SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pipedwho on Sunday December 16 2018, @09:36PM (2 children)
So these ISPs (really just dying cable media providers) want the government to take money from sites providing the media and give it to them instead. Normal ISPs (ie. not cable companies masquerading as ISPs) already benefit from these media sites since they are the proverbial 'killer app' that will get customers paying decent money for high bandwidth internet access.
Back in the day, you could do email, text based messaging/groups, and maybe a few crappy web sites, so the benefit to most people of having lots of bandwidth was low. These days, bandwidth is critical if you want to consume lots of media. And therefore if you want bandwidth you pay for it.
If a tax like this turns up, there will be ZERO benefit to the consumer as the "ISPs" won't drop their rates by the amount they are receiving from the media companies. On top of that, the media companies will pass the cost onto the users. The only benefit is to the big "ISPs" and few a politicians on the take. It's hard to get more anti-consumer than this.
They started out as separated ISPs/infrastructure providers and media studios. Then starting merging, thus bringing this problem on themselves.
This is a great reason to start breaking them back up into the 'cable/media/isp' separate constituent business areas. This may happen naturally if they can't keep grabbing government subsidies to prop up their old cable cartel business model. As separate focused markets they can compete on an even keel with other equally constrained players in those markets.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by pipedwho on Sunday December 16 2018, @09:49PM (1 child)
Now if the FCCs reason for this is that these sites are 'bad' and this is really just a disguised 'sin tax', then by all means tax it. But, don't give the proceeds of the tax back to the ISPs. Earmark it for something useful like schools or hospitals so it actually benefits everyone and not just padding the bonus checks of a few executives so they can maintain their private jets and island mansions.
I love how this is billed as 'the FCC is recommending' and not 'the cable cartels have paid off the FCC to recommend'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @07:18PM
by "schools" you mean huge, centralized, government-controlled slave training centers? no thanks.