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.
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
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.
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 ?
> 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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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
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.
No one likes paying for any public service until that day comes when they need it, and 3 fire trucks, 10 policemen, and a volunteer ambulance shows up at your house to help you in a major emergency. You can't rely on people to understand this themselves, so you either force them to pay for it through a tax, or you say "I told you so" as they sit there and watch their neighborhood burn down. I know I couldn't just say "I told you so" so we need to tax people. Like in parent and a child, sometimes you have to make people do what's best for them even though it's not what they seem to want.
$8.95/mo web hosting
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
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.
> Why make it a "tax"?
> 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.
Whether one emotionally doesn't believe in taxes and price regulation for essential services is irrelevant; it makes sense from an economic perspective, as well as from a social contract perspective.
As macroeconomics theory states, it makes sense to look towards a tax in several cases, one of which is when the marginal costs (MC; the incremental cost to add a single additional consumer to an existing service) is much less than the average cost (AC; the total cost for the service divided by the total number of users). In other words, the fixed costs for a particular service is very high compared to the marginal costs.
So let's say the fixed costs for providing the 911 service is $1000 (costs for infrastructure, monitoring, etc). Let's say that the marginal cost for providing the 911 service to a given subscriber is $10.
Assume that we have 10 rich people who are willing to pay $200 for the service. We have 90 poor people who are willing to pay $11 for the service.
We want to supply all 100 people with the service, so to do that, we have to charge a max of $11 for the service. The marginal price is $11, and the marginal cost is $10, so we're okay from an efficient price perspective.
The problem is that at this price, we're losing money: ($11 x 100) - ($1000 + $10 x 100) = -$900. So it makes sense to allow the 911 service to have a monopoly, but use regulation to set the price at a level that has MR > MC, but subsidize the fixed costs with taxes.
For this example, let say there's a $91 tax that only the rich people pay, and a $1 tax that the poor people pay. Pretend that the tax rate is progressive enough to cover this with the difference in income. So in taxes, we collect ($91 x 10) + ($1 x 100) = $1000. Okay, the fixed costs are covered. Now we charge $10 for each user that uses the service. For 100 users, we generate (100 x 10) = $1000 in revenue, which covers all of our costs. The 911 service is exactly breaking even.
Moreover, each group is paying equal to or less what they were willing to pay. The poor people are paying $10 for the service + $1 in "911 tax" = $11. The rich people are paying $10 for the service and $91 tax = $101 for the service, which is less than the $200 they were willing to pay for the service.
Is this more efficient? Macroeconomics theory says yes. If the rich people had been the only ones served, they would have have had to pay [$1000 + ($10 x 10 users)] / 10 users = $110 for the service to just break even. This price would be even higher if a private company had been running the service, since they would have to do more than break even; they'd have to turn a reasonable profit. So from the rich people's perspective, the regulated, taxed price of $101 is less than the case where they were the only ones served ($110) as well as being lower than the maximum price they're willing to pay ($200).
So in conclusion, in the regulated case, everyone gets service (social contract and altruism benefit), both the rich and poor people pay equal to or less than what they were willing to pay (maximize the served base), the marginal price is higher than the marginal cost (efficient price), and the 911 service is break even (so we're not charging too much). Everybody wins.
This example is a little simplified because the marginal costs are too close to the fixed costs (1% for this example). The fact is the marginal costs for providing 911 service is nearly $0, but the fixed costs are very high.
Of course, unnecessary taxes are outrageous, particularly when spent on pork spending bills. Yes, Dubya, I'm looking at you and your damn yacht.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
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.
> Everybody wins.
Note that this example is even more telling. The rich and the poor people benefit from the regulation. The government is indifferent because the 911 service is revenue neutral. The only person who would be against this idea is someone who notices that the rich people are willing to pay up to $200 for the service. Let's call this guy Hank.
So if Hank were to set up a parallel service and charge $200 for it, his profit will be as follows: ($200 x 10 users) - ($1000 + $10 x 10 users) = $900. So instead of this being a break-even service where the rich pay $101 and the poor pay $11, Hank charges the rich $200 and doesn't serve the poor at all, and he makes $900. Obviously this goes against the best interest of the rich and the poor, so Hank handles this by railing indiscriminately against "regulation" and the like.
So when he gets his service set up, he uses the fear of taxation and this newly created hatred for "regulation" to make the rich and poor think they would pay more if the government stepped in, when actually, they would pay less.
Since the government is generally indifferent (it was a revenue neutral program), it doesn't matter if Hank does this. In fact, if Hank is a large contributor to party in power, they might even encourage it.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
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
"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/)
Not necessarily true. Logically, all rational people operate out of selfishness (self-interest). You cannot claim to be rationally working against your self-interest. Even when you are choosing between the lesser of two evils, you choose the one that most closely serves your self-interest.
Therefore, it is quite reasonable for me to donate money to my local parks, libraries, schools, or whatever because it makes my world a better place. What does not serve my self-interest is to tolerate a system where my assets can be seized by force and wasted on government pork barrel projects.
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.
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:
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
Like in parent and a child, sometimes you have to make people do what's best for them even though it's not what they seem to want.
Ah, Big Mommy style government. And who are you, A. Custard, to decide what is "best for them" and what isn't?
That would be the sin of pride on your part, that your judgement is right for everyone else.
So you couldn't stand to say "I told you so"? What are you doing about it, then? Setting up mutual fire protection insurance? Oh right, that's been done for centuries. Joining a volunteer fire department, maybe?
Your answer so far is to punish me, with taxation at gun point, because someone else might choose badly in your opinion. Hubris is a pale term for that attitude.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Actually, what Hank would do is engage in price discrimination and charge the rich one price and the poor another.
But wait, this is an anti-trust violation. Ooops. I guess we do need a government solution to fix the situation imposed by another government regulation.
All you've discovered is that price discrimination on the part of sellers is actually a mechanism by which the economic allocations are optimized. **surprise** One price for a good is a myth created by government regulation.
The problem with your supposed "macroeconomic" model is that it ignores the cost of the taking.
Taxation requires bookkeeping, accounting, enforcement, prosecution, imprisonment. All these are costs ignored by the "macroeconomic" models.
Also ignored is competition. Why is there more than one fire insurance company? Because different people are served best in different ways. Imposing one-size-fits-all ensures that the people actually served is minimal.
What good is an emergency service with busy signals? What good is police "protection" with a 45 minute delay from call to response? Yet these complaints are repeated often.
Call for a pizza and the police, see who shows up faster. Why? Because the pizza delivery guy knows he has competition.
You go on to say, Of course, unnecessary taxes are outrageous, particularly when spent on pork spending bills.
This is hypocrisy, since I consider the 911 system to be pork, police to be far over-funded and unaccountable for their failures. Why are you not against these unnecessary taxes?
Because, simply put, you think they are necessary. Your priorities are not my priorities, yet you choose taxing me as a valid method of funding programs you think are important.
That is theft.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Very well said. Have you read any Mises or Rothbard?
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Put 911 on a VOIP network and reduce the cost of maintaining the network. There's huge amounts of graft in 911, just like every other government program.
> Hank would do is engage in price discrimination and charge
> the rich one price and the poor another.
> But wait, this is an anti-trust violation.
Price discrimination (in the non pejorative sense) is perfectly legal when the basis for the discrimination is objective and nondiscriminatory (in the pejorative sense). There's no need for "anti-trust" to even come into it. However, price discrimination isn't the answer to this problem, as I describe here. In short, the problem is how to you "charge the rich one price and the poor another" and prevent arbitration at the same time? That is, how do you know that a given rich person won't try to game the system to pay the "poor" price?
With the movie theater example, it's easy because the consumer is buying a specific time to see the movie. So they can't purchase a matinee movie ticket and then go show up during the regular full-pricing viewing. Thus there is an objective basis for the price discrimination. But with 911 services-- where substandard service might be worse than no service at all-- how could you do that?
And even more important, is that solution somehow more economically and socially optimal than the simple tax-regulation example I gave? Or is this the case of someone searching for a non-optimal solution because they have an emotional problem with the optimal one? The problem with that is Hank likes it that way, remember?
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
A tax for "911" service also ignores any possibility for competition in 911 service providers.
:^)
Government is required for a true monopoly to exist, otherwise someone will come in and offer a better price/performance ratio. Governments *hate* it when someone tries to compete with them. Thus all the laws against it.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
And in case anyone is confused by what you said, in your example of Hank providing 911 service, the price discrimination I mentioned is illegal. The Clayton Antitrust Act: Sec. 13. Discrimination in price, services, or facilities ( 2 of the Clayton Act) (a) Price; selection of customers It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, Now, you're going to pick on whether Hank is being fair (you mention discrimination in the pejorative sense)... well there is another government regulation problem. The trouble with the simple tax-regulation scheme you describe is that the cost structure of the government service will likely be worse at all quantities than Hank's cost structure. and Hank prefers to pursue price discrimination. It also neglects that some people don't want any 911 service--unless price is ~zero.
Indeed. Actually I own a copy of Mises's "The Theory of Money and Credit."
which I must credit for being the first analysis of Money (that I've read) that made intuitive sense.
> Discrimination in price, services, or facilities ( 2 of the Clayton
> Act) (a) Price; selection of customers It shall be unlawful for
> any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such
> commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price
> between different purchasers of commodities of like grade
> and quality,
Thanks for looking that up. You are correct; the example of price discrimination you gave is illegal.
I don't think I was clear enough about what I meant. Price discrimination simply means providing different levels of goods to people with different levels of price sensitivity. Price discrimination is used all the time, but the discrimination must be for commodities of different grades or qualities. But what you can't do is change the price for the same good or service depending on what the buyer is willing/able to pay.
Price discrimination is done all the time. For example, with the movie theater I talked about, that's a good example of price discrimination. It's the same movie, the same seat, but the time of day in which the consumer wishes to see the movie is the discrimination (in the non pejorative sense).
What would be wrong (and discrimination in the pejorative sense) is if I charged more for black people to see the movie than white people. Or for women to see the movie than men. Or for someone wearing a Rolex watch than someone wearing a Casio. That's what's illegal, and I believe that's what the Clayton Antitrust Act that you quoted above is talking about.
For the movie example, the movie time is the different grade. Price discrimination is used for airline tickets, where the discriminator is how far in advance you pay for the ticket.
So the big problem is, for the example I gave, how could you set up a pricing scheme to discriminate for the rich and poor person? Obviously the only way to do it is a tiered pricing structure, but how would that work? Remember, having substandard 911 service is like having a substandard parachute -- if you can't count on it working when you absolutely need it, you are better off having not purchased it to begin with.
One way to solve the problem is to use the solution I provided. I know that a tax/regulation scheme makes quasi-religious free marketers grumpy, but the solution works. And for that example, there's no solution that works better for that example. Just because some people are ideologically against it doesn't make it any less optimal.
As for your claims of the government's "cost structure" somehow being higher, I'm not sure what you mean. In the example, strictly speaking the cost structure is C = 1000+10x. One could argue that since AC >> MC, then the greater the number of users (x), the higher the operating leverage, and thus the lower the cost structure (assuming that the fixed cost is actually variable for large numbers of users). Therefore, a single entity (e.g., the government) would have a more efficient cost structure than any smaller organization.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
> You have that backwards (Score:0) ...by Anonymous Coward
What is this, a convention of foolish anonymous cowards?
While you're talking on about the economy, perhaps someone ought to remind you that two wars took place in his presidency.
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!
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. "
So would you prefer a Roman-style privately owned fire department which will come to your house when it catches fire, and wait there negotiating a price with you, raising it as your house gets worse?
You'd at least want that industry regulated to prevent problems, or be able to sue them in a public court if they fail to deliver what they promised? Well there's some tax money.
When you envison your world without taxes, don't forget to look at the whole picture. You'll realize that a lot of the things you take for granted would not be possible without a well coordinated and well funded public effort.
And who are you, A. Custard, to decide what is "best for them" and what isn't?
Me? I'm just Anonymous Custard. I'm not the one who chooses what's best for people; I don't know why you're making it about me. But me and my friends and lots of people who I don't know vote for people who we think will have our best interests in mind. Together, all those people we voted for try to work out what's best for our society.
$8.95/mo web hosting
What do you think of Nash's work on game theory? Does this influence your comment?
There's not a lot of influence from Nash's work on my comment since my field is not game theory and I can't honestly say I know the details of his work.
However, I would say that society is like an iterated prisoner's dilemma (see: Robert Axelrod's The Evolution of Cooperation). As a result, altruism can be practiced by those who understand what is going on with the hope the others will eventually catch on. I would like to see elementary schools teach the "Tit for Tat with Forgiveness" strategy early on.
There is an interesting page on that strategy here.
"When the 21-year old John Nash wrote his 27-page dissertation outlining his "Nash Equilibrium" for strategic non-cooperative games, the impact was enormous. On the formal side, his existence proof was one of the first applications of Kakutani's fixed-point theorem later employed with so much gusto by Neo-Walrasians everywhere; on the conceptual side, he spawned much of the literature on non-cooperative game theory which has since grown at a prodigious rate - threatening, some claim, to overwhelm much of economics itself." here and
"The concept we need is called the Nash Equilibrium, after Nobel Laureate (in economics) and mathematician John Nash. Nash, a student of Tucker's, contributed several key concepts to game theory around 1950. The Nash Equilibrium conception was one of these, and is probably the most widely used "solution concept" in game theory." here
Thank you for the links! There is additional information at Wikipedia here and here which leads to the discussion of the Prisoner's Dilemma which is discussed in more depth here. The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (which I think society is rather like) is then discussed here.
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.
I've been reading the books online at mises.org, but some of them are just sooooo long.
If you haven't tried them yet, the audio (and video) files on mises.org are excellent. The variety of insights and topics means never getting bored. Great for commuting, especially if your CD player does MP3.
I can especially recommend the "targetted lecture" series, as well as the "Mises University" recordings.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
you prefer a Roman-style privately owned fire department[?]
What I prefer is voluntary interaction. Robbing my neighbor to pay for a service that I want is criminal. Just because a "majority" does it doesn't make it any less criminal.
The fact that a larger pool of subscribers makes for cheaper individual contributions means that community fire departments are indeed cost effective. Funding by extortion is a relatively new phenomenon.
I lived in a small town 70 miles from the nearest hospital. There was an ambulance service, a "non-profit" subscription based team. People gladly displayed their "Smallville Rescue Squad subscriber" stickers on their cars. Part of the service was an air-evacuation helicopter that would be called if needed from the hospital.
Same for the local volunteer fire department.
If you didn't subscribe to the service, you could still call them and they would give you their prices. Just like a doctor if you don't subscribe to health insurance.
I subscribed because I knew their reputation: If someone needed help, they would act first and talk about money later. That is something I support, both morally and financially.
What I will not do is rob my neighbor at gun point to pay for it no matter how much I think they benefit.
You'll realize that a lot of the things you take for granted would not be possible without a well coordinated and well funded public effort.
That is a false statement. As I have aged, and learned, and interacted with people, I have realized that people get along just fine when allowed to act voluntarily.
There is a book on the subject you might wish to read, _The Voluntary City_, from the University of Michigan Press.
Today, even after government has robbed citizens of half their paychecks, and in turn raised the prices of all products by 50%, at least, to pay for the producers taxes, $Billions are contributed to voluntary charitable efforts from The Salvation Army to the Smallville Rescue Squad, Christian Children's Fund to so many churches that you cannot swing a cat without hitting one.
I don't know why you're making it about me.
Because YOU advocate robbing your neighbor at gun point for money to pay for things that YOU like.
One of the problems with taxation is that it insulates people like you from the repercussions of their choices. You think taxation is just fine, because it doesn't effect you very much. You think more good is done than bad, because you don't have to do the robbing. You have hired others to do the dirty work, who take a cut of the profits, so that YOU won't have to dirty your hands with it.
Why do I make it about you? Because it is about you. Grow up and accept responsibility for your choices.
"All political power flows from the barrel of a gun." --Mao Tse Tung
How right he was.
I accept the fact that human beings do not always make the best decisions concerning their own lives. I will not imprison them because they might choose badly, nor will I imprison them because they choose to live their life differently than I. I will not rob them "for their own good" no matter how "good" I think it would be for them.
those people we voted for try to work out what's best for our society.
Bureaucrats and politicians are just people, into whose hands you have given power. The examples of those bureaucrats and politicians doing what is best for THEM are endless, here and now and throughout history, and something I think you need to do some research about before you make another statement as naive as you have done in your post above.
It is called "Public Choice Theory". Very educational.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
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?
This is a good rule to use in evaluating the practicality of a tax, but how do we decide which "practical" solutions should be conducted by the government, and which shouldn't? Satellite television is another model with a very high fixed cost and a very low incremental cost. Should the government provide satellite television service? What criteria do you think we should apply to a service (after your aforementioned mathematical criteria) to decide whether the government should supply it? Or do you think that the government should supply every service that meets your model?
I am genuinely curious because you seem to have thought about this in a quantitative way that makes sense to me.
> how do we decide which "practical" solutions should be
> conducted by the government, and which shouldn't?
Thanks for the comments.
You raise a very good question. I'm not sure I know enough to give you a good answer, but I can see some factors to consider.
Let's make a distinction of things provided by the government (social services, police, etc), versus things just regulated by the government (telecommunications, air travel, etc.) Obviously there's a difference between the city running a police force and the government allowing private companies to operate with a monopoly (or oligopoly) in a regulated environment. So maybe the government shouldn't provide satellite radio services, but should they be allowed to regulate them?
In terms of regulation, there are other factors in addition to the pure economic criterion I gave (marginal cost being much less than the average cost)
1. Basic quality of life question. Availability of clean water, disposal of sewage, and even cheap, reliable delivery of mail are required for a 21st century democracy. It's part of the social contract idea, where society (through the auspices of government) agrees to provide benefits to the individuals in exchange for the individuals giving something up (absolute "freedom" or tax dollars). Oftentimes it's not possible to really run a business like this profitably in the long term. So in that case it makes sense to run the operation at cost (i.e., have the government do it)
2. Scarcity of public resources. A good example of this is the regulation of the public airways. Since the radio spectrum is a scarce resource, it makes sense for a government organization to make sure everyone is playing fair. Does this mean that governments should run radio stations? Probably not, although it's not a bad idea for government to fund stations and let someone else run them (many reports suggest that National Public Radio, which receives some funds from the government, is among the best sources of news)
3. Issues related to civil liberties. Because of the checks and balances implemented by our Constitution, our government is required to at least pretend like it wants to protect civil liberties. Other entities aren't required to respect such niceties, except in what you can prove in civil court. So having the government run a police force allows some constitutional protections; having a private police force would offer no guarantees.
That said, I don't think that the government should run satellite television in the same way it should regulate 911 services*. I don't know enough about the industry to know if it makes sense to even regulate them. The number of geostationary orbits may be scarce, so maybe that falls under item 2 above. But one could argue that satellite television has lots of substitute technologies to make that resource's scarcity irrelevant.
* My understanding is that technically, the government does not run 911 services today. It establishes strict standards and it requires the regional bell operating companies (RBOCs) to implement those standards. So 911 is really regulated by the government and run by private companies (really oligopolies), not really run by it.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
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.