Do you have adblock enabled?
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)   Due to public outcry the FCC is backing away from taxing broadband   (thehill.com) divider line 25
    More: Obvious, senate commerce committee, internet, Robert Mcdowell, moral panics, flat fee, Federal Communications Commission, Internet taxes  
•       •       •

769 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Sep 2012 at 9:28 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-09-10 09:31:37 AM  
What about the emails!?!? My Mother-in-law warned me about the email tax!

CURSE YOU 0bama!
 
2012-09-10 09:31:47 AM  
When will they learn that farking with the internet is political suicide.....Obviously the anti-pron GOP members haven't a clue.
 
2012-09-10 09:35:11 AM  
But Bill Gates is still buying Applebee's for everyone in America, right?
 
2012-09-10 09:36:43 AM  
This is a tax like the universal fund for landline phones. It is a tax on Broadband connections to play for rural broadband connections. Personally I support such an idea. Call me crazy.
 
2012-09-10 09:36:46 AM  
Hmm, seemed like a reasonable change in the law. Seems weird that having a phone or mobile means you are being taxed to support broadband being rolled out to rural locations, but having broadband doesn't attract the same sort of tax.
 
2012-09-10 09:37:02 AM  
Yeah, great, so the rural U.S. will remain on dial-up and we'll keep relying on the providers for infrastructure upgrades. That's worked so well for FIOS.
 
2012-09-10 09:37:51 AM  
Politics is getting a new third rail?
 
2012-09-10 09:48:10 AM  
The FCC would learn a hard lesson, had they even gotten close.
 
2012-09-10 09:49:59 AM  
Did they ever figure out an amount for the tax? I would imagine it would be pennies per month. Yet it would be a "new tax" and therefore politically toxic, thanks to out deep thinking friends in the Tea Party. Being a rural American, count me among the number that would support giving providers some incentive to roll out broadband to the hinterlands. You city folk can't imagine how our lives are diminished by slow download times for youtube videos and lolcats pics.
 
2012-09-10 09:55:11 AM  

MontanaDave: Did they ever figure out an amount for the tax? I would imagine it would be pennies per month. Yet it would be a "new tax" and therefore politically toxic, thanks to out deep thinking friends in the Tea Party. Being a rural American, count me among the number that would support giving providers some incentive to roll out broadband to the hinterlands. You city folk can't imagine how our lives are diminished by slow download times for youtube videos and lolcats pics.


Actually as per the article, there is a moderately large program to do just that already, it just is funded by a tax on interstate phone calls and text messages and stuff like that for historical reasons.
 
2012-09-10 09:59:46 AM  
I am trying so hard to be outraged, but I cannot figure out the proper approach. Real 'Mericans don't deserve anything above 14.4 modems? Societies shouldn't tax for useful public goods? Somebody help me.
 
2012-09-10 10:04:26 AM  

MontanaDave: You city folk can't imagine how our lives are diminished by slow download times for youtube videos and lolcats pics.


I live in rural America. I can count the times, the many times, I have been taxed to provide huge (as in Millions) subsidies to HUGE telecoms to provide high speed rural internet access only to have them cash the check, and leave town. Then the Next telecom moves in. Usually owned by the same people on top. And they promise to bring high speed rural access, but just need a Little (Millions in subsidies) incentive.
Fark that. You build it, and then offer the services.
 
2012-09-10 10:09:14 AM  

xria: MontanaDave: Did they ever figure out an amount for the tax? I would imagine it would be pennies per month. Yet it would be a "new tax" and therefore politically toxic, thanks to out deep thinking friends in the Tea Party. Being a rural American, count me among the number that would support giving providers some incentive to roll out broadband to the hinterlands. You city folk can't imagine how our lives are diminished by slow download times for youtube videos and lolcats pics.

Actually as per the article, there is a moderately large program to do just that already, it just is funded by a tax on interstate phone calls and text messages and stuff like that for historical reasons.


Yes, I read the article. The Universal Service Fund tax (which is per phone line, not per call or text) is something I explained to hundreds of customers during my stint in the cellular industry. I'm curious about how shifting the tax to include broadband connections (or text messages or whatever) would alter the amount a customer would pay per month for a broadband connection. It would be easier to dial in our collective outrage if we knew how many of our pennies we would have to part with to make this happen.
 
2012-09-10 10:10:14 AM  

MindStalker: This is a tax like the universal fund for landline phones. It is a tax on Broadband connections to play for rural broadband connections. Personally I support such an idea. Call me crazy.


Yes but see ALL TAXEZ ARE TEH DEBIL!
 
2012-09-10 10:12:40 AM  

MindStalker: This is a tax like the universal fund for landline phones. It is a tax on Broadband connections to play for rural broadband connections. Personally I support such an idea. Call me crazy.


I used to support stuff like this, because I'm a nice guy.

But after all of the whining about taxes and service fees from rural areas, I'm done with it. If they are such fans of the free market than they shouldn't have a problem dropping the big bucks for satellite or getting used to dial-up. It is plain and simple UNPROFITABLE to service most rural areas at cost-competitive rates. The taxes and service fees help them out. So fark them.
 
2012-09-10 10:15:31 AM  
It's inevitable. And I'm not necessarily against it.

I'd actually support it if the revenue from that kind of tax is funneled into the Universal Service Fund.

Tax actual usage? No. Tax via a flat fee rather than by usage or connection type, nothing less and nothing more.
 
2012-09-10 10:20:24 AM  
Everything should be taxed.
 
2012-09-10 10:24:35 AM  

MontanaDave: Yes, I read the article. The Universal Service Fund tax (which is per phone line, not per call or text) is something I explained to hundreds of customers during my stint in the cellular industry. I'm curious about how shifting the tax to include broadband connections (or text messages or whatever) would alter the amount a customer would pay per month for a broadband connection. It would be easier to dial in our collective outrage if we knew how many of our pennies we would have to part with to make this happen.


I mean, if people really objected to raising taxes, they could just support the suggestion but make it dependent on an equivalent drop in the taxes on phone lines/mobiles. And taxes like these that are generated and spent on specific beneficial things are the ones least available for abuse - it is not as if it is going to be repurposed to pay for an invasion of Iran or the mass execution of abortion providers next time the GOP get elected.
 
2012-09-10 10:33:27 AM  
Ugh. We've already given these farking ISPs grant after grant to build out to rural areas, and now they want another tax? fark that noise.

The only way I'll support another tax is if the feds build out the network themselves, and then lease access to the ISPs. That way, maybe it'll actually get done.
 
2012-09-10 10:41:47 AM  

HeartBurnKid: Ugh. We've already given these farking ISPs grant after grant to build out to rural areas, and now they want another tax? fark that noise.

The only way I'll support another tax is if the feds build out the network themselves, and then lease access to the ISPs. That way, maybe it'll actually get done.


But I've been told the government never gets anything done and that the private sector does it cheaper and faster.
 
2012-09-10 11:39:45 AM  
this is bad news for tax-loving liberals.
 
2012-09-10 01:09:50 PM  

MindStalker: This is a tax like the universal fund for landline phones. It is a tax on Broadband connections to play for rural broadband connections. Personally I support such an idea. Call me crazy.


well if the telcos hadn't already been given billions of dollars for that, sure. how about we keep the current fee structure and the current fees and just MAKE the telcos run that last mile of fiber like they promised?
 
2012-09-10 01:54:56 PM  

xnecron: Yeah, great, so the rural U.S. will remain on dial-up and we'll keep relying on the providers for infrastructure upgrades. That's worked so well for FIOS.


Rural tends to vote red so Fark them
 
2012-09-10 02:12:35 PM  

jayhawk88: But Bill Gates is still buying Applebee's for everyone in America, right?


Because it's lunch time. Lets suppose ole Billy G does splurge on the AB for everyone. Being a reasonable person that he is, he allocates $20 per person for Applebee's. So from Wikipedia we know the approximate population of the US is 314,340,000.

314340000 x 20 = 6,286,800,000.

So, since he gave away half of his money to charity already, whats another $6.3 Billion so we can all have some riblets. Fark for Riblets!
 
2012-09-10 03:10:53 PM  

madgonad: big bucks for satellite


Sattelite internet is HORRIBLE. Dialup is FASTER, by a great bit. It is NOT worth the big bucks they charge for it.

/Friend out in the boonies of the boonies in Texas. He pays 200/mo for a service with barely 56kilobbit a second either way, with an absolutely tiny limit on actual downloads.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report