Slashdot Mirror
US House Passes Permanent Ban On Internet Access Taxes
jfruh writes: In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed a law that temporarily banned all taxes imposed by federal, state, and local governments on Internet access and Internet-only services, a ban that has been faithfully renewed every year since. Now the U.S. House has passed a passed a permanent version of the ban, which also applies to several states that had passed Internet taxes before 1998 and were grandfathered in under the temporary law. The Senate must pass the bill as well by November 1 or the temporary ban will lapse.
Could they tack a rider onto that sucker mandating out-the-door advertised prices while they're at it?
They'll never pass up an opportunity to squeeze more money to fund pet projects back home. Hell, they're already talking about tapping the untouched potential of my 401(k).
Without reading the details.. I doubt this will pass, if its democrat sponsered, the repubs will shut it down in the house. If it's GOP approved, the senate will kill it. Gotta love our divided country!
This means no tax-funded internet, it doesn't mean municipal internet is dead.
Using taxes for internet is something completely different than taxing for using the internet. This law bans the latter. You're describing the former.
Not necessarily. It just means no public internet funded by a tax paid by people who pay for internet access and Internet-only services. The funding could come from general taxes.
There is also no guarantee that such taxes would go to fund public internet. It is quite possible that they would go into general revenue and be use to fund other things.
No, it means no taxes on internet access. If a city or state wanted to have a socialist-styled state owned ISP instead of the current craze of fascist-style state selected ISP, this would do nothing to stop them. Just as the repeated extensions of the original law have done nothing to regulate who sponsors/starts an ISP.
The bill says that your internet bill won't be used to pay for government, not that government can't pay for internet. Concrete examples - you can't tax voting. Governments can and do pay for voting machines. You don't get taxed on sending your kids to school. The government does pay for government schools. You don't pay a tax on researching solar panels, the government does pay for solar panel research.
This is the "until a later congress decides otherwise" extension of a law that was passed in 1998 with a "only so long as congress re-affirms it every ~4 years" clause. The only part of it that was heavily debated in the house was some democrats arguing that it should be a campaign issue every couple years and some other democrats arguing that their constituents are sick of seeing it come up every 4 years and want it permanent. Republicans argued about what it meant in regards to states' authority to tax in their own jurisdictions, then decided that it was constitutional enough since it had been uncontested law for 16 years.
Then universities will have to find a way to communicate information between them. They will allow students to communicate along this network and setup locations to have conversations. Soon the public in the surrounding areas will have access to this inter and intra connection. Languages will be formed to allow simpler communication and distribution. Soon it will be used by businesses and completes monetized. Then universities will have to find a way to . . .
This means no public internet, it will forever now be a private enterprise. Not sure I like that possibility in the long run given how the ISP monopolies behave.
So you're saying you'd like the NSA to have direct access to your internet activity? Nice.
Franchise Fee $4.91, FCC Fee $0.09, Total fees $5.00 per month. For TV and Internet.
I thought the exact same thing, but the summary seems to say that it does change one thing: states that currently have taxes on Internet service are no longer allowed to have them. The word "permanent" is a bit weird, but apparently it only means "does not require annual renewal".
No, this just means that local municipalities cannot attach an excise tax to internet service, like they do for telephone service.
Governments are free to spend tax dollars on building networks and providing access, within applicable legal frameworks.
Example - City X cannot attach a 5% excise tax onto your cable modem service in order to pay for sewer repairs.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
in 1998 there was a sizeable movement to declare internet access a 'basic human right' and as such, make it an entitlement. Since republicans and conservatives alike respond to the word Entitlement in much the same way as a microwave responds to a sack of paper clips, its safe to say this legislation was enacted to ensure your internet remains permanently comcastic. so how did this come to pass?
the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), following a proposal by the government of Tunisia during ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Minneapolis in 1998, approved Resolution 73 to hold a World Summit on the Information Society and put forward it to the United Nations. It cant be stressed enough that 1998 was clearly a better year for congress as is evidenced by the fact that legislators got wind of the WSIS and its strong position on internet as a basic human right. Much like affirming things like the kyoto protocol and the basic human right to water, the internet was sandbagged in america to ensure it would never amount to something as horrifying as a free service. amending it recently simply extended its reach to local governments. It did now however close a loophole being exploited by local municipalities in which the 'tax' for their paid services like WiMAX and municipal broadband was bundled under things like vehicle registration fees (something used by local governments that need to fund schools but have politicians who promise no new taxes.)
by shitting on the idea of a tax for internet service, congressional republicans have created a two-tier system in america in much the same way as education and housing exist. underprivileged or poor students and families seeking internet access are now relegated back to the library, and those libraries in turn forced to shovel federal dollars into the gaping maw of AT&T and Verizon for something that, yes, is increasingly more of a basic human right in the 21st century.
Good people go to bed earlier.
It doesn't even mean that. It means no tax funding of government Internet projects (or anything else) using taxes on (private) Internet services.
They can still fund it out of general funds (or state gas taxes, for that matter, which are often used for things other than roads.)
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Except that this one law from Congress makes sure that 10,000 municipalities cannot enact a tax on internet service.
So it is not a waste of time.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
why am I charged sales tax on the streaming part of my netflix account?
Why you no like-a the pasta pasta?
sig: sauer
Hopefully the Senate will follow right away and they won't try to kill it with stupid politics.
If a city or state wanted to have a public utility type state owned ISP instead of the current craze of profit/rent seeking privately owned ISP, this would incentivize the status quo.
There. FTFY.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
So you're saying you'd like the NSA to have direct access to your internet activity? Nice.
They already have that, and meanwhile, we also get fucked over by the cable and phone companies.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
did not bother to look it up we are on /. after all but if other bills are anything to go by there are probably hunderds of pages to sift trough and after that a clerk in congress can add, modify or remove parts of the text before it gets published. Sometimes I wonder why US was ever an example of functioning democracy.
Public utilities are (usually) still for-profit companies, just with government-set prices (and often a government-enforced monopoly). Taxes don't enter into it.
I'd love to see the "last mile" connection maintained by public utilities, breaking all cable company monopolies everywhere, but both "profit seeking" and "taxes" are orthogonal to that discussion.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
continue driving the country towards become a cesspool of ignorance.
Anything to stop funding of key programs.
I think this show they are attacking any non rich person in the country, and we shouldn't stand for it. It's class warfare, and the rich are winning.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'd love to see the "last mile" connection maintained by public utilities, breaking all cable company monopolies everywhere,
I couldn't agree more.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Municipalities should be allowed to build their own networks. I guess the ISPs are afraid of their competition.
The Internet does not deserve any special tax privileges. If my phone service can be taxed, so could my Internet service. Goods brought on the Internet should also be subject to the same sales taxes as goods bought locally, because, otherwise, Internet stores have an advantage.
That being said, I hate sales taxes because they are so regressive. I also despise that income is taxed differently. Wages should not be taxed more or less than other income. For example, the carried interest classification is unfair and horrible. Personally, I would like to get rid of sales taxes and most other taxes and fund most things with progressive income taxes.
Replying just about your signature...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Two things:
If the law that this law is replacing accomplished the same thing but required annual renewal, then no States will have taxes on internet services.
Unless this is a matter in Interstate Commerce (admittedly, it's probably an easy case to make, but then automobile sales are a matter of Interstate Commerce, and are taxed by the several States), the Federal Government actually has no jurisdiction to tell the States they can't pass their own laws.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
One's annoying. The other could lead to my kids getting gassed for being enemies of the state. Guess which one I'm more concerned about.
And no, I'm not exaggerating or kidding. If you think your phone bills more important, fuck you.
Our city imposes (suckered the voters into approving) a 3% tax on utilities - comm, power, gas, ... - and has for several years. I think that includes internet service (which is pretty steep around here). My wife and I have been fighting this law and its renewal. (It is driving businesses out of the city - they can cut their costs substantially by relocating just over the line - and thus both blighting the city and cutting other tax revenue.
I think I need to do a little checking to see if they ARE taxing the internet part of the phone bill and if that's prohibited federally. Zapping them for a refund (for everybody, for several years worth) might get their attention. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
One's annoying. The other could lead to my kids getting gassed for being enemies of the state. Guess which one I'm more concerned about.
Why don't you concern yourself with reading comprehension? Or the ability to perform basic reasoning? Go back and read my comment again (and again, and again, apparently) until you understand that you're talking nonsense.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When Harry Reid refuses to bring this to the floor of the Senate... and all the lib/progs scream that it's those evil House Rethugnicans who are the party of "No"
Murphy was an optimist