Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 07/02/2005 1:25:00 AM PDT by newzjunkey
Many broadband customers will pay new universal service taxes akin to those on their telephone bills if Congress bows to suggestions from rural legislators...
The USF currently collects a fixed percentage of revenues from long-distance, wireless, pay phone and telephone companies so that it can pass on subsidies to low-income customers, high-cost areas, and rural health care providers, schools and libraries. Most companies come up with their share, set for this quarter at 10.2 percent, by charging their customers a fee.
The USF should continue to be "industry funded," but the base of contributors should be expanded to "all providers of two-way communications, regardless of technology used, to ensure competitive neutrality," a bipartisan coalition of rural legislators said in a June 28 letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, which will be drafting the rewrites. That means companies providing broadband services such as VoIP over telephone wires would also have to pay into the fund...
"If our residents are to be competitive in today's fast-paced, technology-driven global marketplace, our communities will require affordable high-speed, high-capacity access to data and information over the Internet," Rep. John Peterson, R-Penn., co-chairman of the Congressional Rural Caucus, said... "If the private sector is either unwilling or unable to provide that service at an affordable price, we'll find a way to provide it for ourselves."
The wireless industry applauded the proposed change "since wireless consumers are significant and disproportionate payers into the universal service and intercarrier compensation systems," Steve Largent, CEO of CTIA - The Wireless Association, said in a statement...
The Universal Service Fund in recent years has faced allegations of waste, fraud and abuse. The FCC announced in June a formal inquiry into its management.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.com ...
Do we really need these fees, taxes and subsidies?
Does anyone know about this "Rural Caucus" leanings? I never heard of them before and this proposal seems to be flying a bit under the radar.
The House is debating the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which spawned the so-called Universal Service Fund (USF). The USF is under the FCC's control. Sixty-two House members signed the letter, supposedly in a bipartisan fashion.
Still paying for the Spanish-American War....
Anyone who can see the southern sky CAN get broadband now by satellite. No need to suck on the taxpayer tit for this.
You can only milk the goat so much before you yank the teat right off.
They'd likely go after satellite as well.
Isn't all internet access and ISP service taxed already?
And, hasn't it occured to these nippleheads that raising taxes cuts revenue (Remember cigarette taxes?)?
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. - Marx
I'm considering soon taking a three or four month internet vacation, and unplugging my broadband at home and work. This helps the decision a little, based on principle alone.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
FCC's strategic goal for Broadband
http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/
Does the FCC Require That Phone Companies Recover Their Universal Service Contributions From Their Customers?
The FCC does not require companies to recover their contributions directly from their customers. Each company makes a business decision about whether and how to assess customers to recover Universal Service costs.
Although it is not mandatory that companies charge a Universal Service fee to help recover their contributions to the fund, most do. Companies that choose to collect Universal Service fees from their customers cannot collect an amount that exceeds their contribution to the Universal Service Fund.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/usfincrease.html
Congressional Rural Caucus
http://www.house.gov/johnpeterson/ruralcaucus/telecomtaskforce.htm
And Hillary.
Hmmmm. . . can I grow my own ISP?
This is horse crap. Anyone ever tell this guy about DirecWay, or some other satellite internet system? At any rate, his constituents' choice of homestead should not infringe upon my pocketbook. I live in the city. I don't get the benefits of living in a rural community. Can I dip into the pockets of the rural citizens to buy some "night sounds of the wilderness" CDs?
Destroy the USF. This tax needs to go.
I do admit though, I bet there isn't 150 DSL lines in my 2800 county. Not much room for profit. The cable company bills you for how many megabits you recieve, what a crock.
I'm getting to that point also.
Ah, wielding government legitimacy through extortion and theft.
One of these days people are going to wake up to the fact that there is no advantage to working your ass off to become part of the middle class and pay taxes.
Sit back and let the government take care of everything.
Then what.
( darn it's only 6:15 AM, I should be really pi$$ed by 8)
Then you are French.
They'll go after satellite broadband as well. Satellite TV is not taxed in many states, but the cable companies have been lobbying Congress to have satellite TV taxed. Some states have bowed to pressure and have begun taxing satellite TV, all because cable feels threatened by competition. That's the only reason why cable companies have been going this route.
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
Under the 1996 Act, all Americans are to have access to the benefits of the information superhighway - schools, libraries, hospitals and clinics. I also found that it may be other principles that, consistent with the 1996 Act, are necessary to protect the "public interest" are to be decided by the FCC.
You're confusing the USF with E-Rate, which was the subsidy used to wire disadvantaged areas to the internet, largely in rural areas by small local phone companies. By "wiring disadvantaged areas to the internet", that included wiring schools and community colleges to the internet and providing an "on ramp" for home users, whether they were accessing by dialup or xDSL. It's all smoke and mirrors. Not everyone could get broadband, and many were limited to one provider (usually the locally owned phone company) like myself.
It's a lie. So-called "natioanl providers" have largely concentrated on urban areas, where they can reap the most. If Wildblue is anything like Starband, I'll be pretty irate, and end up eating the $299 install fee. So far, I haven't seen any demonstration site for Wildblue around these parts. Having been to a Starband demonstration, I wasn't at all impressed. My 56k dialup was much faster.
I don't see why its a good idea for urban Americans subsidize those in rural areas. Things like cheap broadband and communication bandwith in general, is an added reason for people to move to the cities. By forcing urbanites to subsidize rural people, we are causing a missallocation of resources.
Of course the broadband tax may only be a few dollars a month, so it by itself doesn't mean much. But I've seen this type of thinking in quite a few areas, and it does start to add up. Anotehr example is electricity where it is much cheaper to bring electricity to metropolitan Americans, but they end up paying the same flat rate as rural Americans anyway.
If everything is equalized anyway, there is no reason to even try to make things cost effective.
Not possible, I insist on bathing once a week whether I need it or not.
Absolutely. The first handful of customers already on Wildblue will be disappointed when the 4mb/sec pipe is scaled back and more customers sign on.
Exactly they chose to live in a rural area. One of the disadvantages of a rural area, is services are a lot more expensive to deliver. But there are advantages.
Maybe the rural person wouldn't mind financing urban Americans travel expenses to nice scenic parks and wilderness fun?
Not really. Satellite Internet delays don't work too well for internet phone or vpn.
It's cheaper in a large city because the provider doesn't have to trench a single wire dozens of miles to one single person's home. Fiber is ridiculously expensive, which is why you don't see a huge movement to start laying down fiber to every home or business in this country. They could do it, but the providers would still end up passing the "savings" onto the customer.
Yep same with electricity. A lot cheaper to hook up a huge apartment building with a ton of residents, then digging trenches between a bunch of homes. Or putting power lines up, then maintaining them.
There is also economies of scale going on. Where you can have maintenance crews and server technicians with a constant workflow, and little travel time. And specialized equipment in addition.
If it wasn't for our major cities being liberal meccas, stopping growth and doing crazed socialist engineering, I think many more people would move towards the major centers, as the cost of living would be so much cheaper.
The Chinese with their super dense cities are throwing in broadband like crazy right now.
One of these days people are going to wake up to the fact that there is no advantage to working your ass off to become part of the middle class and pay taxes.
Sit back and let the government take care of everything.
Then what.
____
Then you go back to taxing the richest 1% uh, I mean 2%.
One day you won't even be able to make it to the middle class by working your ass off.
"Anyone who can see the southern sky CAN get broadband now by satellite."
Yes...I use Direcway. It's a great service...just don't expect too much whenever it rains.
ping
So we have to subsidize farmers' kids surfing porn and downloading illegal songs, software and movies? Wonderful.
Of course, funded by the government no less. My local telephone company is my local internet provider and they've been providing ADSL to the cities they serve for years now. Broadband for what it's worth hasn't given me any incentive to move into town. The phone company and electric company know me personally, and if I have a gripe with either one, they're right on top of it the moment I speak up. I can't say that about the internet provider. The tech support is a couple of incompetant rubes. I've actually solved more customer problems than they have. It's how I make a living.
Thanks for the information. Good post.
Here's an idea:
Let companies decide where they will provide service, and let people decide where they will live!
Why spoil freedom with governments forcibly taking money from some people to give to others?
Should we transfer some of the peace and quiet enjoyed by the rural folks to the cities, just to make THAT fair, too?
Here's an idea:
Let companies decide where they will provide service, and let people decide where they will live!
Why spoil freedom with governments forcibly taking money from some people to give to others?
Should we transfer some of the peace and quiet enjoyed by the rural folks to the cities, just to make THAT fair, too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.