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.

[Hatta]

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

What are you some kind of socialist?

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

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: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".

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.

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.