Posted on 04/26/2006 1:27:36 PM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran
WASHINGTON--More Americans would be forced to pay taxes subsidizing broadband service in "unserved" locales, and cities would be free to go into the Wi-Fi business under an upcoming U.S. Senate bill.
Later this week, Sen. Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican, plans to introduce a legislative package called the Broadband for America Act of 2006, he said Tuesday morning at a conference here hosted by the National Telecommunications CooperativeAssociation, which represents small and rural carriers.
Net taxes on the way? Sen. Gordon Smith's proposal would force Americans to pay more to log in. Here's why: Currently telephone companies are forced to cough up a percentage of their revenues to the so-called Universal Service Fund, which subsidizes school and library Net connections and has been plagued by fraud--$4.7 billion was distributed during the first nine months of 2005.
While some details remain unclear, Smith wants to levy this tax on broadband providers too--and they're expected to turn around and pass it on to their customers in one of those fine-print notices at the end of their monthly bills.
Because Universal Service taxes are diverted to pay for rural telecommunications access, Democrats and Republicans from rural states tend to see eye-to-eye. A Democratic proposal, for instance, would levy Universal Service taxes on Internet chat services as well.
Conspicuously absent from the bill, however, is any mention of Net neutrality, which refers to the idea of the federal government forcibly preventing broadband providers from favoring some Web sites or video streams' connection speeds over others. The concept has generated significant controversy in the House of Representatives' version of a telecommunications reform bill. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is scheduled to take up its own proposal again on Tuesday evening, with a vote expected later in the week.
A copy of the 41-page bill seen by CNET News.com is essentially a combination of existing proposals introduced by Smith and his colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee. That committee's Republican chairman, Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, has also been readying what Smith called "an even more comprehensive bill" intended to overhaul the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which has been criticized as outdated for failing to account for the Internet's vast new influence.
Smith's bill is not intended to rival Stevens' proposal, he said, but he hopes that its "targeted" nature will allow it to pass more speedily through committee and to the Senate floor. "The bigger it is, the more comprehensive it is, the more likely it is to get bogged down," he said.
As network operators roll out more advanced broadband services, particularly video, they've argued that they should be able to finance those efforts by charging bandwidth-hogging content providers extra fees for the privilege of faster transmission or other preferential treatment. Net neutrality supporters say they're concerned such a practice would amount to unprecedented Internet "gatekeeping" that could raise consumer costs and inhibit innovation, and they've called on Congress to legislate against it.
Smith, for his part, told reporters after his speech that he'd rather "wait and see whether there's a problem before we legislate (on Net neutrality). I'm not convinced we're there yet." Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Stevens has also voiced reluctance to include Net neutrality in his broad telecommunications reform bill. A committee aide said Tuesday that Stevens is still wrestling with whether to include any such language.
Smith's bill instead focuses on four major areas. It would require the FCC to establish rules requiring that all companies "capable of supporting two-way voice communications" pay into the Universal Service Fund, a multibillion-dollar pool of money that's currently used to subsidize telecommunications services in rural and other high-cost areas, schools and libraries.
Right now, long-distance, wireless, pay-phone and wireline telephone services are required to pay a fixed percentage of their revenues to the fund, which they typically do by tacking an additional fee onto their customers' bills. A number of the larger voice over Internet protocol providers, including Vonage, have said they already pay into the fund, but there doesn't appear to be a formal regulation requiring them to do so.
Smith's bill also proposes allocating up to $500 million per year for supplying broadband service in areas where private investors are "reluctant" to set up networks. Certain users, such as low-income households, would be exempt from the fees under Smith's proposal.
A second portion of the bill, rooted in two earlier proposals, would give the Federal Communications Commission 180 days to establish rules for unlicensed use of so-called "white spaces" on the broadband airwaves--that is, empty, unused channels in the broadcast TV bands. Consumer advocates say using those slices of the radio spectrum would enable cheaper and easier setup of broadband networks, but the broadcasting lobby has voiced fears that such uses would muddle their stations' reception.
A third provision comes from the Community Broadband Act introduced last summer by Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. That bill, aimed at preventing states from blocking public-sector entrants into the broadband business, appears to be targeting more than a dozen states that have already passed laws bearing such restrictions or prohibitions.
Another provision is designed to relieve new entrants to the video services market from negotiating franchise agreements with individual cities and towns--a matter that has sparked controversy among cable companies, which have historically had to negotiate such deals, and phone companies seeking relaxed regulations so that they can roll out their own video services more quickly.
Tax my droppings, Rino!
Republicans hardly better than Democrats. I'm not voting for these shitbirds ever again.
It's because of things like this why I really wouldn't mind seeing one of the two houses of Congress go Democratic. It would create a stalemate in which even less would get done, and given the crap these legislators have been putting out lately, that's a good thing.
Think about that when Conyers and Leahy are both chairing their respective Judiciary Committees.
Oh please. We just got Verizon DSL in Otto, NC, at the edge of the Nantahala national forest. We are over 50 kilofeet from the CO, and somehow thay manage to get it to us on a $17.95/mo. tariff. Our place is in the Tessentee valley, where maybe 1000 people live, and according to the census, the average age is over 60. But we got DSL anyway. No new taxes or fees.
I am REALLY happy to have DSL in the mountains, lol.
What crap. We pay a tax on our phone bills that was touted as something that would deliver phone service to all. 40 years later, it hasn't happened. We're also still paying a phone tax to pay for the Spanish-American War.
How ridiculous. Like broadband is a necessity.
I'm gonna introduce the Minkcoats for America Act, for all those poor souls who have to wear regular coats. That is just not fair.
Idiots.
It's because of things like this why I really wouldn't mind seeing one of the two houses of Congress go Democratic.
Then you said:
Think about that when Conyers and Leahy are both chairing their respective Judiciary Committees.
I'll take reading comprehension for $100, Alex.
I think they should redo the highways too, so that hybrids and American-made cars have speed limits of 70 MPH, while SUV's and Japanese cars must go only 55 MPH and must stay in the two right-most lanes.
-PJ
It's none of the governments business who has net access. We shouldn't have to pay for any of this.
The politicians will get their grubby hands on the Internet one way or another. This sets a president, and opens the door for even more Internet taxing.
Recall the Republican. Give him a hardy democrat good bye.
The Universal Fund is an Al Gore tax not voted on by the elected officials. He simply made a deal with the telephone companies to scarf up extra fees from their customers and give it to the teachers union. Look at your phone bill, and try to identify all the "extra charges." The Al Gore tax is right in front of you eyes. You're being forced to support Internet access for all schools on top of your school taxes and the federal funds.
This is the responsibility of the federal government because.....?
They already charge extra at the customer's end for extra bandwidth. They simply want to double-dip and rip off their customers by generating extra costs that will inevitably be passed along.
This is another one of those Al Gore deals which was illegal,to pay for internet and phone access to remote areas.We are still paying it!Why should i pay for broadband when i can't even afford it for myself?You ain't in that big of a hurry!
You'll have to wait until we buy them all a big screen color TV first. They need something to do all day, don't they? How could they possibly live without one? What else would they do? Earn their own living and pay for things themselves? Let's be reasonable here.
Or use the money the pay for their own frigging health care instead of surfing the net and forcing everyone else to pay their bills for them while they chat!! Sheesh!
Ok, so take your pick.
Would you rather have Leahy holding up all of Bush's court nominees?
Or would you rather have moonbat John Conyers initiating impeachment hearings?
They're both such great options, I just can't choose myself.
Re:you tagline,"Get thee behind me,liberal"
No thanks on that one.You may end up having a "Brokeback Moment"!
Republicans pay, democrats don't. That sounds fair. It's good to live in the good 'ol United Socialist States of America.
Mark 8:33. But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
Would you rather have Leahy holding up all of Bush's court nominees?
Or would you rather have moonbat John Conyers initiating impeachment hearings?
They're both such great options, I just can't choose myself.
You forgot:
Or would I rather have the current Republican majority ignore the people that voted for them, spend money like drunken sailors and shred the Constitution.
Because that's the other option here. All the party line people seem to forget that the way to punish a politician that gets out of line is to not vote for them again.
Trying to scare me with the evil Democrat boogeyman isn't going to work anymore.
Its no boogeyman, its the simple facts of what will happen with a Democrat majority.
The options I laid out are the only two options.
You can rationalize your choices that bring us to those ends any way you please.
That's becoming truer by the day. There doesn't seem to be much of a difference between the two anymore. Now the Constitution says "The Right to Internet Access". It's right between the right to teach kids to have sex with anything above freezing, and the right to brutally dismember an infant from it's mothers womb while still alive.
Don't forget the right to sneak into our country and steal jobs from Americans.
No, we need a HDTV for America Act, but only if it has DLP and a widescreen LCD.
I got rid of my land line to AVOID this tax. Now they want to tax my broadband? This guy needs a good FReeping. Another RINO. Sickening.
You're right about that! I may despise one or more of my senators or reps, I may not like a number of things that Bush is doing, but the thought of the POS rat party EVER gaining a foothold again is as bad as it gets. Throwing a vote to a third party candidate who has no chance of winning or sitting on your vote as a protest only benefits the party of traitors. The emphasis needs to be on the state level to get the local GOP to replace the rinos and other assorted idiots, like Hagel in my state.
adding to the growing list of why republicans are no better than Democrats.
They just don't cook you as fast.
I remember In the mid 90s when I was in my early 20s, every time I picked up the paper and saw a legislative story that made me furious, the proponent of the legislation was a dem. "I must be a Republican," I surmised. Now it is precisely the opposite. Both of the major parties are worthless when it comes to stopping big government intrusions into our lives.
As bad as some Republicans are with taxes, history proves that the liberals/democrats/ socialists are far worse.
Would somebody please drag these idiot tax-sucking MORONS into the 21st century????
I am RURAL.
I don't NEED DSL or Cable -- I HAVE SATELLITE INTERNET!
There are at least two satellite ISPs -- Hughes (formerly DirectWay) and Wildblue. I've had Wildblue since last fall. They're getting ready to launch another satellite -- a FREE MARKET one -- all without the benefit of another USF tax!
We need more competiton, not more taxes. But just try to tell that to a senator. Sheesh.
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.