• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FCC eyes tax on Internet service

OverVolt

OverVolt

Lifer
Yea! More transfer payments from urbanites to rural folks. More handouts to support inefficient lifestyle choices. If you move to the country don't expect urban amenities.
 
OverVolt said:
FCC eyes tax on Internet service

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/245479-fcc-eyes-tax-on-internet-service

Yes, this is from drudge.

I just want to know what people don't understand about how increasing the cost of broadband, via a tax, will only reduce peoples access to broadband, not increase it. It would be more expensive for the majority - duh.
Click to expand...

Actually this is a good thing.

The more taxes the better to get people motivated against the out of control spending and taxation.

There needs to be another shot heard around the world.

The only way to hear it again is more and more taxation and freedom robbing laws.

Keep it up Politicians :thumbsup:
 
IronWing said:
Yea! More transfer payments from urbanites to rural folks. More handouts to support inefficient lifestyle choices. If you move to the country don't expect urban amenities.
Click to expand...

Are you from the 1930s? Geographical expansion of utilities, even those that connect you to the internet, is a good thing from an economic standpoint. Those in rural areas don't expect fiber and 1Gbps on their doorstep, just basic broadband service. Quite a few people and businesses are stuck on dialup-only infrastructure.

Disclaimer: This depends of course in the program being set up and run properly. I have not looked into the specifics of this scheme just yet, so I cannot endorse it specifically.
 
IronWing said:
Yea! More transfer payments from urbanites to rural folks. More handouts to support inefficient lifestyle choices. If you move to the country don't expect urban amenities.
Click to expand...

so what you are telling me is that you do not like it when people work to produce things like, food, oil and natural gas, coal, phosphates, baking soda (which is mined near here in wyoming), copper, etc.... you should stop using all the things that support your "efficient" life style that are produced away from big cities.
 
MovingTarget said:
Are you from the 1930s? Geographical expansion of utilities, even those that connect you to the internet, is a good thing from an economic standpoint. Those in rural areas don't expect fiber and 1Gbps on their doorstep, just basic broadband service. Quite a few people and businesses are stuck on dialup-only infrastructure.

Disclaimer: This depends of course in the program being set up and run properly. I have not looked into the specifics of this scheme just yet, so I cannot endorse it specifically.
Click to expand...

A study should be done to determine if a majority of these rural folks even own a computer and can afford the electricity to run it. Secondly, if they are too poor, should the federal government step in and subsidize one for them?
 
IronWing said:
Yea! More transfer payments from urbanites to rural folks. More handouts to support inefficient lifestyle choices. If you move to the country don't expect urban amenities.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for farmers, you would starve to death. That's a simple fact. Farming can't exist in a vacuum - there are communities built up in farming areas. Do you feel that you get to say "tough shit little 4th grader - you deserve an inferior education because your family chose to live in a more rural area."

Education is becoming ever more reliant on access to broadband. If you want a system where urban communities are supported by rural communities, then you need to support that system; not just the parts you prefer.
 
Lithium381 said:
i thought greed was the american way, dave
Click to expand...

Dave has long ago established a predefined and set in stone list on who can be "greedy", who is 'greedy", and who cannot be "greedy". In addition he has specified a exact pricing point where one can be deemed automatically to be "greedy" once they have pass the thresh-hold of Dave's "Greed-o-meter" (patent pending).

However he has a tough time distinguishing between and understanding actual "greed", self-interest, and ambition and how these traits (and other human traits) can often bleed over, interact act and can often mask each other's intentions due to circumstances and events.
 
DrPizza said:
If it wasn't for farmers, you would starve to death. That's a simple fact. Farming can't exist in a vacuum - there are communities built up in farming areas. Do you feel that you get to say "tough shit little 4th grader - you deserve an inferior education because your family chose to live in a more rural area."

Education is becoming ever more reliant on access to broadband.
Click to expand...

Why can't farmers send their kids to boarding school?
 
DrPizza said:
If it wasn't for farmers, you would starve to death. That's a simple fact. Farming can't exist in a vacuum - there are communities built up in farming areas. Do you feel that you get to say "tough shit little 4th grader - you deserve an inferior education because your family chose to live in a more rural area."

Education is becoming ever more reliant on access to broadband. If you want a system where urban communities are supported by rural communities, then you need to support that system; not just the parts you prefer.
Click to expand...
It's a simple fact that urbanites pay for that food, on top of the farm subsidies we pay for. The majority of folks living in rural and small town America are not farmers.
 
herm0016 said:
so what you are telling me is that you do not like it when people work to produce things like, food, oil and natural gas, coal, phosphates, baking soda (which is mined near here in wyoming), copper, etc.... you should stop using all the things that support your "efficient" life style that are produced away from big cities.
Click to expand...
Urbanites pay for those things. That is how the system works. We don't owe you subsidized internet.
 
IronWing said:
Urbanites pay for those things. That is how the system works. We don't owe you subsidized internet.
Click to expand...

The same arguments were used and proven wrong in the 20th century with electricity and phone service. Todays infrastructure subsidies in rural areas are tomorrow's growth avenues.
 
her209 said:
A study should be done to determine if a majority of these rural folks even own a computer and can afford the electricity to run it. Secondly, if they are too poor, should the federal government step in and subsidize one for them?
Click to expand...

Computers are dirt cheap (older units, anyway) and electricity is pretty damn near universal. Broadband still lags in many areas not due to the ability to pay teh same standard rates, but upon the service simply being available.
 
Doesn't the FCC USF (Universal Service Fund) goes towards this?

We need more municipal broadband projects, that the big ISPs fight tooth and nail to prevent.

Edit: Anyways, Verizon is moving away from their copper plant and services, and trying to force people onto WiMax/LTE, ostensibly so that they can charge them per-GB overages.

They could probably cut a deal with the gov't, claiming to be able to add X wireless broadband subscribers for Y amount of dollars from this fund. Getting revenue from the fund, as well as the subscribers. Personally, I would find that dirty. Private industry should want to fund expansion, not only when there are gov't handouts to be had.
 
Last edited:
I heard about something awhile ago that would make it easier for the end-user to be their own ISP... so this is just welfare for the ISPs like ac power would turn out to be for the utility companies.

The govts have been doing nothing but getting in the way of progress.
 
IronWing said:
Urbanites pay for those things. That is how the system works. We don't owe you subsidized internet.
Click to expand...

Okay, we'll add a tax to all those things to help maintain the infrastructure necessary to bring those things to you.
 
MovingTarget said:
The same arguments were used and proven wrong in the 20th century with electricity and phone service. Todays infrastructure subsidies in rural areas are tomorrow's growth avenues.
Click to expand...

Actually, yesterday's infrastructure in rural areas became today's suburban sprawl as farmland was sold to developers.
 
DrPizza said:
Okay, we'll add a tax to all those things to help maintain the infrastructure necessary to bring those things to you.
Click to expand...

That would be preferable. Then the cost is built in for those that use more. Rather than charging people who use the internet but are otherwise completely unrelated because let's face it, not everybody who lives in the sticks is there because they're farmers. I know plenty of people who live in the boondocks because it let them build twice as big a house for the same price as one in town, and now they commute 50 miles each way in a Chevy Suburban, sucking down gas like it was water.

So rather than hide the true costs of our food (which by the way has it's own price supports in place, our markets are so fucked from interference...) increase the prices to those who purchase food from the farmers who require internet service. That's how markets work. Taxes and subsidization is just another form of externality.
 
DrPizza said:
Okay, we'll add a tax to all those things to help maintain the infrastructure necessary to bring those things to you.
Click to expand...

Not sure I'm following. Farmers and the farm industry aren't picking up a majority of the tab to build and maintain the infrastructure that gets their produce to where they are supposed to go.
 
OverVolt said:
I just want to know what people don't understand about how increasing the cost of broadband, via a tax, will only reduce peoples access to broadband, not increase it. It would be more expensive for the majority - duh.
Click to expand...

You need to pay more taxes so people like me can get DSL.

Whats sad, is how the US is falling behind in basic services like internet service. Why aren't companies like AT&T upgrading their lines to provide DSL?


DrPizza said:
If it wasn't for farmers, you would starve to death. That's a simple fact. Farming can't exist in a vacuum - there are communities built up in farming areas. Do you feel that you get to say "tough shit little 4th grader - you deserve an inferior education because your family chose to live in a more rural area."
Click to expand...

Or, since you live in a city you do not get to eat.

Everyone knows you can not grow food in cement.


her209 said:
Not sure I'm following. Farmers and the farm industry aren't picking up a majority of the tab to build and maintain the infrastructure that gets their produce to where they are supposed to go.
Click to expand...

Farmers are what make your food possible.

If you want food, why dont you move to the country and grow your own? Otherwise, starve.

From the OP,

Consumers already pay a fee on their landline and cellular phone bills to support the FCC's Universal Service Fund. The fund was created to ensure that everyone in the country has access to telephone service, even if they live in remote areas.
Click to expand...

So how does that work? The FCC subsidizes phone lines the telephone company puts down?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top