possibility of causing confusion is:

And how are the rural dwellers going to make money to pay this [ Universal Housing Fund] fee?

To clarify that point, those living in rural area don't have the opportunity to earn money to pay for other people's housing.

Does that clear things up? Perhaps you were intending to reply to someone else.

coops

[yintercept]

Independent coops can give rural users good rates. We are using the Universal Service Fee so that the monolpolies can undercut the small coops; so it is likely that it will end up costing more to wire rural areas with the universal service fee than without it.

Re:Your details

[CowBovNeal]

lol. Thanks for pointing that out. I've only lived in Mi before moving back to europe. Another thing-Im staying alone and there's no basement here..;)

Re:Your details

[Lt Razak]

I've only lived in MI before moving...

This joke would complete if you were living in Mississippi before you moved back to Europe!! :)