Senate Mulls Internet Tax Ban - VoIP Exempt?

securitas writes "eWEEK's Caron Carlson reports that this week the U.S. Senate will vote on renewing an Internet tax ban, but voice over IP (VoIP) may be taxed. The bill renews a state/local ban on taxing Internet services like VoIP. The federal government wants to define VoIP as a software application exempt from taxes while most states see it as an alternate form of telephony subject to telecommunications taxes. House and Senate bills that define VoIP as a software application have already been introduced but may not be voted on before the Internet tax vote."

Comments

Nice try

[sploo22]

Erm, yeah... except that's a four-year-old HOAX!

VOIP

[maitai]

I think people are being to broad with their interpretation of VOIP. When I think of VOIP I think of SIP, H232, Telephony over IP, etc. I don't consider say, Unreal Tournament 2004's voice support as VOIP.

In that regard, if they want to tax VOIP providers as they do normal telco's I don't have a complaint, I'd assume that'd just be a given. But if they want to try and tax every program that could possibly send speech over the net then I'd be a bit annoyed (to put it lightly)

I wouldn't consider Skype, Teamspeak, etc as VOIP from my point of view, I think of them as just another chat program. If it can tie into my phone, or someone elses, then it's VOIP.

My Vonage account has recently had a new $1 tax added to it, so...

Interstate Vs Intrastate Commerce

[Baldrson]

As long as internet traffic is intrastate, the federal government has no authority, under currently enforced court interpretations of the Constitution, to ban an internet tax.

The original article starts:

The U.S. Senate is slated to vote this week whether or not to renew a ban that keeps state and local governments from taxing Internet access.

This is a violation of the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution which grants the Federal government only the power:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

The 14th Amendment, which many have attempted to extend to totally eliminate all state soveriegnty, has, for example, been interpreted not even to protect basic enumerated rights. An example is, the right kee and to bear arms with military utility. The federal courts have ruled States have a right to violate this enumerated right because the bill of rights doesn't fall under any of the enumerated powers of the Constitution, nor does it fall under any of the specifically mentioned rights to be protected under the 14th Amendment. See Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F. 2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983).