If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   About that dipshiat aunt who sent you that ten-times-forwarded email about the FCC wanting to tax internet service and text messages...let's just say that blind hog of hers done found an acorn   (thehill.com) divider line 178
    More: Obvious, internet service, Julius Genachowski, phone company, Google Voice, flat fee, Federal Communications Commission, consumer advocacy group, high-speed internet  
•       •       •

15292 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Aug 2012 at 9:21 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-27 09:22:19 AM
I'm OK with this.
 
2012-08-27 09:23:38 AM
So?
 
2012-08-27 09:24:32 AM
The move would funnel money to the Connect America Fund, a subsidy the agency created last year to expand Internet access.

So you get to pay for your internet and be taxed to pay for somebody else to have it too. Isn't that just wonderful?

And you know, since we're taxing it anyway we probably have some regulatory powers that we didn't have before.
 
2012-08-27 09:24:53 AM
The move would funnel money to the Connect America Fund, a subsidy the agency created last year to expand Internet access.

So I'm gonna have to pay an extra dollar or so a month so more people can have access to the internet and almost all of human knowledge? FUUUUUUUUU! HULK SMASH!!!!!!
 
2012-08-27 09:25:37 AM
So......the new find is part of an old find for which a tax already exists.....so why can a portion of the old tax not just be reapportioned?

IF there is a good reason....and I'm skeptical......then I think I'm okay with this. Internet is the next public utility without which it has become difficult to live.
 
2012-08-27 09:26:04 AM
Fark you, I got mine.
 
2012-08-27 09:26:27 AM

randomjsa: So you get to pay for your internet and be taxed to pay for somebody else to have it too. Isn't that just wonderful?


yeah it kinda is, people buy shiat on the internet dude. It's a network for commerce just like the roads.
 
2012-08-27 09:26:27 AM
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCCCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
 
2012-08-27 09:26:31 AM
Stupid aunt forwarded things that remain retarded: OBAMA is going to put a tax on EVERY EMAIL.

This: Eh, I'm ok with. They're not even proposing anything, they're just taking comments and looking at the feasibility of different ideas. I wouldn't be opposed to a standard fee/tax based on the account.
 
2012-08-27 09:26:54 AM

randomjsa: The move would funnel money to the Connect America Fund, a subsidy the agency created last year to expand Internet access.

So you get to pay for your internet and be taxed to pay for somebody else to have it too. Isn't that just wonderful?

And you know, since we're taxing it anyway we probably have some regulatory powers that we didn't have before.


And rural broadband is exactly why I am ok with it. We should have, in 2008, put forth that as a major infrastructure program, just like rural electrification and telephone service.
 
2012-08-27 09:27:23 AM
I don't understand why this is necessary... Why make ISP's charge people more money so they can give it to the government so the government can give it back to the companies? It's not like these companies aren't profitable. Just make standards and enforce them...
 
2012-08-27 09:27:53 AM
the estimated 19 million Americans who currently lack access.

I'm surprised the number is that low. Maybe I'm including the people in poverty that can't afford access...
 
2012-08-27 09:28:25 AM

randomjsa: The move would funnel money to the Connect America Fund, a subsidy the agency created last year to expand Internet access.

So you get to pay for your internet and be taxed to pay for somebody else to have it too. Isn't that just wonderful?

And you know, since we're taxing it anyway we probably have some regulatory powers that we didn't have before.


I supposeide those people who live a hundred miles from civilization should just pull harder on their boot straps and build their own.

Just like they did with postal service, power, telephones, emergency medical services....

Hey, wait, I'm not making any sense at all.....
 
2012-08-27 09:28:30 AM
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

lul
 
2012-08-27 09:29:03 AM

dofus: the estimated 19 million Americans who currently lack access.

I'm surprised the number is that low. Maybe I'm including the people in poverty that can't afford access...


Access != being able to pay for it.

Access means the line runs to the place you live.
 
2012-08-27 09:29:15 AM

meat0918: I'm OK with this.


I'm not. The telecoms cut a deal with the FCC 20+ years ago to build all this fabulous infrastructure in exchange for adding all kinds of goofy charges to people's phone bill, but it just ended up padding their stock prices.

They should be libel to build this stuff, not the taxpayer.
 
2012-08-27 09:29:39 AM
A few years ago, there was a bill introduced to levy a .01 tax per email and the reasoning was to 'discourage mass spam emails'.

But it was quickly killed on the Senate floor
 
2012-08-27 09:29:45 AM
Heh. I get my internet wirelessly. Try taxing and controlling that.
 
2012-08-27 09:29:52 AM
Hopefully once these people get on the intrawebs they don't become freepers.
 
2012-08-27 09:30:24 AM

sprawl15: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

lul


Seriously, you even quoted it yourself...
 
2012-08-27 09:31:16 AM

Headso: The move would funnel money to the Connect America Fund, a subsidy the agency created last year to expand Internet access.

So I'm gonna have to pay an extra dollar or so a month so more people can have access to the internet and almost all of human knowledge? FUUUUUUUUU! HULK SMASH!!!!!!


/That's Communist!
 
2012-08-27 09:31:27 AM
My broadband is provided by Comcast and I already pay taxes on my Comcast cable+internet account. So this is just another tax to put on the tax that I already am paying?
 
2012-08-27 09:32:01 AM

meat0918: And rural broadband is exactly why I am ok with it. We should have, in 2008, put forth that as a major infrastructure program, just like rural electrification and telephone service.


Live in a rural area myself. 1.1-1.5mb connection.
 
2012-08-27 09:32:09 AM
Isn't Dish Network putting up a new satellite to compete with Hughes that will have decent transmission rates?

I don't think it makes sense to pull fiber or coax to every hut and shack across the nation. If we are going to do this, it should be wireless when possible. Otherwise as soon as it gets installed it will be obsolete.
 
2012-08-27 09:32:10 AM

DarnoKonrad: meat0918: I'm OK with this.

I'm not. The telecoms cut a deal with the FCC 20+ years ago to build all this fabulous infrastructure in exchange for adding all kinds of goofy charges to people's phone bill, but it just ended up padding their stock prices.

They should be libel to build this stuff, not the taxpayer.


There is so much dark fiber in this country it is ridiculous. They won't light it up, because it's not profitable. I'm not saying we need FIOS everywhere, but dialup doesn't cut it anymore.

It's analogous to how we deal with the roads. Not everything is a 4 lane paved freeway, contractors generally do the work, but people at least have dirt roads to their houses.
 
2012-08-27 09:32:58 AM

PsyLord: My broadband is provided by Comcast and I already pay taxes on my Comcast cable+internet account. So this is just another tax to put on the tax that I already am paying?


Yo dawg.... I heard you like paying taxes on your taxes...
 
2012-08-27 09:33:47 AM

DarnoKonrad: They should be libel to build this stuff, not the taxpayer.


Libel?
 
2012-08-27 09:34:48 AM

Satanic_Hamster: DarnoKonrad: They should be libel to build this stuff, not the taxpayer.

Libel?


I think the crime he's looking for is 'sodomy'.
 
2012-08-27 09:35:19 AM

hungryhungryhorus: I don't understand why this is necessary... Why make ISP's charge people more money so they can give it to the government so the government can give it back to the companies? It's not like these companies aren't profitable. Just make standards and enforce them...


They are profitable because they did not have to build out to every farmhouse in Bumfark County North Dakota. Like the land-line phone service, rural residents will not get service unless the rest of us pay for it.

I work for a company that sells a system for remote medical monitoring for patients that require constant checks, but can't get in to the doctor all the time. We have to jump through a lot of hoops to support POTS (plain old telephone service) because a huge percentage of our clients can't get broadband. We even try to use cellular data when possible, but we often can't even do that.
 
2012-08-27 09:37:55 AM
Here I'll put it in terms conservatives might be able to get behind...

It's the end of the month and your trailer lot fees are due, the lotlord has been busting your balls all week because you are two months past due, it's dirt track season and you have been buying 30 packs of keystone every weekend on top of your pack a day mustang habit and the scratch tickets. So you turn to craigslist to sell some NASCAR memorabilia and those pictures that you plug in so it looks like shimmering water and guess who now has internet access to buy it? a bunch of new consumers thanks to expanded broadband availability.
 
2012-08-27 09:38:04 AM

meat0918: And rural broadband is exactly why I am ok with it. We should have, in 2008, put forth that as a major infrastructure program, just like rural electrification and telephone service.


Rural Broadband is getting there, we finally have high speed internet at my family camp in the North Maine woods, no cell service but we do have internet now.
 
2012-08-27 09:38:49 AM

randomjsa: meat0918: And rural broadband is exactly why I am ok with it. We should have, in 2008, put forth that as a major infrastructure program, just like rural electrification and telephone service.

Live in a rural area myself. 1.1-1.5mb connection.


You got yours already so screw everyone else, huh. Yeah that sounds about right for you.
 
2012-08-27 09:39:38 AM
I'm ok with this tax as long as net neutrality is followed by ALL suppliers. This includes a ban on throttling and bandwidth caps.
 
2012-08-27 09:40:26 AM

GameSprocket: hungryhungryhorus: I don't understand why this is necessary... Why make ISP's charge people more money so they can give it to the government so the government can give it back to the companies? It's not like these companies aren't profitable. Just make standards and enforce them...

They are profitable because they did not have to build out to every farmhouse in Bumfark County North Dakota. Like the land-line phone service, rural residents will not get service unless the rest of us pay for it.

I work for a company that sells a system for remote medical monitoring for patients that require constant checks, but can't get in to the doctor all the time. We have to jump through a lot of hoops to support POTS (plain old telephone service) because a huge percentage of our clients can't get broadband. We even try to use cellular data when possible, but we often can't even do that.


Move or die.
 
2012-08-27 09:40:34 AM
I thought only the House of Representatives could impose a tax. What is the White House doing now?
 
2012-08-27 09:40:45 AM
Wow people, how completely ignorant are you- THIS ISN'T A NEW TAX, YOU FARKING MORANS.

The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The Commission's authority to require contributions to the USF derives from section
254(d) of the Act, which provides that "[e]very 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."


All this does is attempt to simplify compliance and administration, maintain competitive neutrality, and ensure long term sustainability of the Fund.
 
2012-08-27 09:41:09 AM

Headso: The move would funnel money to the Connect America Fund, a subsidy the agency created last year to expand Internet access.

So I'm gonna have to pay an extra dollar or so a month so more people can have access to the internet and almost all of human knowledge? FUUUUUUUUU! HULK SMASH!!!!!!


Wow, you nailed it. I am often shocked that I have the sum total of human knowledge in my pocket... and I use it to find out who that guy was in that movie.
 
2012-08-27 09:41:46 AM

randomjsa: meat0918: And rural broadband is exactly why I am ok with it. We should have, in 2008, put forth that as a major infrastructure program, just like rural electrification and telephone service.

Live in a rural area myself. 1.1-1.5mb connection.


Well it's nice to know that you are the only person in the entirety of the United States that's in a rural area

Thank God we live in such modern times
 
2012-08-27 09:44:58 AM
Progressives love hitting the poor with regressive taxes, and their zombie like followers bend over and take their ass rape with no farking clue as too what is happening.
 
2012-08-27 09:46:23 AM

Headso: Here I'll put it in terms conservatives might be able to get behind...

It's the end of the month and your trailer lot fees are due, the lotlord has been busting your balls all week because you are two months past due, it's dirt track season and you have been buying 30 packs of keystone every weekend on top of your pack a day mustang habit and the scratch tickets. So you turn to craigslist to sell some NASCAR memorabilia and those pictures that you plug in so it looks like shimmering water and guess who now has internet access to buy it? a bunch of new consumers thanks to expanded broadband availability.


I'm sure then you won't mind the FCC censoring internet content because it offends community standards since your side will always be in power.

/if only there were digital phones that did not require wires that could receive and transmit data over the airwaves
//if only ...
 
2012-08-27 09:46:47 AM

randomjsa: So you get to pay for your internet and be taxed to pay for somebody else to have it too. Isn't that just wonderful?


Why yes, it is wonderful. Paying a little extra to make sure everyone has access to a non-luxury item is one of the greatest tools of a capitalist/socialist blend economy. It's something not available in either a pure capitalist or pure socialist model. We already do it for food, water, electricity, telephone service, mail service, roads and many other things. Soon we'll be doing it for health care and that's also a good thing.

If you don't accept this, then adding Internet access to the list means little to you, it's just One More Thing. If you do accept this, then the only question is if Internet access is non-luxury. I don't know many who would argue that point in 2012.
 
2012-08-27 09:47:34 AM

randomjsa: meat0918: And rural broadband is exactly why I am ok with it. We should have, in 2008, put forth that as a major infrastructure program, just like rural electrification and telephone service.

Live in a rural area myself. 1.1-1.5mb connection.


Republican shill, constantly wrong, living in a rural area? No sir, this is a complete surprise.

You can thank that damn big government and it's tax subsidies to the communications industry for your internet access.
 
2012-08-27 09:48:07 AM

Headso: Here I'll put it in terms conservatives might be able to get behind...

It's the end of the month and your trailer lot fees are due, the lotlord has been busting your balls all week because you are two months past due, it's dirt track season and you have been buying 30 packs of keystone every weekend on top of your pack a day mustang habit and the scratch tickets. So you turn to craigslist to sell some NASCAR memorabilia and those pictures that you plug in so it looks like shimmering water and guess who now has internet access to buy it? a bunch of new consumers thanks to expanded broadband availability.


You assume the GOP are intelligent enough to understand even this.
 
2012-08-27 09:49:22 AM
So long as it's a set fee rather than something based on usage.... I'm okay with that.
 
2012-08-27 09:50:42 AM
I done heard that they's puttin a penny tax on every e-mail and givin' the money to the US Postal Service to fund abortions for single mail carriers, I did.
 
2012-08-27 09:52:21 AM
I'm fine with it as long as the tax has a definite expiration date, it took 108 years to lose the phone excise tax to pay for the Spanish-American War.
 
2012-08-27 09:52:36 AM

Epoch_Zero: randomjsa: meat0918: And rural broadband is exactly why I am ok with it. We should have, in 2008, put forth that as a major infrastructure program, just like rural electrification and telephone service.

Live in a rural area myself. 1.1-1.5mb connection.

Republican shill, constantly wrong, living in a rural area? No sir, this is a complete surprise.


I live in a rural area too, and I can't believe he lives in one and can subscribe to the idea of giving local government more power in place federal. Town council douche bags, town manager napoleons and podunk mayors are some of the worst human beings on the planet. I have never been annoyed by government more than by local asshats with a shred of power.
 
2012-08-27 09:52:41 AM
I'm OK with this as long as the government retains ownership of what the tax pays for. If this tax is levied so the infrastructure cna be built and handed over to Comcast, everyone involved can go fark themselves.
 
2012-08-27 09:52:46 AM

DarnoKonrad: meat0918: I'm OK with this.

I'm not. The telecoms cut a deal with the FCC 20+ years ago to build all this fabulous infrastructure in exchange for adding all kinds of goofy charges to people's phone bill, but it just ended up padding their stock prices.

They should be libel to build this stuff, not the taxpayer.


You are correct. If they want their new tax, give back the Clinton handouts.
 
2012-08-27 09:52:53 AM

DarnoKonrad: meat0918: I'm OK with this.

I'm not. The telecoms cut a deal with the FCC 20+ years ago to build all this fabulous infrastructure in exchange for adding all kinds of goofy charges to people's phone bill, but it just ended up padding their stock prices.

They should be libel to build this stuff, not the taxpayer.


Yup. My state decided that they're not falling for that nonsense again, so rather than just throwing subsidies and tax breaks at the telecoms and letting them upgrade infrastructure whenever they feel like it, they decided to make the fiber-optic network state-owned. They're also making the construction a contracted requirement. I've seen trucks all over the place for the last couple of years, upgrading wiring.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report