Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Sunday December 16 2018, @07:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLOyChP2AWA&t=34 dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

FCC panel wants to tax Internet-using businesses and give the money to ISPs

A Federal Communications Commission advisory committee has proposed a new tax on Netflix, Google, Facebook, and many other businesses that require Internet access to operate.

If adopted by states, the recommended tax would apply to subscription-based retail services that require Internet access, such as Netflix, and to advertising-supported services that use the Internet, such as Google and Facebook. The tax would also apply to any small- or medium-sized business that charges subscription fees for online services or uses online advertising. The tax would also apply to any provider of broadband access, such as cable or wireless operators.

The collected money would go into state rural broadband deployment funds that would help bring faster Internet access to sparsely populated areas. Similar universal service fees are already assessed on landline phone service and mobile phone service nationwide. Those phone fees contribute to federal programs such as the FCC's Connect America Fund, which pays AT&T and other carriers to deploy broadband in rural areas.

The state tax proposal comes from the FCC's Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC), a group criticized by San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo—who quit the committee—"for advancing the interests of the telecommunications industry over those of the public." BDAC members include AT&T, Comcast, Google Fiber, Sprint, other ISPs and industry representatives, researchers, advocates, and local government officials.

The BDAC tax proposal is part of a "State Model Code for Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment and Investment." Once finalized by the BDAC, each state would have the option of adopting the code.

An AT&T executive who is on the FCC advisory committee argued that the recommended tax should apply even more broadly, to any business that benefits financially from broadband access in any way. The committee ultimately adopted a slightly more narrow recommendation that would apply the tax to subscription services and advertising-supported services only.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday December 16 2018, @07:15PM (7 children)

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Sunday December 16 2018, @07:15PM (#775148)

    The ISP's also claim that the Internet companies benefit from network access, conveniently ignoring that fact that they pay for access.

    Also ignoring the fact that they have already been paid (by taxpayers) to supply internet access to rural areas, but then often don't supply it. Is this regulatory capture?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by pipedwho on Sunday December 16 2018, @09:12PM (3 children)

    by pipedwho (2032) on Sunday December 16 2018, @09:12PM (#775176)

    The ISPs are also ignoring the fact that people pay the ISP to be able to access the internet *because* of these sites. If these sites didn't exist, the ISP wouldn't be able to charge the exorbitant fees they charge in some places, as there would be much less benefit to the user to even have internet access.

    This is coming about because ISPs are being conflated with traditional 'cable' style media providers that are doing it tough now that sites like Netflix and other online media portals exist. And because some of the these cable providers are ALSO acting as ISPs they are crying foul.

    Reality is that an ISP is not a cable media provider and should be subsidised using the old cable business models. This is pure money grab that can only exist due to corrupt regulatory capture.

    • (Score: 2) by pipedwho on Sunday December 16 2018, @09:14PM

      by pipedwho (2032) on Sunday December 16 2018, @09:14PM (#775177)

      Oops. That should read 'should NOT be subsidised by'.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Monday December 17 2018, @02:23AM (1 child)

      by edIII (791) on Monday December 17 2018, @02:23AM (#775263)

      It's so much fucking worse though. They're partly talking about giving it to the ISPs, but the bullshit reason they cloak it in is offensive as fuck. All the telephone calls are already charged USF fees, and they're talking about the same bullshit system. It was supposed to help out libraries, rural areas, etc. The telecoms never gave shit back for all the entitlements we gave them to put their equipment on. All that subsidization went solely for their profits, and the USF fees are a fucking joke for that reason.

      If that AT&T assmunch wants every business with a cablemodem/dsl modem paying taxes to him, then all libraries have free access, no data caps, and bandwidth sufficient for 30 people to perform research at any one time. I fully expect all public schools to have a similar hookup, and by god, so should churches and other NGO's that benefit the community. They will have to bring Internet out to the rural areas too, if they want the taxes.

      This is no different than that stupid media tax on all blank DVD/CDs that goes to Big Media, which of course, doesn't actually make it to the hands of the artists. It's just an extra slush fund for hookers and blow. All those organizations that purport to help the artists, seem to just help themselves.

      ISPs and these taxes will be no fucking different.

      ADD on to that the fact we already pay for the bandwidth (both the server and client separately) and that real impositions caused by peer & transit agreements are solved with CDN tech. What the ISP doesn't like, is that Netflix/Amazon/Google make their own data centers and CDNs inside their network to help alleviate the burden. The greedy motherfuckers aren't content with selling the data center bandwidth, and instead want to force Netflix and others into expensive bandwidth agreements instead, or force the usage of their own data centers.

      None of the benefits will lower consumer prices either.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 2) by dry on Monday December 17 2018, @06:40AM

        by dry (223) on Monday December 17 2018, @06:40AM (#775315) Journal

        Here in Canada, there is a push by the media companies to have an internet tax on any traffic over 15 GBs a month, because you know, only (legal) streamers use over 15 GBs a month and it seems the streaming companies aren't paying the artists enough, so a tax to go to industry to theoretically pay the artists that Netflix etc aren't paying enough. Fucking stupid, right along with their move to be able to block any sites that they claim are helping pirates and the move to remove network neutrality. Bad enough with the Americans pushing all the IP bullshit from the TPP.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by opinionated_science on Sunday December 16 2018, @10:11PM (1 child)

    by opinionated_science (4031) on Sunday December 16 2018, @10:11PM (#775200)

    the thing is , every time I read something palpably annoying I also think "is this just to seem reasonable later on? What else is being hidden?"

    The problem (IMHO) is not that this government is corrupt or incompetent - they *ALL* are, and depending on your social place, appears better or worse depending on your needs.

    The reason we are at "peak stupid" (or perhaps approaching it /s ) is that several decades of career politicians and dogmatic party allegiance has divided the population into adjoint sets of capture social subjects...

    Then again "never attest to malice that can be adequately explained by incompetence"....

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Monday December 17 2018, @12:10AM

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday December 17 2018, @12:10AM (#775234) Journal

      Then again "never attest to malice that can be adequately explained by incompetence"....

      No, please, you have that backwards [cia.gov]

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday December 16 2018, @10:38PM

    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Sunday December 16 2018, @10:38PM (#775208)

    Also ignoring the fact that they have already been paid (by taxpayers) to supply internet access to rural areas, but then often don't supply it. Is this regulatory capture?

    No, it's flat out corruption.