The Return Of Dumb Ideas: A Broadband Tax To Save Failing Newspapers

from the make-it-go-away dept

RobW points us to an opinion piece over at The Guardian, by David Leigh, who argues that there should be a £2 tax on every broadband connection sent to newspapers in order to prop them up for their own failures to adapt to a changing market place. He tosses out the usual tropes about how only newspapers can do real investigative reporting (what, like hacking voicemails the way Rupert Murdoch's journalists did?). Of course this is a complete myth. First of all, most newspapers do very little investigative reporting -- and UK papers are also somewhat famous for their ability to stretch the truth at times. Is this really something we want to reward?

The idea is hardly original. It's been suggested for years and seems to pop up in random places at random times. While it may be more reasonable than taxing Google to fund newspapers, it's still a horrifically bad idea. Leigh tries to work out how this would work, arguing that the sum would be divvied up among UK newspapers based on their web traffic. Of course, how you measure web traffic suddenly becomes very, very important. Leigh seems to assume this is easy, and that any such system wouldn't be gamed -- which it would. On top of that, he fails to recognize that the second you base such a huge sum of potential money on purely one metric, news sites would optimize solely on that metric, even if they're not "gaming" the system. So, expect plenty of attempts at sensationalistic stories and the like, rather than the thoughtful investigative reporting he thinks they're going to get.

And how do you define who gets access to the money in the first place? Leigh thinks he has that worked out too... but he does not:

There would be no insuperable problems in defining "news providers". The starting point would be to designate those organisations already classed by the state as zero-rated newspapers under the 1994 VAT legislation : "Newspapers … issued at least once a week in a continuous series under the same title … [which] contain information about current events of local, national or international interest. Publications which do not contain a substantial amount of news are not newspapers."

Other original news providers could subsequently apply to the independent levy board for admission to the scheme, case-by-case. But there would have to be a reasonable size threshold for admission, perhaps set at 100,000 monthly users, and also some rules to exclude content aggregators.

Ok, so that starts out by favoring the very companies who have done the least to adapt to changing times and ignores upstarts who have worked hard to build audiences and business models that work. And then you have to "apply" to get access in a long bureaucratic process where a small group of people (probably pulled from newspapers) gets to pick and choose? That's not how you build innovative companies with innovative business models. And, really, why the ban on "content aggregators"? There is this ongoing argument among old school newspaper people who seem to think that "aggregators" are the enemy -- despite the fact that they send original news sites more traffic and more users, and many aggregators expand into original content production themselves as well. Either way, lots of news sites would start applying, just because there's a ton of cash sitting there, and they'd all just start trying to optimize for the metric to get in.

But, of course, the real problem with all of this is the idea that it ever makes sense to tax a new technology to prop up those who failed to innovate, failed to adapt and couldn't compete. If they can't do it, let them fail. Contrary to Leigh's rather myopic view of the world, others will come in to fill the need, and they'll do so with innovative business models that don't require a tax. Really, Leigh's piece is best summed up by the first comment, from user "romandavid" who noted:

"A £2-a-month levy on automobiles could save our horse and cart business."

Exactly. If this got approved, every other disrupted industry would seek the same thing. Record labels? Movie studios? You bet. Travel agents? Absolutely. Really, what industry wouldn't want to add their own "tax" to the internet to try to pretend that we still lived in the 1980s? Thankfully, nearly all of the comments on the article seem to be taking the same general stance, that Leigh's idea is completely ridiculous and self-serving, without any reason or merit.

Filed Under: broadband tax, newspapers, tax, uk

FCC Commissioners All Claim 'The Other Guy' Came Up With This Crazy Broadband Tax Idea

from the the-Man-inadvertently-sticks-it-to-himself-this-time dept

Most of the time, it seems our "representatives" in Washington simply don't care what their constituents want. The DC thought process is that constituents are not to be trusted, much less listened to. Of course, all bets are off during election cycles. Suddenly, everyone cares.

Karl Bode at DSLReports has been following the FCC's "National Broadband Plan" since the first draft was made public back in March. He noted then that an additional $1-5 was to be added to existing customers' monthly bills in order to help fund the USF (Universal Service Fund) and expand broadband coverage.

Now, after asking for public comment and realizing that election season is in full swing, the FCC, along with pretty much everyone in both parties is pointing fingers at each other for daring to hit the poor consumer with yet another tax, all while insisting that they weren't the ones who proposed it. It seems this "proposal" magically appeared without anyone's support, if you believe the sudden backtracking from, well, everyone.

Neil Grace, a spokesman for Chairman Julius Genachowski, said the commission only made the proposal “following the urging of Republican Commissioners and members of Congress."

"The Chairman remains unconvinced that including broadband is the right approach,” he said. Robert McDowell, the only Republican on the commission when the proposal was floated earlier this year, flatly rejected that he ever supported the idea. "I have never suggested taxing broadband Internet access," he told The Hill.

The Hill's Technology Blog has a few more details, including this bit of interesting bit of skepticism from McDowell, who is first in line to head the FCC if there's a party shift this November :

McDowell said he is skeptical that the FCC even has the legal authority to tax Internet service.

So, if I'm reading this right, no one on the FCC supports this proposal that the FCC put forth and is now considering, even though no one wants it. Got it.

Of course, this wasn't the only suggestion the FCC considered, but the others weren't much better.

In April, the FCC suggested a number of ideas for reforming the fund's contribution system, including adding a fee to broadband Internet service. The commission also sought comments on taxing text messages, as well as levying a flat fee on each phone line, instead of the current system, which is based on a portion of the revenue from interstate phone calls.

Between now and November, this plan will have no support from previously interested politicians. An FCC official has referred to the idea as "politically toxic." Once the elections are over, though, it will probably be placed right back on the table.

The "internet tax" does have some support, though.

A number of companies, including AT&T, Sprint and Google, expressed support for a broadband tax in comments filed with the FCC.

Now, there's a good reason for these companies to support the funding of the UCF through these fees. For starters, this gets passed along to the customers so it's no money out of their pocket. (And it appears on the bill as a below-the-line charge, in order to allow both the government and the phone company to avoid calling it a "tax.") Even better, the UCF has become a loosely-regulated "slush fund" which dumps collected "fees" directly back into the pockets of the same companies collecting it in the first place.

What started as a program with important goals (making sure rural farmers can make phone calls and ensuring the poorest among us can dial 911) turned into an unaccountable corporate slush fund. Today USF is an $8 billion annual program, nearly quadrupling in size since its inception, with the bulk of that increase going to landline and wireless phone companies.

Maybe this massive growth would be no concern if USF were a model program with a sterling reputation for efficiency. But it’s not. One recent study found that 59 cents of every USF dollar raised for rural networks was spent on administrative expenses and general overhead. A 2010 audit of the rural USF program found that one out of every four dollars sent to participating phone companies was an “overpayment,” with nearly a billion dollars unaccounted for.

The corporate supporters of this plan to "expand the USF contributions base" have no constituency to worry about and have boldly stated that they'd love to have additional fees levied, presumably for noble reasons, like providing 911 service for rural farmers or helping lower income individuals acquire broadband services.

AT&T says that “retail mass market broadband Internet access should be included” in the FCC’s tax, and Google “strongly supports expanding the USF contribution base to include broadband Internet access services,” even as it begs the FCC to exempt Google’s own voice telephony services from the USF tax.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that adding additional fees does nothing to encourage broadband adoption by the low income population, the companies who stand to benefit the most from having more money dumped into a big cash pool are also first in line to make generous offers with other peoples' cash. The government is always more than happy to "pick up the check" on grandiose gestures, but at least every two-to-four years they remember whose wallet they're actually using. But these companies, with a hand stuck in both your back pocket AND the till don't have a periodic attack of conscience. This "broadband tax" will return to the table again and again as long as lobbyists still roam D.C.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband tax, fcc, universal service fund, usf