Baltimore Thinks It's Exempt From FCC's Opposition To VoIP Taxes
from the what-makes-them-so-special? dept
So far, the FCC has stymied the efforts of various states wanting to tax VoIP, as if it were just a regular phone line. And you'd think that cities would realize that if the states can't get away with it either, then they probably shouldn't try. But all that untaxed business is just too much to give up on without a fight. Now the city of Baltimore is suing Vonage for for failing to collect a $3.50 per month tax that the city levies on landlines and mobile phones. Like most taxes of this sort, there's no real justification for it, except that when it was imposed initially, in 2004, Baltimore had a big budget deficit that needed closing. There are clearly numerous problems with imposing a tax on VoIP, as if it were a discrete voice service, a la mobile phones. And a $3.50 monthly tax is enormous, one that would substantially add to the cost of VoIP service, which often uses price as a major selling point. It's hard to see how the city could argue that the scheme isn't just bald-faced attempt to greedily dip its fingers into others' pots. After all, if it quacks like a duck...Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I laugh while
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so, if all other phones are taxes, and vonate is a telephone service.....then tehre.
now this isn't me being for the tax. i think it's stupid. i mean, i pay enough in my phone bill and income taxes, why do i have to have a telephone tax?
but then again, this is probably some phone company trying to closeout their competition....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Want to tax UDP ports 1-53 but untax 67-27960?
Want to tax my Skype or AIM conversations?
More specifically, are we just taxing the hand-off from the IP access cloud to the PSTN ? If so, STOP USING PHONE NUMBERS !! IP to IP has an astonishing effect on a lot of things, if you just step back and analyze it for a minute.
If Vonage would give away their softphone instead of charging for it, this could some some of their problems as well.
IMHO ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The good old days
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The good old days
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so yes, vonage must go someplace and be turned from internet packets into "telephone packets"
ok, so maybe the devices isn't 100% telephony. instead, how about charge 30% of the 3.50 tax because say about 30% of the time it's on "telephoyn" infastructure.
as i said, i don't like the tax. i don't think it should exist. however i am able to see why some belive the tax to be "applicable" in this case. i wish we had smart people who run the country (this goes for all parties, major and minor those in power, those seeking power)
now...as chris rock said...out of 30 kid class, 5 smart, 5 dumb and 20 average. the nation is run by b and c students!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And as for your last comment, you have clearly never been here. out of a 30 kid class, 25 dumb, 2 smart and 3 average.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
except
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No to be disrespectful in my comments, but wanted to provide a differnt line of thinking about this and hopefully taxation in general.
Best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a surprise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
This fee model has been in place since probably the 19th century and it is breaking down. But at the same time franchise fees are a critical revenue source for local governments and eliminating them will affect public services like law enforcement and fire protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well....your half right...
If I connect to the internet via my cable then the cable company sends me a bill that will invariably have some "government fees" on it. Same from my local telephone provider.
When I connect to the internet and VOIP with some one I am using my internet connection for an internet service. I have paid my "fees" and I am consuming my goods as the law allows.
If I hook up a device (mini-computer) that acts as my computer does and allows me to VOIP over the same internet connection there should be no additional "tax" or "fee". I have already paid my fee to be on that network or "government authorized stretch of wires" and should not be taxed again for "use of the ROW".
This logic also works for the receiver on a telephone network. They have already paid their fees to be on their network and the internet phone service is paying a company who has already paid their fees to connect the call on to the telephone network, which they pass that cost on to me in the form of a monthly subscription.
What is really happening is that people have left the telephone network and are now handling all their communication over their cable networks. This has probably reduced the franchise fees coming in to the munincipalities or , like many before have mentioned, it is seen as an "untapped revenue source".
What it boils down to is a tax on a device that I have already paid sales tax on (or not, thanks newegg), with dollars that were taxed as I earned them, sitting in a house that I pay property taxes on, on a network built on public land that I am taxed to use.
Not that public services aren't needed and taxes pay for those, but c'mon guys.....
Whether it's a tax on a device or tax on the internet we are basing our budgets on things that could be gone in an instant with one well placed EMP.
Anyone want to talk about North Korea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as i mentined before, if you have 2 lines, you pay double tax (each line has it's own fees and whatnot) even though you have one physical wire. well, with voip, you have your "phone" and regular phone. thus double tax is fine (well not really coz taxes suck, but do you see where i'm getting at?) so yeah, you paid your first tax for the line, but you are using hte line a second time, so you gotta pay another tax on that. (because i take a toll rode once, does that mean i don't have to pay ever again?)
bodhiguy, do you pay a satelite tax? same thing applies as stated above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]