FCC Approves New Internet Phone Taxes 230
basotl writes to tell us CNet is reporting that the FCC has approved a new round of taxes for internet phone service. Some 4 million users could receive this nasty little surprise as early as their next monthly bill. From the article: "The VoIP industry wasn't alone in questioning the FCC's move. In a letter sent last week to commissioners, attorneys for the U.S. Small Business Administration urged the agency to postpone its action until it had done a thorough analysis of the economic effect on smaller providers."
Trust the FCC... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trust the FCC... (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, the established phone companies out-lobbied the startups.
The very notion that a nation with a First Ammendment needs a "Federal Communications Commission" is absurd. It's one thing to manage RF bandwidth, which was the FCC's original mandate... in the 1920's or 1930's. But they've expanded their mission to micromanaging every electronic communcation in the country, which, nowadays, includes just about everything. It's such an impossible task that they continue to pass new rules because the old ones are "broken". Of course, the new rules will quickly be "broken" too. And then they'll pass more.
I say, set up an eBay store to auction bandwidth, and close down the rest of the FCC. We can continue to pay the employees, that's not expensive compared to the damage they do when they're working.
Re:Trust the FCC... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Trust the FCC... (Score:3, Insightful)
The one part of the FCC's involvement that I don't have much of a problem with is their "censorship" of *broadcast* TV... if all they did was mange the public bandwidth and "censor" language (as opposed to opinions) to keep the public airwaves suitable for the public discourse, that wouldn't be a problem.
But beyond that, the First Ammendment promises freedom in our communications, not a federal authority that dishes out freedom
Re:Trust the FCC... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it is, but it's somewhat scary when there's a secret list of things you can't say on TV/radio, and get your ass fined to the poorhouse if you do.
Re:Trust the FCC... (Score:3, Insightful)
thats kinda intresting because the do censor more than just language.. and who they hell are they to tell me what words are bad.. i am sorry but i am sick of this bad word here bad ideas and the damn people that take money out of my pay check whcih i work for - and no they don't give me an option about how much.. they just take - then they turn around and tell me what is be
Re:Trust the FCC... (Score:5, Insightful)
Where I live, there is one (1) AM station, and one (1) FM station. yet, I cannot get a license to transmit without paying huge fees, employing lawyers, installing ridiculous over-featured equipment (I'm a 1st class HAM operator and at one time held the 1st class FCC radiotelephone operator's license as well -- so I know what's required, in fact, I'm the very fellow you used to have to hire in order to ensure that your installation complied technically. You can broadcast a clean AM or FM signal for under a grand, easily.)
The fact is, the FCC has created a situation where exactly one (1) type of entity has access to the airwaves: The rich. Rich individuals or rich corporations, these are the only ones who can get on, and therefore, they 100% control what is said. Clearly, this is a 1st amendment issue.
Re:Trust the FCC... (Score:2)
That said, it probably isn't worth much in this day and age, and has probably been devalued by the FCC in favor of more recent (and costlier) licenses.
Re:Trust the FCC... (Score:2)
Re:Trust the FCC... (Score:2)
I read your comment earlier today. Now, I'm playing GTA: Vice City, listening to Lazlow on VRock, and he just had a caller who complained that Lazlow was playing soft rock; Lazlow's response was "If you don't like what we play, just start you own radio station. It's easy!"
When I heard that tonight (which I've heard before), I was immediately reminded of your post; Laszlo was apparently being extremely sarcastic, as I don't think the landscape has changed much since 2002 (when the game was made).
Re:Trust the FCC... (Score:2)
It won't be today and it might not be next year, but Office's strangelehold on the corporate desktop will eventually be an historical footnote. Not because any government
The U.S. government wants more of your money... (Score:2)
More war helps those whose friends and family and business associates have investments in weapons and oil, such as the Bush and Cheney families.
--
When Arabs kill, that's bad. When the U.S. govt. kills, that's good?
For the love of God! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For the love of God! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For the love of God! (Score:2)
Re:For the love of God! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For the love of God! (Score:2)
'nuff said.
Re:For the love of God! (Score:5, Informative)
"Bush initially presented Congress a proposed budget containing steep spending cuts and no new taxes, but congressional Democrats dismissed this out of hand. . . . The alternative would have been to veto any budget bill that came out of Congress, risking a potential government shutdown and possibly triggering the automatic cuts of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act. . . . [Eventually,] Bush agreed to a new resolution, and soon after the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 was finally passed. This new proposal replaced some of the fuel taxes with a 10% surtax on the top income tax bracket (thus raising the top marginal tax rate to 31%) and also included new excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco products, automobiles and luxury yachts."[1]
It is worth mentioning that Bush (or any President) is not able to pass tax legislation. That's for Congress. He can make recomendations and he can veto (not that he has yet, AFAIK), but he can't enact legislation.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_No_new
Re:For the love of God! (Score:2)
I hate extraneous taxes... (Score:2)
Re:I hate extraneous taxes... (Score:2)
As for the IPO, it isn't affecting me (yet...), I'm paying the same amount now that I was 2 years ago, which is more than I can say when I had SBC or Verizon when I was in Virginia.
Re:I hate extraneous taxes... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hate extraneous taxes... (Score:2)
Another downfall that I keep hearing about is the loss of power. All of my essential equipment are on UPS for just such a scenario. In order to sell it to my wife, I had to make sure all bases were covered.
Re:I hate extraneous taxes... (Score:2)
Re:I hate extraneous taxes... (Score:2, Informative)
That's OK... (Score:2)
It seems to me now that Vonage is going to have to start charging some taxes, that I'm really just better off moving to a USWest line. The $5 or so I save each month by using Vonage isn't worth the hassle.
Re:I hate extraneous taxes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I hate extraneous taxes... (Score:2)
Re:Hypocrisy! (Score:2)
so why didn't they tax the rest of the internet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh also that fund that is supposed to "subsidize" rural areas is such a waste. My parents have lived in a rural area for years without DSL and it wasn't made available until a couple years ago. And then, it's 128kbps and it wasn't funded by this stupid fund, but by the local telephone co-op. I'd rather the tax go away.
Re:so why didn't they tax the rest of the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:so why didn't they tax the rest of the internet (Score:2)
YOu really don't know?
Basically, it reduces to this: the government needs money. You have some. In order to get it from you, they invented this thing they call "taxation".
Now, how does this apply to VOIP? Well, right now at least, VOIP looks like a "luxury tax" - a tax aimed at people who are better off than most (it looks that way because it's new, and not everyone has it). Luxury taxes are great, from the governnment point of vuew, because it's eas
Thought experiment. (Score:5, Insightful)
You speak into a microphone and a speach-to-text program IMs the words to your friend's computer which then reads them aloud. Is that voip? Taxable?
-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]
Re:Thought experiment. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Thought experiment. (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, yeah, that is it, baby, right, there.
Re:Thought experiment. (Score:2)
Re:Thought experiment. (Score:2)
Re:so why didn't they tax the rest of the internet (Score:5, Informative)
If you would have read TFA, you would have found out that they are only taxing calls made to the PSTN, not internet only calls. I don't have a problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with the rate discrepency between VoIP companies vs the Bells vs the cell companies. VoIP companies are paying double the amount the incumbents are paying based on an arbitrary percentage (a number not justified in any sort of way).
Oh also that fund that is supposed to "subsidize" rural areas is such a waste. My parents have lived in a rural area for years without DSL and it wasn't made available until a couple years ago. And then, it's 128kbps and it wasn't funded by this stupid fund, but by the local telephone co-op. I'd rather the tax go away.
The rural telephone co-ops in my area are heavily subsidized by Universal Service Funds. I am 99% certain that your DSL is funded by USF.
Re:so why didn't they tax the rest of the internet (Score:2)
so, lets turn it round... doesn't this actually give people an incentive to STOP internet users in the USA who have VOIP from using the PSTN altogether, and encouraging their friends to sign up too?
dude1: hey, man, it used to be cheap to call you, but it's now costing more. Why don't you sign up for $VOIP_PROVIDER, then our calls to each other will be free, and we can stop subsidising the old telcos.
dude2: [fx: clickety-click] ok, wha
Re:so why didn't they tax the rest of the internet (Score:2)
Re:so why didn't they tax the rest of the internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Who gave the FCC the right to create a Tax? (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:so why didn't they tax the rest of the internet (Score:2)
Re:so why didn't they tax the rest of the internet (Score:2, Insightful)
The Universal Service Fund actually does subsidize rural phone users -- poor ones more than richer ones, but a lot of the subsidy goes to the service provider rather than the customer.
SHUSH! (Score:2)
Quiet, please. Let's not give them any ideas.
Re:so why didn't they tax the rest of the internet (Score:3, Informative)
It's actually an example of you not understanding the fee.
If you read the fine article it says in the second sentence that VOIP will be charged when it connects to the PSTN network (yeah yeah, ATM machine, deal with it). This isn't discriminatory against VOIP; all other voice services including cell phones are charged when they connect to the PSTN network. VOIP to VOIP won't be charged because that'
Re:so why didn't they tax the rest of the internet (Score:2)
Re:so why didn't they tax the rest of the internet (Score:3, Informative)
Re:so why didn't they tax the rest of the internet (Score:2)
Re:so why didn't they tax the rest of the internet (Score:2)
Independent VoIP providers represent one of the very few communications mediums in the US that hasn't received generous government subsidies in one form or ano
DAMMIT! (Score:4, Interesting)
This outfit is getting entirely too powerful. This crap has to stop.
Re:DAMMIT! (Score:2)
Re:DAMMIT! (Score:2)
I don't believe the Party actually has a formal positio
Civics? (Score:5, Interesting)
-Peter
Re:Civics? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not a tax - it is a fee - look at what your bill says. There is no real difference but the name does count becsue agencies can charge fees - and most do.
VOIP has been getting a free ride since they can connect with the landline but have avoided the fee - I'd like to see them junk the fee but that won't happen. It's a good thing that Repiblicans are for less government and working on important issues like banning gay marriage instead of worrying about what they've done to our economy. Where is Goldwater when the Republicans really need him.
From a personal perspective, VOIP is still cheaper since I have a phone in Eiurope and the US and all calls are local.
Re:Civics? (Score:5, Informative)
The sad thing is that most people are perfectly okay with this so long as they aren't the ones getting the shaft. And when their turn comes around their neighbors simply see it as payback for the fees THEY had to pay at some point for some government service that they used (or a commercial service the government decided to tax...er, levy 'fees' against). Basically it's a "I didn't hear you complaining when I had to pay fucking fee X for service Y, so don't expect me to speak up on your behalf now that you're the one being roughed by the government protection racket - asshole."
Good luck trying to change things. Governments are as addicted to their fees as smack whores are to heroin - and they've got the guns (metaphorically and literally) to make sure you can't do shit about it.
Max
Re:Civics? (Score:2)
Thor lives still, lion-bait. (Score:2)
Re:Civics? (Score:2)
From all indicators that I have seen, that's the one thing they have done pretty well with. This administration came into office with a recession inherited from the previous administration, and turned it around into a strong economy.
Unemployment is low, inflation is low, new home construction is up, the markets are healthy. What's wrong with the economy?
I do take issue with their out-of-control spending, bu
Re:Civics? (Score:2)
The FCC has the authority to determine who supports the Safe Harbor fund. Congress gave them that authority and established its limits, primarily users of PSTN systems. So, the FCC says that VOIP services that use PSTN have to contribute to the fund. All very constitutional. Incidentally, the tax on DSL is being dropped by the FCC, so I guess they giv
DSL double dipping? (Score:5, Insightful)
( i dont have DSL, so no, i cant go look at my bill )
What really irritates me about this tax (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a slippery slope. (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm taxed for talking to someone using VOIP but not when I happen to be playing a game at the time - then maybe VOIP providers should include a copy of PONG that you can play with the other person while you talk to them?
The idea that you can tax bytes that contain the human voice in realtime - but you don't tax bytes that contain pictures, or human voice that was recorded a few hours ago...of all the millions of uses for data sent over the Internet - why should realtime human voice be singled out as special. It's just silly.
We either need to tax ALL data transfers over shared communications links or NONE of them. Repeal the tax on telephony or tax broadband the same way you tax dialled telephony - there is no practical difference.
Hmmm - so if I use dialup to connect to the Internet - and then use VOIP - do I get taxed twice? I think that's probably illegal.
The lawyers will make a fortune arguing this one.
Re:This is a slippery slope. (Score:2)
Re:This is a slippery slope. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that this is a fuzzy definition. Taxing telephones made sense when they were single function devices for carrying realtime analog voice from A to B. When Fax machines appeared, it still made sense - when dialup modems showed up it made sense because all data was taxed uniformly.
This new thing makes no sense - if
Re:This is a slippery slope. (Score:2)
And exactly what functions do they cover? The tax apparently wasn't necessary when the packets were formated for transmitting email, yet now that they transmit voice there's a sudden 'need' for new taxes and yet more government? Sounds to me like a win-win for the government (more free money for no additional service) and for the telcos competing against VOIP; yet another example of an oligarchy buying government power.
Max
Re:This is a slippery slope. (Score:2)
Previous arguments to exempt VoIP from the Universal Service Fund have centered on the fact that the FCC is also chartered to
Re:This is a slippery slope. (Score:2)
Previously, (before-VOIP), the USF was collected on telecom companies, and used by telecom companies to build out rural services.
Now, the FCC has extended the USF to include non-telecom companies, but the money will STILL be used by telecom companies to build out rural services!
It's gone from being a rural telephonification fund, to a subsidize AT&T fund via Vonage/Skype/Whoever revenues.
I think thats atrocious. I'm switching my company off AT&T this week
Re:This is a slippery slope. (Score:2)
And, as we changed what we think of as "basic services" the fund has changed the services that were supported. Rural areas got DSL. Libraries got internet access.
So USF was collected from "telephone companies" and used to
Don't worry (Score:2)
you can't enforce it. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:you can't enforce it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Semantics (Score:2)
Re:Semantics (Score:2, Insightful)
Questionable conversion rate (Score:5, Informative)
The above is due (FTA) to the fact that the FCC assumes ~65% of VOIP calls are long distance, while less than 30% of wireline and wireless calls are long distance. That makes it sound (to me) like some underhanded lobbying was involved.
In fairness, VOIP that does not connect to the POTS system (e.g. p2p calls) should be excluded as it does not use the same infrastructure and thus should not face the same tax burden. In fact, services such as Skype are excluded from the taxes for this exact reason, so some calculation should be made to determine the percentage of VOIP calls that never touch the POTS system. Other than that, I don't see any reason that VOIP services that use the same resources as the POTS carriers should be granted special exemption from the taxes collected for consuming the same services/infrastructure.
On a side note, my first impression from the summary was that the FCC was levying new taxes specifically against VOIP providers. I got the impression that the FCC was creating new taxes (No taxation without representation!) and that really pissed me off. Upon reading the actual article, that was definitely the implication, however the facts make it obvious that these are existing taxes and VOIP services are only being reclassified so that they fall under the same category as other voice carriers Anyone who thinks they don't -- specifically for services that access the POTS system, not p2p like skype and vonage to vonage calls -- is either ignorant or in denial. Of course, the conversion rate seems extremely off and weighted toward the destruction of VOIP and there doesn't seem to be an allowance for VOIP to VOIP calls which should bypass the regulation. I'm pissed about the extremely questionable fairness of this proclamation, but please present the facts without insinuating that things are happening (FCC creating new tax laws) which are clearly not.
Can you just find a way around the "fee/tax" (Score:2)
Besides that, this whole VoIP battle is a serious race to the bottom with it getting cheaper and cheaper (then free). Once it hits free, 30%/65%/100% tax on free is
for the People, by the People.... (Score:2)
RTFA: the cure for knee-jerk (Score:2)
- Only affects carriers who access the phone system, hence not the same as peer-to-peer calls or video game chat, etc, etc.
FCC overstepping its boundaries, class action suit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FCC overstepping its boundaries, class action s (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As Reagan said... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As Reagan said... (Score:4, Informative)
Remarks to State Chairpersons of the National White House Conference on Small Business
August 15, 1986
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/19
No week pass without something to fuck U.S. People (Score:2)
Eh, talk about reaping what you saw. Vote the republicans.
'Family values', 'american values', 'traditions' - any improvement on these so far ?
fool. (Score:2)
It's the left and right hand on the same body.
Re:fool. (Score:2)
Universal Service Fund needs to die. Fuck Wyoming (Score:2)
Who are these asshole regulators that can put on a tax with no debate ?
They are more worried about F-ING Wyoming.
The USF tax needs to fricking DIE.
Abolish the FCC (Score:2)
Re:Abolish the FCC (Score:2)
The FCC is a waste of space.
One word: immigration reform died (Score:2)
Why does it effect the provider? (Score:2)
Aren't these taxes/fees passed along for the subscriber (customer) to pay? If so, how does that have an "economic effect" on the provider? They're not the ones paying it, their customers are.
Or, why would it effect smaller providers differently than larger ones?
I touched the PSTN today, am I taxed? (Score:2)
I;m sick of this (Score:2)
Please people, don't keep electing back the sa
Re:I;m sick of this (Score:2)
I'd like to nominate this "best irony in a post seen on Slashdot. Ever."
This USF stuff is bullshit. (Score:2)
All I know is that this "fee" requires me to dump MY money into paying for telephone service for the boonies, via a telephone company that I hate. How is that capitalistic, again?
You want to live out in the boonies? Pay for your OWN damn wiring. Or use wireless. Or work together with your community.
Why does everyone expect the federal government to pay for their excesses in terms of where they live? Why do people who build houses on sand banks/flood plains expect nati
encryption (Score:2)
If we cypher everything but the IP address... this includes the port information - IE - a wrapper to a cyphered port - then once the communication is established (via ssl probably) then we solve all sorts of problems including varying packet delivery based on the packet type (because the carrier wants to gain an unfair competative advantage for say their own video
So don't terminate into the PSTN (Score:2)
Re:Double taxation (Score:2)
I'd say we're well past double taxation into septuple or more taxation.
Re:WTF (Score:2)
You must be new here.
Re:Secret conference at FCC headquarters..... (Score:2)
This government is so far fucking beyond that, it's riduculous to even make comparisons to the taxes the British levied on the colonies.