Slashdot Mirror
UN To Debate Taxing Internet Data
Wowsers writes "In an effort to get ever more taxes for doing absolutely nothing, the United Nations will consider a European proposal to tax the internet based on data that gets sent. The proposal is designed to get money from large bandwidth users like Google, Facebook, Apple, and Netflix. Smaller companies that have high bandwidth requirements could be forced off the internet due to the taxes. 'The sender-pays framework would likely prompt U.S.-based Internet services to reject connections from users in developing countries, who would become unaffordably expensive to communicate with, predicts Robert Pepper, Cisco's vice president for global technology policy.'"
Could politicians be more daft?
Taxes on services will just shut out the small guys. The internet isn't just for commerce (or just porn), it's for a ton of other things. The principle of Net Neutrality ensures equal bandwidth for all. This tax would just require profitability, when many sites barely run even.
"In an effort to get ever more taxes for doing absolutely nothing"
That is the most insightful summary...ever
no comment
The UN don't get their money from (directly) taxing companies or people. The member states pay.
Fund your failed economy some other way.
Austerity and bailouts only prolong the suffering.
the majority of the real economy is small and medium business.
taxes, regulations, and bureaucratic nonsense destroy small and medium business, while giving government and large corporations total advantage, in fact they are working together. in this way, the big dogs get to buy up, or remove all the small fish.
and what do democrats and republicans do? they keep doing the same thing.
regulate and tax the real economy to death.
while ensuring their own survival and their corporate owners.
and if you think voting Democrat is going to address this, you're a fucking moron.
if you think MORE regulation, and more taxes, is going to fix this, you're a fucking moron.
. . . and anchor it in Boston Harbor. Your Internet taxes can be loaded the next morning, after your tea has been delivered.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
While unlikely (hopefully) to pass, this sort if thing is exactly the reason the United States has been so reluctant to give up its nominal control of the Internet's architecture, nevermind why so many technologists are tacitly OK with the US's continued dominance.
The nations of the world, given equal weight, err toward censorship, and many regimes with UN votes have deeply vested interests in clamping down on the extraordinary free-for-all of information exchange that the current Internet provides. I for one want the United Nations to have no role at this level, and both hope and expect the US to refuse ratification should it actually come to pass.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
I actually read the linked article and also skimmed through the leaked documents. I really can't find the things that the article is claiming are in there. From what I can make out, the leaked documents talk about taxes when billing telecommunication across borders (e.g., to prevent taxing services twice), like mobile phone roaming. How the article claims that this is about taxing large companies like Google and stuff is really beyond me. Can anybody point me to the part where it says that?
The whole article just seems inflammatory and some kind of anti-UN, anti-European reflex. I suppose mission accomplished, the knee-jerk reactions are already pouring in...
I'm just amazed they found a situation where the conservative canard "If you want less of something, tax it" is actually accurate and relevant. The internet should be subsidized, not taxed. You'll get it all back from an improved economy.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I pay for my connection. Facebook, et al pay for their connection. Shouldn't be anything besides this.
The problem is who pays the middle man who connects you and Facebook?
In particular, international cables aren't exactly cheap, and someone has to foot the bill.
Up until now, the problem has been amiably solved by the ISPs and hosting providers billing you extra to pay their carriers, who in turn enter peering agreements and pay each other based on how much data flows. This really only works well when there is a bidirectional flow - in some cases where data mainly flows one way, this becomes a bit drain on one end and a money drain on the other. Instead of having to cut the line as unprofitable, and leave customers without a connection, the ISPs look for alternative solutions.
An internet tax might not be the best idea, but there may be something to this being a social problem -- a resource that's now almost as important as food, housing and water might (from a European perspective) need some kind of legislation to ensure availability even for those who live at the wrong end of the water tube. How this is ensured, without it just being an excuse to fatten telco execs and shareholders, is a problem. I'm quite sure that the proposed bit tax is one of the worst ways to try to fix this.
Enforced peering might be a better solution, but some of the biggest players are going to do what they can to stop that, because it cuts into their revenue stream and promotes competition by rewarding small players instead of monopolies and oligopolies.
Exactly. The mechanism is not the loophole, but the abuse is.
Transferring your money to a different part of the same company? That shouldn't be taxed.
Your company's expenses were the same as its income, so you had no profits? That shouldn't be taxed.
Most of your profits are made in a country with low tax rates? That should be taxed, but only at the low rate.
Put them together with a hefty helping of accounting mayonnaise, and you have a Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich arrangement, a fully-legal loophole. Properly pulling it off requires at least four companies in three nations, so it's not something the average person can do in its entirety.
I personally, however, have made use of several of the provisions that make it work, so I won't claim I'm against any single part. I've transferred money to (and from) a business of my own, being happy not to face taxes on every transfer. I've moved money to a country with practically no taxes, because I was living there.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
And yet it's still the best option. No seriously though...I'm not saying this as "I AM AN AMURICAN" but moreso as...look at the shit the rest of your countries do with it. We have certainly fallen a long way, but the freedom of speech is still the most sacred right here and that affects things in a way that is very beneficial to the internet...even if we do fuck up sometimes. The thing is...our fuck ups seem small in comparison to the things that the nations of the UN would want to do. As the GP said...they tend to err toward censorship and the one thing I can still be proud of my country for is that they have an almost mindlessly addicted devotion to free speech.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
IP and in Intellectual Property.
If the REcord companies claim that song is worth trillions in a law suit, ASK them where the Back taxes are on those Trillions. Software,Music,Movies,Books. Tax the stated "value" of them.
This fixes two things. 1 - Added revenue for the EU. 2 - stops ridiculousness in claims for Copyright Infringement. The company cant dare to claim $6500.00 per share of a song if they will be taxed at the new rate for it. Suddenly it fixes a legal and a financial problem overnight. They can stop paying Taxes on a piece of I.P. as soon as they release it as public domain. So old abandonware games, Old music music and old movies, will get released and not horded for no reason.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
where is it written in the 2 leaked document sourcing TFA that they're planning to ask for taxes on data ?? couldn't find it...