Net taxes.. Lack of neutrality?

by Angeline Booher Apr 28, 2006 5:43AM PDT

Some bills going around Congress to update the Telecommunications Act.

WASHINGTON--More Americans would be forced to pay taxes subsidizing broadband service in "unserved" locales, and cities would be free to go into the Wi-Fi business under an upcoming U.S. Senate bill.

Later this week, Sen. Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican, plans to introduce a legislative package called the Broadband for America Act of 2006, he said Tuesday morning at a conference here hosted by the National Telecommunications CooperativeAssociation, which represents small and rural carriers.

A copy of the 41-page bill seen by CNET News.com is essentially a combination of existing proposals introduced by Smith and his colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee. That committee's Republican chairman, Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, has also been readying what Smith called "an even more comprehensive bill" intended to overhaul the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which has been criticized as outdated for failing to account for the Internet's vast new influence.

Right now, long-distance, wireless, pay-phone and wireline telephone services are required to pay a fixed percentage of their revenues to the fund, which they typically do by tacking an additional fee onto their customers' bills. A number of the larger voice over Internet protocol providers, including Vonage, have said they already pay into the fund, but there doesn't appear to be a formal regulation requiring them to do so.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6064743.html?tag=nl.e550

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -

Sure would like to get DSL on my street...

by EdH Apr 28, 2006 6:09AM PDT

and I'd gladly pay, if it were available.

I can get cable but it would require putting a pole in the front yard.

- Collapse -

Our phone company....

by Angeline Booher Apr 28, 2006 7:51AM PDT

...Bell South, is the supplier of DSL here. They recently cut their price, which before was the same as cable.

Here the cable company pays the electric company to use their poles. I don't know if the phone company pays, but they also use the elctric poles.

I recall when the poles were called "telephone poles". Now I guess they are "utility poles."

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -

(NT) (NT) Does t0GO live in a third world state?

by duckman Apr 28, 2006 8:46AM PDT

- Collapse -

Verizonland

by EdH Apr 28, 2006 9:44PM PDT

They just don't want to provide the technology for rural customers. We're not even that "rural".

They keep promising that they are going to do the whole state. I think they meant they're going to do the whole state before getting to us.

- Collapse -

Duckman's sister lives in Canada

by duckman Apr 28, 2006 11:31PM PDT

and has no landline, would cost 60000 (Canadian) to install

- Collapse -

Sis lives in Canada? My sympathies.

by EdH Apr 28, 2006 11:51PM PDT

Part of my problem is that I have no visible wires going to my house. It's all underground. It looks nice that way, but when the original owners did that they didn't anticipate future utilities like Internet or cable access. I guess no cable back then. It was very rural then.

If I put a pole in I lose some of that visual aesthetic. But I may end up doing it anyway if Verizon doesn't get on the stick.

I think someone (maybe the State) has a class action suit going against them as they promised to get everyone DSL in return for a monopoly. Not sure; I'd have to look into that.

- Collapse -

Are you sure there's no conduit ...

by Evie Apr 28, 2006 11:55PM PDT

... that the existing utility wires aren't passed through? The "bare" wires (I know they have insulation on them, but that's not what I'm talking about) are rarely just buried, they are passed through a tube. You might/should be able to feed a new line through.

Evie

- Collapse -

I asked the cable company about that...

by EdH Apr 29, 2006 12:02AM PDT

They said they didn't want to mess with anyone else's conduit and I'd have to put a new one in.

My other alternative is satellite internet, but that's very expensive to set up and from what I hear, not that reliable.

- Collapse -

(NT) (NT) She'd like to come back

by duckman Apr 29, 2006 1:46AM PDT

- Collapse -

In jail........draft dodger?

by JP Bill Apr 29, 2006 11:11PM PDT

Aren't those the only reasons for an American to be in Canada?

- Collapse -

She married a Canadian,

by duckman Apr 30, 2006 12:11AM PDT

then they both lost their high tech jobs, out sourced to America, and now it sucks to be in Canada

- Collapse -

Follow the job

by JP Bill Apr 30, 2006 12:25AM PDT

No border guards stopping people from leaving a country, just entering. Same for the US

- Collapse -

I just want the same tax deal **** Cheney has.

by Ziks511 Apr 28, 2006 11:26AM PDT

He earned nearly 9 million dollars last year and paid taxes of about 2 million (less than 25%) and got a 1.55 million dollar rebate. In other words he paid 450,000 dollars tax, or just over 5%. Of course he donated 2.2 million to "charity". That makes his tax about 15%. But I'm sure that 9 million bucks was in no way payment for Halliburton getting its contracts. I'm sure it was all set up beforehand. But is sure does look peculiar.

The source is the Administration's own release of the President's and Vice President's tax returns.

Rob

- Collapse -

STOP THE LIES

by duckman Apr 28, 2006 9:35PM PDT

Cheney donated 6.87 million

- Collapse -

You're just mad ...

by Evie Apr 28, 2006 10:10PM PDT

... that the ALMOST 7 MILLION HE GAVE AWAY TO CHARITY didn't go to you.

Get a clue before you post Rob.

I can't think of anything more pathetic than those media outlets that tried to spin Cheney's generosity into merely using a "loophole" to get a tax break.

Net taxes.. Lack of neutrality?

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info