Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Approves New Internet Phone Taxes

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the always-a-new-tax-never-a-missing-tax dept.

basotl writes to tell us CNet is reporting that the FCC has approved a new round of taxes for internet phone service. Some 4 million users could receive this nasty little surprise as early as their next monthly bill. From the article: "The VoIP industry wasn't alone in questioning the FCC's move. In a letter sent last week to commissioners, attorneys for the U.S. Small Business Administration urged the agency to postpone its action until it had done a thorough analysis of the economic effect on smaller providers."

10 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. Trust the FCC... by Bruce+McBruce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To think up a way of taxing virtually-free phone calls.

    1. Re:Trust the FCC... by ZoneGray · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The rationale is that they're "protecting competition", by making the taxes equal.

      In other words, the established phone companies out-lobbied the startups.

      The very notion that a nation with a First Ammendment needs a "Federal Communications Commission" is absurd. It's one thing to manage RF bandwidth, which was the FCC's original mandate... in the 1920's or 1930's. But they've expanded their mission to micromanaging every electronic communcation in the country, which, nowadays, includes just about everything. It's such an impossible task that they continue to pass new rules because the old ones are "broken". Of course, the new rules will quickly be "broken" too. And then they'll pass more.

      I say, set up an eBay store to auction bandwidth, and close down the rest of the FCC. We can continue to pay the employees, that's not expensive compared to the damage they do when they're working.

    2. Re:Trust the FCC... by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, the FCC also regulates access to the medium. That doesn't create a First Ammendment conflict I think.

      Where I live, there is one (1) AM station, and one (1) FM station. yet, I cannot get a license to transmit without paying huge fees, employing lawyers, installing ridiculous over-featured equipment (I'm a 1st class HAM operator and at one time held the 1st class FCC radiotelephone operator's license as well -- so I know what's required, in fact, I'm the very fellow you used to have to hire in order to ensure that your installation complied technically. You can broadcast a clean AM or FM signal for under a grand, easily.)

      The fact is, the FCC has created a situation where exactly one (1) type of entity has access to the airwaves: The rich. Rich individuals or rich corporations, these are the only ones who can get on, and therefore, they 100% control what is said. Clearly, this is a 1st amendment issue.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  2. For the love of God! by drpimp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    NO NEW TAXES PLEASE!

    --
    -- Brought to you by Carl's JR
    1. Re:For the love of God! by SubliminalVortex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Read my lips: "NO NEW TAXES". We'll just raise the old ones. :)

  3. DSL double dipping? by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dont you already get charged Telecomm taxes if you have DSL, since its basically a phone line anyway?

    ( i dont have DSL, so no, i cant go look at my bill )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  4. This is a slippery slope. by sbaker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So what about audio chat inside online computer games? I can talk to other players in - how is that different from telephony?

    If I'm taxed for talking to someone using VOIP but not when I happen to be playing a game at the time - then maybe VOIP providers should include a copy of PONG that you can play with the other person while you talk to them?

    The idea that you can tax bytes that contain the human voice in realtime - but you don't tax bytes that contain pictures, or human voice that was recorded a few hours ago...of all the millions of uses for data sent over the Internet - why should realtime human voice be singled out as special. It's just silly.

    We either need to tax ALL data transfers over shared communications links or NONE of them. Repeal the tax on telephony or tax broadband the same way you tax dialled telephony - there is no practical difference.

    Hmmm - so if I use dialup to connect to the Internet - and then use VOIP - do I get taxed twice? I think that's probably illegal.

    The lawyers will make a fortune arguing this one.

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
  5. Re:so why didn't they tax the rest of the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they tax VOIP and not other data, then I want a refund for my YEARS of dialup, when my phone line was used for data and not voice.

  6. Thought experiment. by Wellington+Grey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder what they'd to if someone made this set up:

    You speak into a microphone and a speach-to-text program IMs the words to your friend's computer which then reads them aloud. Is that voip? Taxable?

    -Grey

    --
    Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
  7. Re:I hate extraneous taxes... by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You get your investment advice from a guy that screams a lot and has a soundboard full of afternoon radio-show sound effects?

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!