Slashdot Mirror
More Fallout From FCC VoIP Decision
EconomyGuy writes "While many of us have been celebrating the recent FCC decision to keep regulation off of VoIP, but there may be some undesirable results for those progressive geeks who believe government should do more than provide military defense. As VoIP takes off as a replacement for the traditional copper-wire network, local and state governments are going to lose more and more funding for important services like 911 and Universal Service."
.. but have netcraft confirmed it? Seriously, they'll just place a tax on a per megabyte basis.. Nothing to see here move along.. Simon.
If no taxes can be levvied on POTS anymore for funding emergency services and the like, there will surely be an alternative way of collecting those taxes.
A flat tax, for example - say $0.50/month per resident. That should cover 911-expenses.
I'm not American , but I see America going the wrong way and cutting funding for the wrong things (ok, it's not a socialist state) ... Education, Healthcare, Emergency services are things which have intangible returns on investment.
Imagine a police force based on capitalismQuidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
I'm sure that it will never become an issue. 911 is such an important, fundamental service, it will always be offered. Besides, as Big Brotherish as the government is these days, you could probably just call the free "terrorist hint line" and tell them Osama Bin Laden is trying to steal your car...
They can't let me have internet and VoIP without paying taxes on that too?
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
No, 911 is NOT dying. It's an essential service, and a huge portion of the North Americain population has it ingrained to call that number in case of emergency. A fair number of people don't even know that the fire/ambulance/police departments even HAVE other phone numbers. Not all, or even a majority by any stretch, but enough to be highly significant. What I see as more likely is a sort of centralization of both the telecommunication and the 911 services. If VoIP is continent wide, then eventually 911 is going to have to be too. In the future, the first question won't be whether you need Police, Ambulance, or Fire, it will be "What state or province are you in?". Doing so will probably increase the lag time in recieving 911 services, unfortunatly, but it's a heck of a lot better than loosing the service altogether. Charging a fee per Mb won't really work. Sure, they'll get to massively boost their revenue (on a per call basis, make massively more. How much traffic in a given area's actually VoIP and not, say, MMORG or bitorrent?) Sure, they'll keep the funding for 911 and others, but if everyone's shifted to VoIP, then those services will need/have a budget a tiny fraction of the size they do now, since no-one's on copper lines anymore. Unless everyone's required to have a regular line for emergencies, or something.
Z
Seriously!!! After getting shot in my 91 CRX by two thugs high on LCD, PCP, and drunk, I called the cops from a store as soon as I fled the scene. It took 30 minutes. 30 fucking minutes before I got a call back from a COP in the area through his CB radio (patched in through 911)!
It's a long story. But basically, the only that human scum got cought was because the driver passed out at the wheel.
Life is not for the lazy.
I would argue that it's simply not the government's role to burden communications with taxes.
One argument in the article is "not taxing this is not fair, because regular phones are taxed". This is a true statement, but I would argue that the *existing* taxes are an arbitrary joke: Americans are forced to pay per minute rates on "long distance" (meaning, another state, even though the actual route to another state and the same one could end up using the exact same satellite). Why? Well, it's because the goverment *taxes* based on per minute usage. Stating that the only way to achieve equality is to apply the same flawed system equally is not good logic.
If the functionality of 911 is so important (I believe it is), then other ways can be brought about to pay for it. With the current market penetration of phones, it's not unreasonable to assume that almost everyone has access to 911, so an alternate method could be used, one that taxes everyone just as the current system does. It could even be rolled trivially into property taxes, it's can't be much because it's itemized on my monthly phone bill, and it is tiny.
Saying that the only way we'll have goverment phone services or local governments gaining relevant revenue is to allow regulation of VOIP is beyond silly. There may be a difficult time of transition, but it's clear that progress is on the side of the new technology.
But it's clear from the article what the *real* problem is:
"The City of Seattle in 2003 collected $30 million from telephone utility taxes, its fourth largest source of revenue after property, B&O, and sales taxes."
Here the argument becomes, "A technology to allow people to communicate was developed, and we allowed governments to tax it. Now that an alternative has come along, we need to allow governments to tax it or else the governments won't be getting as much of your money as they are used to."
This is the same logic that would shut down an invention that generates endless free energy (Look at that electricity tax / the private sector that exists to deliver energy!), that would shut down an invention that creates delicious food out of thin air (sales tax / destroying the livelihood of farmers), a great solution in medicine that allowed people to be free of their various prescription drug dependencies... the same idea would oppose all of these things.
Stepping out of utopia land, we can address the one thing we *can* replicate nearly for free, and realize that it is the same logic opposing free software.
It is not good logic.
local and state governments are going to lose more and more funding for important services like 911 and Universal Service
I would agree 911 is an important phone service and should be provided.
But all the other taxes?? I don't think so.
The universl service fund was established to provide phone to rural areas. The question I have is "aren't rural areas wired already?". About internet for schools -- I say let the people who go to those schools pay for their own internet like I do. Libraries? I pay through the teeth through property taxes (Utah) already for library facilities.
So much as the federal taxes go -- the federal tax was placed on the phone to pay for the war of 1812 -- isn't that war over and paid for yet? I know it has been used to pay for all the other wars since then, maybe I don't like to see war financed through my phone use.
I know this is an oversimplification, but this represents a deep resentment of the government as it stands today, and I'm not to sure if I care if it crashes and burns. I'm sure others feel the same way -- that Washington (and many local governments) have lost touch with reality, as have the voters who keep "liars" in office on the basis of "moral" grounds.
Yes I'm mad. Phone service can go away. I'll start to use carrier pigeon if necessary.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
and treat VoIP calls and pots calls the same?
Wouldn't somebody with a VoIP phone servuce provider like http://www.usbphone.com.au/ that has a call relay station that can call land lines not be considered to be Universally covered?
After all some places are too expensive to do last mile wiring for for pots, but you can justify using wireless links to cover that area for wireless internet.
In this case, the govt might be able to achieve 911 and universal service without spending a dime, and pushing the cost back onto the consumer... which is either a bad or a good thing depending if you're blue or red... but the services will not need to disappear.
(ps... is it just me or is it odd that "red" meant "communist" last century and "freemarketeer" today?)
How much traffic in a given area's actually VoIP and not, say, MMORG or bitorrent?
Great. More ways for people to claim that EverQuest and pirated movies cost lives.
How much traffic in a given area's actually VoIP and not, say, MMORG or bitorrent?) Sure, they'll keep the funding for 911 and others, but if everyone's shifted to VoIP, then those services will need/have a budget a tiny fraction of the size they do now, since no-one's on copper lines anymore.
I should have stated more point more clearly. What I meant is that they'll tax ALL broadband communications - a communication tax of sorts.
I don't buy the 911 point either. You can simply design the system to "know" where you are. Government assigned IPs (esp if IPV6 comes in in a big way) to ISP gatway routers are probably going to be introduced as a way of determining the location of the punters.
In time all technology like this is regulated and most of the time the government does a good job. Governments are good at setting standards and that's exactly why we should trust them with this job.
Simon.
Simon.
911 becomes a paid in advance subscription service and universal phone service becomes a beg-a-thon funded charity.
We obviously can't tax corporations that are sworn to make a profit no matter who they have to bribe, what they have to pollute, or lie they have to tell.
And we're giving money BACK to the rich; can't be a flip-flopper and now increase their taxes - after all who will give to the beg-a-thons if we take a million from a billionaire?
Besides, government is too big. It should only be used to help corporations lower their labor cost and protect their overseas investments.
Don't get me started on libraries, those damnable socialistic free-thinker homeless-friendly purveyors of dangerous data.
local and state governments are going to lose more and more funding for important services like 911 and Universal Service.
Almost everybody agrees that 911 service is necessary, but it is far from obvious why this cannot be paid for by properly visible government spending, rather then trying to sneak it in like a backdoor tax on a specific service. Governments love to add little taxes here and there so as to make it opaque how much they are actually spending, leading a government with it's fingers everywhere hindering progress with useless regulation aimed only at preserving dying industries and the revenue government derives from them. Which is exactly what our "progressive" friend is saying should happen to VoIP.
As for Universal Service, give me a break. People who live in rural areas don't pay special taxes so that I can get clean air, silence, and nice natural surroundings in the middle of the city. Why the hell should they? After all I chose to live here, which it's upsides (like 8 megabit broadband to the apartment) and its downsides. The same goes for people who want to live in rural areas: they chose to live where they do, and that means taking the benefits as well as the consquences, instead of crying that others should have to pay for your luxuries.
Perhaps one day when I am older I will begin to understand how a human mind can work that calls itself progressive, and then attacks progress because it might get in the way large governments clectrocractic systems. I certainly don't now...
This is just another beat-up by the telcos who are afraid of VOIP. They should get into the data carriage business, and concentrate on delivering high speed data pipes to every home instead.
It's the wire going in the door that you levy, stupid, not the protocol going over the wire! And those wires are in local neighborhoods, subject to local taxes. Just like they've always been.
"While many of us have been celebrating the
recent FCC decision to keep regulation off of
VoIP, but there may be some undesirable results
for those progressive geeks who believe
government should do more than provide military
defense."
I cringe everytime when I read PC-speaks like the above - they just change EVERYTHING to suit their own narrow view !
For instance - they call themselves "progressive", while in reality, they are for BIG GOVERNMENT !
Please, keep your PC to yourself and don't pollute the geek scene !
Thank you.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
In Brazil, at least the traffic police is a Private company, and it's working great for us corruption filled third worlders :)
I'm not from Brazil, but I'm willing to try a non-state police department.
PROFIT is what drives the world.
That's more like degenerative, what you describe, with the Government having its hand in every nook and cranny. We need smaller government, so that the invisible hand may provide for all.
http://www.researchedge.com/uss/dev.html
DEVELOPMENT AND INSTITUTIONALIZING OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE
Historical Context:
The term "Universal Service" was introduced in 1907 by Theodore Vail, then President of AT&T. However, in the early twentieth century it had quite a different meaning in practice. Due to basic incompatibility or a lack of interconnection, competing local phone companies could often not connect their respective customers to each other. "Dual service" or subscribing to both services with the attendant duplicate wiring and equipment was common, especially for businesses. Thus, Universal Service at first meant compatibility and interconnectivity of competing phone services that we today take for granted. It was only later that the term "Universal Service" became associated with a social compact to connect those disadvantaged by geography, income or other factors.
The Mann-Elkins Act of 1910 gave regulatory jurisdiction for interstate telecommunications to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), defining telephone companies as "common carriers" who were "to provide service on request at just and reasonable rates, without unjust discrimination or undue preference." The Communications Act of 1934, though not naming "Universal Service" specifically, lays out its basic tenets "so as to make available, so far as possible, to all people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges." Establishing the separate Federal Communications Commission, the act gave the commission new powers to regulate tariffs and services but expressly limited federal authority to interstate service. In 1994, the sixtieth anniversary of the Communications Act of 1934, President Bill Clinton said:
When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed this historic legislation so many years ago, few realized the dramatic changes in communications that the future would hold. Yet that stroke of the pen ushered in the beginnings of the Information Age, an era in which vast amounts of knowledge flow freely across continents and circle the globe in a matter of seconds.
Today, as we celebrate the vision of the authors of the Communications Act, we are still defining the role that telecommunications technology will play in our society. With a universe of electronic information at our fingertips, we can better educate our people, promote democracy, save lives, and create jobs across America. As we work to enhance the partnership between the public and private sectors, we continue to draw inspiration from the original Communications Act, which has long served to benefit all of our citizens and to propel our nation into the future.
(Federal Communications Law Journal, Vol. 47, No. 2, December, 1994)
There subsequently developed a series of programs, structures and protocols to encourage and enforce the expectation that basic local and long distance telephone service be available to all. The major components insuring ubiquitous availability of plain old telephone service (POTS) and other consumer services such as "free" broadcasting have been as follows:
Universal Service Fund (USF):
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), anticipating the breakup of the Bell System, established the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) in 1983 as a membership association of local telephone companies. NECA is a non-profit company directly regulated by the FCC to establish and administer interstate access revenues, access charge pooling and administer the Universal Service Fund (USF) to provide assistance to telephone companies in high-cost areas (primarily rural, but defined as those with costs in excess of 115 percent of the national average). The funds are collected from major long distance carriers and administered and dispensed by NECA. The funds are used to extend telephone service to previously unserved areas, help pay for system extensions and to keep basic rates low.
D
What? It's the 21st century. The Universal Service fee is bullshit. What part of the country is without telephone lines?
The Universal Service fee is a subsidy for the well to do. Developers subdivide former farmland and put nice big houses on them. The phone companies need to build phone lines out to them, putting up poles, stringing cable and what not. The Universal Service Fee is a way for them to recoup that loss.
It isn't about providing phones to poor underpriveledges children in Arkansas.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
...how huge corporations can extol the virtues of the 'American way,' 'free trade,' 'competition,' and the like only until the moment that they realize that they've become completely obsolete? Then they fight like drowning rats using silly arguments like 'not giving us your money any more will be BAD for you... Pay no attention to the progress behind the curtain.' This sounds durprisingly similar to the arguement that Verizon threw up earlier this week to prevent municipal Wi-Fi. Whatever. I say good riddance to 'em and bring on the progress.
---As my daddy used to tell me: "You gotta be smart before you can be a smartass."
Universal service fee.
911 is state of locally funded. The cell phone 911 problem is mainly a result of people not knowing where thay are. Net thing you know, there will be a lobby group to requre funding for 911 cell phones for dogs and cats. Hell, they can't tell us where they are either but there is some remote possibility that you might wreck your car or fall off a mountain and your dog or cat could push the panic button for you.
There needs to be some sort of cost benefit analysis applied to this stuff. IMO, it's WRONG to 'tax' (fee) everyone in order to deal with people who are too stupid to know where they are. As for those situation where you may be able to push the panic button but not talk, there are commercial services available for those who desire this much coddling.
VOIP over 2.5G or 3G phones will not steal monies from this 'tax' structure. The fee is a pass through from your phone company. They will still have to pay it and they will, generally, continue to pass it through. Interestingly, the only phone company owner I know says that there is no real accounting of these fees, even though the companies are required to pass through no more than they charge.
I know that universaL access is charged on my IDSL line so no loss there if I go VOIP. Is it also charged to cable TV companies? If so, then VOIP is a red herring for more 'tax'.
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
Putting the Federal in the FCC
Column by Sean Kellogg, Editor-at-Large
Congress may be on a drive to push more and more social programs to the fiscally strapped States, hoping that such programs will die on the vine, but at the FCC the drive to federalize everything under the sun is still as strong as ever. In a recent unanimous decision, the Commission granted itself full jurisdictional authority over the emerging Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephony service that is poised to replace the aging copper network. The decision strips states and local government of important regulatory tools, strikes at a critical tax revenue source, and threatens a similar unregulated storm to the one that eventually caused the AT&T breakup.
Before getting into the details of the decision, lets be frank about the scope of this issue. Today the FCC reports there are 182.8 million traditional telephone lines serving the American population. These lines used to be owned by AT&T until the company was broken up by a government consent decree. Out of the breakup came a handful of regional bells and the AT&T long distance provider. The breakup is a long, complicated story, but suffice to say that because of a lack of industry regulations, a massive interstate monopoly was allowed to form and dominate all telecommunications for decades.
As a technology, VoIP is poised to replace the copper network with packet based voice communication running over the fiber network built during the early phases of the Internet revolution. Like with a cellular call, in this framework there is no distinction between a local and long distance. In fact, VoIP could eventually end the concept of a physical location in telecommunication, allowing for phone numbers to follow you across the globe. If fully embraced by the telecommunications industry and consumers, VoIP has the ability to completely replace the current phone system and any conceptions we have of how our phone operates.
This sounds like an amazing offering to consumers and industry, and it is, but like any technology it has disruptive effects that must be considered. The current copper network is heavily regulated by state and local government. They asses a variety of utility taxes that ensure 911 emergency services, law enforcement surveillance compliance, access for the disabled, universal service, and other government projects. The City of Seattle in 2003 collected $30 million from telephone utility taxes, its fourth largest source of revenue after property, B&O, and sales taxes. These taxes are permitted under the Telecommunications Act (although there have been legal efforts to rule the franchise fee impermissible) so long as the services are "telecommunication services", but would be prohibited if the they were classified as an "information service" (think Internet Service Provider, Instant Messenger, etc). State and local governments are concerned that as telephone service providers switch off the copper networks and onto VoIP, the sizable tax base won't be quite so sizable.
In an effort to stem the tide, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has drafted regulations to ensure that VoIP services operating within its jurisdiction paid its fair share of the 911 services and universal access costs. Vonage Holding Inc., one of the first to market VoIP services, sued in Federal District Court alleging that VoIP was an "information service" and thus not under State jurisdiction. The District Court agreed, placing a permanent injunction on the regulation, and after refusing to rehear the case, an appeal, currently pending, was filed with the 8th Circuit. A similar suit was filed by Vonage after the State of New York attempted to enforce similar VoIP regulations, and generated similar results.
All of this legal footwork has not gone unnoticed by the Federal Communications Commission. Vonage concurrently started proceedings with the FCC when it filed with the Minnesota District Court. In the FCC proceeding it asked that (1) VoIP
USA TODAY
The utility, which serves 1,500 ranchers, farmers and others in the Texas Panhandle, fared so well last year that it doled out a fat dividend to its customers, who also own it: an average $375 -- more than the average $206 each customer paid in local phone fees.
Meantime, the co-op took in $2.6 million in federal universal service revenue. That's what people across the USA pay, through an 8.9% fee on long-distance bills. It subsidizes service in rural areas, where it's far costlier to run wires.
XIT also got $650,000 in state universal service fees and $2.9 million in access charges. Long-distance carriers pay access charges to connect their calls. Those, too, get passed on to consumers. Universal service and access fees help keep service affordable in rural areas so the entire USA can stay connected.
But critics say the system is laced with waste and inefficiency. They point to some rural phone companies' high overhead, sumptuous earnings, rich dividends and, at least in one case, fraud. Oversight has been lax: Prosecutors say the Gambino crime family was able to fraudulently draw millions from the universal service fund from 1996 to 2003 by controlling a Missouri rural phone firm. And critics say customers around the USA are stuck with the bill.
The howls have grown louder this year. Regulators are paying closer scrutiny, launching a probe and expanding audits. They're also preparing to revise the fee system. Those steps could erode the decades-old pillars of rural phone service.
"The system is broken," says John Stanton, CEO of Western Wireless, which competes with rural providers for some customers. The subsidies, Stanton charges, are "an incentive for abuse."
But rural phone officials insist abuse is rare. Jimmy White, who manages XIT, says the co-op's earnings fall within state limits. Rural providers say the universal service fund is strained because of Western Wireless and other rivals, which get some of the fund's revenue to aid rural cell phone service. Rural providers say the cell phone carriers don't need subsidies.
Complaints about rural subsidies aren't new. Lawmakers have long shielded the payments as a way to cap rural phone rates.
Rural carriers "have a whole lot of support in Washington," says Legg Mason analyst Chris King. "No one wants to upset the apple cart."
"We're desperately concerned," says Ken Pfister, vice president of Great Plains Communications, which serves 33,000 customers in Nebraska. Scrapping access fees alone would trigger a $20 monthly phone-bill increase, Pfister says.
About 10% of the USA's phone lines are in rural areas, from the northern plains to the Southwest.
Many are run by small family-owned phone companies and co-ops that sprang up early in the 20th century in out-of-the-way areas shunned by big carriers.
Rural residents are expensive to serve. It can cost thousands to run a cable 20 miles to an isolated farmer. To compensate, AT&T in the 1950s began paying access fees to rural providers to connect long-distance calls of rural customers.
After AT&T's breakup in the 1980s spawned long-distance competition, long-distance prices plunged. So did access fees.
To sustain rural providers, the government created the universal service fund. (The fund also subsidizes rural health care, low-income phone users and telecommunication services in schools and libraries.)
Some academics and industry officials have long questioned the notion that people across the USA must subsidize rural phone service.
"Why should some poor single mother in Boston pay extra money to make sure someone in a rural area is doing fine?" says Brad Wimmer, a former Federal Communications Commission official who teaches economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. City dwellers, Wimmer notes, pay more for parking than rural residents.
But rural officials call the analogy flawed. City dwellers, they say, benefit by being able to call friends and relativ
I'm sure this $30 million (in the case of Seattle alone) is almost certainly used mostly for other purposes, and now it's just another buried tax in our lives that the bureaucracy is terrified of losing. But I'd just like to get past the b.s. to the bottom line, and find out what's really involved in the basic, minimal system needed to provide this service. It kind of irritates me when a tax is claimed to be for one purpose and ends up getting used for another.
Keep your hand out of my pocket.
Yes, but how does that help ME?
911 service, access for the disabled, etc. are all things that are important to society as a whole. For example, the indirect benefit I derive from having the disabled be able to access the phone system are unrelated to whether I own a telephone myself. So, they should be paid for by society as a whole--through regular taxes.
The likely reason these are surcharges on your telephone bill is because Congress was trying to hide taxes in "user fees" again, knowing full well that most people would end up paying for these anyway, not only as part of their own phone bill (which they could perhaps avoid) but also in higher prices for goods and services.
If these are federally mandated services, then the federal government should pay for it out of federal taxes. If they have to be raised in order to do that, that's OK: you were paying the taxes anyway already, and at least making it part of the regular tax system means that (1) you see who is responsible for the expense (the federal government), (2) a separate bureaucracy for administering those taxes can get eliminated, and (3) phone companies have a harder time hiding phoney "federal" charges among real ones on their bills when such charges don't exist anymore.
Okay, FCC folks, I'm waiting for the WiFi mesh...
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
It's sad to think that our country is so dramatically split on this very issue. It seems that most citizens are content to let the government provide the services of a wet-nurse, under the guise of "helping those that are less fortunate". This bullshit goes against my right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Instead, my hard-earned dollars are confiscated "for the greater good". A pox on all you non-productive parasites!
everyone should have a Cell / mobile so this is kind of moot
plus who
the local fire service gets its funding from where ? should they not fund the 911 call center ?
I am too lazy to look up statistics, but when I worked at Office depot, one of the most sold items were PHONES, believe it or not. When the VOIP craze started, nobody gave a shit, and still don't. If you live in the Philippines, or Mexico, VOIP is great! If you live in western civilization you more than likely already have a cell phone and home phone and a dsl/cable line. Regardless if the whole f'ing industry goes wireless, someone still has to own the towers, or phone lines, or fiber optic lines, and you will end up paying a tax or "fee" in the end to use those services. I have seen some of my friends drop their home phone lines for just DSL and cell phone service, but they still don't use VOIP. Besides, in regards to 911 calls, WTF happens if your computer is off and you need to make a call because your house is on fire, or their is a bugular in the house? Wait for it to boot up and THEN have to deal with the retarded 911 operator via a shitty VOIP connection, with no real way to trace your call?
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
> ASSES HANDED TO YOU BY G.W.??!?!
Fool: I am a GWB supporter.
Reread my post and understand - it is correct.
The USF is to pay for the infrastructure in rural areas. Plenty of rich people live in rural areas. So I agree, fuck republicans, dirt cheap phone and data service for liberals. I don't want to talk to anyone Wyoming anyway.
But you could learn a thing or two about economics. See no one wants to pay for infrastructure, but an infrastructure that's cheap for everyone to use generates a lot more commerce which inevitably enriches everyone. People like you, who don't advocate a cheap infrastructure, are really anti-trade, and pro Scrooge McDuck. And when the pendulem swings back, it always does, the consequences might make the reformations of Teddy and Freddy Rossevelt seem tame.
It seems that most citizens are content to let the government provide the services of a wet-nurse, under the guise of "helping those that are less fortunate".
No. If a man can work, and does not, he has no right to be helped. Abuses of the system exist, and must be ended.
But helping those who are less fortunate is the contract that underwrites _every_ nation in the world today. Ever wonder why the government doesn't tax you if your income is under a certain level? Or why medicare exists. Well, it's because the government is trying to help those who are less fortunate that us richer folks - that's why!
GWB calls this compassionate conservatism. I'm happy he has this position.
Unfortunately, a lot of terminally greedy call themselves "conservatives", and hitch a ride on his wagon, but have no love for anyone else outside a small charmed circle of those that love them. These can go to hell.
It seems to me that a real progressive would favor a progressive tax structure where the wealthy pay a larger percentage of their income than the less wealthy.
Telephone taxes are just another form of regressive taxes along with sales tax, gas tax, etc. that are not progressive at all. Lousy tax policy IMHO.
As VoIP takes off as a replacement for the traditional copper-wire network, local and state governments are going to lose more and more funding for important services like 911 and Universal Service
I know it's a completely different budget, but in times of a 150 billion dollar iraq war this really sounds like ridiculous peanuts.
VOIP does not use your computer to place or recieve calls. You do not need to own a computer at all. All you need is a broadband internet connection. The VOIP company gives you a Voice Modem that you connect to your internet connection. You then plug your phone into that and your VOIP is fully installed.
My experience with VOIP is that the phone quality is as good or better than traditional landlines. If you have enough bandwidth you will not be able to tell the difference. If your internet connection is down then why not dial 911 with your cell phone? People have been doing it for the last decade and cell phone call quality is more than 10 times worse than VOIP.
"The very definition of a country means that some people end up "footing the bill" for others less fortunate than them."
BULLSHIT! What are you, from frickn north korea or something?!?! That's a definition of socialist wealth THEFT, dumbass.
I assume you also object to projessive income tax, publically funded K-12 education, etc. It sounds to me as if you do not want to pay for anything. I would not be surprised if you were the first person to complain about a pothole in the road. You sound like a spoiled brat.
Ple-kshshshshhshs-- raped--- in my ---- 2 huge --ys OH F--K MY BRO--ER DL--DING PR0N FR-EA--NG BITT--------.....
WTF happens if your computer is off and you need to make a call because your house is on fire, or their is a bugular in the house? Wait for it to boot up and THEN have to deal with the retarded 911 operator via a shitty VOIP connection, with no real way to trace your call?
/. posting because your thoughts are fleeting like water in a sieve?
WTF happens if your brain is off and you need to make a
How about you learn about VOIP solutions instead of firing off about your "office depot" experience that makes you an expert?
Thanks,
AC
Actually IPv6 will make this harder than at present, because IPs aren't allocated on a geographical basis. At best you'd be able to narrow down to a single ISP, but since the IP addresses lack any form of static allocation (you read that right - static IPs aren't in the IPv6 specs) it would be even more difficult.
Back to the network provider to work out which piece of wire it's coming from.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
I finally deciphered my wireless bill. $2 was
for the 1minute I actually used and the other
$87 worth of "fees for regulatory compliance"
was paying for 911. And cell phone use, until
the voip is crambed into my phone, is only
increasing, voip or no voip.
I'm still laughing at the use of the word "Progressive" as if people are not smart enough to realize it's "Liberalism" rebadged to fool people. Come on, give your selves a big old hug and love yourself enough to proudly shout out to the world, "I'm a Liberal!" (Side note to the Europeans who are confused on the use of US political labels, classical conservatives/liberals definitions reversed themselves in the US about a century ago.)
/etc/. Yes Liberal Tech (or should that be Tax?) Geeks, if you think losing 911 taxes are going to cut into your socialist agenda, your going to be SCREAMING about hydrogren fuel production really cutting into the Federal Revenue streams. What's more important to you, cleaner enviroment, thumbing your nose at Big Oil/OPEC *or* Federal spending on your agenda?
For the 911 tax, who cares? The 911 centers are paid for by local property taxes. If you can setup VOIP, your smart enough to know how to input the required 911 routing information in
Dammy
Between satellite internet and cell phones you don't need a wire running out to your house anymore.
We're in the process of building a house that will produce its own electricity and won't have a phone line or any other type of wire connection. If we didn't want to rely on satellite and cell phones there are still more options beyond those. I'll probably get an Amateur Radio license anyway. When everything else goes to crap it's one of the few comm channel that manages to stay working.
Dump the Universal Service and use the money for something productive. Cut the cord and move on.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
There's ~370 million people in US. Let's assume there are only 100 million phone lines. You pay almost 10$/month in bullshit taxes and fees for every phone line. That's like a billion per month.
This is allegedly for things like 'universal access'. WTF? For 12 billion per year for the past decade, we should all have fiber to the door with GB internet access.
Instead, we have a bunch of fat, rich telecom execs and public service government parasites doing something, 'something'? with all that money.
So if anyone is looking for a tear over any 'lost' tax revenue, you won't find any from me. May all of the money sucking government parasites dry up and die, so we all have a little more blood to live on.
At least in my home county, the 3-5 closest township fire departments are volunteer-only. They get some nominal funding via levies for equipment and operating expense. 911 is handled at the county level, and as such needs to be funded county wide, as opposed to eacy city, village, or township.
Most townships won't have enough operating budget to run 911 - they have a hard enough time attempting to funding schools...
Of course, this is just my experience, YMMV, etc. etc.
"but there may be some undesirable results for those progressive geeks who believe government should do more than provide military defense. "
.. LIMITED government is the way to go, not simply a government that has full control over a military.
Guess what - not just 'geeks' but anyone with a brain - not a progressive or regressive one, mind you, but simply a brain who actually USES it - knows that government should provide all types of essential services to its people, IN A LIMITED FASHION.
That is, LIMITED help to those who are suffering financially so that they get on thier feet. LIMITED work support until you get your own job
Don't get me started on libraries, those damnable socialistic free-thinker homeless-friendly purveyors of dangerous data.
Without libraries, where would the homeless sleep during the day when it's cold out?
Please point out where in the United States of America's Constitution that I am bound by contract to help those "less fortunate" than me, since we are talking in a discussion about a US Federal government. If you look at the document, it is basically an agreement amoung State Republics to establish free trade, a common currency, a postal system, and how to interact with other nations.
With regard to the main discussion: A point that does not seem to be brought up is the fact the FCC gave itself and only itself the power to regulate VoIP. This power to regulate was not given by an act of Congress, but by a decision the FCC itself made.
It's unfortunate, IMHO, that we are commenting and debating over the outcome of such rulings. The questions that need to be asked, debated, and answered are:
I would say no.
Uh, yeah, I can really see a bunch of Slashcrackers over here who want the government to do all the stuff that we're all paranoid that they might--or pissed off that they already--do. This is obviously a troll placed directly on the front page!!!
Taxes on phones, or any of the other basics, are highly regressive, and unless there is a good social reason to discourage use of that good (like with energy), it hurts the poor disproportionatly to tax them.
I see no reason why 911 and other services cannot be supported by a tiny portion of an income or wealth tax. Alternatively, part of an airplane tax+tariff (a CO2 tax or a airplace fuel tax+tariff) could be used to pay for it.
They must not be getting enough funding now because I see charges for these taxes on every phone bill I get. Give me a break.
Well, they must be different from Arizona cowboys, then, because I grew up with cowboys out in the sticks who would fight you as soon as look at you.
The authentic ones are humble blue-collar laborers who care about the earth, animals, and people.
Right, they care about animals so much they brand them with red-hot irons and cut off their nuts without anesthesia. Not to mention rodeo.
Have your Lucchese crocodile-skin boots ever set foot on a working ranch, cowboy?
Folks who are receptive to progressive causes I might add.
Oh, of course. All the "cowboys" down on Sixth Street in Austin, you mean. The ones I know, the ones who have actually had cow shit on their boots, heartily detest all things Democratic and progressive.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Man, readers new here from Mars would think that 911 was invented BEFORE the telephone. Just do what people did before 911...post the Sheriffs # and the Ambulance # next to your phone.
911 is just a way to STEAL your money, and so far, all the posters here are HAPPY about that.
So answer me this, how many of you write a little extra check every year to the IRS, your State or Local taxes??? How about give a extra $1000 this year.
No one? Thats what I thought.
They Live, We Sleep
VoIP can be used without a computer. Companies sell a module that you connect to your broadband line in order to make calls out using a normal phone 'handset'. The idea behind this is that there is no noticable difference to VoIP as compared to your POTS line; same functionality, same options as everone else. Verizon VoiceWing
I was raised in rural MS, where we only received 911 service a few years ago, after the phone company got the OK to charge us $1 per month, per phone bill, to cover the cost. The government refused to pay for the unnecessary feature, citing the relatively low number of crimes or emergencies that would be serviced by such a number.
/.'s would never imagine having, yet I'll bet rural Mississippi is not the only place in the nation that self-pays for 911 service, and rather happily did without it for many years and gripped to no end when it was added to their bill.
/.ers--first, it's not a necessary service--necessary is in the eye of the beholder, at least in this case. Second, it's not always funded by the government nor does the government even care to fund it in some circumstances.
s tory.html
It's a service most
This suggests two points counter to our progressive
For an interesting history of 911-ish systems, see: http://www.911dispatch.com/911_file/history/911hi
All US local, state, and federal and I would assume foreign governements cry foul when their distributed tax schemes get consolidated. See we only charge you 1% here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here....sure it adds up to 67% but this tax is only 1% see.
Now as far as universal service, several cities are trying to do that. Which would provide the poor with near free wireless ISP, cell, and phone service. Of course they are being sued left and right for it.
Bzzzt. It wasnt lack of regulation that led to the AT&T breakup - it was lack of competition, eg AT&T was a monopoly, becuase land-based copper is inherently a geographic monopoly, and AT&T just bought up all the small companies. And once a given area was wired, the barriers to entry were just too high (eg, no one could afford to build out their own copper plant) *And*, the breakup did nothing about that geographic monopoly (at least as far as local service was concernerd).. It *did* eventually lead to the current state of long distance, where there is tons of competition (You hear ads for a new 10-10xxx company every few months), rates are low, and consumers are king.
There is *already* healthy competition in the VOIP industry, and even if larger players buy smaller ones, there is no inherent geographic monopoly to serve as a barrier to entry for new entrants.
Concerned parties should be more worried about the current state of broadband access, where current telco's and goliath cableco's are forming up a duopoly - one choice for cable, one choice for DSL, and wireless tech has lots of hurdles to clear (literally, getting LOS in a hilly area for more than 100ft is almost impossible)
Universal Service? Ha! That's the biggest misnomer in the world. It doesn't go to Universal Service for anything but billion-dollar Chicago/New York/Los Angeles school districts to buy roomfulls of Cisco routers they will never use. The whole program shoudl be taken out and euthanized...and the tax abolished forever. It's do-gooders like this that have ruined this country by producing a nanny state that really doesn't do anything but line people's pockets.
That's amazing. I never thought I'd see such ignorance from even the dumbest slashbots.
I can't call you a troll because it seems like you actually believe you wrote something that would enlighten the heathens of slashdot.
I can't accuse you of astroturfing either because the real astroturfers that lurk around here are pretty clever to get their message across to the unsuspecting.
You are just an ignorant clod. Spare us all and stop posting.
Laws are for people with no friends.
If VoIP is saving you $40 a month? Then you're not shopping properly for phone service.
Plus for most people broadband averages $30-50 then add your VoIP ($20), then that cell phone ($40-50) and you're really not saving as much as you think.(1) If you're doing that much volume? Then get an 800 number.
(1) Oh yeah, this is were everyone interjects that second phone line argument. Got a hint for you all. You don't need it, especially with V.92.
I also want to interject the fact that while the economy is doing better. It is still soft, so cell phone plus VoIP plus broadband really isn't a wise investment at this time. Put all that money in mutual funds and you'll come out much farther ahead than all your peers trying to shrug off there "consumer lifestyle" bills.
Welfare makes up a small part of government expenditures, and most recipients are not "non-productive parasites", but productive citizens temporarily fallen on hard times. (The bromide you hear about the high cost of "entitlement programs" comes from including Social Security, but a retirement pension plan is not a welfare program.)
If we want smaller government and lower taxes, we should start by trying to run a nation instead of an empire. And stop locking up more people than any other country in the world.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
"I pay what I am supposed to pay, I work on the books and there is no way around it. I don't have an accountant, and there is nothing I can do short of declaring my home a non profit orginization."
Or go into business for yourself. Why do you think there's so many "Ask Slashdot"s about contracting?
You can save money (especially when your back's to the wall). But you have to work harder than ever before figuring this stuff out.
At the moment I have 5 phone numbers (not counting work ). Two are cellular, two are VOIP, one is a tradtional landline.
I use Vonage for my primary home phone service, no 911 tax there. I have 2 numbers since I still keep my old AZ number for a while since I've moved. I'm sure both AZ and CA would love to tax me on both numbers.
My two cellular numbers do have the 911 tax. I only use one at time there.
My landline has the 911 tax. It's a cheap under $10 a month line for my Tivo ( having that line plus Vonage is still cheaper having a "real" landline ).
So the states would have me pay 5x the 911 taxes? I really do use just one phone at a time. With the proliferation of phone lines for modems, fax, cellular the states have been getting a ramp up in fees without an increase in population. What a gravy train.
Charge for the service. Why is this so hard to grasp?
Why make it a "tax"? Why use force when subscription solves the problem?
Your VoIP provider links your dialing "911" to your local emergency response, where ever that may be. Remember that many VoIP providers will provide a POTS number for you in any area, regardless of where you physically are.
Your local emergency response service then charges a subscription fee for your use. Anyone who does not want to pay for the service can log the direct numbers for fire, police, or the emergency response center into their speed dial if they feel like it.
Blood money is a lousy way to pay for anything. If this is a a cause you think is "worthy", just make an extra payment into a "needy get the service free" fund. Much better than holding a gun to your neighbors head each month to rob them so you feel better.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Selfishness. That and it's cousin, shortsighted.
Read between the lines, and the message is clear. "I'm the only one that matters. I can't see beyound myself. World? What is this you speak of? Other people? Bah! They all can rot in hell."
What makes it sad is that otherwise intelligent people can't see this character flaw. "Poor? Fuck them. I'll never be poor." The "Rich" are the new demons. "Look! There's one behind that tree. Get 'em!" "WARNING! Big Government ahead!".
Does all the above mean their complaints are completely unfounded? No. But a smart individual doesn't see shadows, and doesn't blow things out of proportion to the actual threat. That's the tactic the OTHER side is suppose to be using. Clarity of action comes from clarity of understanding. Not the fog of emotion.
"Welfare makes up a small part of government expenditures, and most recipients are not "non-productive parasites", but productive citizens temporarily fallen on hard times. (The bromide you hear about the high cost of "entitlement programs" comes from including Social Security, but a retirement pension plan is not a welfare program.)"
Well as someone who's been on welfare I can appreciate it. However SS isn't just a "retirement pension program" anymore. There's been looting of the fund by congress (same thing happens in the private sector). You get out of SS MORE than what you put in, but this isn't because of sound financial practices, like a private fund would be. But more like a ponzi scheme.
And how long before cell phones use VOIP? You may have a flat bill for the GSM, CDMA or whatever connection, but the VOIP part will come soon enough.
Why should everyone have a cellphone? They're expensive, especially for lower income folks.
http://angel.merseine.nu - Stuff for the poet, diva, geek, romantic and angel in all of us.
911 is now becominig Enhanced 911 [E911] and if I am not mistaken, the FCC or state requires charges too customers for this service. This is definatly required for cell services and would make sense as well to be required for VoIP. Vonage is my current carrier and they charge A few extra bucks a month for maintainance in the 911 field. I do not think that it is much of a problem. Even if companies are not funding it, the company simply routes it to the nearest facility. This facility is usually your local police HQ which is run by your taxes, and therefore still in operation.
_
Free 27" Sony WEGA TV
YOU ARE A GWB SUPPORTER: Fool.
I wonder how many of you will be supporting this idiot when the euro or mideast dinar is the money standard (Far east esp. china is quickly tie its money to the euro; South America is starting to as well), our exports have plummeted to about 1/4 (our prices were going up and that hides the fact that the volume IS dropping) and we are bankrupted(W's deficit speaks for itself)?
Reagan put our country in trouble before by doing supply-side economics and it did not work then. Likewise, Iraq invaded another country and then all the other countries went along (more or less) with the embargo to get rid of its leader.
1) People own a cellphone whether they have a landline or not. Cost of cellphone is not a factor when deciding if to get VOIP.
2) Most people getting VOIP already have broadband so the cost of broadband is not a factor when deciding if to get VOIP.
3) An 800 is used for recieving calls not placing them
4) VOIP savings can equal $10 a month if you make no overseas calls or it can equal savings of hundreds or thousands of dollars a month if you make many overseas calls in a month.
More and more I am objecting to phrases like "progressive geeks who believe government should do more than provide military defense". Some of us believe more government than the minimum is oppressive and that greatly reducing the size of the government would be progressive (i.e., "progress").
Pay as you go services like TracFone are cheaper than regular service ($10/month v. $23/month in SC) so long as you only use it when you really need it. Also, those services don't require the deposit a landline requires.
As a working member of the middle class, I face "attacks" on two sides: 1) the "less fortunate" whom the government provide for via the fruits of my labor, and 2) the policies and regulations that encourage corporations to outsource jobs in my industry to the various Wal-Marts of the world (a.k.a the low-price leaders, India and China).
The end result is that I resent the poor, who are perceived as a drain on my wallet, and that I also resent the corporation (along with India and China) for the downward pressure on my standard of living.
I'm intelligent enough to see where this attitude is flawed on several levels, but that doesn't change the fact that I've got a 30-year mortgage and retirement to think about and my own government is nothing but a drain on me. But at the end of the day, the American middle class is still heads above 90% of the rest of the world.
I too grew up wandering the boonies of Arizona, and most of the real cowboys I have met are really nice people, sure most of them are rough, uncooth, and of lower education. Yes they like to fight. But for the most part they are just working class folk. Most of them, though, are freindly folk, who will help you out if you need it.
/.ers would start bitching about big broher watched the cows, and tinfoil hamburgers.
The people I can't stand are the ranchers. They are the ones against the enviroment completely, and are completely dominating the southwestern political scene. They also are the ones completely ruining the fragile southwestern ecosystems with their outmoded (and useless) industry.
As for branding cattle, and castrating them, so what? That is their job. People have been doing it for hundreds of years. And if they used a more human method, such as radio tags, then
Also, don't comfuse cowboys, for SUV driving folk wearing $300 boots, listening to Toby Keith. These aren't cowboys, these are dude-yuppies. Most cowboys are too poor to afford a new midsized truck, much less a new Dodge Ram diesel.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I live in a rural area of the western NC mountains. People just don't carry cells up here, for two reasons: a) this is a very poor area. The college students carry them, with very few exceptions (funded by parentals) - the locals don't, with very few exceptions. When you're trying to raise two kids as a single parent by working at Hardee's full time because it's the only job around, an extra phone is an unreachable luxury. (Although said parent probably has full cable TV, but don't get me started on that particular rant.) b) Service up here is horrible. Half of my town has Verizon service, the other half goes on roaming, and the town is only about two miles across. Forget having service if you drive out of town. Mountains aren't exactly conducive to cellphone service. I personally have a Verizon prepaid phone, which still costs me $15 a month and is a strain on our finances. The winters up here are icy enough that I want it for when I'm driving, even with the poor reception. Our landline phone is necessary for our internet, or we'd probably just drop it.
http://angel.merseine.nu - Stuff for the poet, diva, geek, romantic and angel in all of us.
911 and Universal telecommunications service are each just one more "government service."
Scrap all the "specialty" communications taxes and just apply sales taxes to it. If I buy $50/month worth of telecommunications, I should pay twice as much tax for that product as someone buying only $25/month worth, same as if I buy $50 worth of taxable items at a store and my neighbor buys half that amount.
If general revenue isn't enough to pay for everything the people want from their government, either cut back on government services or alter the tax rates so tax revenues go up.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I suppose they could do that. In theory, they'd charge the ISP for the total data sent, and the ISP would pass that on to the consumer. It'd probably result in something along the lines of 1) fee implemented (about double what they actually want) 2) users scream and threaten 3) fee cut in half, everyone happy since city gets the fees it wanted, users are paying half what they were going to. 2b) noone complains, thus fees remaining absurdly high, and city is VERY happy. From the user's point of view, most broadband acounts have dl limits, above which you get charged, usually on a per Gb basis. So essentially, from the user's POV, they've got broadband, but the dl limit is set at 0 Gb/month. So everything as of the first Mb gets the surcharge. This extra fee, on top of normal user fees, I could see causing a lot of ppl to drop broadband and go back to dial up. Why pay a bunch just for the priveldge of the option to pay more? At least on dial up you can't earn as huge a values. On a side note, what about those on satelite internet? No wires, no local ISPs, no way for the city (or state/province for that matter) to really track how much you download. And thus no fees for you. Unless they implement a flat rate for satelite types. I could see wardriving being a much more common way of getting internet access under these regs. Less traceability. *grin*
Z
I don't think that more government is exactly 'progressive', but besides this oversight, how are state and local goverments going to lose funding for more important services as VoIP takes off? If they actually end up collecting less tax money (which I seem to recall being something that Americans are all for), then I think they would be losing money for the *less* important services that no one really cares about. If they actually got less tax money overall, I think they would have to do a better job with what they have, and I'm all for efficiency.
"As VoIP takes off as a replacement for the traditional copper-wire network, local and state governments are going to lose more and more funding for important services like 911 and Universal Service."
You know, if you want the service provided, then either provide it yourself, or cough up the money and send the government a bonus "tax check". I idea of forcing someone to pay for something they don't want or use makes so little since to me.
Yeah yeah, I know, this thinking is so passe....
Free Me! (http://www.freeme.org/)
While Orange County CA has a secondary .5% sales tax ("Measure M"), that's for transportation related expenses - public busses, roadways, rail, etc., ad nauseam. That goes into OCTA's pocket. But I digress.
And when it all boils down, the cities are the ones who most directly deal with 911 related issues, and it's in their best interests to make sure that the system is in tip top shape.
Therefore, to me it seems logical that the cities should be dealing with the 911 infrastructure, and therefore they should collect the taxes and put them to good use. An earlier user suggested $.50/mo/resident, and to be perfectly frank, I'd be more than happy to give my city $12/year (covers my wife and I) to help maintain the 911 system, because dammit, they need to be there.
This sig no verb.
this is like the gas tax in California. Since 1998 a 16% increase in miles traveled yet a 8% DECREASE in the taxes coming in from the tax applied to a gallon of gas. Why? because of better fuel economy, hybrids, and electric cars that all use the roads but pay less to do so. So the good in using less gas is going to cause the infastructure in CA to crumble for lack of funding....Always something on the otherside of the same coin.
I think you're confusing the issue--and perhaps you've been spending too much time reading the European Left press. Somewhere, somehow, you have the impression that "tax cuts" have affected education, healthcare, and emergency services. Let's run down the list:
This is a silly objection to not regulating VOIP. The costs of allowing regulation of such a technology are far beyond the amount of money paid in taxes (especially for people making free calls) and other sources of revenue can easily be substituted.
Society has deemed it important to have emergency response centers and 911 service (and I agree) and thus we need to tax people in order to pay for these services. The notion that this tax must be paid by telephone users is based on several misconceptions.
First we have the misconception that somehow the people who use the service should pay for the service. In many circumstances in private industry this is valid but there is no reason to believe this is true for emergency centers. If we really wanted to adopt this system we could simply charge people when the emergency services arrive after a 911 call. I think the fact most people would find this troublesome, as it discourages those without much money from using emergency services, shows that in this case we really DON'T believe emergency services should necesserily be payed for by those who use them. Rather it is a general societal good and should be paid for through general societal coffers (income tax, property tax).
Secondly, this rests on the misconception that a phone tax somehow charges the people using the resources appropriately. However, it is quite unlikely that those who have 2 phones are twice as likely to use 911 nor are those who make more calls more likely to use 911.
In short this issue is a chimera. 911 and other services can be paid for just as fairly using other revenue sources. The reasons to put it on the phone services in the first place was just to hide the tax from the public, they know about it now and we might as well fess up.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
The book!
In short, the police usually have no legal duty to protect anyone.
Dial 911 and Die, shows how the police owe no legal duty to protect individuals from crime. The police in most places do not even have to come when you call.
There's no reason you can't have multiple services with different qualities based on pricing. Higher prices for dependable, fast response service and an economy version for those on a budget. Supplied privately, a service would immediately see loss of customers if its quality didn't justify its price, forcing it to either cut prices or improve quality, or go out of business if the profit wasn't there.
Moreover, if the poor truly couldn't pay for even the lowest-priced service, the government could supply "911 vouchers", so that the service could still be privately supplied and maintain a reasonable quality feedback system.
There's absolutely no reason that the government needs to supply a monopoly service. That just insures that it will be run like the DMV.
I was going to a bar with a girlfriend in Sacramento a few years back (I hadn't had anything to drink yet) and at a stop light in front of us, this guy in a Ford F-350 plowed into the back of a Honda CRX, obliterating the entire car. We tried calling 911 from our cell phones (different carriers!) and all we got was "All circuits are busy at this time.."
The only one that was able to get through to 911 was a Pacific Gas & Electric repairman who radioed his dispatch office and gave them the location of the wreck.
EMS showed up very quickly after that, fortunately.
If you ever worked in a call center, you'd wish that the disabled *couldn't* use a phone at all... if you didn't think that, you would after being stuck on your first 2 hour long operator assisted relay call trying to troubleshoot Windows 95.
....
"What web browser are you using? Go ahead."
(yes, I'm being a smart ass.. but if you've ever worked in a call center, you know what I'm talking about.)
Regarding your comment to all of those Euro types out there:
I agree that something is messed up with our labeling of liberal/conservative ideas.
Modern day liberals are NOTHING like classical liberals and modern day conservatives are not really conservative. Why would business types and those with strong faiths be on the same party? Or why would civil rights advocates be aligned with enviromentalists? Neither combinations really make sense.
Our bi-polarized system (one dimensional) is faulty. People who tend to think as of themselves as 'left' or 'right' are only existing in a limited and narrow mindset.
I would propose that a more accurate way of describing political idealology would be a 2D system. Envision an angled square (a diamond shape). In one corner is "conservatism" and the opposite corner is "liberalism". Then diagonally across would be "authortarian/statist" (big government) and opposite of that would be "libertarian/minimalist" (small gov).
For a better example visit here: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html and take their quiz. When it scores your results you will see what I am talking about.
Personally I think this method of evaluating ideas makes a lot more sense than simply "left/right" as it factors in your beliefs on the issues as well as your beliefs on how the issues should be handled.
Libertas in infinitum
Because obviously when you are advised by the career military and intelligence officials to raid Tora Bora with the special forces, you should reject the plan, right? Because the "Clinton officials who knew how dangerous the terrorists were" [pansies] who want to be President themselves one day tell you not to, perhaps?
the federal tax was placed on the phone to pay for the war of 1812
It was the Spanish-American War, actually, and the part that was costing all that money was our imperialist, bloody conquest of the Phillippines. The Filipinos welcomed us as liberators, but turned on us when it became clear that we had come not to bring them freedom, but to take over. The cost in American lives was high. Most older cities and towns in the US have Spanish-American War memorials with dozens of names.
The subject says it all...Companies like Century Tel
get upwards of $400 to $800 PER CUSTOMER, PER
MONTH simply because they serve rural areas.
Do they upgrade their networks ? Can you get a voice
PRI ? NO. All you can get is AMI/SF/CAS T1. They run old, shit equipment, they don't train their staff worth shit so it takes days to get an experienced tech to fix your problem, all while they rake in state and federal dollars from urban phone users. It's a crock of shit and nothing will save this system. There's very little worth protecting.
you're doing a "divide and conquer" on things that don't divide well: the constitution, congress, laws, the FCC.
...
> Please point out where in the United States of America's
> Constitution that I am bound by contract
The constitutions binds you to laws passed by Congress, and those laws impose taxes on you, and part of proceeds go to help those poorer than you, as per these laws, which the constitution binds you to. You want to secede?
> power to regulate was not given by an act of Congress,
> but by a decision the FCC itself made.
If the FCC overstepped it's lawful mandate, just have Congress or the courts bring it to heel.
> 1. Is regulation of communications necessary and desirable?
Certainly for the wireless spectrum - wireless bandwidth _is_ a finite resource. Even with UWB, someone will start streaming HDTV streams of the survelliance cameras in their property. And then their neighbours will join in.
As for regulating content - do you want kiddie porn on the airwaves. No! Is the FCC the right agency to regulate this? Look at the law for an answer.
2. If so, does the desired regulation have a constituional standing (Federal, State, local, etc.)?
The laws (and courts, Congress, etc) can answer that. The constitution places citizens under the domain of laws passed by Congress.
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
I agree with your values. I'm an a America First atheist. And in my humble expericence the values you derride come from evangelical republicans. Or in the case of the rural half of my family, twice-a-year Catholics.
I said:
> The constitutions binds you to laws passed by Congress,
> and those laws impose taxes on you, and part of proceeds
> go to help those poorer than you, as per these laws,
> which the constitution binds you to.
He said:
> 1. Is regulation of communications necessary and desirable?
> 2. If so, does the desired regulation have a constituional standing (Federal, State, local, etc.)?
> 3. If so, what would be the extent of such regulation?
You said:
> constitution denies Congress the right to pass laws
> that don't meet those three criteria he posted.
The US constitution said:
"Article. I.
Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. "
"Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The US constitution lets the Congress impose taxes on _anything_ it deems necessary for the general welfare of US citizens -- this validates my point you had responded to.
The three criteria the other poster mentioned was about whether the FCC could regulate communication. The US constitution prohibits laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" (1st Amendment). However, Congress can tax anything - so it can tax utilization of radio bands. And taxing implies measurement at the very least -- you cannot tax what you do not measure
Now regarding _regulation_ of the radio spectrum - that gets more interesting.
Now the radio spectrum is not anyone's private property. i.e. Joe randomguy broadcasting over 10000 sq. km.s on FM band 98.1 has no squatter rights to that utilization. On top of that, the 5th amendment make it clear that so called "eminent domain" can be used to confiscate private property for _public_ use after fair compensation.
Space is a pre-existing resource like land and water. If the government has the power to regulate other resources like land, water, it has the power to regulate the passage of radio waves through space as well (just like it regulates airspace). The specifics of whose laws - state or federal - boil down to whether the US constitution prohibits congress from passing laws outside of the powers explcitly granted it in Sec. 8, but which don't contradict it in any way. (I'm no expert, so real experts could help answer that). It also boils down to whether states assign these powers over to federal control. See:...
"Section. 3.
Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. "
A little thought will show that it's quite possible for a welfare recipients to be a productive citizen temporarily fallen on hard times and also a second-generation recipient.
My own parents, were on food stamps for a few months when my mother was injured (on the job) and unable to work as a nurse and my father was laid off from his programming job due to downsizing. If at some point I had a spell of bad luck and had to do the same, I'd be a second generation food stamp recipient, never mind that both I and my parents would have paid much more into taxes than we took out in benefits.
The average welfare recipient spends about four years on the rolls, not a lifetime.
Uh, yes it is. Retired people get paid money, that's pretty much the definition of a retirement pension. I'm not saying it's a good one, but it is one.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Even if everyone had a cell phone, not all areas have cell phone signals. Structures without signal reflectors and structures spefically designed to prevent cell phone use will continue to exist for the foreseeable future, plus everyone forgets their cell phone from time to time, and a good number of 911 calls are made without being able to rely on others. Until we reach a point where none of these situations exist, even voip phones with physical lines need 911 service.
Now, taxing mobile phone users to pay for VoIP emergency services is not moot; but these taxes already exist to provide the E911 service on the mobile network, which isn't exactly cheap. Increasing this to pay for VoIP E911 services would raise this tax to a very high level that would be objectionable to people not using VoIP phones.
As a flourinert blooded to cool my devices geek I dislike the idea of government interference with VoIP phones as separate from internet service as much as the next guy, providing emergency call routing is an essential and not profitable service, and universal service essential for progress, and I would find it acceptable for the government to levy a tax on broadband internet connections to fund these services. Targetting only VoIP services is arbitrary, and targetting broadband will hopefully be less objectionable as VoIP becomes ubiquitous where broadband is found; and incidently funding universal service with broadband will be neccessary to finally end the copper wire communication era. Even in this case, however, regulation should not happen even with imposing taxes.
Yeah, that's called taxation.
"Give me a percentage of your sallary, and I won't put you in jail."
The ones with the biggest guns are called "government", the smaller ones are called "organized crime".
Same methods, same results. Often, same services.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
The ones I know, the ones who have actually had cow shit on their boots, heartily detest all things Democratic and progressive.
*raises hand* Can the cow shit be store-bought?
Umm... Wouldn't it be a bit of a security risk using VoIP. Hardly anyone phreaks anymore because they can easily be spotted. Using VoIP, a hacker could simply do packet sniffing or the like. People come up with this stuff and don't think about security. Copper may be slow, but it's harder to hack (in the aspect I described above). Plus it would mean MASSIVE re-numbering of phones and everyone would need to have a VoIP phone. If you were a poor old granny who coundn't afford one, then you'd be stuffed.
-- There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, And those who don't.