First Day Of Congress A Mixed Bag On Internet Issues

from the good-with-the-bad dept

Fri, Jan 5th 2007 10:26am — Joseph Weisenthal

With cities and states still making bald-faced attempts at taxing internet services, such as VoIP, it's good to see that the new Congress seems committed to preventing such actions. Just one day into the new session, proposals have been put forth, from both sides of the aisle, to extend and expand the moratorium on internet taxation. Additionally, there was legislation proposed that would repeal a federal tax on local telephone service -- also a good thing. But it was not all good news. Everyone's favorite Senator, Ted Stevens, wasted no time introducing a bill that would add taxes to broadband bills. Stevens' measure, which would help extend the series of tubes to rural areas is called the Universal Service for Americans Act. For some reason, both the name and the act's intent sound awfully familiar to another bad idea. So, if you were hoping that the new Congress might bring about a break from all of the recent partisan wrangling over internet and telecom issues, you're out of luck.

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Republican Gun, 5 Jan 2007 @ 10:38am

Dissolution
With Pelosi and other liberal politicians in power now; I somewhat wish that they would try to impeach the President. Thus keeping them distracted enough to keep their griming little hands off my internet. Dammit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- STJ, 5 Jan 2007 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re: Dissolution
  impeach the president? for what? remember that 99% of congress AGREED to goto war. They would also have to impeach themselves as well, which wouldn't be a bad idea.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TEMBER, 5 Jan 2007 @ 10:39am

Why is it that people feel they are OWED the internet?

Since when is it that if you don't make enough money for something, or if you choose live in a rural area, everyone else has to foot the bill?

Damn it! I just don't make enough for that Escalade and I live too far from the dealer. Everyone who owns one should get an excise tax on their loan so that I can get one for really really cheap and it should be hand delivered to my driveway. That sounds fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beefcake, 5 Jan 2007 @ 10:48am
  
  Re:
  People driving Escalades does nothing to enhance or improve the national infrastructure. High-speed internet may or may not do that either, but at least it can be argued. If we're requiring hi-def broadcasts for television, subsidized broadband in rural areas (where the food comes from) is at least as viable a need as that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dosquatch, 7 Jan 2007 @ 8:21am
  
  Re: TEMBER
  Why is it that people feel they are OWED the internet?
  
  It's not internet service I feel is owed, it's infrastructure. I would pay for high speed internet service, but as no such wire runs past my residence, I cannot. I feel that wire should be there for many reasons, not the least of which is that I HAVE PAID FOR IT. As have you, as has everybody in the US, by way of tax breaks and other incentives given to the telcos in trade for a promise that this infrastructure would already be here by now, and by way of additional charges from the telcos to the consumers allowed for same said promise. I don't want you to foot the bill, that's already been done and paid for. What I want is for the telcos to make good on their end of the bargain.
  
  Since when is it that if you don't make enough money for something, or if you choose live in a rural area, everyone else has to foot the bill?
  
  There is precedent for this, actually. Power companies and phone companies are required to pull lines to your residence, wherever it may be, and to charge no more for their service even if it means that they lose money on your circuit.
  
  ... and for the record, I do pop for satellite service.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TEMBER, 5 Jan 2007 @ 10:46am

Hey "Republican Gun"... You're an idiot.

I don't even have to guess on what it is you think the President should be impeached over. It's always the same dumb crap with you people.

That's okay though. Since you guys are so eager to fund the lazy, I think I will quit my job and live off of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Bum, 5 Jan 2007 @ 10:55am

U misunderstood the Gun
The Gun wants the dems to waste time 'trying to impeach' instead of passing laws to entitle everyone to Escalades. Even if they did impeach em, Cheney would pardon him in '08.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Charles Griswold, 5 Jan 2007 @ 10:55pm
  
  Re: U misunderstood the Gun
  
  The Gun wants the dems to waste time 'trying to impeach' instead of passing laws to entitle everyone to Escalades. Even if they did impeach em, Cheney would pardon him in '08.
  
  Was this an attempt at humor or do you really not understand what an impeachment is?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The infamous Joe, 5 Jan 2007 @ 11:41am

This remind me of a joke.
If Pro is the opposite of Con, then what's the opposite of progress?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Mighty Buzzard, 5 Jan 2007 @ 12:06pm

If by "enhance or improve the national infrastructure" you mean keep people out in the sticks from having to pay for their porn, then it absolutely does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beefcake, 5 Jan 2007 @ 12:23pm
  
  Re:
  Hey, free porn is at least as important as high-definition Viagra commercials. Perhaps there's a connection after all.
  
  Really I'm thinking about things like food-producers having quick access to weather/pricing/etc, remote highway signs somewhere in western Kansas being able to tell travelers "turn around and get a motel or you're stuck in the snow"; that kind of thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolff000, 5 Jan 2007 @ 12:14pm

No Surprises
Is anyone surprised that we are seeing the same things carry over from last congress? No matter who is in charge they are going to fight and argue with eath other. It's not like any of them have any incenticve to actually make change. They like things the way theyare it is how they got to be in power no matter what party is in control. Both parties are equally screwed up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joel Coehoorn, 5 Jan 2007 @ 12:18pm

It may interest you to know that starting this year in Germany you must pay a fee to the government for each computer you own, whether or not you ever even turn it on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolfger, 5 Jan 2007 @ 12:19pm

Big whoop...
"repeal a federal tax on local telephone service"

Who makes local calls anymore. Any call I make is "zone" or "long distance", unless I'm calling the store on the corner (walking distance).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brad Eleven, 5 Jan 2007 @ 1:23pm

"No matter who is in charge..."
Nice one, Wolf000; I think you meant "No matter which of the two political parties is in power..."

Q: Who's in charge?
A: Corporations. The governments are simply their agents, and well-compensated agents at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gee, 5 Jan 2007 @ 1:33pm

repeat
this is the same thing they did with the phone companies. They raised taxes to build a better fiber network, gave the $200 billion+ to the telcos and they never built the network.

The same thing will happen with broadband. We will get charged billions of dollars, give it to the cable companies, and still not see any better coverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TEMBER, 5 Jan 2007 @ 1:39pm

I don't get why everyone is so pissed at Bush - The democrats have moved in and are promising a "New Direction for America.."

Hmmm.. Let's see here:

1. The stock market is at a new all-time high and America's 401 K's are back.

2. Unemployment is at 25 year lows.

3. Oil prices are plummeting.

4. Taxes are at 20 year lows.

5. Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.

6. The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year.

7. Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years.

8. Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.

9. Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.

10. Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having
not surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Queda's
top dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel.

11. Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and
British Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets
being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate
the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks.

12. Just as President Bush foretold us on a number of occasions,
Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and
just as President Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over
the region are arriving from the shado ws of their hiding places
and flooding into Iraq in order to get their faces blown off by
US Army rather than boarding planes and heading to the United
States to wage war on us here.

A new direction from all that means... what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the So Called Sticks, 5 Jan 2007 @ 1:43pm

Why do people who live in big cities think everyone should move to one if they want anything. I do a lot of good for this country even though I live in a small town. Not everyone can live in a city, think about the importance of agriculture. Should farmers have to live in the dark ages? Oh thats right, they should all quit their jobs and move to the city.
More on point, I don't necessarily agree with subsidization for broadband, but I don't have access now and know I could grow my business and increase my economic output if I had it.
Some infrastructure subsidization does help the whole country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TEMBER, 5 Jan 2007 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re:
  So.. because you do a lot of good for this country and choose to live outside of the city... we should pay to charter you a broadband line?
  
  How about.. it's a perk for city life! There you go! If you choose live out there.. you choose to be stuck with dial-up or satellite. Otherwise, move into the city. Besides, your housing is cheaper than ours because you are living in rural area.. I don't think that's fair to us city dwellers. You should have pay extra so our housing is cheap. Sounds great.
  
  Quit your bitchin.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DTatum, 5 Jan 2007 @ 2:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Tember :
    If all you do on the internet is download porn, then yes, its simply a perk. But in todays United States, the internet is vastly more incorporated into our daily lives than a simple perk of city life.
    
    No it didn't start out this way, but more and more, the internet has become a major form of communication & education and facilitator for everything from financial to medical services.
    
    Not having access is becoming more and more a detriment.
    
    Now, I'm not saying that everyone should have top notch broadband access, but I don't think a kid that can't afford the internet should be doomed to a 2nd class education simply due to that fact of circumstance.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mousky, 5 Jan 2007 @ 5:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Fact of circumstance? Housing is much cheaper in rural areas. Perhaps rural dwellers can subsidize us urban dwellers due to our fact of circumstance.
      
      You want broadband in rural areas? Remove the local, state and federal laws and regulations that only help incumbents. Don't coerce urban dwellers to subsidize rural dwellers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the So Called Sticks, 5 Jan 2007 @ 2:04pm

My housing is cheaper than yours, but the job market and pay scales are significantly smaller, too. Remember, I said I don't necessarily agree with subsidization for broadband, but I am looking for an answer.
Broadband is not a city perk. I don't know what is...maybe prostitutes. All I am saying is that access to information for all citizens is a good thing, it helps grow the entire economy. By the way, I hate you for making me sound like a liberal, believe me I am not. Again, I am just looking for an answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TEMBER, 5 Jan 2007 @ 2:36pm

What circumstance? Not being able to afford something is not a circumstance. Not living in a certain area is not a circumstance.

Having an airplane crash into your house is a circumstance.

Besides, I never said they shouldn't get the internet. I'm talking high speed here. How is some poor kid going to have a 2nd rate education because his internet connection is slower?

Oh and as far as the internet being incorporated into our daily lives... yea, well - not to those who dont have it right?

All the kids at my son's school might have PS3's - but he doesn't. Should I go out and buy one now? No... You can't lose out on something you never had to begin with.

Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- misanthropic humanist, 5 Jan 2007 @ 2:54pm
  
  The English language
  Circumstance: a condition, detail, part, or attribute, with respect to time, place, manner,agent, etc., that accompanies, determines, or modifies a fact or event.
  
  "Being able to afford something is not a circumstance."
  
  It is a circumstance.
  
  "Living in a certain area is not a circumstance."
  
  It is a circumstance.
  
  "Having an airplane crash into your house is a circumstance"
  
  The one example you picked is NOT a circumstance, it is an event.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nully Null, 5 Jan 2007 @ 4:02pm

RE:
The tel/cable companies want the "right of way", to build their infrastructure on OUR PUBLIC land.

So I think it quite reasonable for somebody living in the boonies feeling that they should benefit from the use of PUBLIC land when it occur within their area.

Once we goto Wifi it will somewhat simplified however, the airwaves are PUBLIC as well so there going to have to give some back there too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]