Would You Pay an Internet Broadband Tax?

An anonymous reader writes "Remember the Internet Tax Freedom Act? The whole point was to prevent the government from ever taxing the Internet. But that's the proposal from the FCC — and backed by companies like Google, AT&T and Sprint. Would you pay a buck or two extra for fast access — or vote for someone who thinks you should? 'If members of Congress understood that the FCC is contemplating a broadband tax, they'd sit up and take notice,' said Derek Turner, research director for Free Press, a consumer advocacy group that opposes the tax."

Comments

Universal service.

[ZorinLynx]

If it means universal service provisions for broadband internet access, then yes.

There are people in rural areas right now that don't have Internet access because telcos aren't willing to spend the money to run it out to them.

Universal service provisions allowed telephone service to reach every single person in the entire country back in the day. The same thing should happen for broadband internet access today.

Re:Universal service.

[ByOhTek]

I would be fine if it added stuff like that. However chances are, it would just be corporate welfare. Companies would get money from the government, ostensibly to do or provide something, and they would provide it in at most, some token fashion (or not at all). No, I don't think this will end well for the customers/consumers/taxpayers.

Re:Universal service.

[Anonymous Coward]

My only concern with such a use of the tax, or any tax at all, is that it will never go away. Will we need a universal service tax in 2050? Will it become one of those zombie fees that live on every phone bill, that look like they're an FCC fee but really aren't?

Re:Universal service.

[Hatta]

If it means universal service provisions for broadband internet access, then yes.

What are you some kind of socialist?

Re:Universal service.

[jythie]

Considering it worked for the phone network, I would say it has a reasonable chance of working.

Re:Universal service.

[hackula]

What does a nation of opossums need broadband for anyway?

Re:Universal service.

[udachny]

'Universal service provisions' simply means setting up a monopoly and raising prices for everybody. No, I would not pay this tax.

Re:Universal service.

[BorgDrone]

1MBit is not exactly broadband and I don't think 3Mbit should be called that either.

The problem is that what could be considered broadband is a moving target, so we need a more flexible definition: e.g. 10% of the most current standard speed for home networking equipment. (So that would be 10% of 1Gbit = 100Mbit right now, which seems reasonable).

Re:Universal service.

[cpu6502]

Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again? You're calling us "opossums". I had one British guy say if we don't reelect Obama it will prove we are a "backwards nation". And on and on. Lately everywhere I go I see Europeans slagging-off on Americans.

It makes me think the U.S. should quit NATO rather than be allied with people who hate us. ("We should avoid entangling alliances with european powers that could draw us into bloodshed..... rest assured while one European leader runs-around mad, and the others act as if they are halfway there themselves, we shall remain at peace here in North America." - George Washington)

Re:Universal service.

[Anonymous Coward]

4% of America is still over 13,000,000 people

Re:Universal service.

[thomasw_lrd]

But AT&T only make ~30-42% profit on cell phones. You can't cut into that number by much, otherwise we might have to bail them out.

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/08/06/169234/carriers-blame-the-iphone-for-data-caps-and-increased-upgrade-fees

Re:Universal service.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it means universal service provisions for broadband internet access, then yes.

There are people in rural areas right now that don't have Internet access because telcos aren't willing to spend the money to run it out to them.

Universal service provisions allowed telephone service to reach every single person in the entire country back in the day. The same thing should happen for broadband internet access today.

No, if you choose to live where there is no broadband, then why should taxpayers money be spent bringing it to you? If you want broadband then move to somewhere that has broadband coverage. If you want snow on Christmas, but live on the equator, do you expect tax money to be spent to bring you snow on Christmas? Broadband is a nice to have, but not a need to have like healthcare.

Re:Universal service.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I already pay a Universal Connect Fee on my phone bill which subsidize the phone company to go into rural areas. Never mind the fact that the AT&T was subsidized to put lines out there in the first place. When they came up with the Universal Connect Fee in 1997 ( 15 years ago ) they promised better communication access to rural customers. Not to mention, in October 2011 congress justified this UCF to stay on all of our phone bills by having the funds transition over to the "Connect America Fund" to subsidize broadband access in these same rural areas.

Why the hell would I want to pay that same fee on my broadband bill? Especially since the Fee has been collected for over a decade and I see no real competition or expansion in rural connectivity since its inception.

Sure Google, AT&T, and Sprint are for it. After all its more corporate welfare earmarked for their use. They act like they won't charge the rural customers for this access, and believe me they will.

People who say yes to this are naive.

Re:Universal service.

[chaboud]

It is, in fact, a realignment of the Universal Service provisions. That said, I'm not okay with this going to private companies if they retain exclusive rights to the developed infrastructure. The fiber/air should be government-owned and leased to private companies (or better still, just deployed as government-owned network service).

As we've demonstrated that forced competitive leasing by regulation is too frail (one congress can hose that up quickly), the only safe bet is persistent government ownership of the infrastructure that the *government* laid out. I know it's a crazy prospect, but maybe giving monopolistic freebies to enormous corporations isn't in the public's best interest.

Re:Universal service.

[tmosley]

They have their own problems they don't want to face, like the fact that their continent is falling apart as their socialist and fascist policies have destroyed their economy such that nothing is left but the facade, and that is starting to break apart.

Re:Universal service.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it means universal service provisions for broadband internet access, then yes.

There are people in rural areas right now that don't have Internet access because telcos aren't willing to spend the money to run it out to them.

Universal service provisions allowed telephone service to reach every single person in the entire country back in the day. The same thing should happen for broadband internet access today.

Didn't we already give the telecoms $200 billion for universal access, which they never delivered? How about we hold them accountable for that instead of providing another subsidy?

Re:Universal service.

[An Ominous Coward]

From my reading of the FCC's Internet Access Report, that analysis came from people with >200 kbps connections. Basically, for ISPS advertising broadband service, how many are meeting the new requirements. That figure does not indicate how many people only have the option of dial-up.

Re:Universal service.

[tmosley]

How many could be helped if the same amount were spent elsewhere? Let's say that people were taxed at the same rate, but got to choose where the tax went. They could give it to any charity, or they could spend it on goods and services to help improve the economy and their own living situation.

Re:Universal service.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again?

Why shouldn't they? Opossums is a very mild insult compared to the things the U.S. government (That was put in place by the U.S. voters.) does all over the world. When the U.S. stops meddling with the foreign nations the U.S. population will be a lot more popular around the world.

Re:Universal service.

[heypete]

woosh.

Re:Universal service.

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again?...

For the same reason we make fun of them when they do something stupid. When our nation comes off as a series of paranoid religious zealots eagerly awaiting the next talking point from Fox News I can understand why we get insulted. Like it or not, we live in a global economy and we cannot just take our ball and go home. People like you need to develop a thicker skin and realize that it's not personal.

Re:Universal service.

[TheRaven64]

Instead of taxing the customers, the FCC should be taxing the companies by passing a simple mandate that they Must provide 3 Mbit/s wired service to any customer who asks for it. These billion-dollar corporations can afford to fund this subsidy for a mere 4% of the population.

Who? It's easy when you have a national monopoly for a telephone company - they are required to provide the service to everyone. When you have a set of geographical monopolies as telephone or Internet companies, which one do you force to provide coverage to anyone outside a certain area? How do small companies start up in such an environment? And what happens when Verizon (for example) becomes an umbrella corporation that just puts customers in contact with wholly owned subsidiaries that actually own the network infrastructure, but only in a small area each.

And, longer term, how do you stop this from just being city dwellers subsidising rural house prices? In the UK, it's very common for house prices a few miles outside of town to cost half to three quarters of what an equivalent house would cost in the town. In a really rural area, it can cost under half as much. This difference is because most people are unwilling to pay as much to be so far from infrastructure. If you're spending public money on adding that infrastructure, then you're effectively moving money to the pockets of rural home and land owners.

Re:Universal service.

[Sponge Bath]

If someone makes an uninformed comment, just dismiss it as uninformed. If someone says something true you find upsetting, you need to examine the root of what they say.

I think you just may be selectively hearing things that displease you. From what I've seen, everyone everywhere says insulting things about everyone else. Right now there is probably some Norwegian making snide comments about Swedes that flies below your radar.

Re:Universal service.

[Seumas]

It becomes another Tax that you don't consider as a Tax, because it's collected from you at other times and in other ways than on April 15th on a tax form. Just like your car taxes, your property taxes, your hunting licenses, your public park licenses, your telco taxes and fees, your broadband taxes and fees (I don't know about you guys, but my cable broadband bill already includes taxes and fees that are supposedly government-related).

Hey, I'm stuck in a big city where I have access to more job opportunities and super fast internet speeds, but housing is expensive as fuck here. I demand that everyone who owns a house or rents one in a smaller town be forced to chip in a few dollars for me so that I can afford one of these fancy houses. Oh, wait, nevermind. I made the choice that internet access and job opportunities were more important to me than living out in a less serviced area and having a cheap home.

You can have your cake and eat it, too. But I'm not responsible for buying it for you.

Re:Universal service.

[tmosley]

Exactly. I chose to live in an area that doesn't have broadband, and paid $3000 to have a T1 line installed to my house, and pay an ungodly amount for the monthly service fee. It would be nice if one of the local wireless carriers would upgrade one of their towers to cover my house (my neighbors on all sides get signal, but not me), but I don't think my neighbors should be forced to collectively pay MORE than I am paying now to supply me with signal, especially given that it would certainly be lower quality than the service I am getting now. If the cost gets to be too much, I will move. Simple as that.

Re:Universal service.

[Seumas]

That's kind of silly. So by that definition, about 99.94% of the country does not have "broadband". Better crank up those FCC fees (again, wtf does the FCC have to do with the internet?) to a fuck of a lot more than a few dollars a month!

Re:Universal service.

[Anonymous Coward]

And on and on. Lately everywhere I go I see Europeans slagging-off on Americans.

You know, it's hard not to. You've become exceedingly xenophobic, you're increasingly allowing your religious wingnuts to try to foist their morality on the rest of your society, you've never really played nice with other countries (as evidenced by the rest of your post), and you're so opposed to anything most people would consider progressive as to be a joke. As a nation, you seem increasingly anti-science and backwards, sticking with dogma over any actual facts.

Maybe the rest of the world is tired of the American sense of entitlement, your tendency to export really bad laws onto everybody else, and the fact that ... well ... as a nation you're kind of assholes on balance. At least, that's how you project yourselves. And to the rest of the world, people like George Bush, Sarah Palin, and Run Paul all reinforce that. You're a country who figures the rich should stay rich, and the poor should go fuck themselves.

Bad American debt played a huge part in the financial melt-down of '08 since you guys exported crap debt as if it had any value. America wants to tie their foreign aid to be sure nobody gets access to abortion or contraception (again, your religious wingnuts), and your food export is mostly Monsanto seeds nobody is supposed to actually plant.

It's not just Europeans -- most of the world is tired of putting up with how your country behaves, which is essentially like a spoiled rich kid who wants to be sure he has more than everybody else at the end of the day.

Americans like to think they're the good guys, but they've oblivious to what everyone else in the world wants, and seem totally incapable to having relations with a country in which they're not the ones setting the terms.

Seriously, read some news coverage that originates outside of the US and get a little different perspective. It's not that your allies "hate" you, it's that they're tired of putting up with your shit.

Re:Universal service.

[PortHaven]

Since we pay universal service already - as you pointed out. And since we pretty much DO cover every where with phone lines, and yet we're all still paying the universal subscriber fee.

Can't we (Congress) just dictate that the quality of such lines must support data as well?

Why pay a second fee for what we are already paying for.

Re:Universal service.

[h4rr4r]

So they are far left and far right at the same time?

Do you have no idea what those words mean, or are you out of your damn mind?

They have problems, but you using these words as namecalling is not helping anyone.

Re:Universal service.

[jeremyp]

"We should avoid entangling alliances with european powers that could draw us into bloodshed..... rest assured while one European leader runs-around mad, and the others act as if they are halfway there themselves, we shall remain at peace here in North America." - George Washington)

Who says Americans don't do irony.

My country has been drawn into two major land wars since the turn of the century and in both cases, it was by the USA.

Re:Universal service.

[Anonymous Coward]

their continent is falling apart as their socialist and fascist policies have destroyed their economy such that nothing is left but the facade, and that is starting to break apart.

Sorry was that the US or Europe you're talking about? Applies to both pretty well.

Re:Universal service.

[KhabaLox]

What are you, some kind of narcoleptic?

Re:Universal service.

[PortHaven]

It was 10 years ago. Hell, when DSL came out it was only 300K-700K and that WAS broadband. Cable came around and offered 1Mbs.

Re:Universal service.

[PortHaven]

$15 ???

Seriously, I have to pay $60 for Comcast 6/mbs service.

Re:Universal service.

[Hatta]

Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again?

As an American, we deserve it.

Re:Universal service.

[h4rr4r]

3Mbit per second is not unusually high. Your internet service is pathetic and should not be considered high speed at all.

Re:Universal service.

[Picass0]

Maybe you've noticed we in the US have had some fun this last week at Prince Harry's expense. Does it mean we hate Briton? No. Have you ever had a laugh at a friend's expense? I imagine so.

There is a range of insults ranging from good hearted jab, contempt, left handed compliment and finally rage or hate. You need to develop a thinker skin to some of them. The US trades insults with European countries but in a serious pinch we know who our friends are.

Re:Universal service.

[JoeMerchant]

If it means competitive service provision (one set of wires, multiple providers, like electricity in Houston), then yes.

We have exactly one choice for broadband to our home, and the provider knows it. Rates jump up for no apparent reason, service drops out, etc. etc.

Nobody's broadband service is perfect, which is why it's important to have a choice of providers, otherwise they have no incentive to improve.

Re:Universal service.

[vlm]

No, if you choose to live where there is no broadband, then why should taxpayers money be spent bringing it to you?

In a centrally controlled economy like ours, everything is interlinked. The idea is likely that to maintain a free market in video delivery, you need the local government granted monopoly inet provider to provide "streaming compatible" speeds.

One exciting problem is TV/satellite is regulated at the federal FCC level yet monopoly cable is regulated pretty much only at the city level and monopoly legacy telecom copper is regulated at all kinds of levels (mostly state, but also some local and some federal). So the "big picture" is that most of the regulation is not going to make much sense as a coherent whole, because there is no coherent whole.

So, lets consider a scheme. Shut off over the air tv broadcasts as obsolete and sell the spectrum. Don't laugh its already happened to UHF channels from "60-something? to channel 83. So to maintain "psuedo-competition" you need to be able to purchase streaming video over your broadband connection.

Re:Universal service.

[desdinova 216]

(sarcasm)But that would be socialism (sarcasm)

Re:Universal service.

[JoeMerchant]

Iceland is doing pretty well, thank you - as are all of the most highly socialist Scandinavian states.

Re:Universal service.

[CAIMLAS]

Yeah, seriously. "More taxes to help people" my ass. We've seen how that goes, time and time again.

In addition to it just being corporate welfare, you can bet that it'd be more than "a buck or two". If the current tax structure is any indication, there'd be at least another 5% tax hidden in the bill.

I live in a relatively rural area. I have no problem paying $30/month for a dribble of broadband. It's what I was paying for cable internet back in '99 for a DOCSIS 1 (unmetered) line. There's a problem with that, however: I'm still getting roughly the same downstream bandwidth, no improvement to latency, and a severely crippled upstream - a supposed 40/5 Mbit line, though I rarely see anything more than 20/2. My bill is also $50/month, with a good portion of that going to taxes already.

These same taxes were supposed to 'improve rural broadband'. It hasn't happened. The entire western half of Wyoming has been operating on a single OC-3 conneection since the late 1990s. Weren't rural broadband initiatives, tax structures, etc supposed to improve this situation.

Instead, most of the various telecommunication taxes have gone to fund things like free teleconference lines which get utilized (primarily) by businesses most obviously not in rural areas. This discrepancy alone is probably enough to balance out the "flyover tax burden benefit" which supposedly exists.

Re:Universal service.

[cpu6502]

>>>So that would be 10% of 1Gbit = 100Mbit right now, which seems reasonable.

For a definition where "reasonable" == not realistic. Not even the Japanese have universal 100 Mbit/s. Their national average according to speedtest is just ~25 Mbit. Realistically how much speed does a person need to watch hulu or youtube?

Both work as low as 300 kbit/s (yes I've verified that). Multiply by the number of people living in a home. It's 2.2 on average. Make it an even 3 and you have about 1 Mbit/s minimum for a 3-person family to all stream hulu or youtube at the same time.

Re:Universal service.

[ByOhTek]

Uhhh... I'm from Ohio and Michigan (don't ask...), and when I saw 'Possim Kingdom', my first thought was a similar joke as well. Perhaps it's because "Possim" looks so much like "possum", which is short for "opossum"? Seriously, chill.

Re:Universal service.

[jo_ham]

This from the country that renamed the food in the White House canteen "Freedom Fries" because a particular nation didn't believe that Iraq should be invaded.

Re:Universal service.

[MozeeToby]

That's because it was established in 1934. Putting the same wording in a modern bill would be vilified as socialist, big government, anti-capitalism, and anti-freedom.

Re:Universal service.

[gstoddart]

But that doesn't mean I want to fight their wars! If for example: Britain or France suddenly decided to go to war against Iran.

Well, I might point out that it was you guys who waded into Iraq and Afghanistan and pretty much demanded the world follow along with you ... I believe Bush famously said "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists". You'll notice that lots of other countries committed resources (and lives) to that, but in the end, absolutely none of the reasons it was done were ever proven to be valid. There never was a good reason to go into Iraq, but you guys bullied everyone else into doing it with you.

This is a two way street. And if you want to start disentangling yourselves from your allies, well, you might not find yourself with much support later.

I'm sure the Europeans aren't all that thrilled with their banking and flight data being handed over to serve US interests. So maybe everyone just says "well, since you think we're not such good allies, we're not doing that any more".

Re:Universal service.

[jo_ham]

Who said anything about "taking our ball home"? I'm perfectly happy to TRADE with Euros. I just bought several old Analog magazines from a British gentleman.

But that doesn't mean I want to fight their wars! If for example: Britain or France suddenly decided to go to war against Iran. That's why we should disentangle ourselves as allies, so WE the people through congress get to decide if Libya is worth fighting, rather than it be an automatic declaration decided by a treaty.

I honestly can't believe you're saying that with a straight face.

You're worried about being dragged into *our* wars against your will?! Man, that's funny.

I guess the UK went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq on trumped up evidence, destroying the remaining credibility of the then-current ruling Labour Party just for shits and giggles eh?

I suppose your comment could be satirical, but it's hard to tell.

Re:Universal service.

[mrchaotica]

The fact that you are having trouble mapping the ideas to your flawed conceptual model is your own problem, not his. The defining feature of both extreme fascism and extreme socialism is that they're authoritarian, and from that perspective they look the same.

Besides, governments are schizophrenic anyway; it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to exhibit opposite traits at once!

Re:Universal service.

[ZonkerWilliam]

In truth in socialist scale, there is communism on the left and fascism on the right, on the free-market scale there is total anarchy on the right and total Government control on the left, The scales are often mistaken to be the one and the same.

Re:Universal service.

[DarkOx]

Or better yet we recognize this as the NON PROBLEM it is and don't tax anyone. Seriously if you live in the middle of no where, pay what costs if you want service. The telco WILL drag T-Carrier out anywhere you want it! Might cost you 1/2 million but they will do it.

Alternatively the universal service fund has already guaranteed you dialup!

There is lot that is great about living in the sticks, no traffic, low taxes, usually cozy interactions with smallish participatory local government, and others but high speed network access is not none of them.

Re:Universal service.

[Missing.Matter]

Why do Americans get so insulted over the most benign comments? The guy was making a joke about a place with the absurd name "Possim Kingdom" (Get it, a nation of possums?) not calling America a nation of possums.

The fact that you flew right into us vs. them nationalism mode at such a silly joke says more about you than anything. Judging from the GP's comments, he says a couple things that makes me think he's probably American anyway.

Re:Universal service.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Their experiment in being Wall St. with glaciers didn't work out so hot, though... (to their credit, however, they (relatively speaking) just washed their hands of the issue and told people to fuck off, rather than working on the theory that if we just pandered a little harder to the people who fucked up in the first place, they would deign to fix the problem...)

Re:Universal service.

[Clock Nova]

Didn't know I wasn't logged in. Though I'd post this again as me.

You, sir, are absolutely correct in your assessment of us. And I, for one, wish to apologize for the behaviors you describe. Please be aware, however, that the people you describe only account for roughly half of our population. Unfortunately, the nature of our political system means the rest of us are almost completely powerless to move the country forward with all that dead weight dragging us back. Maybe in another generation or two. Sigh.

Re:Universal service.

[JDG1980]

They have their own problems they don't want to face, like the fact that their continent is falling apart as their socialist and fascist policies have destroyed their economy such that nothing is left but the facade, and that is starting to break apart.

This is nonsensical demagoguery. There are no "fascist" countries in Europe today with the possible exception of Hungary under Fidesz. And the most "socialist" nations in the European Union tend to be the ones that are doing best. Sweden, Denmark, Finland, all are doing fine. Even Iceland recovered quite nicely after its bank crisis of a few years back. It's not the cradle of social democracy that is suffering from the current debt crunch; it's Greece, which never should even have been admitted to the EU in the first place. And Greece isn't really that socialist. They have a bunch of overpaid public employees, which is not the same thing.

Re:Universal service.

[ukpyr]

You are correct, we have a geographically vast country and need to spend $ on infrastructure to connect us all.
I'd much rather see a proposal for the tax in terms of 1) Desired outcome 2) Approximate timeline 3) Estimated economic/social impact & 4) the cost of proposal

That way, the tax could have an end point in the future. Sure, we could always do "Phase 2" of said program, eg collecting more taxes

I'm being silly though I know :)

Re:Universal service.

[ZonkerWilliam]

What gets me is that people who believe in socialism see others by what their Government does, not so in America. American's judge others by what they do, not their Governments.

Re:Universal service.

[ZonkerWilliam]

And yet we see Europe moving backwards as a people.

Re:Universal service.

[JDG1980]

The defining feature of both extreme fascism and extreme socialism is that they're authoritarian, and from that perspective they look the same.

That might be an appropriate observation if we're talking about the similarities between Hitler and Stalin, but it has no relevance to modern-day Europe. By normal standards, the social democracies of Northern Europe are about the least "authoritarian" countries in the world. They have free speech, free elections, strong middle classes, and far fewer people in prison than the US.

Re:Universal service.

[Anonymous Coward]

They have their own problems they don't want to face, like the fact that their continent is falling apart as their socialist and fascist policies have destroyed their economy such that nothing is left but the facade, and that is starting to break apart.

Yes, but we also insult americans because they cant tell the difference between Greece and Sweden!

Re:Universal service.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If it means universal service provisions for broadband internet access, then yes.

There are people in rural areas right now that don't have Internet access because telcos aren't willing to spend the money to run it out to them.

Universal service provisions allowed telephone service to reach every single person in the entire country back in the day. The same thing should happen for broadband internet access today.

Given the amazing suckitude of American internet even in relatively ideal buildout areas(speeds are low and prices are high relative to international levels, being able to choose between Verizon and Comcast counts as 'competition', genuinely high speeds are Not For Sale or extraordinarily prohibitively priced, usage quotas, inability to get a dry loop without some 'triple play' bundle bullshit, and similar seem to be getting worse, etc, etc.), I just cannot get enthusiastic about the idea of throwing free money at them to do rural buildout...

(Doubly so now that wireless data services are technologically possible: If Telco A wants to prove that they've provided 'broadband' to 95% of the residents of some chunk of the sticks, in exchange for their juicy pile of cash, it will be comparatively simple to throw up just enough 4G to assure that a smiling company rep can run an internet speed test that hits the required numbers at a certain number of sample points, without going to any real effort to provide useful prices, useful latency, useful reliability, or non-comical usage caps. At least with wireline services, it was a bit harder to cheat on whether or not you'd actually run the wire or not.)

Re:Universal service.

[JDG1980]

again, wtf does the FCC have to do with the internet?

Is this a joke? They're the Federal Communications Commission. Are you contending that the Internet isn't a form of interstate communication?

Re:Universal service.

[zenetik]

If taxpayer money is going to fund broadband, then the taxpayers should *own* the broadband infrastructure it created and lease that back to the broadband providers. I'd be willing to pay a tax on broadband if it chipped at the anti-consumer/anti-innovation broadband monopolies that exist now and put ownership in the hands of those who use it. As it is, I already pay a high price for sub-par broadband access from a company that has openly abused its monopoly because I don't have any other options. It kills me that U.S. providers brag about "lightning fast" speeds (which is about 93,000 miles per second) that are actually "up to" XX mbps (they don't guarantee high speeds, just bill for them), while providers in Japan and South Korea offer substantially faster speeds at substantially lower prices.

Re:Universal service.

[Cheech Wizard]

This isn't the days of early telephone communications. These days people who live so far out that they need government assistance for broadband internet should get together with others in their area, form a cooperative and do it without asking me for money (through federal taxes) so that they can get broadband. This is not to mention the billions the telecoms have already been given to provide solutions. These days they slap on a tax and then end up using it for something entirely different, anyway. Should *we* be paying for Dick Cheney's "cabin" in the wilds of Wyoming to get broadband access?

Re:Universal service.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Silence, city slicker. There is no reason that the Good, God-fearing Small Town Americans, with their Values, should be forced to subsidize your fancy city lifestyle. You, of course, have a natural duty to subsidize the cost of running infrastructure all the way to the middle of nowhere, and that guy who lives just down the road aways from the middle of nowhere.

Re:Universal service.

[gl4ss]

That's rich considering which is the nation dragging others into Iraq and Afghanistan.

One of the reasons joining NATO right now is a bit sketchy is that USA has already made a habit of calling anything it wants an act of war(thus requiring others to join their cause in "defense" of USA). It's supposed to be a defense pact - not a contract to join in attacks even if Americans want to interpret it as such when it suits them.

Insulting America is just so easy, thanks to your tv-show export business and fuckups in other fields like handling of cellular networks. Maximum profit with least work - that's the American way(even if building proper networks would be more profit overall).

Bums in Manhattan have better manners than in Helsinki though, I'll give you that - but it's pretty twisted to say that Europeans would use NATO to get USA into war with Iran...

Re:Universal service.

[saleenS281]

While I'm not thrilled about our "world police" attitude, I question: then who the hell is going to? Do you really think China would not have long ago tried to take over most of Asia were it not for the threat of US intervention? Russia would not be trying to re-unite the USSR (through military means rather than the economic coersion they're currently attempting)?

And who would stop them? I hate to break it to you, but our military spending means you don't have to, and your leaders have been banking on that for decades.

Re:Universal service.

[zgf2022]

Pfft, try $65 for 0.7mbps (shared between three computers no less). I'd kill for a 6mb connection.

Re:Universal service.

[zenetik]

Er, I just realized that, in my ranting, my comments on "lightning speed" make no sense. Apples and oranges...

Re:Universal service.

[Grizzley9]

Universal service provisions allowed telephone service to reach every single person in the entire country back in the day. The same thing should happen for broadband internet access today.

Yes and no. You might be surprised that "back in the day" includes the very recent past. There are some areas that just recently got telephone service.http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-670748.html Hopefully some kind of time frame would be added to the language.

And that the Universal Service Fund (USF) is going to transition over

On October 27, 2011, the FCC approved a six-year transfer process that would transition money from the Universal Service Fund High-Cost Program to a new $4.5 billion a year Connect America Fund for broadband Internet expansion, effectively putting an end to the USF High-Cost Fund by 2018

Lets hope it doesn't take as long as it did for telephony.

Re:Universal service.

[saleenS281]

Fox News isn't America. Obama didn't win because the things you just rattled off are ideas shared among the majority of our population.

Re:Universal service.

[Anonymous Coward]

> and far fewer people in prison than the US.

You mean like every country in the world?

Re:Universal service.

[Grizzley9]

No, I would not pay this tax.

It's funny b/c you think you have a choice.

Re:Universal service.

[X0563511]

Woosh.

Go read the grandparent again. He called the city "Possum Kingdom". The other guy was jabbing at that.

Re:Universal service.

[BorgDrone]

Their national average according to speedtest is just ~25 Mbit.

I think what is important is not the average speed users get, but the speed that is available to them if they choose to pay for it. Not everyone will have use for a fast connection so many users will opt for a cheaper plan, but I think everyone should at least have the option to get a fast connection.

I live in the Netherlands, average speed according to speedtest is 27Mbit. Relatively fast internet (100Mbit+) is available to most people in the country, but many choose slower and cheaper connections and that's fine. I don't believe the goal should be to have broadband in every home, it should be to have broadband available as an option for anyone who chooses to have it. Lots of places simply don't have an option to get fast internet, and I think that is a more important metric than average internet speeds across the country.

Re:Universal service.

[udachny]

I do have a choice, I moved already.

Re:Universal service.

[arth1]

Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again? You're calling us "opossums".

Well, for one thing he didn't. Unless a small town in Texas now represents all Americans, and an insult against anyone is taken as an insult against all of us?

It makes me think the U.S. should quit NATO rather than be allied with people who hate us.

Why do you think it's hatred?
I don't think Europeans hate, or even despise U.S. Americans.
I see amusement over American ignorance and closed-mindedness more than anything else. Sometimes pity too.
Comments from the outside may miss the mark, but are often well-deserved.

As a people, we are both socially inept and ignorant. We're the playground bully in the world's sandbox, and not someone who is looked up to.
That doesn't mean that individual Americans can't be great, but as a people? We deserve quite a bit of the ridicule, I'm afraid.

Re:Universal service.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if you weren't so arrogantly proclaiming that you are supreme in the world, the rest of the world wouldn't be so prompt to point out the areas where you are not. I do sympathize with the situation. It's hard living up to the high standard you've set for yourself of being #1 in the world. Most countries have a host of problems they struggle to solve, but they don't usually have the problem of aspiring to be "#1" all the time.

Don't get me wrong. The US is a great country, especially it's people. It's *almost* deserving of the kind of hype that it lays claim to. But the management of the last couple of decades SUCKS, and given that the people chose the management, it can't all be blamed on the politicians. A lot of it should be blamed on people complacently thinking they can just *be* #1, and be that way forever, instead of needing to work hard for it every day. A good chunk can also be blamed on letting corporate money dominate politics instead of the people. There's simply too much sitting around staring at montages of flowing cornfields behind beautiful waving flags, and not enough involvement in the tough decision-making.

As an example, look at the whole debt ceiling fiasco, which ultimately led to downgrading of the US credit rating. It played out like a game in some foolish, poorly-managed, third-world country. Your legislators acted like a bunch of petulant children who were willing to sell the country down the river for the sake of scoring cheap political points, and it *still* isn't solved. Pathetic. Man up and roll back those Bush-era tax cuts (you obviously couldn't afford them when they were enacted, and you still can't now) *and* cut spending. Both. That's what a household with that much credit-card debt and overspending would do, and it's what sane countries with sane fiscal policy would do. Just do both, and stop fooling around, before you end up like Greece and have to make even harder decisions.

One of the United States greatest strengths has been the willingness of its people to adapt to change, buckle down, and make the compromises necessary to get the job done. But it's gotten so bad in recent years that "compromise" is regarded as a bad word in the political realm. No, it isn't a bad word. It's called "realizing you don't live alone in the world". We usually learn that lesson sometime in our teenage years. It's how you build a community that works, instead of one that tears itself apart because nobody wants to budge from their individual comfort zone, and they'd sooner pick up a gun and shoot their neighbor than get along with them or change their thinking.

It's sad to see how far you guys have sunk. I hope you figure it out soon, because the world does need you. Dismissing comments from "foreigners" is an easy psychological approach to criticisms, but the real question is whether you can live with yourselves, and usually what's being said isn't any different from what people in the US have sometimes said about themselves and the state of their country. Good luck to you.

Re:Universal service.

[faedle]

Here's the problem: the vast majority of the "Americans" doing the talking are the ones that make us look bad. Those of us who are reasonable and "European" in our viewpoints and politics aren't the ones that are getting heard.

And it's not just a "media bias" thing. Even looking objectively at our own domestic media the Right Wing is the one doing all the shouting.

Re:Universal service.

[faedle]

Because the Universal Connect Fee is only levied on telephone access lines, and generally only "conventional" lines at that.

If you only have a cable modem connection with no phone line attached to it, and use many VoIP services and/or a cell phone, chances are you aren't paying into the Universal Service Fund.

Re:Universal service.

[jimbolauski]

So they are far left and far right at the same time?

Do you have no idea what those words mean, or are you out of your damn mind?

They have problems, but you using these words as namecalling is not helping anyone.

Do you know what they mean? Socialism is a system where the government owns/controls the means of production. A fascist government is authoritarian government where production is owned by individuals but controlled by the government. The far Left in the US is defiantly socialist but the far right (Libertarians) are not fascists they are not for government control of private business. It would be very easy for a government to have both Socialists and Fascists traits as some privately owned business could be controlled by the state and other means of production owned by the state. That would satisfy requirements for both and is very possible.

Re:Universal service.

[arth1]

It's not the cradle of social democracy that is suffering from the current debt crunch; it's Greece

Well, technically, isn't Greece the cradle of democracy, social or otherwise?

Granted, a different Greece in different times, but...

Re:Universal service.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that people think Americans can change their government. In reality, to a very pale extent, it is like blaming the average Russian for not standing up to the USSR, or the average East German to stand up to the Stasi. Here in the US, it is very easy to wind up in prison for life, paid for by American tax dollars, and handed to a private company which pays the lobby bills. In fact, the ONLY growing profession in the entire US is the corrections industry. However, most positions are for entry level COs that pay $8 an hour at a private jail.

The US has a problem with its sovereignty. The Supreme Court has allowed any country, at will, to pay money and influence US elections on a grand scale, which history has never seen before. Elections are being bought from the Commander in Chief right down to the country dogcatcher, and the people spout the same propaganda, and all consider any restrictions in trade or treaties with foreign agents anathema. This is how our solar industry got completely destroyed in a period of six months by China hacking places to get technology, then using their rare earth advantage to dump panels for a fraction of the cost it took to produce them.

The other problem is that we have three political parties, but realistically, it is two. The Libertarians are just the loud/dumb version of the Republicans who actively want to attack clean air, labor laws (yep, those weekends are bad juju), clean water, basic education, police protection, down to fire departments. Since the education system here doesn't teach much in the way of macro/microeconomics, the libertarian "ideas" take place which if shown the daylight of reality would only show that one is just being a yes-man to very hostile, greedy interests who want to take resources and wealth and leave nothing but polluted, toxic cesspits behind and say that the world is ending anyway, so might as well get what you can.

Finally, the people across the pond only get to read the drivel from the rabid, drooling, loudmouth idiots. Not all of us are like roman_mir who want to go back to a gilded age where a select few lived decently and everyone else lived like the shit-shovelers in southern Indian slums. A lot of us know that it took taxpayer dollars for our businesses to start up and succeed, either by roads made to and from the business, or even an army to protect against bandits who would set fire to the property just for the hell of it.

Re:Universal service.

[cpu6502]

Sounds like you'd be better-off with cellular internet. VirginMobile has a Wifi device that costs $35/month at 3G speeds.

Re:Universal service.

[orthancstone]

To be fair, it is properly spelled "Possum Kingdom Lake."

Re:Universal service.

[ScottyLad]

You're calling us "opossums".

I think the parent...

What does a nation of opossums need broadband for anyway?

...was making a witty retort to the grandparent:

Or it gets burned down, like the case of Possim Kingdom

It made me chuckle anyway, the thought of a nation of possums. I didn't see any offence intended towards Americans at all, just a play on words.

As for your wider question:

Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again?

I think you'll find that's for the same reason many American's think it's ok to force their political ideals on to other countries without stopping to question whether it's an appropriate course of action. Call it ignorance, if you will. The world isn't short of people who believe their country is the best and everyone else is beneath them, any more than it's short of people who believe theirs is the "one true religion".

As someone who's lived and worked in America, Europe and Russia, Xenophobia and nationalistic insecurity often seem to me to be the views of those who have seldom experienced the world beyond their own borders. There's a difference between the business world, which pretty much gets on with it all, regardless; the political world, which huffs and puffs and spouts endless rhetoric according to when the next elections are; and the opinions and insults of those who have never visited the country in question. I wouldn't get too wound up about the latter two if I were you.

Re:Universal service.

[DragonTHC]

the problem is, we already pay those taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund

local tax, franchise tax as well.

Re:Universal service.

[thetoadwarrior]

And that is why the US is destined to fall behind. Selfish pricks think even a dollar to help the nation is too much. It's probably best they do keep sending jobs overseas where people don't hate their fellow man and can get along with each other.

Re:Universal service.

[Shotgun]

NC just tried to implement a law to forbid communities from doing just this.

Re:Universal service.

[BancBoy]

I guess the UK went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq on trumped up evidence, destroying the remaining credibility of the then-current ruling Labour Party just for shits and giggles eh?

Thankfully you tossed Iraq in there, otherwise epic historical comedy would have ensued...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Afghan_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Afghan_War

Re:Universal service.

[MitchDev]

If they want reliable first-world internet access, they can move to the first world. You wanna live in the boonies, go ahead, but don't whine that no one wants to run miles of cable out of their way for one or two households....

Re:Universal service.

[cpu6502]

>>> -1 I don't like what you said so I'm modding you down (-1 troll)

And again.
How do these people
get modpoints?

Re:Universal service.

[ThatsNotPudding]

Sweden, Denmark, Finland, all are doing fine. Even Iceland recovered quite nicely after its bank crisis of a few years back.

I always wonder how much impact a largely ethnically homgeneous populace has on the acceptance / presence of 'Socialist' tendencies. Maybe significant, universal social services and actual shared sacrifices (read: progressive, un-loopholed, and moral tax policies) are only accepted if everyone believes the recipients are from their own 'tribe'.

Re:Universal service.

[arth1]

The United States is the largest exporter of food in the world with the latest numbers I can find showing over $120 billion.

Where did you find those figures?
According to the census bureau, that sum includes forestry (yum!) and doesn't take into account imports (the US is often a transit country).

In 2010, I see (in billions USD):
"Agricultural products, total": 58.0 export - 24.0 import = 34.0
"Livestock and livestock products": 1.5 export - 4.1 import = -2.6
"Fish, Fresh or chilled, and other marine products": 4.0 export - 11.2 import = -7.2
"Food and kindred products": 50.9 export - 41.0 import = 9.9

Total: $34.1 billion
And that's also including non-food exports within these fields, like feed and crop seeds.

Re:Universal service.

[Cheech Wizard]

Of course - The government is so in cahoots with corporations and corporate welfare they want competition killed. The voters of any state who allow such a law to be passed deserve exactly what they get. They voted for their lawmakers. Let them live with the laws the lawmakers make. These days the corporations are important, not the "people". Oh, wait! Corporations ARE people (NOT). Yet, people vote against their own interests all the time. That's just the way it is.

Re:Universal service.

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Yeah, allies a great and all, but it's a real drag when you have to support them.

Re:Universal service.

[cpu6502]

>>>When you have a set of geographical monopolies as telephone or Internet companies, which one do you force to provide coverage to anyone outside a certain area?

Obvious answer:
Whoever currently holds the monopoly on telephone or cable tv in that area. For example: A friend of mine who is stuck on dialup would call Charter Cable and demand broadband, and they would HAVE to provide it per the FCC ruling. (Or he could call his phone company Verizon.) And the cost of upgrading this 4% would come from corporation's multimillion dollar profits. Like corporate charity.

Re:Universal service.

[kelemvor4]

I'm against it. Internet access is not a necessity, it's a luxury (despite what some people are claiming). No need to pay even more taxes than we already do. Moreover, this is only an issue for "high speed" internet access. People in rural areas can use dialup, (most likely) DSL, or satellite.
I have a friend who recently bought a house out in BFE Tennessee and he gets DSL. It's slow by my standards but that's what you have to deal with when you chose not to live with the rest of society.

Re:Universal service.

[cpu6502]

>>>Your internet service is pathetic

There is not a single thing my service cannot do that yours can. Hell you only need dialup to surf the web or listen to radio or download torrents. The 1 Mbit/s upgrade enables the video streaming.

Re:Universal service.

[KingMotley]

When they start offering a clean air tax that people in the country pay to help cover the costs of keeping the air clean high populated areas, then it's fair.
When they start talking about a crime tax that people in small communities pay to ensure an equal crime free big city neighborhood, then it is fair.
When they start talking about road congestion tax so that we can build roads everywhere that have 1 car on them for miles in any direction, then it's fair.
When they start talking about noise tax that people in the country pay to help subsidize noise reducing things in the big city like noise dampening walls around highways, building walls, etc, then its fair.

People who move to rural areas do so because the benefits they get are more important than the down sides. Not everything is equal, nor should anyone expect them to be. I want to live in a big city where it's crime free, pollution free (air, water, noise), traffic free, and serene. Tax those country folks into oblivion so we can afford that for the masses!

Re:Universal service.

[cayenne8]

Yes, but we also insult americans because they cant tell the difference between Greece and Sweden!

Not so much that we don't know...more like why should we care?

Re:Universal service.

[cayenne8]

Frankly, if they don't like us that much, why don't we pull our foreign support dollars out. THEN...lets close up most all of our overseas military bases, save that money spent for ourselves, and let the EU and rest of the world worry about their own defense with their own dollars....and lets see how well that goes?

Their wonderful healthcare for everyone systems might get strained a little...I mean, so much of their money goes for social support because they dont' really have to spend their own $$'s for defense.

We could better spend our own tax dollars on ourselves.

Re:Universal service.

[KingMotley]

You can't say exporter and then try to refer to net exports. The US is the largest exporter in the world, we just so happen to also import a lot.

In 2010, I see (in billions USD):
"Agricultural products, total": 58.0 export = 58.0
"Livestock and livestock products": 1.5 export = 1.5
"Fish, Fresh or chilled, and other marine products": 4.0 export = 4.0
"Food and kindred products": 50.9 export = 50.9

Total : 58+1.5+4+50.9=114.4 in 2010. Not a hard stretch to imagine 120 in 2012.

Re:Universal service.

[cpu6502]

>>>From my reading of the FCC's Internet Access Report, that analysis came from people with >200 kbps connections

That was 4 years ago. When Obama took office he asked the FCC to redefine it, so now 3 Mbit/s == broadband. And 96% of Americans either hav or can get it. That's almost as good as TV access (99%).

Re:Universal service.

[GrumpySteen]

Based on your post, I'm fairly sure that you're not from America and you don't realize how ridiculously broad our political idiocy has made the terms "fascist" and "socialist" over here.

The simplest way to explain the American use of the term "socialist" is that the term is applied to anything that would benefit people below the top 5% income bracket if it doesn't also help the people in the top 5% and/or corporations. In fact, the benefit to the top 5% and corporations generally has to outweigh any benefit to the lower 95% by a very large margin before it will no longer be decried as a socialist.

The American use of "fascist" is simpler. Any time a law is past that restricts someone in any way, shape or form from doing something they want to do (even if it's obviously beneficial like "it's illegal to inject yourself with Draino"), it's fascist and the political figure they dislike the most is now exactly like Hitler.

But then you have a minority of Americans, like me, who at least try to use the terms correctly. Sadly, by doing so,, we add to the confusion over what the hell everyone is talking about.

This concludes today's lesson on America's abuse of the English language. Thank you and good night.

Re:Universal service.

[icebike]

If it means universal service provisions for broadband internet access, then yes.

There are people in rural areas right now that don't have Internet access because telcos aren't willing to spend the money to run it out to them.

Universal service provisions allowed telephone service to reach every single person in the entire country back in the day. The same thing should happen for broadband internet access today.

I find it ironic that you can propose this is a good idea if used for Universal Access, and then in the same post, inform us that some rural areas don't have internet access.

Wait, What? We've had Universal Service for decades in the telephone industry, and now you inform us that rural areas don't even have dial-up internet access?

Re:Universal service.

[Anonymous Coward]

the U.S never has taken the 'spoils' of victory as any other country would.

This is only true if you don't consider US companies to be part of "the U.S." We have a long history of allowing our large contracting companies to take the majority of the "spoils" both from the wars we win and the countries that are convinced by those wars to work with us instead of becoming the next target.

Re:Universal service.

[ZonkerWilliam]

I agree, I would even add not providing them any access to our R&D work so they can put their won money into advancing their healthcare, let's see how much more their programs get stretched as well.

Re:Universal service.

[oh_my_080980980]

Hate to break it to you Potsy but the Telcos where given Billions of tax payer dollars to do just that. That haven't bothered and the Telcos sued local governments when local governments tried to pick up the slack and roll out wifi in areas that were not being served by the Telcos.

Re:Universal service.

[dkleinsc]

Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again?

Umm, for the same reason Americans regularly make fun of the Canadians, Brits, French, and just about everyone else? Poking fun at foreigners is something almost everyone does.

Re:Universal service.

[antdude]

Ants need one like me. My friend keeps saying ants should not use computers. :(

Re:Universal service.

[DarthVain]

First off, I think recent history has proven rather the oppsite of:
"We should avoid entangling alliances with european powers that could draw us into bloodshed..."
It has been the US involvement in wars, drawing everyone else in.

US forign policy hasn't been all that kind either to US people. Add to that the corporations that run the US government trying to make laws in other sovergin nations, and enforce US law abroad, not a really big winner either. The idea that you elected Bush sort of painted a pretty bad picture also. Twice.

There there was the whole wall street thing, pretty much ruining everyones day, mostly due to greed and corruption. In case you didn't notice the problems that it casued were not limited to the US. I bet most people would say that is where that whole problem orginated from however.

Depends how much honesty you really want.

Personally I have met many americans, both in the US and abroad, and I have never really had a problem with them as individuals, in fact most were nice enough people. However it does often seem that your government is run by a bunch of jerks really. By that logical extention your jerky goverement is democratic so it goes that the people must have elected them, and as such share some blame in its actions. As you might have noticed, it has been a bit of a rough patch for the US the last little while, I don't think it is all that surprising that it make have caused some rancor.

That said, it is sometimes an unfair assumption, Canada has a similar situation right now. I certainly didn't vote for Harper, and when Canada is getting slagged internationally for my goverenment actions (mostly enviromental), there isn't much I can say, but "Sorry".

Re:Universal service.

[ZorinLynx]

Dial-up isn't really useful anymore on today's Internet.

The voice equivalent would be a phone line you have to scream really loud for the other person to hear you, and that has so much static you can barely understand the other person.

You probably haven't used dial-up since the 1990s, and don't realize just how relatively useless it is now. Heck, I had ISDN until 2004, and even that was starting to get unbearable back *then*.

Re:Universal service.

[butchersong]

There is no true freedom of speech in most European countries at least not the way Americans think of it. You have the freedom to say what you want as long as it conforms to the states idea of what is correct and not seen as destructive to 'society'. Don't get me wrong there is a lot I admire about our friends in Europe but slowly erroding as it is I much prefer our 1st ammendment right and emphasis on individual liberty over societal obligation -or whatever the rationale is for limiting freedom of speech.

Re:Universal service.

[h4rr4r]

Netflix HD. Yes, the HD is required.

Re:Universal service.

[Dekker3D]

I can't come up with anything I could say to get me arrested here (in the Netherlands) that wouldn't get someone arrested in America as well. Could you name an example?

Re:Universal service.

[Aeros]

If anyone insults us Americans feel free to clock em. I would. Yes our country isn't perfect, but who's is?

Re:Universal service.

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have this bizarre notion that Americans have any way to address the kinds of complaints you're making. We've long since become an oligarchy with sham elections that offer no real choice beyond the corporate-approved leadership.

Then enemy isn't Americans, it's the large, wealthy interests that control our political system. Hell, you could make an argument that the one person at the root of all of your complaints isn't even American. Roughly half of Americans have been so propagandized by Fox News that they're brainwashed into voting republican to keep Democrats from raising their taxes and outlawing God. The man responsible for that, Rupert Murdoch, is actually Australian.

We've seen over the past few decades a systematic destruction of education and critical thinking skills combined with a heavy dose of propaganda that would make the Nazis jealous. The outcome shouldn't be surprising. And yet you still think it's necessary to blame the victims of this treatment. Please wake up and realize that the enemy isn't the American people. The enemy is the 1% that are controlling everything. Calling Americans names just makes you look like an uninformed bigot to people like me that have traveled more extensively and speak more languages than you do and just re-enforces everything the Fox News pundits are saying to everyone else.

I understand your frustration, but at least be happy that you have a governmental layer in between you and US policies. There are many of us who are subject to those policies despite having our vote mean absolutely nothing (I live in a state that both parties understand will always vote Democrat.) But making blanket statements that lump 300 million people together isn't productive. I'm American and, simply by virtue of not having written what you wrote, I can say with 100% certainty that I'm less Xenophobic than you are. I've done everything in my power to avoid the 8 years of Bush and none of it worked. If you want to blame Bush, Republicans and every state that voted Republican in 2000 and 2004, you're getting closer, but you've still blaming less than 50% of Americans. The bad American debt you talk about is the result of a small group of greedy Wall Street banks that lobbied for reduced regulation and then abused that lack of control. Again, most Americans got screwed too.

The fact that your comment is modded up is sad. You're blaming Americans for the actions of a small few monied interests. Some of those interests aren't even American. You should be constructively trying to show Americans why they need to be working towards breaking the current stranglehold on power that exists today rather than further enforcing the us-vs-them mentality that allows the current system to continue. It is an us-vs-them situation, but you need to properly isolate who "them" is to you if you want to contribute positive to the discussion.

Re:Universal service.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Because the Universal Connect Fee is only levied on telephone access lines, and generally only "conventional" lines at that.

Actually it's now labeled "Universal Service Fee" and the FCC collects it on wireless phone service too. In fact congress mandates all companies that provide interstate calling services to contribute to this fund.

Re:Universal service.

[arth1]

You can't say exporter and then try to refer to net exports

Why not? Wasn't the point to show how much food the US provides the world with? Or was it just to come up with a big number?

If you only look at gross exports, when a ship makes port in New York or Seattle, and the food goes to Canada, it is counted as an export. That's very misleading.

Similar for unprocessed food from China or elsewhere that gets processed in the US and then exported. In that case, the US contribution is truly only the difference between export and import.

Re:Universal service.

[cyberchondriac]

As a fellow American, I think you're completely off the mark on the first point, you have the viewpoint of an OWS'er. Most Americans are more concerned with what they make than with what everyone else makes, with the exception of maybe their own peer group (keeping up with the Joneses). Socialism is usually just seen as "too much" government control, and is perhaps confused with Communism.
I completely concur on your second point, however; fascist has become a very general term for the abuse of authority... or just someone you don't like.

Re:Universal service.

[PortHaven]

Are you on satellite?

My mother-in-law can't get cable or DSL. Satellite was $75/month for like 500K

She's been using Verizon/Sprint wireless hotpoints.

Re:Universal service.

[s.petry]

Um, yes, quite a few though we don't know actual numbers yet. The US Government was recently found to be putting people in to mental institutions after arresting them, instead of prison. Go ahead and Google search that, there was a discussion Friday regarding that same issue here on /. 2 cases confirmed so far, another 20,000 alleged in just VA.

Re:Universal service.

[jandrese]

Yeah, Iceland's approach of just letting their entire financial sector collapse has worked out better than expected, although that may be partially because a lot of the bankers were former fishermen and had fishing to fall back on when the banking thing collapsed. That said, I don't think we can credit the government for their amazing foresight in this regard, they were just too small to do anything else. The problem in the US is that the government was big enough to actually save the assholes on Wall Street.

Re:Universal service.

[jandrese]

We need to tell Europe to stop watching Fox News. They're getting a weird impression of us.

Re:Universal service.

[KingMotley]

Because export is a specific term, if you wanted to discuss net exports, then you should say net exports. Don't complain that the number he gave for exports was incorrect then prove it by showing net exports.

Re:Universal service.

[ProfBooty]

I remember a teacher i had in high school which showed a ring with fascism on one side, socialism on the other, with the words authoritarianism at the top of the ring. The point being that at both extremes of the standard political ideologies have very similar characteristics.

Re:Universal service.

[Obfuscant]

The idea is likely that to maintain a free market in video delivery, you need the local government granted monopoly inet provider to provide "streaming compatible" speeds.

What "government granted monopoly inet provider"?

One exciting problem is TV/satellite is regulated at the federal FCC level yet monopoly cable is regulated pretty much only at the city level

1. There is no "monopoly cable".

2. The regulatory ability of cities and municipalities was taken away from them by the FCC a long time ago. I know. I used to be on the local "cable commission". It was disbanded because there was essentially nothing to do anymore. I'm currently dealing with the local franchise coordinator who can do absolutely nothing about Comcast's recent fraudulent offer of free equipment.

The only "regulation" a city has anymore is the franchise agreement, and that happens once every five or ten years, won't dare mess with a good revenue stream by trying to add unacceptable (to the cable co) terms, and would result in an insurrection of the populace if the existing cable company wasn't renewed and everyone had to give up their cable.

So, lets consider a scheme. Shut off over the air tv broadcasts as obsolete and sell the spectrum.

So you would take away from rural people the only free access to information they have and replace it with a broadband service that they have to pay for? You are so selfish in wanting YOUR streaming video that you'd force everyone else to have to pay to get theirs?

Don't laugh its already happened to UHF channels from "60-something? to channel 83.

Reallocating a portion of the UHF spectrum is hardly the same as "shut off over the air TV". A few channels moved into spaces that were open. Over the air TV remained functional. And you missed the even more recent conversion to digital, where a lot of VHF space was freed up by moving those channels to UHF. And even more recent plans by the FCC to move some other stations around to free up more space. But still, none of that is "shut off over the air TV". (But yes, the conversion to digital did mess up a lot of rural reception, but that wasn't the goal of the change.)

So to maintain "psuedo-competition" you need to be able to purchase streaming video over your broadband connection.

Instead of being able to get it for free OTA?

Re:Universal service.

[bored_engineer]

I agree with your general sentiment, but hate being painted the same color as "our religious wingnuts."

A couple of points to correct:

. . .most people would consider progressive as to be a joke.

Pardon if we don't just follow the herd. While I hate on republicans, I'm happy to hate on knee-jerk progressives as well.

. . .George Bush, Sarah Palin, and Run Paul all reinforce that. You're a country who figures the rich should stay rich, and the poor should go fuck themselves.

Not Quite. We just believe that people, not governments, are the best source of help for the poor. Ron Paul probably doesn't belong in that particular list with Sarah Palin and George Bush, by the way.

It's not just Europeans -- most of the world is tired of putting up with how your country behaves . . . it's that they're tired of putting up with your shit.

Please don't confuse the country and the government. In many respects, the government has an "inertia" that makes it very hard to change. Further, many citizens here, are also getting tired of the government.

Besides, if you hate us so much, you can probably do something about it.

To the UK, Germany, Japan, Korea, et al: Would you please boot our soldiers out? My (unborn) grandchildren will be paying for their presence today, and I resent passing debts on to my grandkids. Our military convinces (waterboards?) whatever politicians we send to Washington, that we can't close bases abroad. WE DESPERATELY NEED YOUR HELP.

To Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Russia, et al: Please reject our foreign aid. No good can come of it. We don't actually have the money to give to you, and when creditors cut us off, you'll also be, quite suddenly cut off. Besides, you end up dependent on our grain or money (or weapons) without the infrastructure to make your own. Please, do us all a good turn.

Re:Universal service.

[Rockoon]

And that is why the US is destined to fall behind. Selfish pricks think even a dollar to help the nation is too much.

The people that want all of the advantages of living out in the sticks whole accepting none of the downsides, by forcing everyone to pay to eliminate those downsides, are the selfish pricks.

Nice try.

Re:Universal service.

[SillyHamster]

And the cost of upgrading this 4% would come from corporation's multimillion dollar profits. Like corporate charity.

This is completely identical to taxing all of the customers of the corporation, raising the price they pay by x%.

There is no free lunch. Gov't mandates do not cause goods to pop out of thin air. "Corporate profits" are not an independent pool of money that you can meddle with, because they're based on a percentage of the value people place on the goods provided.

Re:Universal service.

[KingMotley]

If you want to discuss net food exports, here's a link to help: http://faostat.fao.org/Portals/_Faostat/documents/pdf/map05.pdf

Not the countries in dark green are highest, and the red countries are lowest. I think the pretty pictures should explain it all to you so you can understand.

Re:Universal service.

[Obfuscant]

I already pay a Universal Connect Fee on my phone bill which subsidize the phone company to go into rural areas.

And to provide your poor neighbors in the big city with affordable telephone service. The USF isn't the sole fault of those awful people who live out on farms.

Never mind the fact that the AT&T was subsidized to put lines out there in the first place.

AT&T wasn't subsidized to put lines anywhere near the home I grew up in.

Especially since the Fee has been collected for over a decade and I see no real competition or expansion in rural connectivity since its inception.

What makes you think the fee was supposed to promote competition or expansion? It was supposed to provide affordable service, that's all. I have seen the effects. My parents, before the USF went in, had to pay several thousand dollars to get a line run to their house so they could get off the party line that was constantly busy or broken. It was their line and when it broke they paid to get it fixed. Now it's the telco's line and they come out to fix it for free. The 'demarc' truly is the demarc for my parents now, instead of a telco box a couple of miles away.

People who say yes to this are naive.

That's true. Or selfish. "I want my broadband paid for by other people".

Re:Universal service.

[CrabbyAmerikan]

I wish we had a much better option than Obama. He's not the fellow I, we, thought he was. Yes, if we fail to elect the best of the bad choices we face, that being Obama, we do certainly prove ourselves to be an even more backwards nation. A nation that denies science, logic, and our responsibility to value and care for ALL of our citizens equally and fairly, denies our responsibilities to our fellow humans worldwide, proves itself to be a sad, sick, backwards, failing nation. Even through the Vietnam era, and the Cold War years, though I believed it a better-than-even chance that we'd be nuked in our lifetime, I still managed to believe that we could perhaps evolve into something I could be proud of. Today I see these sick, ignorant, elitist Republikkkans that actually have a fair chance of success because they, and other rectums believe their own bs, and Obama, a good choice only compared to the GOP plan to finally make proper serfs of the rest of us. Amerika is broken, failing. We're failing to give our children a decent education, instead we just throw more technology at the problem, lay off teachers, jam more kids into classrooms, edit history and science texts to fit our increasingly warped ethic, and ultimately demand nothing of parents. We're failing to house, feed, and care for the disadvantaged, but we're busy building stadiums, so grown men can play children's games on TV for millions, while we cut firefighters, police, teachers, and other essential services. We're not doing the right thing for the veterans of our wars of empire. We're still, after all these years having the facts laid before us to see, a racist society, only somewhat better than the days of Jim Crow. The people in our rural areas are often far apart, so telcos don't provde broadband because they don't have to. I could go on, ad nauseam, but you know this stuff, folks. That Brit was too bloody well right, we're furiously proving ourselves a backward nation if those lunatic Republikkkans get elected.

Re:Universal service.

[antdude]

"Cake is a lie." :(

Re:Universal service.

[StuartHankins]

$65 for Comcast 12/2 here. That's without any cable modem rental fees (assuming providers still charge for that). And despite me being in Palm Beach -- not exactly the boonies -- AT&T has no DSL service in my upper-middle class neighborhood.

Re:Universal service.

[toriver]

Well, if by democracy you mean "power in the hands of a rich male elite which could dedicate time to politics because they had slaves to do all the work", then: yes, Greece was the cradle of democracy.

Re:Universal service.

[Dishevel]

Even with the US footing a major part of that bill a lot of the socialized parts of the EU are still finding it difficult to pay their bills.

Re:Universal service.

[saleenS281]

Yes because if China decided to invade Taiwan tomorrow, the UN (without the US military to back it up), has the firepower to do more than pass a resolution letting China know just how upset they are. Get real. The UN is a toothless beast that can barely handle third world warlords much less a first-world military conflict.

Re:Universal service.

[StormyWeather]

I hear this all the time, and it's complete bullshit. On the right we hate the bailouts, and government basically picking and choosing winners in the capitalist arena. George Bush said that he had to destroy free market to save the free market with the GM Bailout. A bailout that is FAILING since GM will likely go bankrupt again in the next 4 or 5 years.

No sir, Progressives on the right and the left lead to fascism. The far right of the party is not Progressive. Fascism a nasty foul beast combining crony capitalism directed by a Socialist Jingoism.

You can't with a straight face tell me that the far right hand of the Conservative party which is Libertarian would line up with giving money and orders to companies from the government. Hell the farm right hand wing of the conservative party doesn't even think the government should have anything to do with companies at all.

Re:Universal service.

[DinDaddy]

But then you have a minority of Americans, like me, who at least try to use the terms correctly.

We are the other 1%!

Or is it even less?

Re:Universal service.

[Stormthirst]

You just described America. The only difference is they started with slaves and have moved onto oil instead.

I wonder what will happen when the oil runs out?

Re:Universal service.

[DinDaddy]

Really?

Given the self-serving crap that we (the US) ourselves pull in various parts of the world because of our power and in spite of the UN, you have any credible logic to back up your claim the UN could handle Russia or China doing worse?

Re:Universal service.

[cheater512]

In Australia we are getting the NBN - fiber to nearly every home, with everyone else covered by wireless or satellite under a universal service obligation.

No tax over here for it.

Re:Universal service.

[Stormthirst]

It doesn't matter to the majority of Europeans. These days in Europe racism is largely looked upon as socially unacceptable.

Re:Universal service.

[poity]

Socialism and Fascism aren't contradictory, and can coexist, i.e. country with nationalized institutions and social welfare where if you step out of line you're fucked (Nazi Germany and early Soviet Russia comes to mind)

Re:Universal service.

[Stormthirst]

If we stopped fighting the wars America starts, then we'd have plenty of money to pay down our national debts.

Re:Universal service.

[Mashiki]

Iceland is? Didn't they just finish having a gigantic banking crash. Why yes, I do believe they did. In fact, I believe it's still so bad there that people in their 30's and 40's, with families are stuck moving back in with their parents because the currency is so devalued that it's hard to make ends meet. In fact it's so bad, that Iceland keeps looking at going to the Canadian Dollar to prop up it's currency.

And those Scandinavian states? The ones with those uber high tax rates, they're not doing so hot either. I'd start writing out why, but I'd actually hit the post limit. So let's just stick with Iceland for now.

Re:Universal service.

[falconwolf]

If it means universal service provisions for broadband internet access, then yes.

There are people in rural areas right now that don't have Internet access because telcos aren't willing to spend the money to run it out to them.

Universal service provisions allowed telephone service to reach every single person in the entire country back in the day. The same thing should happen for broadband internet access today.

I'm going to burst your bubble. In the US governments has already given cablecos and telcos hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to build out broadband. However all these companies did was pocket the money to be used as pocket liners. Former telecom industry analyst Bruce Kushnick documented how the federal government was ripped off by businesses in the e-book $200 Billion Broadband Scandal. In New Jersey alone Verizon was given tax breaks along with allowed to raise phone rates to cover the state with broadband. An agreement was reached between the state and Verizon 20 years ago but the state does not have wide coverage of broadband yet.

The only non-big government inexpensive way broadband will become more widely available throughout the US is by allowing competition and getting rid of monopolies/duopolies. Google is in the process of rolling-out fiber in Kansas City. Before fiber is rolled out in a neighborhood Google is asking 25% of the people to sign up and it costs $10. Wiki has an article on the plan, Google Fiber, including the cost for the services. 1Gbps net access and TV cost $120 a month with $300 construction fee. A Nexus 7 tablet is included. Internet access alone is $70 a month. In both cases the construction fee is waived if a 2 year contract is signed. And "Free Internet" with speeds of 5 Mbps / 1 Mbps is provided for the cost of the construction fee which can be spread out over a year, $25 a month.

There are people in rural areas right now that don't have Internet access because telcos aren't willing to spend the money to run it out to them.

While it may be expensive to roll out cables and fiber that's not true with radio, wire-less, access. Of course wire-less has it's own problems, such as not being that secure and not being as fast as fiber.

Falcon

Re:Universal service.

[Marxdot]

extreme socialism [is] authoritarian

No, it's not. Americans have absolutely no idea what socialism is, yet throw the word around willy-nilly as a pejorative, as if they were still the depths of the McCarthyism.

from that perspective they look the same

No, they don't. I would not trust an American to know what fascism is, really. Just look at the GOP and the Democratic party; both authoritarian corporatist parties to the core these days, though you won't find a hand-on-heart-single-tear American admitting that.

Re:Universal service.

[Dekker3D]

I actually meant it the other way around. Butchersong implied that there are things you can say in America that you can't say in Europe. I was wondering about examples. I know there's plenty you can't say in America that's pretty safe here.

Re:Universal service.

[Stormthirst]

Which explains why America's army (run by it's Government) just dumps all over the rest of the world, and American's don't give a shit?

Re:Universal service.

[Stormthirst]

That's only because they aren't willing to sell large chunks of their country to foreign powers - like America does every time it increases it's national debt. Sort your own fucking problems out before pointing the finger elsewhere!

Re:Universal service.

[s.petry]

I'm guessing American English is not your native language? For the question to work in English, you would need to flip your two terms. The subject is always assumed first in American English. This is different I know from German, I always have to translate German two times. First for words and second for context :D

Re:Universal service.

[arth1]

It was incorrect even for gross exports, as it also comprised forestry. Eaten any good oak lately?

Re:Universal service.

[falconwolf]

So they are far left and far right at the same time?

Do you have no idea what those words mean, or are you out of your damn mind?

They have problems, but you using these words as namecalling is not helping anyone.

Are you referring to the use of both "socialist" and and "fascist" in the same sentence? If so then you don't know anything about fascism then. From the wiki article Corporatism: "In Italy from 1922 until 1943, corporatism became influential amongst Italian nationalists led by Benito Mussolini." In 1935 in "The Doctrine of Fascism" Benito Mussolini said: The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. Dusting off my education, in a public school, more than 30 years ago, we were taught socialism was the public ownership of the means of production, but people can still own private property such as a house.

As for leftist policies wiki has the article Left-wing politics which states The spectrum of left-wing politics ranges from centre-left to far left (or ultra-left). The term centre left describes a position within the political mainstream. The terms far left and ultra-left refer to positions that are more radical. The centre-left includes social democrats, social liberals, progressives and also some democratic socialists and greens (in particular the eco-socialists). Centre-left supporters accept market allocation of resources in a mixed economy with a significant public sector and a thriving private sector. Centre-left policies tend to favour limited state intervention in matters pertaining to the public interest. In the section Varieties the article mentions other meanings.

Falcon

Re:Universal service.

[Zaelath]

I think he means his Neo Nazi troupe are allowed to walk around waving the swastika in the US where as it's quite illegal in Germany.

Of course, I think that's an example of where blindly clinging to the 1st Ammendment to the US constitution makes them look like a nation of 3rd graders who persist in thinking of everything in black and white terms.

All that said, I like most Americans individually, they're nice enough people (except for the Neo Nazis). It just seems like their average IQ is worked out by dividing by an exponential instead of just the number of individuals.

Re:Universal service.

[phantomfive]

This post is excellent. I've been thinking thoughts along these lines for a while, that Europe tends to be on a different scale than America, but I couldn't find words to describe it. And now you have done so in a single (run-on) sentence. Well done.

Re:Universal service.

[phantomfive]

You misunderstood his post. The far-right wing that you are describing matches what he describes as 'anarchy.' Read it again.

Re:Universal service.

[falconwolf]

I can't come up with anything I could say to get me arrested here (in the Netherlands) that wouldn't get someone arrested in America as well. Could you name an example?

The penal code of The Netherlands has laws sanctioning certain types of expression. For instance there's Lese-majest: "In October 2007, a 47-year-old man was fined €400 for, amongst other things, lese-majesty in the Netherlands when he called Queen Beatrix a "whore" and described several sexual acts he would like to perform on her to a police officer."

Falcon

Re:Universal service.

[rtb61]

Ohhh, but you take it so well, I am surprised you didn't fire back with that whole war attack everyone kill, kill, kill stuff.

Perhaps you missed it but the bulk of the geek/nerd computer/internet types see themselves as more openly globalist and always really take the piss out of cheeto munching red neck morons we all share in our respective countries.

Not 'ALL' Americans are mocked regardless of your distortion, only the specific knee jerk reactionary asshats that we universally share. Those psychopathic corporate douche's don't infest 'MULTI-NATIONAL' corporations for no reason, you know.

THEMS versus US, is crap for the 'belchers' the mass media sheep. It's OK for foreigners to insult Americans because like free speech, I mean really has the whole caribou barbie version of free speech blown a blood vessel or two.

Re:Universal service.

[mdielmann]

I can't come up with anything I could say to get me arrested here (in the Netherlands) that wouldn't get someone arrested in America as well. Could you name an example?

"The Holocaust didn't happen."

Sure, it's crazy, and not true, but that's equally true of "The world is flat." But only one will get you arrested in many parts of the world, including where I live.

Re:Universal service.

[falconwolf]

But that doesn't mean I want to fight their wars! If for example: Britain or France suddenly decided to go to war against Iran.

Well, I might point out that it was you guys who waded into Iraq and Afghanistan and pretty much demanded the world follow along with you ... I believe Bush famously said "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists". You'll notice that lots of other countries committed resources (and lives) to that, but in the end, absolutely none of the reasons it was done were ever proven to be valid. There never was a good reason to go into Iraq, but you guys bullied everyone else into doing it with you.

I am an American who disagreed with invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. I would have liked to see the Afghans set up democratic political and free trade systems after the Soviet pulled out of Afghanistan. But the then US administration left them alone after arming the Taliban. If the US had not armed the Mujahideen, some of whom became the Taliban, and tried to at least encourage people to travel to and do business with Afghanistan after the Soviet pullout then the Taliban would not have been as bad and caused as much trouble as they did. I also opposed the arming and assistance of Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s. Saddam could gas Iraqi villages and neither Reagan nor Bush Sr would stop arming Saddam. Bush Sr's support of Saddam only came to an end after Saddam invaded Kuwait. The admin even knew before hand that Saddam was going to invade Kuwait but did nothing to discourage or stop it. Even after the wars, Kuwait is still a monarchy.

This is a two way street. And if you want to start disentangling yourselves from your allies, well, you might not find yourself with much support later.

As soon as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist so should have NATO. NATO was created as a reaction to and fear of the Soviets and the Pact. With them gone NATO's reason to exist was gone too.

I'm sure the Europeans aren't all that thrilled with their banking and flight data being handed over to serve US interests. So maybe everyone just says "well, since you think we're not such good allies, we're not doing that any more".

I'm not trilled, I actually hate, the sharing of data between and within governments. I fear government far more than I do businesses, criminals and organized crime syndicates, and terrorists. Actually it's government who gives them the power they have. Governments grant corporate charters to corporations as well as the monopolies many of them enjoy. Governments make victim-less crimes which make organized crime families powerful. And governments also create or arm terrorists.

Falcon

Re:Universal service.

[cavreader]

China would take Taiwan eventually but Taiwan has been stock piling top line US military technology for a while and could put up a decent fight. China's navy has grown over the years but a few years ago they would have had to initiate "the 1 million man swim" plan if they wanted large numbers of troops on the ground. Right now China makes a lot of money from trading with Taiwan. And the UN is indeed worthless when it comes to doing anything more than issuing a strongly worded proclamation and most of the time they can't even agree to that.

Re:Universal service.

[manaway]

When the rest of the world insults you, including your allies, perhaps you should listen.

Ask some foreigners why they find you backwards. They'll tell you honestly and directly. Most of them perceive you more objectively than you're able to assess your own country. Depends on who you ask, of course; the rich who profit from US business will give you a different answer than the general population. However, if you're going to ridicule Europeans who have leaders running around "mad," then it's only fair to be evaluated similarly. If you sincerely want to understand, prepare to listen even while feeling shame.

Europe doesn't "draw us into bloodshed," the US creates it. For instance: the US knows that the chemical weapons precursors it sold to Iraq in the 1980s have decomposed. The UN weapons investigators find nothing in Iraq. The US sends an investigator to Niger, who finds no yellow cake uranium sales to Iraq. Scientists in the US evaluate Iraq's aluminum tubes and find them useless for weapons grade centrifuges. The US collects no evidence of Iraq cooperating with 9-11, Afghani, or other terrorists. After the US has determined that Iraq is no threat, the US invades and occupies. Kills some 650 000+ innocents, bombing a nearly first world infrastructure into third world status, and selling its largest natural resource to international oil corporations with almost no benefit to locals.

Foreigners understand well what the US has done in Iraq, Columbia, Cuba, Haiti, Chile, Panama, El Salvador, Guatermala, Vietnam, Grenada, Nicaragua, Hawaii, North America, and more; and have millions of dead-body reasons to call inactive American adults "opossums." The insightful thing is that the Iraqis know the US population is more or less friendly but enormously misinformed; and it's the government, military, and propaganda industry that are so influential and dangerous. Now the foreigners are watching the greedy in the US do same thing again, this time to Iran (again).

You won't find the above in corporate owned media. The only way you can find more independent news is traveling and reading, especially the Internet. And that's why even if broadband providers gouge the US population and rake in massive profits, supporting network neutral universal bradband access is vital for the rural poor, and the tax worthwhile.

Re:Universal service.

[Son of Byrne]

Here's the problem: the vast majority of the "Americans" doing the talking are the ones that make us look bad. Those of us who are reasonable and "European" in our viewpoints and politics aren't the ones that are getting heard.

You know, if I had jumped into this conversation midstream and saw only this comment (without the obvious "Americans" term that was used, I could have easily thought that you were defending Iran.

At the end of the day, I guess we're all a little more like each other than we think.

Now everyone back to your spirited yelling matches.

Re:Universal service.

[falconwolf]

Maybe the rest of the world is tired of the American sense of entitlement, your tendency to export really bad laws onto everybody else, and the fact that ... well ... as a nation you're kind of assholes on balance. At least, that's how you project yourselves. And to the rest of the world, people like George Bush, Sarah Palin, and Run Paul all reinforce that. You're a country who figures the rich should stay rich, and the poor should go fuck themselves.

You decry the "American sense of entitlement" and "Run Paul" one sentence later. If you meant Ron Paul then there wouldn't be an "American sense of entitlement". Nor would the US export bad laws as a President Ron Paul would try to get rid of as many victim-less crime laws as he could. The US has the world's largest prison population and the biggest set of crimes prisoners were found guilty of is drug laws. People who don't harm or steal from others are in gaol simply because they dealt in or possessed illegal drugs. By getting rid of laws that make possession and use of drugs a crime not only can the prison population be cut substantially but the people could actually boost the economy by working and paying taxes. The government's budget, what it spends would be much smaller too. And wouldn't be partially hidden, like the billions of dollars spent on stupid and unconstitutional wars. No war on liberty, which is what the war on drugs is, no Afghan war, no Iraq war. There would also be no subsidies to large corporations, like the billions of dollars in subsidies Cargill gets for exporting food, driving farmers in third world nations off their own farms because they can't compeat against US government largess.

Falcon

Re:Universal service.

[russotto]

According to the census bureau, that sum includes forestry (yum!) and doesn't take into account imports (the US is often a transit country).

These are domestic exports, not including transit (but including imports that are re-exported after processing).

Re:Universal service.

[falconwolf]

We just believe that people, not governments, are the best source of help for the poor. Ron Paul probably doesn't belong in that particular list with Sarah Palin and George Bush, by the way.

I agree about Ron Paul. However the NYT article doesn't tell the whole story. Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed explains how blue states pay more in federal taxes than they get back in spending whereas red states get more from the feds than they pay in taxes. For every dollar blue state New Yorkers pay in federal taxes they get back $0.81. Red state North Dakota residents receive $2.03 for every dollar they pay.

Falcon

Re:Universal service.

[falconwolf]

"We should avoid entangling alliances with european powers that could draw us into bloodshed..... rest assured while one European leader runs-around mad, and the others act as if they are halfway there themselves, we shall remain at peace here in North America." - George Washington)

Who says Americans don't do irony.

My country has been drawn into two major land wars since the turn of the century and in both cases, it was by the USA.

For more irony read what George Washington said about torture: George Washington: No Torture on My Watch. He wouldn't have allowed the water boarding of German mercenaries working for the British.

Falcon

Re:Universal service.

[falconwolf]

That's because it was established in 1934. Putting the same wording in a modern bill would be vilified as socialist, big government, anti-capitalism, and anti-freedom.

Because it might be. Read the wiki article The New Deal and corporatism Churchill, FDR, and Mussolini wrote to each other, praised each other, and used each others ideas. For instance Mussolini praised FDR's New Deal. One part of the New Deal was the National Industrial Recovery ACT (NIRA). Former Republican President Herbert Hoover wrote Among the early Roosevelt fascist measures was the National Industry Recovery Act (NRA) of June 16, 1933 in his memoirs in 1951. So it's not just people today saying such a bill would be called socialist.

Falcon

Re:Universal service.

[bored_engineer]

Blame our (great)grandparents. Had they not ratified the 16th amendment, that particular imbalance would be much more difficult.

You should probably take a look at the 2005 version of the report that fed the post you linked to. (They are also looking to update the report, but apparently don't have the funding for it.) North Dakota's numbers changed pretty sharply from one year to the next.

In their 2005 report, New Mexico, a generally blue state, had the highest ratio: 2.03. I don't think that a state's politics are really the best datum to correlate this ratio to. That the correlation exists is probably coincident to some other unaccounted factor.

Thanks for the link, by the way. The data was fun to play with, even if only for a few minutes. (I spent some time looking for that other factor that I alluded to.)

Re:Universal service.

[falconwolf]

You can have your cake and eat it, too. But I'm not responsible for buying it for you.

Except it's more like you having and eating your cake, and you are responsible. Where does your food come from? Farms in rural settings? If they have to pay a lot for broadband then they will raise their prices for your food. Unless you can do or make for yourself everything you want you have to pay for others to receive services and goods you get too. Personally I'd rather pay more or donate to those I choose to than have government forcibly take money from me to give to others. At the same tyme I believe in getting what I pay for as well as having a choice as to who will provide what I want to buy. However we, US taxpayers, don't have either. The federal government gave the cable and phone broadband providers $200 Billion, oops >$300 Billion to build out broadband access. We did not get it. Governments also gave these large corporations monopolies, get rid of the monopolies and let there be competition. That includes airwave monopolies.

Re:Universal service.

[buddyglass]

The same thing should happen for broadband internet access today.

Why is this necessarily the case? Convince me. There are many luxuries not enjoyed by people who don't live in densely populated areas. They lack many retail and restaurant options. Traveling musicians don't schedule shows nearby. They are typically further away from airports. Often there are fewer doctors per capita. Justify the idea that we should should we spend some portion of our collective wealth (which could potentially be spent on some other worthy endeavor) to eliminate "lack of broadband" from among this list of inconveniences?

To add some numbers to the discussion, the FCC recently issued a report that states 19 million (6%) of Americans lack access to wired broadband. If we broaden the definition of "broadband" to wired connections with downstream bandwidth exceeding 768 Kb/s the number without access drops to 9.6 million. It's also worth noting that, of those who do have access, about a third third decline to make use of it. If that ratio holds true for those without access we're talking about approximately 6.4 million people who would be willing to pay for broadband but who lack access.

One also wonders why this need be a federal issue. What stops an individual state from subsidizing the expansion of broadband access into its rural areas?

Re:Universal service.

[falconwolf]

And the cost of upgrading this 4% would come from corporation's multimillion dollar profits. Like corporate charity.

This is completely identical to taxing all of the customers of the corporation, raising the price they pay by x%.

There is no free lunch. Gov't mandates do not cause goods to pop out of thin air. "Corporate profits" are not an independent pool of money that you can meddle with, because they're based on a percentage of the value people place on the goods provided.

Okay then, take away their monopolies. Allow competitors the ability to use the same right of way the incumbent uses. They'll then cry about having competition.

I can see it now phone/power poles straining under the load of fifty cables, or 50 poles trying to squeeze into a small space. How about 100 strands of fiber sharing underground pipes, or 100 pipes sharing the same space.

Falcon

Re:Universal service.

[falconwolf]

And that is why the US is destined to fall behind. Selfish pricks think even a dollar to help the nation is too much.

The people that want all of the advantages of living out in the sticks whole accepting none of the downsides, by forcing everyone to pay to eliminate those downsides, are the selfish pricks. Nice try.

Those who want to eat cheaply are the selfish pricks.

Falcon

Re:Universal service.

[falconwolf]

Blame our (great)grandparents. Had they not ratified the 16th amendment, that particular imbalance would be much more difficult.

No, I blame the ratification of the 12th Amendment. The Democratic and Republican parties love that amendment. I propose an amendment myself, one than repeals the 12th. And the electoral college. With my amendment every candidate runs for president and the voters get to rank them, something like the Condorcet methods. In my preferred method though a vote of "0", zero, counts against the candidate whereas no vote does not. It works like this, all of a candidate's votes are added up then the total is divided by the number of votes. A zero counts as a vote whereas a blank does not. I don't know how it would work in practice but it'd stir up politics.

Thanks for the link, by the way. The data was fun to play with, even if only for a few minutes. (I spent some time looking for that other factor that I alluded to.)

I originally got the link from a page on CATO's website though I didn't find the page just now.

Falcon

Re:Universal service.

[falconwolf]

I know it's a crazy prospect, but maybe giving monopolistic freebies to enormous corporations isn't in the public's best interest.

Giving government the same monopolistic freebies isn't in the public interest either.

Falcon

Re:Universal service.

[falconwolf]

People in rural areas can use dialup, (most likely) DSL, or satellite.

That shows how much you know. At least one DSL faq, DSL FAQS says that the farthest DSL can go is 29,100 feet (8,800 meters), At that distance the max speed is 128kbps though. Using ADSL loop extenders that can be extended from 6 miles to 10 miles from the central office. Satellite goes much further but it has its own problems. Like interference and latency or signal delays. Actually what may be better for some is G4 over a cellular network.

I have a friend who recently bought a house out in BFE Tennessee and he gets DSL. It's slow by my standards but that's what you have to deal with when you chose not to live with the rest of society

It's not always the location, sometimes it's the provider. A couple of years ago I could have gotten fiber, to the neighborhood, through Qwest. Since the change over to Centurylink though fiber is not available. I delayed in waiting too long to see if my ISP could offer fiber through Qwest.

Falcon

Re:Universal service.

[falconwolf]

If it means universal service provisions for broadband internet access, then yes.

There are people in rural areas right now that don't have Internet access because telcos aren't willing to spend the money to run it out to them.

Universal service provisions allowed telephone service to reach every single person in the entire country back in the day. The same thing should happen for broadband internet access today.

I find it ironic that you can propose this is a good idea if used for Universal Access, and then in the same post, inform us that some rural areas don't have internet access.

Wait, What? We've had Universal Service for decades in the telephone industry, and now you inform us that rural areas don't even have dial-up internet access?

You can have phone service but not internet access. Phone lines good enough for voice may not be good enough for data transmission. I know, I used to live somewhere where after a while I lost the ability to call into my ISP. The noise on the lines to the building was just too much, and the phone company would not correct the problem.

Falcon

Re:Universal service.

[Raenex]

"We're #1! We're #1!"

Re:Universal service.

[cbope]

Let's not forget where the whole world economic downturn started in 2007-8: The US of A.

Europe is NOT falling apart, any more than the US. If anything, it is more stable here in Europe. Sure, the are the current issues with the monetary union, but a lot of that is just pure politics. And the Nordic countries with a strong social net are doing fine, so there goes one of your arguments.

Now, let's talk about the word fascist... and does it mean what YOU think it means... (the USA is current leaning much more towards wholly becoming a fascist state than almost anywhere else on the planet).

Re:Universal service.

[Raenex]

One of the reasons joining NATO right now is a bit sketchy is that USA has already made a habit of calling anything it wants an act of war(thus requiring others to join their cause in "defense" of USA).

So you don't think flying planes into buildings and bringing down the Twin Towers in New York City was an act of war? That's what led NATO into Afghanistan. NATO was not used in the Iraq invasion except for the NATO Training Mission-Iraq, which was a handful of advisors.

Re:Universal service.

[cbope]

I'm American and have been living in Finland for 12 years. I am fully supported by the social services here and have the same rights as someone born here in that regards. And I don't even have Finnish citizenship (although I can get that any time I want).

Re:Universal service.

[cbope]

I hate to break it to you, but the world has changed a lot in the past couple decades. The world would be a much better place if the US would stop throwing it's military might around and invading other countries. This applies also to the clandestine behind-the-scenes crap the US still pulls all over the world.

Watch the movie Team America, World Police once in a while. There is a LOT of not-so-hidden truth in that movie.

Disclaimer: I am an American, but with the benefit of living abroad for 12 years and seeing things "from the outside". I can tell you, it's not a pretty picture.

Re:Universal service.

[cbope]

A most informative and insightful post, too bad you didn't post under your real account. This perfectly sums it up for me, an American who has been living abroad for 12 years. The perspective you get from seeing things "from outside" is enlightening. And it makes me feel good about my decision to leave the US for a better life elsewhere. We were brought up being taught "America is the best!" at everything. Sadly, this was really just propaganda. It is good in some areas but on the whole... in areas that really matter, not so much.

Re:Universal service.

[Stormthirst]

Yes they do teach their children to speak properly and certainly better than any American I've heard - and they teach their children to spell entitlement too.

You seem to believe that the entitlement culture is what is making the debt go up. That certainly seems to be the case, but it's from a sense of entitlement to cheap gas prices. Which is why American spends more in its military than any other nation in history.

Your rich certainly have a sense of entitlement - that they should not have to pay anything into the public purse. Your corporations are no better - how much tax did Exxon Mobile pay last year (hint: none, yet they are one of the most profitable in history)

You also seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that poor people are lazy. They are not. The people working minimum wage work a damn site harder than any Wall Street thief - and probably harder than you or I.

So yes - get rid of the sense of entitlement that the rich have. Make them pay the levels of tax they are supposed to be paying.

Maybe Atlas will Shrug. Who cares. Do you really think the rich will want to stop making more money than god?

Re:Universal service.

[Rockoon]

By that logic, the taxes collected from people in the sticks shouldn't be used for those on welfare in the urban areas, right?

I fully agree. Poverty is a local problem so should have a local solution. Why should any area of the country get away with mismanagement at the expense of the rest of the country?

Short-sighted and hypocritical. Well done.

This is the problem with your generation. First you ask if something is true, and before you even get an answer, you decide that it IS true regardless of the answer. Your generation doesnt care about the truth. You make up blatant vitriolic horseshit and act as if it makes you smart. It doesn't. It proves that school failed you.

Re:Universal service.

[JoeMerchant]

If Wall Street collapses, I'm sure there's some folks in Jersey that can bail the people responsible out, and if that doesn't go well they'll be taken on a one way fishing trip with some concrete shoes... Outside Wall Street, I doubt a single tear would be shed.

Re:Universal service.

[ZonkerWilliam]

If you think American's don't give a shit then you don't know Americans, they would rather have their boys and girls at home.

Re:Universal service.

[cybernanga]

I'm not American, nor do I live in the US, but I currently live in a 1st world country, and have lived in a 3rd world country.

While it's true that there are those who live in rural locations because the want the peace and tranquility etc, there are those who live there because they "need" to. When I say "need", I mean you can't run a big farm or mine in the middle of the city. Amazingly, the work these people do, affects you directly.

If a farmer (both 1st and 3rd world) has decent communications and internet access, it makes an amazing difference to the efficiency and profitability of his farm. This in turn allows him to reduce his costs, and therefore the final cost (to you) of his produce, be that wheat for the bread that you eat, or the steak for your barbeque.

A small contribution on your part, (multiplied by everyone else in the country), means that improved infrastructure can be provided to those living out in the sticks. (provided of course, that the money is used correctly, and not abused, either by governments, or corporations)

This in turn will provide benefits to you. You may not see the benefits immediately but believe me, they will trickle down eventually.

Not all who live in rural areas are selfish pricks.

Re:Universal service.

[cpu6502]

>>>>>And the cost of upgrading this 4% would come from corporation's multimillion dollar profits. Like corporate charity.
>>
>>This is completely identical to taxing all of the customers of the corporation

No it isn't "identical" to a 2 dollar tax. If the FCC mandated cable/telephone companies must provide 3 Mbit/s internet to every customer that requests it, that money would mostly come from the corporation itself. Yes some of the money would come from customer bills, but a large chunk of the money would also come from employee salaries ("Sorry Bill no raise this year") and corporate profits (they'd earn 1 billion instead of 1.1 billion). I'd sooner suck the money out of the megarich megacorp than from the poor citizens.

Re:Universal service.

[cpu6502]

>>>it was you guys who waded into Iraq and Afghanistan and pretty much demanded the world follow along with you ... I believe Bush famously said "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists".

I detect a logical flaw with this sentence. We the People never said that.... it was Jackass Bush who said that. I've been opposed to the idea of war since Day 1 (9/11/2001). In fact I'm generally opposed to any war. The only war that is justified in my mind is one of self-defence (the enemy is either on your land, or about to invade your land).

>>>if you want to start disentangling yourselves from your allies, well, you might not find yourself with much support later.

That's okay. We need European goods & entertainment (i.e. open trade). We don't need European warfare..... you can keep it over there. Frankly we never should have involved ourselves in World War 1 which was a european war and should have remained a european war without the U.S. troops. You guys started the decimation of an entire lost generation; you can finish it. Alone.

Re:Universal service.

[cpu6502]

>>>So they are far left and far right at the same time?

Both Fascism and Socialism have the same thing in common: A central authoritarian government. They also work very closely with corporations to set taxes, laws, and general policies (Mussolini said the proper term for fascism should really be "corporatism"). They are not on opposite sides of the spectrum..... they are right next to one another. Socialism is left and fascism is far left (but not as far left as communism).

On the right side is the small government philosophies like conservative (right), libertarian (far right) and anarchist (extreme right). NOTE: I'm describing the American system setup. I won't even attempt to understand Europe's 50 different parties.

Re:Universal service.

[SillyHamster]

But the employee salaries and corporate profits come entirely from customer bills ...

So yeah, it is still the "poor citizens" who end up paying your "corporate tax". They will end up paying more for the exact same goods, or be forced to pay for a higher quality/quantity of goods than what they actually want.

So no, you're still sucking money out of "poor citizens". Maybe it's for a good cause, but don't delude yourself on who's paying the bills.

Re:Universal service.

[HArchH]

No, it should not. There is no right to Internet access. And if you or your state think there is one than you and your state should deal with it. Not the FCC or the federal government. (Reference Amendment #10, US Constitution)

Re:Universal service.

[cpu6502]

>>>Netflix HD. Yes, the HD is required.

My TV's not high-def so that would be pointless. I just watch youtube, hulu, and netflix in standard def and they all work fine at 300 kbit/s. Furthermore we are discussing what people "need" to survive in the modern age..... they might need to download and watch the Cardassians or whatever. But they don't need HD to do it. (I would argue a higher priority would be to help the 6 billion humans that are living on less than $10 a week in tents of slums, rather than broadband for the already-rich Americans)

Re:Universal service.

[LanMan04]

The people that want all of the advantages of living out in the sticks whole accepting none of the downsides, by forcing everyone to pay to eliminate those downsides, are the selfish pricks.

Tell me, where is most of the food you eat produced? In the city or in the sticks? I guess you'd better start growing your own in your...what, apartment?

Who's the selfish prick now?

Re:Universal service.

[randyleepublic]

Socialist and fascist policies have nothing to do with the malaise in Europe. You have been suckered. There is a hidden war going on at all times for the control of monetary systems. So far the strategy has been to use the power of the US economy to make the dollar superior, not because the players give a fuck about the citizens of the US - they don't!, but because the nature of US politics makes it easier for them to control the rest of the world from a position of control of the dollar and of the dollar as the reserve currency. You are not supposed to know any of this...

Re:Universal service.

[Rakarra]

Um, yes, quite a few though we don't know actual numbers yet. The US Government was recently found to be putting people in to mental institutions after arresting them, instead of prison.

Haha, what a silly argument.

Don't you remember? The US closed almost all of its mental institutions.
Apparently it's better to have our mentally ill folks panhandling in the gutters in the street than in an institution.

Re:Universal service.

[s.petry]

Try a Google search instead of propagating something not true. Here is one story, and here is another. These are what we know for sure, there are 20,000 more cases being investigated allegedly.

Re:Universal service.

[ledflashingfan.com]

www.ledflashingfan.com

Re:Universal service.

[ivan747]

Up until a year ago, I lived out in the sticks where only dial-up and satellite were available. I chose dial-up. I chose to live there of my own free will knowing I couldn't get broadband. My choice. It was worth not having broadband to live there. If you feel that people living way out in the sticks need broadband, start a group of like-minded people and spend YOUR MONEY to get it to them. Don't use the power of government to take MY MONEY to support your dreams for other people that have chosen to live where broadband doesn't exist. I have plenty of other projects that I think deserve money and I'm not asking for you to pay a tax to support them.

Re:Universal service.

[ByOhTek]

Yes, I found that out after making this post. It explains why it took me so long to find it too... I was just copying the original typo, since I've not actually heard of the place before.

Re:Universal service.

[chaboud]

Troll, moron, or moronic troll?

How is having a publicly controlled government leveraging resources by the guidance of the public not in the public interest? The assertion that the profit motive inevitably leads to greater efficiency than transparent government is quite possibly the stupidest stupid idea in the history of stupid ideas. This free-wheelingly idiotic nugget of conservative short-sightedness serves as the single greatest example of our tragic inability to self-govern effectively.

Please stop acting as an argument against democracy. Whenever you speak, it's basically an assault on freedom.

Sincerely,
The World.

Re:Universal service.

[hackula]

What??? I am from South Carolina! I made a pun about opossums. What does what I said have anything to do with your response. Christ, people are stupid! I was not bashing the US, but I think it would be pretty deserved when I make a one line joke about small rodents not needing high speed internet and half the fucking country starts jumping down my throat, calling me a fascist, and quoting George fucking Washington! I get that the pun went over your head, but is calling someone an opossum really that big of an insult?!?! I thought the left was supposed to be sensitive, but apparently the tea baggers are as well.

Re:Universal service.

[hackula]

Our only problem is that we have way too many lazy, unmotivated people who just want stuff given to them.

People who want no capital gains tax? Ziiinnng!

Productivity is amazingly high in the US. Facts or GTFO.

Only if ...

[LordKaT]

Only if the money actually went to improving broadband access and speeds in America. The problem is that it just goes to the government coffers and is distributed, mostly, to Social Security.

If the money went to directly improving the system it taxed, then yes. I would love to see a tax that helped pay for a nation-wide fiber-optic system that replaced the aged copper system we rely on.

Unfortunately, it'll only go to lining the FCC board and chairman's pockets with money.

Re:Only if ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if the money actually went to improving broadband access and speeds in America. The problem is that it just goes to the government coffers and is distributed, mostly, to Social Security.

NO! Social Security is over-financed by Social Security taxes. The Bush tax cuts for the rich were financed by over-collecting SS and "loaning" the extra funds to the Feds. (SS has always been a Ponzi scheme.) By far the largest holder of our national debt is SS!

Romney has said that he has always paid at least, what was it, 13% in income taxes - and likely nothing in SS taxes, as they apply only to wage slaves. You wage slaves, even burger-flippers, are paying 13.3% in SS and Medicare taxes counting your employer's "contribution" which would otherwise be available for higher wages. Then if you have a decent job, "upper middle income" you are facing a marginal 25% income tax rate. But that rate doesn't apply to "long-term capital gains", and almost everything high-end 1s convoluted into a "long-term capital gain".

Re:Only if ...

[DaveGod]

If the money went to directly improving the system it taxed, then yes. I would love to see a tax that helped pay for a nation-wide fiber-optic system that replaced the aged copper system we rely on.

I do not have an issue with subsidising broadband. I am curious however why it is only other broadband users doing the subsidising?

I do not see why there is some special duty imposed on those who have broadband, nor some special relief for those who do not. Existing broadband users do not appear to benefit in any special way. They are not a cause of the lack of broadband in the other areas.

Sure why not?

[arcite]

I would gladly pay a small tax for super fast internet access...but the internet has to be free, no filtering, no censorship, no throttling, no blocking torrents ect. Information wants to be free, but there is no free lunch.

Re:Sure why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah they would say "yes it's only $2 and you'll get everything you want"....then a few years later they'll say "in order to give you what you want we need to charge $5"....and a year after that they'll say "in order to maintain the low $5 we need to start filtering content"....then they'll come back and say "the filtering cost money so we need $10"....and the cycle will repeat until eventually you're paying $100/mo in taxes for nothing.

Re:Sure why not?

[Seumas]

I don't think you understand the proposition. They don't want to tax you for internet access so they can give you better and faster internet access. They want to tax your internet access so they can give SOME OTHER GUY better and faster internet access. My statement to the 4% who have shitty internet access? Fucking MOVE, if you care about internet access. Is this really hard to figure out? No, instead, we're going to start up some new massive authority to oversee more taxation and corporate welfare that will never pan-out in real results.

Guess what - some people live in a place with shitty cell service. Or none at all. Some live in a place where they don't have a public sewage service. Some even have to use well-water. Instead of running all this stuff out to them over hundreds of miles and billions of dollars, they get what they get *or they fucking move, if it's that important to them*.

I'd love to live on a nice little farm out off the interstate in Wyoming or some other place. The ones you drive by on your way to somewhere else a thousand miles away that are just a tiny little pretty home way off in the distance with nothing but mountains and grass surrounding it and one ten-mile-long winding dirt road leading up to it. But you know what? My options for work and internet access would be fuck all. So I don't do th at. I live in a jam-packed city crammed in by ass-holes on all four sides and within spitting distance, because I've determined what my priorities are and lived by them. Other people can make choices for themselves and nobody has to take each other's money to do it.

Re:Sure why not?

[vlm]

Other people can make choices for themselves and nobody has to take each other's money to do it.

You think in a pre-Kelo world. You might not like it, but thats not how the world works anymore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

If someone can convince the .gov to take your land or money so as to improve that rural property leading to higher property tax revenues, your money/property will be taken by force. Doesn't much matter if you feel we should be rugged individualists, because regardless of feeling thats not the law of the land as it'll be enforced.

I fail to see how rural property tax values could drop by providing internet access. Therefore your money will be taken and land easements will be granted and they'll get service and everyone will end up paying more taxes.

But what about...

[inode_buddha]

REALLY??

But what about all those billions that were given to the telcos to upgrade their infrastructure ???

Whatever happened to "Your subscription fees make up for the ad revenue, so we won't have to have ads every 20 minutes" ??

Aahahahahahhaa 'scuse me while I piss myself laughing at the blatant avarice of it all
.

If that took control away from corporations.

[dmomo]

If that meant "we" owned the infrastructure, not the media companies. One requirement would HAVE to be net neutrality.

Re:If that took control away from corporations.

[1s44c]

If that meant "we" owned the infrastructure, not the media companies. One requirement would HAVE to be net neutrality.

I'm happy to pay income tax. One requirement is that the police and all other civil servants are polite and respectful to me whenever I deal with them..

Oh, we are not in happy dream land? Guess I don't get to make demands on the thieving government then.

Re:If that took control away from corporations.

[dmomo]

Lying back and taking it is certainly an option. Please Enjoy!

In the meantime, I'll argue that it's those demands that keep the thieves on their toes. They pit the thieves against other thieves that will happily swoop in and steal their sweet gig.

The demands you make on the despicably thieving government are precisely what prevents it from being a despicably thieving, rampantly fascist government.

Re:If that took control away from corporations.

[Seumas]

You don't need "net neutrality". If "we" owned the infrastructure (and we should, since we subsidized the infrastracture that is already there), then all "we" have to do is let anyone who wants to use it have access to it. Bam. Competition. Now instead of having just one ISP, you have any ISP that wants to serve you. I mean, it's not like the pipes can only carry one provider's data over them.

All of this idiocy could be resolved if we leased access to the pipes as a wholesale good and then the ISPs competed with each other over service and price. Don't like your ISP's policies or limitations or politics or business practices? Use one of the other ISPs who wants your business.

Re:If that took control away from corporations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do it. Pass over control to the government and see what you get. At least with corporations I can decide if I give them my business or not. Once the government gets a hold of something you're stuck with whatever you get. Stop fooling yourself into thinking "We the people" really are the government anymore. The government picks and chooses and you either like it or you pay for it anyway.
 
So many people are upset at companies and corporations but they're not paying attention to what the entity that reaches in their pocket at-will is doing. And even them reaching in your pocket isn't good enough... they still can't set a budget and keep within its limits. Imagine a business being run like that!
 
That cash will end up in a general fund and what you're "paying" for won't be what you get. Too many taxes were introduced under the guise of some greater good for the man on the street only to turn into a rainy day fund for some politician who has to buy their way back into office.
 
Keep handing over more control, fool. In the end you'll reap fine rewards for it. I feel pretty sure that you don't recall how the phone company worked when they were a government backed monopoly. Don't think that won't happen again.

Re:If that took control away from corporations.

[1s44c]

You think paying taxes for civil servants and police is thieving?

I never said that, nor do I believe it. My point was that just because the government takes our money under threat of force doesn't mean we get to tell them what to do with it. The government serves themselves first and the rest of the population second. That's all political parties in all countries by the way.

Re:If that took control away from corporations.

[Bob9113]

If that meant "we" owned the infrastructure, not the media companies. One requirement would HAVE to be net neutrality.

Yes, this.

Would you pay a buck or two extra for fast access â" or vote for someone who thinks you should?

If it includes net neut? I'd pay an extra $20/month. Better yet, I'd pay 20% ($26 with my big pipe and static IP), so the people with smaller connections don't have to pay as much as I do, because that seems fair to me. Heck, I'll pay a progressive rate so I'm paying a higher percentage than the typical home user or people who have a tighter budget.

I feel like the pro-pot people: Please, tax me and make the policy serve the people instead of the special interests and authoritarians. I'll pay, happily. I'll pay more than most. I'll sing your praises while I do it. And I don't even do anything nefarious with my connection that would make me worry about the ISPs spying; I just think it's the right thing to do.

No, I would not pay another dime.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt earned a $16.4 Million salary last year.
I fail to see any innovation from my Internet provider.

Re:No, I would not pay another dime.

[1s44c]

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt earned a $16.4 Million salary last year.
I fail to see any innovation from my Internet provider.

He got paid 16.4 Million. I doubt he _earned_ that much money for any normal definition of the word.

Re:No, I would not pay another dime.

[dywolf]

To earn: to be paid in return for services rendered.

The market sets the price. If they hadn't paid him that much he would likely work elsewhere, and they'd hire someone else. They pay him that much cause he and they got together and agreed that he, with his background and knowledge and experience, was worth that much as a CEO.

You may not like how he "earns" his pay or think he does, but that's ok, it's (99.999% likely) not up to you. If the board of directors ever thinks he hasn't earned his pay, then he'd be gone.

Re:No, I would not pay another dime.

[oh_my_080980980]

LMOL - you apparently haven't been following Wall Street lately or the financial crisis....how many CEOs of these large banks got fired?

You also realize that CEO pay is out of whack of company earnings and people on the board of directors and compensation boards are made up of the same people who get paid these inflated salaries.

But another way, you work for Goldman Sachs right....

Re:No, I would not pay another dime.

[spinozaq]

That would be how corporations behave in a perfect world, yes. However, the board of directors are likely other executives of other companies. The CEO is on their boards. They also travel in the same social circles, and are members of the same country club. They are getting the most money possible for their "friend", just like he'll do for them. It has nothing to do with ability anymore.

As long as it comes with the right strings

[Dr_Barnowl]

I would absolutely pay for an internet tax, as long as any service receiving aid from that government tax coffer was forced to provide network neutrality by law.

As it stands, what this is actually earmarked to pay for is probably the "lawful intercept" features that government want to add to everyone's internet.

Re:As long as it comes with the right strings

[tmosley]

Take money to build infrastructure, lobby for more regulation to prevent competition, lobby to ban Google from becoming an ISP under anti-Trust legislation, stop taking money, do whatever the fuck they want.

This is what will happen, guaranteed. This is why fascism is bad, no matter what they say to try to sell you on it, kiddos.

Re:As long as it comes with the right strings

[Xipher]

That's already a requirement from CALEA, so they already have lawful intercept requirements on the books.

No

[should_be_linear]

I am European, and I think that fast Internet for free should be available to anyone in EU, as part of basic human rights. I don't care how it is technically done, but this should be long-term goal, especially for social parties, in order to prevent new kind of illiteracy of poor people.

Re:No

[the eric conspiracy]

Don't you have public education in Europe?

Re:No

[udachny]

'human rights'? There is no such thing as a 'human right' that is supposed to give you a product. Who is going to pay for this, if 'everybody is getting it for free' exactly?

Re:No

[ACS Solver]

Yep, as an European, I don't get why I should pay such a tax. I pay for my own broadband connection, and while I agree that everyone should have access to the Internet, it's already available for free at libraries that are funded by my taxes anyway. So I don't get the point of a general "broadband tax".

Re:No

[DigiShaman]

I am European, and I think %anything% free should be available to anyone in EU, as part of basic human rights.

And this is why much of Europe is broke and and the EU is on the verge of breaking up. Of course, we American's are not doing much better. But the point is that our priorities are all out of whack. Everyone seems to want something for nothing. This attitude will not last the test of time.

Re:No

[tmosley]

"That candy bar should be MINE! It's a human right! Anyone who disagrees wants us all to starve!"

Re:No

[atriusofbricia]

I am European, and I think that fast Internet for free should be available to anyone in EU, as part of basic human rights. I don't care how it is technically done, but this should be long-term goal, especially for social parties, in order to prevent new kind of illiteracy of poor people.

You cannot reasonably claim a Right to be given a service for free. As there is no such thing as anything for free, what you're really demanding is that the government use force of arms to take from one set of people and give to another.

And people wonder why the EU is falling apart financially....

Re:No

[jo_ham]

I am European, and I think %anything% free should be available to anyone in EU, as part of basic human rights.

And this is why much of Europe is broke and and the EU is on the verge of breaking up. Of course, we American's are not doing much better. But the point is that our priorities are all out of whack. Everyone seems to want something for nothing. This attitude will not last the test of time.

Funnily enough, that's not it.

The countries in Europe with the most expansive and expensive social welfare programmes are doing relatively well. It's the countries that followed the US financial model more closely (Greece and Ireland especially, and the UK somewhat) with an over-reliance on the financial sector as the next great engine of their economies and a tax system that ensured they were sitting on a bubble that eventually burst.

The countries that are now bailing them out are the ones with the high taxes and extensive welfare state provisions, like Germany, France and (again to a lesser extent, since we fucked up too), the UK.

It's not welfare programmes that bankrupted certain Eurozone countries, it was the financial policies at the other end of the scale - the banks, the toxic loans, the irresponsible tax policy, financial deregulation and the shedding of manufacturing and other things that previously kept the economy going. The welfare state is the reason that we don't have a social underclass who lost everything when the economy crashed and had some support until they were able to get back to work again without losing everything they owned.

You're also mistaken if you think "much of" Europe is broke.

Re:No

[gl4ss]

Don't you have public education in Europe?

yes. that's why it's new kind of illiteracy.

tell me, what good is ability to read if you lack access to the library of the new age? (sure it's beneficial to know how to read even then.. but you'll be in different caste when it comes to many things.. simple things like banking)

Re:No

[c0lo]

tell me, what good is ability to read if you lack access to the library of the new age?

'scuse me for pointing out, but the ability to read is largely irrelevant in the library of the new age...

Re:No

[Hatta]

As a European you don't really have rural areas as they exist in the US.

Re:No

[leppi]

They have internet access at the library here in the US. Free. I don't live in europe, so I don't know about there. Maybe in the future, I would see internet as vital as electricity, and thus something the government should admin, but not now. (my opinion of course).

Re:No

[excelsior_gr]

I don't know about Ireland, but Greece definitely didn't follow the "US financial model". The only thing that Greece imitated of the US model was all the crappy "bank products", i.e. the toxic loans and credit cards that were given away as if they were fast-food flyers while banks that nobody has ever heard of were popping up like mushrooms on every corner. Other than that Greece had (and still has) a corrupt central "control" mechanism (that, alas, controls absolutely nothing), a HUGE public sector (pretty much like a communist state), and two political parties in charge that have been following the same agenda since the 70ies. The private sector is full of very small companies that are struggling to make a profit, and thus pay little or no taxes, and whose owners are managing to scrape something off for themselves by paying off some clerk to look the other way while they pocket the VAT and leave their workers without insurance.

Greece didn't go bankrupt because of its welfare system (what was, however, a little extravagant when it came to civil servants). It wend bust mostly because of corruption, military spending, and bad management. Greece in 2011 ranked #20 worldwide(!) by absolute military spending (9.4 billion $), it ranks #8 worldwide by military spending per capita (1,230 $) and ranks #5 worldwide by active military personnel per 1000 capita (16.5). How is that for a welfare program?

Re:No

[Rockoon]

You think Greece followed the U.S model? The country where 1 out of 20 people pay any taxes at all? Really?

Greece is the epitome of a welfare state. The end result of continually increasing services for people that do not pay for them.

Re:No

[fyi101]

You cannot reasonably claim a Right to be given a service for free.

Define "free" (nice semantic strawman by the way), because I think parent is quite aware of the fact nothing is "free" in the sense that resources don't magically appear out if thin air.

As there is no such thing as anything for free,

Yes there is, relative to individuals and subgroups, although (sometimes) not relative to the entire economic system. This is like people who refuse to believe entropy can decrease in some physical systems (open ones) just because the entropy of the whole universe inexorably increases.

Also, remember the economy is NOT A ZERO SUM GAME (jeez). Just because somebody gets something "for free" paid with your taxes, doesn't mean you're not winning something in the process too.

what you're really demanding is that the government use force of arms to take from one set of people and give to another.

You mean parent demands the government be, you know... a government? Give some balance to things that are subject to arbitrary events and chance? Anyway, I'm really sorry you are burdened with paying for services such as Police, that you probably don't use that much. I happen to live in a country where people are "forced" to pay towards maintenance of our Fire Departments, and firefighters watching your house burn down and doing nothing because you failed to pay your "Fire Department subscription" or something like that, in a town where people don't think paying taxes for a FIRE DEPARTMENT is worth it (google it) is the stuff of distopian nightmares in fantasy books, not something to look forward to. We all like it that way.

And people wonder why the EU is falling apart financially....

AGAIN with the myth that Welfare is what broke Europe's back... At this point, why do you guys even bother complaining about Bank bailouts and Wall Street scammers not being in prison? I mean, if you're going to blame the safety net that keeps you from taking a nosedive onto concrete, instead of the Finance Industry guys playing with everybodys money, you might as well just stop complaining and take it up the ass like a man. I'm always fascinated how Moral Hazard arguments "obviously" apply to Social Safety Nets (which work) but they're only a technicality when we are talking about destructive global financial practices (which don't work).

Re:No

[randyleepublic]

Wow! Simple minded much? As if everything that anyone has was all acquired on some kind of isolated treasure hunt that had nothing to do with anyone or anything else. And no, stupid, the EU is not falling apart financially because of ideas about what things government should provide out of tax revenues. The EU is falling apart financially because of large scale monetary manipulation that we in the US happen to benefit from, although our benefit is the last thing that the players care about.

Re:No

[atriusofbricia]

Insulting much? The OP claimed that "free internet" should be a human right. Never mind that providing Internet access is hugely expensive and requires massive investments in time and resources. He says they should just have it for free, as if it falls off a tree and someone has but to gather it up. The idea is preposterous on its face.

Absolutely nothing in life is free. So what gives him the right to demand that others pay for his services? If they refuse, what then? I think that the thing most people forget is what exactly government is and what they're really asking for when they ask the government to do anything. In most civilized countries the government is, in theory, nice and more or less law abiding. Under it all though government is power. The power to pull guns and shoot you if you don't do what they want and tell you. So the answer to "what if they refuse?" is that the government tosses them in jail and takes everything they own. If they resist that, they shoot them.

As to the EU, you really think it is just currency manipulation? Sky rocketing debt caused nearly entirely by out of control social spending has nothing at all to do with it? It isn't the US and you can't just point at the Military Strawman and say it's all defense spending that's causing it. The government is broke! I know what will fix it! More Government spending!!

Try to learn from history, okay?

Will it subsidise it?

[MrCrassic]

If paying a small tax will guarantee completely free, uncapped and non-filtered broadband with a certain reasonable speed guarantee, then yes! Otherwise, what's the point?

Re:Will it subsidise it?

[codeAlDente]

The tax controlled by the regulatory agency will not bring the freedom to the Internet. It might increase the speed at which the government can use the Internet to deliver the propaganda.

Re:Will it subsidise it?

[ichthus]

"If paying a small tax will guarantee completely free..."

This view of taxation and government provision never ceases to amuse.

Re:Will it subsidise it?

[MrCrassic]

A $10/person/month tax to bring Google Fiber-like service to everyone's home is essentially free in my eyes.

Re:Will it subsidise it?

[ichthus]

Who has promised "fiber-like" service to everyone's home?

And, who said $10?

Yeah, $5 per person per month for 5 muxed fiber uplinks, and no bandwidth cap, would be even better, as long as we're rubbing the lamp and making wishes.

The view from Canada

[Presto Vivace]

The UBB Deception

s/Social Security/the Military

[mmell]

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[cpu6502]

No he had it right the first time. Over half the budget goes towards either Social Security or Medicare. The military spending is only ~20% of the total budget and after Obama's cuts kick-in, it will drop even lower.

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[TheCarp]

Is that before, or after you account for the fact that SS is taxed on is own. There is no "military tax". SS is taxed seperately, and supposed to be run out of a seperate fund from the federal budget.

Now I know this has become all messed up but...SS tax is still being collected seperately. It shouldn't be counted from the same till just because the trustee broke the trust by borrowing against it.

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[Anonymous Coward]

Over half?

Social Security: 22% of the budget
Medicare: 11% of the budget
Let's sum those up: 33%

If we add Medicaid, which you didn't, it goes up to ~40% still well under half

Defense: 24% of the budget...

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[vlm]

You don't need a big standing army when you have nukes.

You need a "pretty large army" to guard the nukes if nothing else. Not large compared to current enormous USA standards, but pretty large compared to world standards. The US would need a .mil larger than Ireland's army, or Singapore's army, etc.

The other problem is nukes are useless other than as suicide/MAD devices. Say Canada felt like invading and annexing all northern tier states because we make fun of canadian bacon so much because its a silly name for the product, and our endless lunberjack jokes. It would be bad, but not that awful, other than their Canadian music. Their heath care system and government and maple syrup are better than ours, and Canadian women are hot, so the citizens in the annexed states are certainly not going to fight the annexation very hard, and we've got no army to force the issue... So do we wipe the entire country of US and Canada off the map with the nukes, or just let them have the northern states... Repeat until you're like Constantinople toward the end of the eastern roman empire era, pretty much one fortified city and not much else left.

Inability to provide a graduated response means the only available reactions are going to have to be overly extreme, which is probably a bad thing.

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[jo_ham]

No he had it right the first time. Over half the budget goes towards either Social Security or Medicare. The military spending is only ~20% of the total budget and after Obama's cuts kick-in, it will drop even lower.

33% is half in Amercia?!

Wow, even your percentages are bigger than ours!

I'll take that with a "medium" 40 oz soda please.

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[dywolf]

dear god please never get into a position of power. you would doom us all.

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[Thud457]

Foreign deployments are not legitimate. We need the Coast Guard and the army. The nuclear sub fleet and their nuclear deterrent can be transferred to the coast guard, and the army focuses on maintenance of the land based nuclear deterrent, with the air force folded in there as well. Security of shipping lanes can be handled by a renewed merchant marine (ie allow merchant ships to be armed to whatever extent they like).

You don't need a big standing army when you have nukes. With no big armies anywhere, wars of all descriptions become less likely. A small special forces would be enough to deal with non-state threats.

You need a military to absorb the % of the aggressive young male population and kill some of that off, and develop some discipline and maturity in the survivors. (Alligator control is just not big enough to take all of them). Kind a Kipling-esque view and a bit curmudgeonly, but fits the observed facts much better than we need to spend $$$ and $$$$ and $$$$$ for "national defense".

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[Shotgun]

Please educate yourself on Social Secuity. There is no trust fund. FICA is not partitioned off and put aside for when you get old. All the money goes into the general fund, and then a Treasury account is funded with what the Board thinks will be necessary for the next year.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[Solandri]

Social Security has been paying out more than it collects in revenue for a couple years now, and is projected to get worse from here on out (unless our politicians do the grossly unpopular but inevitable thing and raise the retirement age so it keeps pace with increases in life expectancy).

Also, the SS fund is not separate from the general fund. The money you pay into FICA taxes is not held in a separate interest-bearing account until you retire, then given back to you. It's used to pay for the SS payments of current retirees. When you retire, your SS payments will come from the FICA contributions of the then-current workers. If you treated SS as a pension plan and did a proper accounting of it, it would be a huge red hole since future liabilities far, far exceed revenue collected at any given moment. (This is a side-effect of the way SS was started - retired people in the late 1930s received full SS payments even though they never contributed a dime. People who retired in the 1940s-1970s received full SS payments even though they only contributed during part of their working career.)

The longer people deny the existence of the SS/Medicare problem, the worse it's going to get. Right now SS + Medicare are projected to exceed all Federal tax revenue (average 18% of GDP) some time around 2050 (figures 1-1, B-1). Something needs to be done to rein them in, and the sooner the better.

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[stdarg]

Social Security has been paying out more than it collects in revenue for a couple years now

Not only that, but the Social Security Trust Fund owns about 20% of the US debt. Interest payments on that debt come from the general fund of course.

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[John Jorsett]

You don't need a big standing army when you have nukes.

Would you say that cops have guns so they don't need clubs, tasers, pepper spray, or their own fists? You need the ability to have gradations of response, you don't just go immediately to killing upon the first provocation because you have no other means at your disposal. With a large standing army you have the ability to try to get what you're after thru intimidation such as massing it on a border or by making the enemy think better of his plans by placing troops strategically where the enemy would have to attack them in order to achieve his objectives.

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[Just Some Guy]

You don't need a big standing army when you have nukes.

If a country were declare war on us, I would much rather fight it on their soil then ours. I think we spend too much on an oversized military, sure, but there's a happy medium between "largest and most expensive military in the history of the world" and "defending Manhattan, one street at at time".

And frankly, your take on nukes would scare the crap out of me if it weren't just the uninformed ramblings of a commenter on a blog post. Ideally, your army is just strong enough to beat the other guy's in a battle with a minimal loss of lives on both sides. Your idea leaves us with nothing between between our battalion subduing theirs and turning their capital city into a parking lot. How exactly do you plan for us to use our nukes? What's the appropriate level of retaliation for, say, taking over our embassy? How many megatons would be a proportional response to that? And how do you phrase the treaties with the world's other nuclear powers: "look, we're only using ours to get revenge on people who hurt us. We're cool with you, so please don't get mad, alright?"

I don't think you've thought this through.

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[SillyHamster]

You don't need a big standing army when you have nukes. With no big armies anywhere, wars of all descriptions become less likely. A small special forces would be enough to deal with non-state threats.

Your ambassador to Foocountry got taken hostage by a rebel group.

You will now -

1. Helplessly wring your hands while issuing strongly worded statements.

2. Nuke them

3. Ponder the wisdom of having more than 2 options.

Just because you have a sledgehammer doesn't mean you need to throw away all of your other tools.

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[bored_engineer]

I don't agree with tmosley's bald first sentence, but I will suggest that there isn't much graduation in our response. We go from sabre-rattling to invasion at the drop of a hat. Hell's bells, we're making shit up for an excuse to go to war.

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[TheCarp]

Which is exactly what I was complaining about.

That debt was issued by the same congress that is supposed to be the fund's trustee. What other trust fund allows the trustee to write himself loans from the trust?

It was setup as seperate for a reason, they didn't change the setup, they went in the back door and raided it.

SS should hold exactly $0 of US debt. If they wanted to find some other investment fine, if they wanted to hold it in gold, fine... but... not IOUs....not when it was specifically setup as a seperate fund so that money taken it wouldn't be used elsewhere.

Re:s/Social Security/the Military

[metrix007]

You realize the UK has similarly sized sodas at movie theaters, right? This attempt to mock the US is either poorly chosen, or hypocritical.

One Rule.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If you want me to pay a tax to subsidize broadband then I will never have a data cap. Ever.

but I already do

[gbjbaanb]

I mean, getting broadband isn't free, I pay my ISP for connectivity and they provide it.. and by "extra fast", my ISP has varying levels of service they can give me (subject to the technology available where I live) so I can get faster speeds by paying more money. I can also get faster speeds by changing to a cable ISP rather than a standard ADSL one, or I could even buy satellite link. If I was really rich I could pay to have fibre put into my house too.

So, maybe this is just an Americanism. What you guys need is a working system of capitalism where competition drives innovation and delivery. The rest of us have this kind of free market, where market forces drive things forward, I guess you guys have monopolies that hold you back. Good luck.

Don't we pay tax on it already?

[rossdee]

Don't we pay tax (like state sales tax) on internet and other services already?
(Assuming you live in a state that has sales tax)

Expect the expected: Past is prologue

[some old guy]

Sure, let's all chip in a buck.

Maybe thirty cents goes into "administrative costs" (the inevitable bureaocracy)

Twenty cents, at least, will be sequestered for other failing programs.

Another forty will no doubt be pocketed by recipient telco shareholders and executives.

Perhaps five cents will go for surveys and studies.

Maybe, if we're lucky, a nickel will go toward the intended purpose.

And so it goes.

Um . . . just to point something out . . .

[mmell]

TCP/IP doesn't really care that much about symmetrical speeds, just two-way communication. TCP doesn't care if upload and download speeds are different.

Physical

Data

Network

Transport

Session

Protocol

Application

Which layer looks like it cares about symmetry?

Re:Um . . . just to point something out . . .

[VortexCortex]

All of them. I make competitive online multiplayer games you insensitive clod!

Re:Um . . . just to point something out . . .

[Alan Shutko]

TCP/IP isn't really following the OSI layer model, as convenient as that model is for discussion purposes.

If you want to understand how assymetric speeds slow down TCP/IP, here's a paper: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.22.5293

Not without some improvements.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

If the government grew a pair and stood up to AT&T et al, and I was paying a reasonable price for internet and we got a speed more in line with the rest of the god damned world, then yes, I'd be more than willing to pay a tax.
But as it is now? Hell no.

Already been done

[Scutter]

Weren't the telcos already given a crapload of money to expand broadband access, which they proceeded to piss away? I'm not paying yet another tax, on top of a USF, an FCC surcharge, a tiered-pricing plan, and all of the other ways they already nickle-and-dime us to death. We are already not getting what we're paying for.

Re:Already been done

[Seumas]

YES.

I'll tell you what's going on here and what a lot of people are missing.

First, we already gave telcos tens of billions (or maybe it was even a couple hundred billion) dollars to expand infrastructure for just the purpose we're claiming this tax should serve. They did jack fucking shit and just piled it into their coffers, without following through with anything the actual money was given to them for. And we just turned around and left and ignored the whole thing.

Second, the FCC are a bunch of power-hungry cunts looking to stick their noses everywhere they can. Remember how Bill Gates wanted just a tiny slice of every pie out there and that they could get incredibly rich with that strategy? Well, that's what the FCC wants. They don't exist to bring regulation and guidance to things that need regulation and guidance. They exist to further their existence. New technology? Gotta get our fingers in that pie, now!

So, that's where this fee comes in. The Universal Service Fund is going to be winding down in the next few years and they're going to transition it to the Connect America Broadband Fund. Essentially the same thing. With the advent of cell-phones and pretty much anyone today having access to telephony if they want it, the FCC needs a way to keep bringing money through the system (you can't pilfer money that isn't coming through the pipeline in the first place, after all) and oversight of a function that continues to justify their existence as a government regulatory agency. So, they are shoving their fat fucking asses right into the internet world -- a place they really don't belong -- and staking their claim on a nice plot of land. And their way of doing this is by asserting authority and control and power. Oversee taxation and fees and oversee dispersal of this to the guys who power the internet under the guise of providing internet access to those who somehow can't get speeds fast enough to watch double-penetration on redtube out in the sticks.

Oh, and the Universal Service Fund wasn't about getting phone service to everyone. It was about getting it to educational institutions, hospitals, etc that needed it in places that otherwise might be difficult and unprofitable to reach. Any place with a phone line (or even without one, now that we have cell phones) now has SOME access to the internet and I'd love to see a true break down of just how many hospitals and universities and schools are out there that somehow don't have some sort of faster broadband access, to the point that we need some massive national taxation to provide it for them. I bet it's seriously fucking few people.

This thing is a scam as big as the fucking eye can see.

ZOMFG! OF COURSE!!!!

[Quiet_Desperation]

And that new tax revenue stream would go directly to creating a nationwide wonder network of gleaming fiber and BAH HA HA HA HA! Yeah, yeah... uh huh

And we'll all get freshly baked cookies delivered by the new "Keebler Over Ethernet" protocols, and pretty birds singing sweet rock and roll will gives us free porn apps! And Stallman and Doctorow will put up shiny new HTML 6/Web 3.0 web sites detailing the coming enslavement of humanity because some people like the iPhone.

Cue the ACs calling me a horrible person for being so negative about the government and not having a 1500 page solution to the world's problems that does not involve unicorn magic and well timed pandemics.

Wheee! Monday!

Sooner or later

[na1led]

The Government will be taxes us for everything we do, including breathing.

To live Rural is a choice for most

[realsilly]

I'm sorry but we've already been sold this bill of goods by the companies themselves. They have stated on more than one occasion that they're increasing their cost to the customers to help build infrastructure. Now some (may most) is to help solidify the existing infrastructure, we've been told that it's also for the rural expansion. Those increased costs are also taxed, so in essence, we're already taxed for the rural expansion. Heck some of our regular phone bill taxes are supposed to help support the internet expansion.

Once again, the middle class customer is paying the bill for someone else just because they live in a rural area. /sigh

No, absolutely not

[MikeRT]

As we have seen time and again with the Universal Service Fund, big health care (Pfizer being let off the hook for defrauding Medicare because punishing them would mean delisting all of their products from Medicare) and big finance (if you cannot immediately think of five major scandals, you've not been paying attention) the big guys get government money and aren't held accountable at all. At all. So, no. Not a single red cent to them. I don't give a damn how high and noble their stated goals are. Until we have an independent prosecutor who can hang one of these companies from the nearest lamp post for taking the money and not doing precisely what the money is for, the answer is "no."

And if you let your idealism get in the way and say "yes," you're an idiot who deserves to have your face rubbed into this when you get betrayed.

Re:Just Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

without broadband access DO NOT want high-speed internet

hahahah!!!! thats rich.

They want it. They just do not want to live in a city... You are confusing living like that, with living 50 years ago.

They just do not like cities. They usually do however like modern things. Its worse than that though. There are *many* who want it. But will never get it because of lack of infrastructure. Also what you and I consider high speed, and what that survey considers high speed are 2 different things.

We already payed the tax and continue to pay it

[guruevi]

It's called the Universal Access Fund. It's still on your telco bill.

Why would we need yet another tax on our bill just so we can give more money to people that have demonstrated they have absolutely no intention into expanding their offerings.

It's not like the bandwidth is not available. If you have cable, most likely you are already able to get 100/100 Mbps without much of an investment (maybe replace the modem). The fact that you don't have it is because the cable companies don't have any incentive to give you more than 10Mbps because they're the incumbent, they have been granted monopolies in most places and they will rather spend money fighting any competition than giving you more access for free.

Re:We already payed the tax and continue to pay it

[Grizzley9]

It's called the Universal Access Fund. It's still on your telco bill.

Actually it's called the Universal Service Fund (USF)
And from at least the wikipedia entry it is set to transition over and end by 2018 so it may not be an actual new tax

On October 27, 2011, the FCC approved a six-year transfer process that would transition money from the Universal Service Fund High-Cost Program to a new $4.5 billion a year Connect America Fund for broadband Internet expansion, effectively putting an end to the USF High-Cost Fund by 2018

Re:Where would the money go?

[1s44c]

Things I'd support the money being put into:

You misunderstand, this is a tax.

That means the government takes the money and keeps it. You don't get to make a list of things you will get in return.

Dishonest summary

[Rix]

This wouldn't provide extra or faster broadband. It would be a tax on urbanites to subsidize rural broadband.

No, I would not want to see that. Let Farmer Joe pay his fair share.

Re:Dishonest summary

[CAIMLAS]

What gives you that idea?

UAF is a tax we're all paying. It does create jobs for rural people in the call centers and at the operation centers, but for the most part, it's resulted in an unknown number of 'free teleconference line' facilities which get utilized by urbanites almost exclusively.

You're also getting subsidized in the urban areas at the corporate level by the monopolistic presence of the cable companies in "rural markets". Rural markets pay markedly more for broadband than urban markets and are faced with no options. Meanwhile, you've got as much as 5x the bandwidth from a number of different companies for the same price, at modern-network latency.

Another thing you're not considering is that telcos lay their lines through "Farmer Joe's" land, often without having to pay him to do so. I have a friend who owns land in NE. There is a 2' bundle of (mostly unlit) fiber running through his land. The best connection he gets through his house, over said fiber, is 25/5, and he's paying over $100/month for that privilege. Don't you think he should be paid "his fair share" to lease the land to place said fiber through it?

Re:Dishonest summary

[Overzeetop]

I say the UAF should be to fund telecommunication. We don't need a separate fund. Urban markets pay less because they are cheaper to build and there are fewer feet of plant per customer and fewer people per customer for service and maintenance. There is no "subsidization" - rural markets don't make nearly the profit that the cities do. Nobody is going to spend $50M for a buildout of an 800 person town spread over 100 square miles when they can build out an urban, affluent suburb with 50 times that population for the same cost. That's why the UAF exists in the first place.

As for your friend, well, that's what I would have to pay for 25/5 in my city - but there is only one provided of service that fast, and they're reliability is poor. Instead, we pay 50% of that for 20% of the bandwidth but get reliable service. Even with 50,000 people in a dozen square miles, it's not cost effective to extend FTTH - and I'm less than a mile from a major backbone at a top research university.

As for paying for the land use, you'll find that either your friend - or the prior landowner - probably receives access to the services provided by the company who owns those lines. The standard easement for utilities states that you allow them to traverse your property and in return they'll provide you with service. If you don't want the latter, you may forego the former. Companies have regularly routed around such landowners. If the government then finds it is in the public interest to use your land they will take it and compensate you at a nominal market rate. Note that "market rate" is based not on how much the land is worth relative to the specific use (i.e. a $2B fiber optic line taking up 1 AC of land does not make the land appreciably more valuable than the $800/acre it was when used for crops or grazing).

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are people in rural areas right now that don't have Internet access because telcos aren't willing to spend the money to run it out to them.

I'm sure they'd also like an international airport nearby, high speed rail, all the best medical specialists, museums, and everything else that you can find only or mostly in big cities. Those things are in big cities because the population density there is able to support such a thing.

There are many things in the cities that i would love to have close by, but I don't demand my legislators to tax everyone else to put those amenities near me - if I really desire those things to be close, I'll move to the city.

tl;dr - Why are folks in rural areas entitled to amenities of cities when they don't have the population density to support them?

Re:So what?

[vlm]

tl;dr - Why are folks in rural areas entitled to amenities of cities when they don't have the population density to support them?

Because the city slickers think they're entitled to the amenities of rural areas, like, say, food, and transportation across rural areas via roads.

The other part of the argument is unlike medical and museums, you don't have much of an internet without the monopoly granted easements across rural property for buried fiber...

So we'll make a deal... stop eating our food, rip up the roads between the cities, and rip out the buried optical fiber, and you can keep your internet access to yourselves.

Re:So what?

[VisceralLogic]

tl;dr - Why are folks in rural areas entitled to amenities of cities when they don't have the population density to support them?

Because the city slickers think they're entitled to the amenities of rural areas, like, say, food, and transportation across rural areas via roads.

The other part of the argument is unlike medical and museums, you don't have much of an internet without the monopoly granted easements across rural property for buried fiber...

So we'll make a deal... stop eating our food, rip up the roads between the cities, and rip out the buried optical fiber, and you can keep your internet access to yourselves.

We pay to have food grown. Heck, we pay to have food not grown...

Re:So what?

[SillyHamster]

Because the city slickers think they're entitled to the amenities of rural areas, like, say, food, and transportation across rural areas via roads.

Which of those services were provided for free?

You're trying to replace a monetary system with a crude bartering system. Why? Why trade food for internet, when there is no good exchange rate? (How much food is 1 Mbps internet worth?)

No one has a right to Internet access, and it's not even essential to life like food is (which is also not provided free). Pay for it just like everyone else.

Re:So what?

[falconwolf]

No one has a right to Internet access, and it's not even essential to life like food is

One, food isn't a right either. And two, life isn't essential. Oh, and you don't pay the full cost of food either. Large corporations like Cargill get billions of US taxpayer dollars a year in subsidies. The Free Markets CATO Institute published a policy analysis about Archer Daniels Midland, A Case Study In Corporate Welfare. ADM like Cargill get billions of dollars in subsidies a year. I don't know about you but I'd rather choose who I hand money to, either as a trade or a donation. Government doesn't give that option though.

Falcon

Didn't we already PAY for faster internet?

[u-235-sentinel]

http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm

I've been hearing about this for years but I was under the impression we already paid for 45 Meg up/down under the clinton presidency and while the telco's have been taking tax money for this, they still haven't built out the infrastructure we should have had several years ago.

Anyone know more about this?

It was also my understanding that the National Information Infrastructure was a result of the High Performance computing act of 1991 under Clinton and Gore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_Act_of_1991

So I have to ask. Why pay for more when we've been paying for it since 1991? I'm curious if other's can help me understand if I've misread what the act is supposed to do.

Sure they'd sit up and take notice...

[kaizendojo]

and then call the lobbyists and take the money and sell us out. Any idea that this is going to provide ubitquitous broadband service nationwide is a (pardon the pun) pipe dream. And once the tax is in place, it's never going away.

Sure, what's one more tax?

[silverhalide]

I mean, because obviously we have no sources of funding from our other taxes, so might as well start a new one, right?

Because it's just damn impossible to find funding in the rest of the budget stemming from:

Accounts Receivable Tax, Accumulated Earnings Tax, Alternative Minimum Tax, Aviation Fuel Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Cement and Gypsum Producers License Tax, Cigarette Tax, Coal Severance Tax, Coal Gross Proceeds Tax, Consumer Counsel Tax, Consumption Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Corporation License Tax, Electrical Energy Producers Tax, Estate Tax, Inheritance, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax, Fishing License Tax, Food Service License Tax, Fuel Permit License Tax, Gasoline Tax (8 to 35 cents per gallon), Generation-skipping Transfer Tax, Gift Tax, Gross Production Tax, Hospital Facility Utilization Fee Tax, Hunting License Fee Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Penalties Tax, Land Value Tax, Liquor License Tax, Liquor Tax, Local Tax, Lodging Facility Use Tax, Luxury Tax, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax,Metal Mines Gross Proceeds Tax, Metal Mines License Tax, Miscellaneous Mineral Mines License Tax, Miscellaneous Mines Net Proceeds Tax, Nursing Facility Bed Tax, Oil and Natural Gas Production Tax, Payroll Tax, Professional PrivilegeTax, Property Tax, Proxy Tax, Public Contractor's Gross Receipts Tax, Public Service Commission Tax, Public Utility Tax, Real Estate Tax, Real Estate Transfer Tax, Rental Vehicle Sales Tax,Resort Tax, Resource Indemnity and Groundwater Assessment Tax, Retail Telecommunications Excise Tax, Sales Tax, School Tax, Self-Employment Tax, Septic Permit Tax, Severance Tax, Social Security Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax, Statewide Emergency Telephone 911 System Fee Tax, Surtax Tax, Tariffs, Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, TDD Telecommunications Service Fee Tax, Tobacco Products Tax (Other than Cigarettes), Toll Road Fee Tax, Toll Bridge Fee Tax, Toll Tunnel Fee Tax, Tonnage Tax, Traffic Fines, Trailer Registration Fee Tax, Use Tax, Vehicle Registration and License Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Wholesale Energy Transaction Tax, Workers Compensation Tax.

We are taxed to death.

Re:Sure, what's one more tax?

[silverhalide]

Illustrating a point. Consumption tax = sales tax in local jurisdictions. Now that I look, it's on there twice. Oh well. But, you're often sales-taxed at the state, county, and city levels, so we're going to let it stand. Obviously it's pulled from an overarching list of common taxes. Feel free to nitpick, but my point stands, we are taxed to death and don't realize it through these nickle and dime taxes that granularly affect everything and often have enormous administrative costs for both private parties and the government for questionable returns. Do you want YET ANOTHER agency exercising power over a piece of your life? I sure as hell don't.

Universal access is great. Let's do it. The Connect America Fund is proposed to be $115 million. The Department of Defense fund for 2012 is 700 BILLION. Slice off .0016% of the military's budget to pay for it. Hell, let the military manage it, so they can at least do something worthwhile for us here at home.

I already pay for that!

[aglider]

I pay a tax when I earn money (income tax).
Then I pay an extra tax when I spend those taxed money (VAT).
Then I pat for goods/services themselves.

So, what'd be the point for this extra tax? Pointless!
If I want super fast giggo broadband, I buy premium.
If I want normal, I buy vanilla. That's it.

The USF is already on every landline bill

[bleh-of-the-huns]

We have been paying it for years. It has also been mismanaged immensely, and is mostly a profit item for the phone companies.

Until there is better oversight over the existing fees and taxes on telecommunications products, there should be no new fee's and taxes. ATT and Verizon have made billions off the USF (Universal Service Fund), which was meant to help offset the cost of wiring under served and rural areas.

Now both Verizon and ATT are abandoning their wireline systems in favour of wireless, yet they are still charging the USF fee to all of their customers... Where is that money going, it cannot be used on the wireless or broadband side currently.. it is not payed to the gov either, it stays in the bank accounts of the telcos.

Re:The USF is already on every landline bill

[bussdriver]

The rural areas that are not worth bothering with still need upkeep and it costs more not only because they are less profitable but also because they have more trouble from weather and trees to contend with. Electricity costs more too if you've ever lived or owned a cabin outside of the metro area. I am just fine with removing the fee since those rural people are too smug in thinking they are independent and don't know what welfare actually is despite them getting a disproportionately high amount of it.

I agree that the infrastructure was built so we do not need to be giving them more money. Personally, I don't see why the government doesn't handle the infrastructure instead of playing these stupid money games to have private monopolies rip us off; they DO cost us more in the end especially when we have duopolies which duplicate infrastructure to "compete" and with likely double the subsidies. They do not innovate, they milk; you.

Re:only 4% of Americans are stuck with service

[TaoPhoenix]

Another Slow Service user here. I did play a numbers game and pick my plan, I have something pretty low, (too lazy to detail it, maybe 1mbit?).

However I carefully considered my internet habits and discovered I can live with 5 seconds of buffering, and overall the $20 or whatever per month saved is worth more to me than having a "better experience". Generally, you can "spend for experience" until you go broke.

Misc Tips: I have a Verizon Dry Loop. That means it's Data Only. No Phone. But who needs a "landline"? $400+ saved per year. (Guess). Meanwhile, I have an AT&T GoPhone, that charges per minute, not per month. Another $700/year saved there. Here's the fun part. Get a VOIP service (I like Magic Jack Plus) and plug it in, and then you have a landline after all! Whee!

So instead of spending cumulative $150+ per month, I think I spend $40 per month tops.

Great advice - for Europeans

[SuperKendall]

If someone makes an uninformed comment, just dismiss it as uninformed. If someone says something true you find upsetting, you need to examine the root of what they say.

Advice that europeans would be well advised to heed. Instead whenever something about America is brought up, out comes the half-informed snark in droves.

Nope, all Left

[SuperKendall]

So they are far left and far right at the same time?

Fascism is inherently based in socialism .

After all, Fascism is all about the elite knowing what is best for the people - just like socialism, or many modern day progressives.

If you don't want the government to interfere with your life then why would anyone vote for more government?

Re:Nope, all Left

[h4rr4r]

No fascism is the union of the state and corporate power. So said Mussolini himself.

The writings of that hack are not interesting to anyone outside his echo chamber.

Re:Nope, all Left

[Albanach]

Sounds like you don't know much about socialism. Common and co-operative ownership of the means of production hardly equates to the elite knowing what is best for you.

Re:Nope, all Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe not in theory, but it always has in practice.

Re:Nope, all Left

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Whether or not it's fascist doesn't matter because it violates the Constitution:

Article I, Section 7:

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Re:Nope, all Left

[jedidiah]

> If you don't want the government to interfere with your life then why would anyone vote for more government?

The British East India Company is running amok.

Re:Nope, all Left

[jedidiah]

Fascism is just Communism implemented where the industrial revolution has already occurred.

Re:Nope, all Left

[pdabbadabba]

Yep. And in this case the bill you're looking for was passed in 1994: Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) codified at 47 U.S.C. 254(d).

Every telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, to the specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms established by the Commission to preserve and advance universal service. The Commission may exempt a carrier or class of carriers from this requirement if the carrier's telecommunications activities are limited to such an extent that the level of such carrier's contribution to the preservation and advancement of universal service would be de minimis. Any other provider of interstate telecommunications may be required to contribute to the preservation and advancement of universal service if the public interest so requires.

Re:Nope, all Left

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

This is outside the bounds of what the ratifiers of the Constitution intended. The Constitution, as a governing document, is set up like a power of attorney. Any power not specifically authorized by the power of attorney, or in this case, the governing document, is not authorized. The power to delegate authority is something that requires specific authority, and since, as the clause states, it must be Congress that creates the tax, the bill previously passed by Congress is outside their intended powers.

Re:Nope, all Left

[pdabbadabba]

The delegation you are looking for occurs in the first sentence of Art. II Sec. 1 which vests the executive power in the President (pursuant to whose authority the various administrative departments such as the FCC act -- executive departments are expressly contemplated by Art II. Sec. II) and directs him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed (Art II Sec III). There has been a running legal debate about what counts as a legitimate exercise of executive power since at least the 1920s and, accordingly, what sort of powers congress can delegate. The quick synopsis is that there are only very loose limits on what counts as executive, as opposed to legislative power. To the extent there is a limit, it is just that Congress must "delineate[] the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority."(Mistretta) The high water mark for these limitations was set in Schechter Poultry way back in 1935, and it has really only eroded since.

Of course, we can continue debating what is appropriate to delegate and what isn't. But please bear in mind that you, dear slashdotter, are far from the first intelligent mind to realize that there are limits on what Congress can delegate and attempt to draw a limit. There is a huge literature on the subject out there ripe for Googling. The ambguity in such an exercise is one of the reasons why some (myself included) don't think that close textual scrutiny of a document written over 200 years ago is the right way to go about answering these questions (or, at least, not the only proper consideration). It has the great disadvantage of being an inquiry totally divorced from our modern ways of living and without the supposed benefit of providing clear limits or guidance.

Re:Nope, all Left

[toriver]

You mean the Socialist dictatorship that precedes the Communist utopia. You know, the one that never seem to manifest itself...

Re:Nope, all Left

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

I don't use Google for much research; I use books. The best example is The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant by Robert G. Natelson. Natelson provides very specific, non-ambiguous, strong evidence that the Constitution is the equivalent to a power of attorney and that these powers cannot be delegated, largely because doing so would override the very purpose of the Constitution. You state "way back in 1935," but this is nearly 150 after the ratification of the Constitution, so in context of what Natelson discusses, this is long after the ratifiers created the document, so the evidence is not really valid when trying to determine the intent of the ratifiers. And as far as the Supreme Court rulings go, they are also not valid as they often are in direct contradiction to what the ratifiers intended as the evidence indicates.

To argue that the Constitution, as ratified, is no longer valid is to undermine the very foundation of democracy, because at the core of the argument is the belief that the state can redefine the governing documents, the dangers of which were so well described by people such as George Orwell.

Re:Nope, all Left

[h4rr4r]

Communism cannot be implemented with the industrial revolution.

Until you read some actual Marx, you should probably stop talking about communism.

Re:Nope, all Left

[h4rr4r]

Israeli kibbutz.
The joint raising of children is what killed those off, they end up thinking of each other as siblings and so go outside the community for spouses.

Re:Nope, all Left

[pdabbadabba]

And what of my actual quotations from the text of the constitution explicitly providing for delegation of some powers to the executive?

And, yes, I am aware there are a lot of books out there on the subject -- I spent several thousands of dollars on them in my three years of law school. The one you have read is, just that: one of very many (and, I might add, one of the less respected constitutional scholars out there). Read the works of constitutional scholars such as Bruce Ackerman, Lawrence Tribe, and Akhil Amar. Each of them have written several relevant books and numerous articles (some of which you could find through googling, if you like). They won't all uniformly support my position or yours, but some of them do and everything any of those three people have written is worth reading if you're interested in actually thinking carefully about constitutional law and not just pushing a political agenda disguised as constitutional interpretation.

Re:Nope, all Left

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

You do as most do - dismiss any argument presented by originalists without any debate. I can easily argue that 'respected' scholars are those who support the position of more state power, and as such receive more attention and more money from the state, including promotions within the state-approved and funded educational system (which your provided suggested authors are perfect examples of). I push no political agenda when discussing the Constitution and find several things in the Constitution to be in direct opposition to my personal beliefs, but what I hold above anything else is that if society does not follow the law, then the special interests will take over, which is why I place the findings of the originalists much higher than others. I have read many books on the Constitution, and frankly, most authors do nothing to look at what the beliefs and concerns of the people who ratified the document were. They look at the long line of supreme court rulings that have done little more than break down the system that was democratically established, while maybe quoting a few of the 'founding fathers' and the federalist papers. A friend of a close friend is a public defender and I hear regularly about what it took for him to become a lawyer and it has little to do with understanding the Constitution from the perspective of of the ratifiers and everything to do with supporting the courts, which prefer to effectively rewrite governing documents to assign greater power to themselves.

Re:Nope, all Left

[Sentrion]

Which is why in "communist" china the workers do not collectively decide what wages would be appropriate, what hours should be worked, or what heath, safety, and environmental conditions would be acceptable. If you compare forms of government to types of business entities the USA would be like Procter & Gamble or General Electric - publicly listed, every shareholder can vote for who controls the board of directors, and directly vote on some key decisions en masse; and like most publicly listed companies, the shareholder tend to sign away their right to vote to institutional investors to vote on their behalf (such as when citizens vote 'straight ticket' for their party of choice). But ultimately the retail investor (common voter) does not have much sway over the company, as they are controlled by wealthy investors who hold a critical mass of stock which gives them either outright direct control by owning 51% of the shares, or gives them controlling interest by holding more than 10% of the shares as an individual or a consortium of like-minded investors (an anology in politics would be those with enough money to buy the critical mass of advertising space to win their party's nomination). Once on the board of directors (Congress, Senate, White House, etc.) they tend to make decisions that first perpetuate and increase the power and revenue of the company by lobbying government for special protections or forcing consumers to agree to binding arbitration before receiving their service (government, new taxes, new regulations) while solidifying or consolidating their own control of the company by offering to buy out shares of less-than-cooperative board members [like GE board with Ross Perot] (in government, they appoint their political backers and campaign contributors to run the agencies that affect them the most, like putting ex oil executives in charge of the EPA, meat packers in charge of the FDA, and banksters to run the Federal Reserve. Or they come up with a new tax to fund a private company that contributed to their campaign. Or sign exclusive contracts without open or public bidding to outsource essential government services to their cronies in industry. In return, the elected officials receive endorsements from private businesses and trade organizations, re-election campaign contributions, or a seat on the executive board of the firms they passed legislation for, or consulting gigs to explain away the millions or dollars in corporate kickbacks after a politician gives so much away to the fat cats that despite superior funding and media backing they don't have a chance of being re-elected by their constituents).

"Communist" and many "socialist" nations can be compared to a private non-profit organization like Goodwill Industries that on the surface seems to be helping the common man, such as hiring disadvantaged workers and selling affordable used clothes (equivalent to China owning corporations to hire Chinese peasants to produce dirt cheap products more affordable to the rest of the world). But such organizations as Goodwill are not publicly listed and there is no process to join or become a member with voting rights like you can with many other non-profits. New board members are invited and confirmed by the existing board (at least China let's all citizens vote for their local People's Congress, and all other political offices are voted for indirectly by the local or National People's Congress - though in practice this leaves state power in the hands of a power oligarchy). One of Goodwill's branch presidents, Michael Miller, received $838,508 in pay and benefits for fiscal year 2004, which was reportedly out of line in comparison to other charity executives and placed him in the top one percent of American wage earners, while his employees often earned below minimum wage since they were paid by piece work, not by the hour, and an unusual loophole allows workers who receive meager government benefits to perform such work for less than minimum wage (not unlike "Communist" China where factory ex

Re:Nope, all Left

[Creepy]

That makes no sense - fascism is a political system and communism an economic system. Fascism is just racist Totalitarianism.

Re:Nope, all Left

[Creepy]

actually, they are all supposed to degenerate into anarchy, and always seem to degenerate to police state. And by anarchy, I mean no government, but an economic system in place and otherwise utopia.

Re:Nope, all Left

[pdabbadabba]

Well, two of the three authors I recommended are ardent textualists who favor restricting government power so I don't see how you can claim I'm dismissing your guy because he's an originalist.

Also: you still have not responded to a word of my own textualist arguments. Still waiting.

If you want to have a real debate about originalism, let's start with this:

1) The text of the constitution s vague. There is no disputing this. On some points it is very specific, but on most it is not. I the world hadn't changed over the last 200 years, we probably could just study the founders' texts to see what they had in mind. (Though I have other reasons for thinking this isn't the way to go, as you'll see.) but, in fact, most of the contemporary issues in constitutional law are novel by definition. Think about cellphone GPS tracking. Do the words "unreasonable," "search," and "seizure" tell us anything informative about how to answer this legal question? No. And there was little in the founders' world that tells us what they would have thought about the issue.

2) A lot of originalists, I sense you might be one, like originalism because it appeals to the ideal that people should be governed by consent. This is an ideal I share, of course. The problem is that nobody alive today voted, or voted for anyone who voted to ratify the Constitution. Not even close. If our interpretation of the text is allowed to evolve to keep pace with contemporary values, then the constitution still has a claim to democratic legitimacy. But if the constitution is rigidly tied to the opinions of rich white men living in the 18th century, then we have a fundamental failure of democratic legitimacy on our hands. True, we have an amendment process, but it is widely acknowledged that the process it provides has been all but politically impossible for the last 100 years due to changes in our country's political dynamics. We can fix this while still restraining government by developing a more sensitive methodology for interpreting the constitutional text in a way that sticks as close as possible to its literal meaning while taking evolving public norms into account.

3) If you're planning to say "but the founders intended that we interpret the constitution as they intended it to mean," or something like that, restrain yourself. It begs the question.

Also: it's true. lots of people graduate law school without learning much about constitutional theory. I'm not one of them; Constitutional Theory is most of what I spent my three years studying.

Re:Nope, all Left

[Raenex]

tl;dr + monster paragraphs = Holy wall of text, Batman!

Re:Nope, all Left

[Talderas]

Fascism is an utterly pointless word that has been completely devoid of any real meaning since the ending of World War II.

Soviets called Chinese Marxists fascists. Chinese Marxists called Soviets fascists. Far-right and far-left have both been, accurately, called fascist. Fascism doesn't sit on the traditional spectrums and those that try to mangle it into the left-right spectrum are often trying to do so to use fascist as a pejorative in order to make a very well concealed strawman argument.

You could also take Mussolini's words as well...

"Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center ... These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don't give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words."

Only with a sunset date and quantitative goal

[swb]

The problem with these taxes is that they end up outliving their original purpose. IIRC, there still is a tax on wired phone service designed to support rural telephone connectivity. If there was a new tax it should have some quantitative measure and a hard sunset date after that in case the measures are designed to prevent sunset.

The telephone taxes maybe made sense in the 1950s or 1960s, but even as early as the 1970s all my relatives who lived in rural areas (a farm in south central Kansas, a house 10 miles outside of Washburn, MO in the Ozarks) had 'normal' telephone service with direct dial long distance to/from their houses.

I don't doubt there may be places that lack phone service to this day, but I doubt the tax still imposed does anything for those people. The places unserved are either super poor areas where there's not enough demand for service or super remote locations where the people aren't willing to pay to extend service.

And when it comes to broadband or any other technologically sophisticated service where the cost of providing the service increases as density decreases, I'm not sure we should always subsidize services like this. At some point, choosing to live in a remote location is a lifestyle choice.

I like gourmet food, and in the city I can't go out to eat often enough to keep up with the restaurants with this kind of food. If I decide to live in a remote location, should the local diner be subsidized so that I can get steak au poivre instead of chicken fried steak?

If you want something urban, live in an urban area. If you want a rural lifestyle, live in a rural area. If you want both, open your checkbook.

I would if the government owned the pipe

[fustakrakich]

And ensured that it is a dumb pipe with consistent upgrades as needed and access for all. No content regulation of any kind shall be permitted, none. But in the present situation? No way! The money will just go into somebody's Cayman Island account, or other slush fund. Thanks, but no thanks.

Broad strokes begetting broader strokes

[Nationless]

You just painted every foreigner with the same broad stroke that a select group of foreigners did to you. Congrats. You are part of the problem, and so are they.

MarketFailure means other barriers must be removed

[bhima]

If we are going to acknowledge that the market has failed to provide Americans with internet service roughly similar to what other people have at similar costs and begin spending public funds on communication infrastructure (again) it's essential that we take steps to make sure that this does not once again become a mechanism to transfer public funds to corporations. This means not only removing all barriers to municipalities and other small communities from forming competitive last mile public ISP's but we also should get some sort of clawback program to go after the corporations which benifited so much from the last round of public funds and *did not deliver as promised*.

Options

[jickerson]

"Would you pay it?" I hate to be a pessimist but it's not like we have a huge choice. If it does become a reality, then you either pay it or don't have broadband (and I have a feeling that the marginal benefit from broadband exceeds the $1-2 extra a month for the tax). The real question is: "Is this a big enough deal for you to support a different representative who opposes the tax (if your current guy supports it)." Personally, when choosing a candidate, there are at least 50 other topics that I'd consider before their support/opposition to this tax.

Where are the guarantees?

[JDG1980]

Would you pay a buck or two extra for fast access â" or vote for someone who thinks you should?

If I thought that I (and others) would actually get the access in exchange for paying the tax, then yes. But the experience with existing "universal service" fees in the United States has not been encouraging. It's basically just an excuse for the existing cable and telephone companies to pocket more money.

More generally, this is one of several reasons why Americans are far more averse to taxes than Europeans. The Europeans have more competent governments on average (I'm talking about Scandinavia, Germany, France, etc., not outliers such as Greece) and ordinary Europeans see more return on their tax money than ordinary Americans do. In the US, most federal tax dollars go to senior-oriented programs (Medicare, Social Security) which are great, but don't directly help working families, and to the military, which is absurdly over-bloated, spending about as much as the rest of the world put together. Most of this is corporate welfare, going to politically connected defense contractors. The state governments are even more corrupt and inept than the Feds. Localities are a mixed bag, but in general it seems that people are more willing to support property taxes for tangible goods like schools, libraries, and better roads.

Taxes are okay sometimes

[HangingChad]

I disagree with people who act like taxes are some kind of evil government plot. I don't mind paying taxes as long as I get something back for it.

I'm just not seeing a win for taxpayers in a broadband tax. I'd rather see the government take back the internet and regulate it like any other utility. Privatizing the internet has been a big win for telecos and cable companies, not so much for the rest of us.

Then make internet service a utility

[dpilot]

This has been part of a long tug-of-war between the major ISPs and regulators for a long time. The questions comes down to whether internet service is "content delivery" or "data transport". Is it a utility, which has other significant fairness requirements, or is it a buyer-beware unregulated luxury? We've been dodging this question for over a decade. In exchange for not getting internet access called a utility, the major ISPs have made (and broken) major roll-out promises, and have kept the data transport at least somewhat network-neutral.

But I would think that philosophically, internet access is far more of a utility than cable TV, and that is regulated as a utility.

So the way we're doing things is really hiding our heads in the sand, pretending it's all going to come out OK. I'll have to agree with what someone else said, with a little modification... In internet tax is just corporate welfare - unless it's accompanied by declaring internet access to be a utility.

First, is this a problem?

[miltonw]

First they should actually show that this is a significant problem that requires the heavy hammer of government intervention.

Spanish American War

[Cute Fuzzy Bunny]

Given that we're still paying a tax on our telephones that originated from the Spanish American War, I think we're taxed more than enough right now, thanks.

Plus it appears that fully 50% or more of my tax dollars goes to pork or horseshit that nobody cares about. Well, nobody that isn't a billionaire.

So move to the city

[cockpitcomp]

There are trade-offs to living in the country/city. This is one of them. Sitting in traffic sucking down pollution is another. Add up to pros and cons and live where you want, but don't expect others to foot the bill for your choices. Broadband must not be as important as the benefits of pastoral lifestyle.

No!

[FudRucker]

I am about ready to discontinue services for a bundled system of basic cable TV, internet and landline telephone, it costs over 100 bucks a month for it all, and one of these days I will call them and cancel all of it, i have a cellphone if i need to make a call, i will still have a computer to do miscellaneous tasks like personal accounting/book keeping, listen to music & video, photo editing & etc... i do have a laptop i can take to town if i need the internet for a few minutes for something but my dependence on the internet is minimal, it is more of a leisure time luxury that i can live without if i must. all i need is just another annoyance like a price hike or a tax on top of what i have to pay for now and BAM! and wave buh bye to all of it as a kick it all to the curb

Universal service requires open wireless access.

[bobs666]

The Telco's will NEVER provide quality service to everyone. I live 3 miles from the down town pop sight and all that Verizon will run here is slow dsl over the old copper, no new infrastructure since the 1950s. Oh perhaps a new pedestal when a car took an pedestal out. So yes anything but bypassing the telco's will simple be corporate welfare.

So no two bucks will not get us anything. I all ready pay 5 bucks extra, and got nothing for it. Sure paying $25 for my slow DSL (700kbits/sec) is all Verizon can get away with, but the deal was $19.99 per month. before the bait and switch. Oh, and there is no alternative to the monopoly at this location. So I an stuck with what ever I can beg for. If the last mike was open access, the it would allow other ISP's to do business. That's what we call capitalism, where many people compete to provide the best service st the best price. What we have is Monarchy where one, tells us what to pay for a level of service that they are embarrassed into providing.

So you keep your filthy hands off my two bucks.

I already did.

[Lumpy]

I already paid an internet tax to pay for more infrastructure. did it 10 years ago with everyone else in the USA. what did the ISP's and telcos do with that money?

Per what?

[pubwvj]

A buck or two extra per what?

Per bit?
Per byte?
Per Megabyte?
Per Gigabyte?

Per month?
Per year?

And how much faster?

And will we really get faster or will it just go to the urban and pseudo-urban areas with denser populations. I rather detest paying a buck a bit and not getting any byte back for my money. I'm truly rural. I laid a mile and a half of my own phone wires to get very slow 'aDSL' and they've been making promises for years of more speed but I doubt we'll see it. Instead it will go to the larger population centers. Let them pay for their own cables and fibers.

Yes

[g0bshiTe]

If fast broadband is defined as putting us in the top 10 countries for broadband speed. I would most certainly pay an extra tax. Otherwise it's like paying more taxes for your Ma Bell line.

Same old flim flam

[John Jorsett]

It's become a universal tactic in government these days: "Would you pay a little more for [insert popular item here]?" All government has to do is find Popular Item and then sell the people on the idea that they can have it if they'll just consent to having their pockets picked. Even better is if the pockets to be picked are 'their' pockets, 'they' being some unpopular group like 'the rich' or 'the smokers'. The first thought that ought to come to mind when hearing one of these solicitations is ":"What the hell did you do with the money I've already been paying you?" There already is a 'universal service fee' tacked on to your phone bill. If we're already funding deployment of phone service to rural areas, why can't we require that it be DSL? And then there's the gazillions in 'stimulus' that we've spent and are continuing to spend. If we have this worthy and 'shovel-ready' project of making broadband universal, why not use that money for that purpose instead of trying to wheedle more?

public network

[Lehk228]

I would be happy to pay a tax to fund a publicly run network, one where due process still exists and net neutrality would be automatic under the equal protection clause. Requirements such as transfer limits would exist, of course, but they would be fairly imposed and users would have usage meters. They could monitor their own usage. Limits would be determined by formula and adjusted as networks were improved, improvements would be done evenly so everyone gets speed increases instead of blazing fast in the city, slow ass DSL in the village, and dialup in the sticks.


Oh you mean corporate welfare for cox/comcast/att/verizon/time warner

fuck that

Yes I would, and so would you

[Nkwe]

Do I want to pay a broadband tax? No.
If I had a choice, would I choose to? Maybe - lots of good discussion here on that very topic. Ultimately will I have that choice? No.
That leaves me with: when there is a broadband tax, will I pay it? Yes, yes I will. It is not like I am not going to have broadband Internet.

Paying Extra Now

[jekewa]

I already pay extra to have higher speeds and no bandwidth caps on my Comcast Business-class service.

If the tax went toward making a ubiquitous, carrier-independent service available everywhere, even with a lower bandwidth (being free doesn't mean it has to be the best), I'd be all for having everyone who pays for more cover the costs for those who can't (or won't) pay.

Why is it that it only takes a few ....

[3seas]

... being persistent with getting more and more out of the public but to oppose it takes impossibly ALL the public?

A: because the public unwittingly pays the government either way in this vote-less republic/democracy.

Would you pay...

[Rob_Bryerton]

Would you Pay to have a sharpened #2 pencil slowly shoved into your eardrum?

I'll pass, but thanks for the "offer".

Betteridge

[PPH]

No.

Best application of this law to date.

Slashdot poll fodder?

[whitroth]

Yes. Broadband or fast for *everyone*.

Sounds like a slashdot poll, to me.

                mark

What would I get for it?

[SkOink]

I'm not fundamentally opposed to paying a broadband tax, but what would I get for it? I would happily pay a 5% tax if it meant that my broadband received government-imposed price controls, minimum bandwidth guarantees, and net neutrality.

Don't you mean *another* tax?

[thereitis]

I thought Internet access was already "taxed" in the form of ad banners and being spied upon by various government and corporate entities.

Also, that people already pay for more faster access and higher bandwidth caps.

Mod the parent up

[Tailhook]

The parent has the truth well in hand. Rural US is not what you think it is. This is not about shoe-less waifs huddled in plywood cabins. The sort of rural households that might benefit from 'universal internet' are typically well off.

Besides, this 'problem' is easily solved without a tax. Just open the right-of-way to competitors and then jump back and let the dirt fly as phone/cable companies suddenly discover new enthusiasm for complete coverage.

That solution does nothing to feed the statists, however. No opportunity to collect billions and then haggle over which politically favored constituency gets to play with it.

Re:only 4% of Americans are stuck with service

[cpu6502]

Same here:
$5 cell
$15 internet
$7 dialup (for hotels)
$10 wired phone
free AntennaTV
===
$37

No way

[emaname]

Does anyone remember when cable was first introduced? This might not be an exact comparison, but the concept was we all pay for TV and get it commercial free. Well THAT worked out well.

The point is, as soon as anything gets "nudged" closer to the private sector, they, their lobbyists, and their political friends will find a way to monetize and control it.

And they WILL be relentless in their efforts. Just note how many variations of ACTA we've seen so far. When they want something, they can make more attempts to get it than any of us can imagine.

NO way! They can take some of the money out of those obscenely huge executive compensation packages to finance the effort to expand into rural areas or whatever.

What is the point?

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

State sponsored municipal broadband has been sued away because apparently competition with corporate monopolies is illegal.

Define Broadband

[dfn5]

Broadband used to refer to the Cable companies' high speed internet based on the technology that it used. However, Verizon FiOS is fiber to the premises, is that considered broadband? What about facilities who's internet connection is a 10Gbps fiber ethernet connection? Is that broadband? I wouldn't be in favor of it just because "Tax on broadband" is too vague.

No.

[nurb432]

We already do, and we don't need yet another tax to be squandered and wasted.

America, home of backwards opossums

[TiggertheMad]

Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again? You're calling us "opossums". I had one British guy say if we don't reelect Obama it will prove we are a "backwards nation". And on and on. Lately everywhere I go I see Europeans slagging-off on Americans.

It makes me think the U.S. should quit NATO rather than be allied with people who hate us.

Ok, so you are saying that because someone criticized this country, we should abandon a 60+ year military alliance that helped preserve freedom for millions of people the world over by presenting a unified opposition to communism. You sir, are a true idiot. What kind of isolationist idiocy is that? Don't cooperate with others because they might have hurt your feelings?

Yeah, people criticize other people, get over it. We mock the other countries for what we feel are bad choices on their part, and they do the same to us. What, do you feel we are so fucking special that we should be above criticism?

Reading between the lines of your post, you seem more upset over the implication that 'Mittens' Romney is a imbecilic monkey who couldn't lead a platoon of marines to a whorehouse, and that electing him would thus reflect poorly on us. (Disclaimer: I am in no way a pro-democrat, I am just strongly opposed to electing a degenerate retard the the White house) So, there, I said it: If we elect Mitt Romney, it will show the world that we are a nation of backwards opossums. I am an American, so by your measure that makes it ok, right?

FASCIST LAWS

[TiggertheMad]

"it's illegal to inject yourself with Draino"

GODDAMMIT!

*puts down needle*

If it means...

[nighthawk243]

If it means I can have a much easier time at work by not needing to use remote desktop on a remote user with a shitty Sprint Air Card or Dial-up; I'll gladly pay the tax for that.

The situation in Germany

[excelsior_gr]

The German GEZ practically established such a tax this year at 18 Euros/household. If you own a PC, TV or radio you have to pay. And it doesn't even matter whether you have broadband or not. And GEMA continues to block YouTube content. So pay an additional tax for a broadband that I cannot legally utilize? No thanks. I am already paying enough crap taxes.

Re:only 4% of Americans are stuck with service

[gnapster]

I maintain a Verizon landline with Caller ID at my house. We pay $430 a year. I keep it because we have poor cell reception indoors, and are susceptible to power outages (Can't rely on VoIP).

Pay a tax? to whom and for what?

[Nyder]

I'm still waiting for my fucking Fiber Optics that was promised in the 1990's when the Gov gave permission to the phone companies to raise their prices because they are going to build a fiber optics network for their customers. http://www.newnetworks.com/BroadbandScandalIntro.htm

So, now I need to pay a tax to maybe get a better internet connection, even though I live in the fucking heart of Seattle? What, thru one of my 2 choices, Comcast and Centurylink? Really?

Will this tax keep them from sending me notices about how much bandwidth i use?
Will this tax keep the internet free from corporate interests?
Will this tax keep the net neutral?
Will any of this tax go to the overbudgeted military?

Pretty sure I'm going to say, Fuck you, give me what I was paid for in the 90's, and NO NEW TAXES!!!!

Already paying

[mrbester]

It's called VAT, though where the value in an overpriced, oversubscribed underperforming service is is a mystery.

No

[_8553454222834292266]

Fund it with existing income or property taxes

The problem in the US

[falconwolf]

The problem in the US is that the government was big enough to actually save the assholes on Wall Street.

The problem in the USA is that politicians in both political parties do not follow the Constitution of the USA. The Constitution set up a small and limited government however both Democrats and Republicans want big government. The main difference between them is what part of government is big and what part is smart or nonexistent.

Falcon

BWAHAHAHAHA... No.

[denzacar]

Fascism is just Communism implemented where the industrial revolution has already occurred.

Fascism is authoritarianism built on top of nationalism - WE are better than THEM (everyone else) and our Leader is the bestest ever because he is of us and we are the best ever and as such it is foretold in our culture that we shall have the bestest Leader ever.
Everything belongs to us, but since the Leader knows best, he is the one running everything.

Communism is all about equality - EVERYONE is essentially the same, everyone should have the same rights, no one should be lesser than others, no one is oppressed.
No one owns anything really but everything exists solely for the benefit of everyone - so you don't really need to own anything. Everything is run by those who's duty it is to run things, and they are best for that job because they've been taught how to do it according to the available scientific knowledge.

Communism is an impossible utopia. Humans being imperfectly empathic and selfless it can easily become totalitarian if the people are not careful.
Fascism is a very possible insane asylum. Totalitarianism is basically a prerequisite.

The FCC

[falconwolf]

again, wtf does the FCC have to do with the internet?

Is this a joke? They're the Federal Communications Commission. Are you contending that the Internet isn't a form of interstate communication?

Where does the word "Communications" make it's appearance in the Constitution of the USA?

In a letter to Albert Gallatin Thomas Jeffersonwrote “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” James Madison, the father of the Constitution, once wrote “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents” when congress undertook to appropriate $15,000 "for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo (now Haiti) to Baltimore and Philadelphia". In the Marbury v Madison case in 1803 Justice Marshall wrote:

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Falcon

Taxes are optionally now?

[aliquis]

I didn't know.

Would I want to pay one? No.

What would it pay for? I would assume copyidiots but maybe it was for other things? Others bandwidth? Of course I could pay for infrastructure costs. Additional revenue stream for Google? No, probably not.

As long as it licensed all copyrighted materials

[rbosworth]

I would pay a flat fee, not for faster access, but to be able to freely download, and share with other licensed downloaders, everything I download.

How does that follow?

[SuperKendall]

All govenmental/societal philosophies are about the elite knowing what is best. Including libertarianism.

Possibly, but since they would then excert no controls over you based on that superiority how does it differ from them not believing they are a better informed elite?

In short Libertarians want to take over and leave you the hell alone.

You are agreeing with me

[SuperKendall]

No fascism is the union of the state and corporate power

Which does not contradict what I said; I included modern progressives.

Obamacare is a breathtaking transformation forcing taxpayers to give more money to insurance companies than they would otherwise, by way of one example.

Non-fasicm is people being able to buy whatever insurance they like. Fascism is forcing everyone to buy a plan, and the most expensive one to boot...