The FCC Thinks It Might Want To Start Collecting Taxes On Broadband Internet Service

Here’s something you might have missed — there could soon be a new tax on your broadband Internet service, if the Federal Communications Commission has its way. The proposed tax would go toward ensuring more people have access to the Internet, along the lines of the taxes already consumers pay for landlines and cellular phone service.

The FCC asked for comments on the proposal back in April, but as TheHill.com notes, not much attention has been paid to the idea so far in the general public. However plenty of companies are already onboard with the idea, including AT&T, Sprint and Google, so it’s about time we started paying more attention.

So where would all that money go? Toward the Connect America Fund, which is a new entity as of last year with a goal of expanding Internet access, similar to the Universal Service fund. That fund had a face-lift of about $4.5 billion in changes aimed at the Internet sector, which was how the CAF was created.

New taxes are no fun for anyone, but the CAF is staring at a hole of 19 million Americans without Internet access and this is one way to plug it.

*Thanks for the tip, George!

FCC eyes tax on Internet service [TheHill.com]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Torgonius wants an edit button says:

    Woo hoo!!! more taxes! Thank you, dear leader!

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Which leader are you referring to? You should probably figure out who actually makes these decisions before you flap those gums of yours.

      • AcctbyDay says:

        I think it may have just been a stab at the fact that there are already a lot of taxes, not really any dear leader in particular. I agree with you though, lobbing responsibility at the president for EVERYTHING EVER does get old.

      • StarKillerX says:

        How about Bush, can we blame him for this without you taking personal offense to it?

        • menty666 says:

          I’ve taken to blaming Obamney. It covers all the bases just in case.

          • saerra says:

            I suddenly feel the need to break out in song:

            romney romney obamney
            banana rama o mommy!
            fee fee for tommy,
            obamney!

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          You clearly didn’t get it. He’s presumably blaming the president for decisions that aren’t in the president’s scope. Some people think that the president makes literally all decisions in all scopes of government, and that everything they dislike about government is his fault. This is false.

          I am not personally offended, this has nothing to do with WHO is president. I’m just pointing out he’s misplacing the blame here.

          • StarKillerX says:

            Let’s be real shall we?

            Do you really think the FCC decided this without the okay of the head of the FCC and do you really think he, who is an Obama appointee did this on his own without Presidential approval?

            Sorry I don’t buy it, it just strikes me as trying to giving President Obama a pass, just like so many who blamed Bush for every penny increase in price of gas while he was in office but then when prices climbed after Obama was in office claimed that the President doesn’t effect gas prices.

            • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

              Let’s be real shall we?

              The president is not the decision maker for everything in our lives. The president does not makle the earth revolve about the sun.
              The decision to blame the president is primary done by people who don’t like who the president is right now, not because they truly believe the president is at fault. People will routinely ignore the same sort of behavior when their party leader is in power. People are routinely hypocritical when it comes to politics.

              The FCC committee is run by 5 members, voted in by the president, confirmed by the senate, for 5 year terms. Currently, there are 3 Democrat and 2 Republican members. The president did not make this decision.

              Further, it’s not even a decision yet.

              • TheMansfieldMauler says:

                Yeah, the only thing a president can really be blamed for is hurricanes.

              • saerra says:

                “The president does not makle the earth revolve about the sun.”

                Let’s give a moment of thanks for that, because, let’s be honest, he’d probably screw that up too.

                “Yes, though we’ve had 18 months of darkness, I am proud to say my greatest accomplishment is the diurnal cycle of daylight. Daylight is noticeably increasing. We’ve lost less daylight in the last 8 months than the year before. My opponent would prefer to ship all daylight overseas, and leave us in perpetual darkenss – just look at his track record!”

                And, for the record, I had actually assume the original poster just had a typo and forgot the “S” – as in, “thank you great leaderS”. You know, the whole crew of goofballs running the nation into the ground.

                :) And sorry if I sound cheeky, not intended. I had sugar for breakfast, and am going a bit nuts. I expect to crash right about the time that I have to go to the office for in-person meetings!

            • Torgonius wants an edit button says:

              Actually, Dear Leader is ALL the idiots who have been foisted upon us in the elections, from Obama to the mayor.

              There is very little real choice, outside of the giant douche or the turd sandwich. Both parties are complicit. Electing Romney won’t change a thing.

              • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                You might want to say “dear leaders” and not “leader” if you want to imply all the leadership.
                Or better yet, say THAT instead of something that clearly was meant to refer to the president.

                Your backtracking failed.

                • spamtasticus says:

                  I understood him perfectly well. The ensuing discussion is a perfect example of how “the unwashed masses” have been dumbed down into an us vs them, red vs blue circle jerk. This is exactly how this tax will get passed with little or no input from the people being taxed.

          • Jawaka says:

            Didn’t you know that Obama personally travels to each and every gas station in the nation and puts up the new high gas price signs?

      • Back to waiting, but I did get a cute dragon ear cuff says:

        I am pretty sure you can fill in the blank with anyone from George the 1st (Washington) to the present and be pretty safe.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          The president is not on the FCC committee. He does not make their decisions for them.

          • dush says:

            And here’s the problem, FCC makes up its own rules without the consent of the governed. Congress has abdicated it’s powers to the executive branch.

        • cspschofield says:

          Hell, you could easily go back to poor mad George III.

      • Ace says:

        I took that comment as a satirical suggestion that America is going to end up a socialist republic with more and more taxes. “Dear leader” refers to what the chinese are forced to call their emper..I mean their leader.

        • nishioka says:

          > “Dear leader” refers to what the chinese are forced to call their emper..I mean their leader.

          You mean North Korea. That term has nothing to do with socialism or taxes or anything else relevant to China. It’s what happens when you have an autocratic government powered by a personality cult that goes around convincing everyone that Kim Jong Il was born a full-grown man who hit 11 holes in one in his first round of golf and loses sleep trying to make life better for everyone.

    • JJFIII says:

      Actually, the taxes we pay now are far less than they were when the economy was booming under Eisenhower and Clinton. In fact, this is not really a tax,. It s a user fee, which the right wing tends to love, since if they CHOOSE not to use it, they do not have to pay for it. User fees are the way the right raises taxes without pissing off Grover Norquist.

      • spamtasticus says:

        User fee? I guess the income tax is a user fee on work. Wow…

      • Robert Nagel says:

        A user fee is to cover the cost of providing the service to the users. This fee is a tax which benefits others and is not to cover the cost to support the user.
        I want to know just how are they disbursing these funds. I know they are giving free cell phones to the poor which is a dubious expenditure. Are they using this to connect people who live a hundred miles from nowhere because they don’t like people? Why should we pay to run them a line when they can get satellite access if they want? Sure it’s more expensive, but their living costs are much lower than the big city where it is cheaper. There are trade offs in everything.

        • SavijMuhdrox says:

          giving cellphones to the poor is another way to turn them into customers.

          using tax money to provide internet to the geographically mismatched is another way to subsidize turning them into customers as well..

          Companies like AT&T and Sprint don’t give a rats patootie about providing internet for those without, they just want more customers.. and more money..

          theoretically my paying money for more people to have internet access should have some benefit to me, possibly lower rates that I would pay for internet access.. sooooo then how about i just don’t pay the tax in the first place?

      • HalOfBorg says:

        The tax RATES might have been higher, but so were the work people did to AVOID paying these higher taxes.

    • AEN says:

      I agree it’s a sad day when Kim Jong-il starts collecting internet taxes from us. North Korea doesn’t even have an internet.

  2. lovemypets00 - You'll need to forgive me, my social filter has cracked. says:

    As much as I don’t want to pay even more for my Comcast service, if this means I (and my other neighbors who just have access to Comcast) could have access to other broadband internet service providers, I’m for this.

    I don’t understand why broadband can’t be like electricity service. I can get electricity from several different suppliers, all using the same wires outside my house. But phone? Only Verizon. Internet? Dial up or Comcast.

    • dolemite says:

      There’s only one way this will happen, and Europe was a good model. The government forced companies that owned the lines to have to lease them out to other companies. Meaning your Comcast line might have 5-6 different companies attempting to offer you services through it. Supposedly it worked very well, with prices coming down, more packages offered, etc. I don’t think this plan will do anything outside of providing money for companies to expand their services to ‘rural’ areas (something they should do on their own).

      • HalOfBorg says:

        You are talking about COMPETITION. That’s not fair – some people/business’ might FAIL! Can’t have any of that – might help to bring down costs. Might even help with health insurance costs.

        Why don’t we have a life insurance crisis? Or car insurance? Or home owners, renters….. but those services ARE a lot less expensive of course.

    • AtlantaCPA says:

      Funny you picked electricity. I’ve never lived anywhere that gave me a choice for electricity. Along with water, those are the two sure monopolies in my areas of experience.

      I wonder if there is actually any single person in America who has a choice of all utility providers including broadband internet? Surely there must be some city somewhere right?

      • JJFIII says:

        i can buy gas and electricity from third party companies over the lines provided by DTE. I can buy broadband from my cable company, Uverse or DSL. I do not know of any way to get water from anybody else, but quite honestly, being in Michigan, it is not that large of a bill, and I rather not have that be run by private companies, I like my city taking care of this instead of ABC Company, who might try to cut costs to make a larger profit.
        That is not to say that the competition is electric and gas is very good. If I were a large factory or end user, it might make some sense, but realistically, I can not save enough to make the risk of higher rates in the future worthwhile.
        I do think cable internet should be similar to how the phone lines were after the break up of ATT. The lines were leased and whichever service you wanted would use the same lines. So if FIOS, or Comcast laid the lines, ANY company could come in and lease those lines from them. This would stop the monopoly and also allow VZW or Comcrap to upkeep their lines.

      • Robert Nagel says:

        In Cleveland there are two electric companies providing service. If you buy from The Illuminating Company you choose who you want the power to come from an pay them a fee for their stringing the lines. You can also buy from Cleveland Public Power with the same choices. In this way the politicians buy votes by telling the public they are fighting the big bad Illuminating company. In reality it means that there are two sets of repair crews, two sets of power lines and two separate management expenses resulting in Cleveland having above average electricity costs.

    • Morac says:

      It doesn’t mean you get to pick an ISP provider, it means the Government will give ISPs money so poor people can get the Internet for free.

      Oh and in your area Verizon (phone) and Comcast (cable) have partnered so there’s even less competition.

    • regis-s says:

      I’m thinking this is meant to expand internet service to areas where none exists. It isn’t intended to give people with internet service already more options.

    • spamtasticus says:

      It does not mean that.

    • Cerne says:

      We have this here in Canada and it doesn’t really work that well.

      • MarkFL says:

        No, but you do have affordable healthcare. Wanna trade?

        • Cerne says:

          Give it ten years and I might take you up on that. Affordable isn’t always the same as high quality.

          • Robert Nagel says:

            Sadly, all too many people will take an inferior product at a low cost rather than a superior product at a higher cost. Until they get real sick they think they have a bargain. Since there are only a few really sick people at any given point in time the system goes on. By the way, after we go to ObamaCare where are you going for first class care?

  3. Geekybiker says:

    So are they going to add a tax to cover the cost mexican-american war to broadband?

  4. dolemite says:

    So these companies have expressed no desire to expand their markets by reinvesting their profit (not to mention many of them already got money from the government to do so), and now they want taxpayers to fund their expansion? What is this BS?

    • wackydan says:

      It isn’t BS. Does it favor the broadband providers? Yes, to some degree.

      It costs a lot of money to run trunk lines to remote areas… It does not make much sense to run a trunk line down a rural road to server only a few more customers – It takes years for the cost to be recouped and that is before factoring in any maintenance required by that period of time. This is the reason why Time Warner, Cox, etc will offer to split the cost with you or have you pay the whole amount if you are that desperate for service.

      It may not be the best use of tax payer funds, and I question the return on value, but it is going to happen regardless…. so might as well suck it up.

    • YouDidWhatNow? says:

      As wackydan noted, the issue is the “cost to serve” – if there’s one farmhouse 10 miles from anyone else, does it make economical sense to run the cable to that farmhouse so they can pay $25/mo for internet?

      Answer: no.

      Which is why, at a minimum, I think we need to invest more in DSL since phone lines have already been run to essentially every home in America. Or maybe powerline internet. This infrastructure is already in place. If we could boost the range of DSL, or decrease the cost to add more DSL switching stations, that would be ideal.

      Running net-new cable to all such remote residences is a financially ridiculous idea, unless for some reason there is simply no possible way to ever make DSL or powerline work.

      Potentially you could maybe get cellular coverage over everybody, and then run all the rural people on wifi internet…but the caps are so low that it isn’t comparable to DSL or cable. Hard to declare victory in the battle to bring broadband to everyone in the country if 20% of them can only use it for one week a month.

      • lyannon says:

        That’s the thing, though; a lot of these areas aren’t “remote.”

        I’m a really good example. I have no access to broadband from my home in southeast Michigan. I live 15 miles from a city of 25k, 8 miles from a city of 3k, and 3 miles from a resort area of approximately 1500. I live on a paved road with plenty of neighbors, and am by no means an isolated farmhouse 10 miles from anything. There are several roads out here that have broadband wiring on them, but Comcast hasn’t gotten around to wiring them all, despite the fact that people are clamoring for it. Half of that resort area, where people are clustered around a lake in a population density that most providers would be salivating at, still doesn’t have access either. It’s more than a little nuts.

        • YouDidWhatNow? says:

          I am in the same relative position.

          The farm we bought last year is about 10 miles from the 10 acre property we had previously…where we had DSL (and cable was available).

          The new 50 acre property, where Centurylink said we could get DSL only to find out we couldn’t, is about a mile from someone who does have broadband. And while it’s not exactly a subdivision, if someone decided to run a cable up our road they’d be able to gain several subscribers.

          Both properties are about 15 minutes from a sizeable mid-to-upper suburb of the Twin Cities (and actually, both are technically within that city limit), and I can be in downtown St. Paul in roughly 30 minutes.

          Rural? Sure. Remote? Not really.

          • lyannon says:

            I’m honestly not sure DSL is the answer, at least where I am. The phone lines are in such poor condition that you can only get 26.4 bps on a modem; I can’t imagine what kind of noise that would induce in a DSL line.

            By the way, you’re right on the satellite front. We gave it a shot for a week, and with three of us being internet users, it lasted approximately three days. My poor husband is in the process of doing a computer science degree while being in the unfortunate position of not having access to reliable internet. We have wireless, and it is.. iffy.. at best. Down more than up, slow as snot, and the speed’s unreliable even when it works. :/ And as far as cell data? You’d actually have to roll out towers in the first place. I picked our cell service from who actually serves out here.

            I dunno. I think it all speaks to the condition of the infrastructure out here, and it doesn’t speak well.

            This is just godawful ridiculous; it’s not like I live in the middle of Nebraska with nothing but sky for neighbors. I’m very much in your position — there’s cable run along the power poles a mile away in two out of three directions; there’s no reason not to finish running it out to the hundreds, if not thousands of people in the county that actually want it.

      • dolemite says:

        My dad lived a few miles outside of town in a nice cheap area. I’m someone that basically requires high speed internet though, especially after tasting it on college. So once I got out of school, I moved about 15 miles away into town so I could have the fastest internet available. I’m not quite sure I like the idea of subsidizing internet for the people living in the cheaper areas.

        • YouDidWhatNow? says:

          Has nothing to do, necessarily, with wanting to live in a “cheaper” area. If nothing else, all agriculture by definition happens in rural areas…the people doing such things living there by necessity, not by desire.

          We have a horse ranch. By necessity, we’re out in the country…lest you think you could find 50 acres of land in the middle of, say, Chicago where we could set up shop.

          …and for the record, Centurylink told us we could get DSL here before we moved. Turns out they lied.

    • saerra says:

      Thank you – yes this is what I was thinking. Taxpayers pay for the infrastructure, but companies get to reap the profits/rewards. I don’t understand this (except as perhaps another example of money/donations being used to grease the wheels of the government?)

      • wackydan says:

        And those same providers take on the maintenance and power costs of the infrastructure as well any pole rental fees they have to pay ( Some poles are owned by specific utilities and in order to run your lines on them you pay them a yearly contract fee)… burial is even more expensive….

        And the cost to replace that part of the system becomes the provider’s in 20 to 30 years when they have to do a rebuild. $$$$$

  5. doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:

    Hey, Obama said ‘you didn’t make that [infrastructure]‘
    He didn’t say you don’t have to pay for it.

  6. fsnuffer says:

    I am not worried about this. My wife and I make under $250K and we were promised that our taxes would not be raised.

    • StarKillerX says:

      Yeah, but were his lips moving when he made that promise?

      I ask because you can always tell when a politician is lying because their lips are moving.

    • Robert Nagel says:

      But, you apparently didn’t understand that he didn’t say your other government mandated spending wouldn’t go up.

  7. YouDidWhatNow? says:

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_per_liv_in_rur_are-people-percentage-living-rural-areas

    As i noted before, the estimate of how many Americans live in rural areas, and who don’t have broadband access, are laughably low in that last article.

    I can zoom in on my area and see that, lo and behold, everyone around me (including myself) has access to broadband! Which is awesome…except that we don’t. The map is woefully inaccurate.

    I assert that ~20% of Americans are in rural areas, and virtually none of them have broadband access. So probably closer to 60 million Americans have no broadband access.

    • wmibizownr says:

      I agree

      our county shows only 8000 residents w/o BB access. I would estimate 60% have dial up (if they have any) as there is no BB/DSL or even cable in most townships.

    • levarien says:

      I’m fairly certain that their maps use data from broadband providers, who can put a broadband sticker on telephone booth and call it broadband.

  8. Sarek says:

    So then what are the other 410 different tax and fee lines on my cable bill?

  9. cspschofield says:

    If, and I say IF, this money actually gets used for the purpose stated, then I’m for it, even though I will be paying it. The underwriting (through direct spending or indirect subsidies) of networks is one of the places where government actually has a half-decent record.

    • StarKillerX says:

      Define half decent?

      My main issue with many programs like this is that once started they will never end and instead will simply “change their focus” so as to continue to eat from the government trough.

      For example the Rural Electrification Administration was created in 1935 at which point less then 11% of US farms had electricity and by their own measure virtually all farms had electricity by 1952 and yet 60 years later this program and department still exist, although they did change the name and broadened the scope.

      By the way, one of the areas it was expanded to was to help expanding internet access in rural areas, but of course one government agency is never enough and as long as they are allowed to rape the taxpayer more and more agencies will be tasked with this same job.

  10. Not Given says:

    I’m curious. Does broadband mean anything faster than dial up or is there a defined speed? What is the difference between DSL and HSI from the same company?

  11. AtlantaCPA says:

    Didn’t we see something a while back about how the Universal Service Fund is a huge disaster, lining the pockets of the telecoms and not making a big difference in who gets phone service? I’m not sure that’s a model we want to duplicate.

  12. bnceo says:

    My biggest problem with this is that instead of looking for something to cut to pay for it (you know, how responsible people do), they just want to tax it. Don’t even bother looking at waste in government and deviate funds from elsewhere. No. Just tax us more and more.

    Utterly pathetic way of doing business. Not to mention that I do NOT trust the government to do anything efficiently with my tax dollars. There is nothing in recent history to show they know how to spend money well.

    • StarKillerX says:

      It’s simple, they want a Congress proof revenue stream, that’s why they want to add a tax.

  13. dush says:

    Why don’t they use the landline taxes for that? You can’t tell me they are still trying to expand access to landlines.

  14. TheMansfieldMauler says:

    New taxes are no fun for anyone…

    LOL yeah right. Because no one wants them, right? No one at all. And they only pass new taxes so we can all “feel the pain” equally (well, the ones paying the taxes anyway).

    Hilarious.

  15. SexCpotatoes says:

    I’m okay with this, as long as the FCC bans my effing local cable company from charging me $10/mo “line access charge” & lets me get my laughable “high speed” 3Mbps innernet for the $40 they charge for someone who buys their shitey digital cable.

    • SexCpotatoes says:

      Because I don’t subscribe to cable TV I have to pay $10 extra every month just to have internet. Dbags.

      • StarKillerX says:

        It’s called a bundle discount, and if they didn’t offer it someone else would be here complaining that they get no benifit for having multiple services from the same company.

  16. Oh_No84 says:

    Great, it will just be like the USF which just lined the pockets of phone companies and did not actually help build out service.

  17. regis-s says:

    So let’s see. The feds want to tax current internet users and give that money to the internet providers to improve/expand service. Hard to imagine why they’d be tripping over each other lining up to support that. /s

    I’m pretty sure that’s what part of the money we pay now is supposed to go towards. At least that’s what my isp/phone/cable company tells me. Especially when they want a rate increase.

  18. crazydavythe1st says:

    You shouldn’t be as worried about taxes as you should be the precedent that this sets for ISPs. As taxes increase, it becomes easier to hide surcharges.

    You should be worried about having a cable bill where you’re paying $50/mo for internet, $5 in local taxes, $10 in federal taxes, and another $5-$10 in surcharges similar to your mobile bill. Maybe that’s extreme, but my Verizon mobile bill is about $65/mo in legit services with prices that match what is advertised and about $15 in taxes and surcharges that aren’t advertised.

  19. gedster314 says:

    I don’t have a problem with adding a tax to make sure all Americans have access to the internet. We do that with for phones. Everything is going on line, the IRS forms are not available at the post office or libraries and utilities are looking at charging you for a printed bill.

    My problem is that we need to break up these mini thiefdoms that cable companies have. In my area I have an option of $25/month DSL at 768K or $45/month 15mbps and that’s it. They need to open the cable lines so more companies can compete. The cable companies have more then made up their initial investment to run the copper and fiber.

    And quit blaming Obama for taxes. The House and Senate have to approve them. So look at your local representative if you don’t like the taxes you pay.

    • nishioka says:

      > My problem is that we need to break up these mini thiefdoms that cable companies have. In my area I have an option of $25/month DSL at 768K or $45/month 15mbps and that’s it. They need to open the cable lines so more companies can compete. The cable companies have more then made up their initial investment to run the copper and fiber.

      Honestly I think Australia is doing a much better job of this than we are. After years of citizens there getting the shaft from the likes of Telstra, the government there stepped in and decided to build a nationwide fiber network on its own that would hit about 90% of homes in the country, with wireless and satellite hitting the rest. Internet service providers would then resell space on the network to end users.

      http://www.nbn.gov.au/

    • JJFIII says:

      Obama has LOWERED taxes for the overwhelming majority of the American population, yet he is called a taxer. The Bush tax cuts were extended, the stimulus package was loaded with tax cuts AND there has been a two year payroll tax cut. Yet the right wingers say he wants to tax people more. No, he wants to tax rich people more, as happened during Clinton, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan,. and every other president until bush Jr

  20. HogwartsProfessor says:

    Then lower the damn price. Slow-ass internet is already too expensive without adding a bunch of taxes on it too. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. Every time I turn around someone has their hand in my pocket. STOP IT YOU ARE KILLING ME.

  21. Woodside Park Bob says:

    The Universal Fund / Connect America Fund should be abolished. Some costs are higher in rural areas (e.g., communications services) and some costs are higher in urban areas (e.g., housing costs). Rural dwellers don’t subsidize the higher cost of housing for urban residents, so why should urban residents subsidize the higher communications costs for rural residents.

  22. dcatz says:

    Dear liberals,

    Internet access is not a right. Stealing someone’s money, no matter how good you think the cause is, is still theft. Stealing someone’s at gunpoint to build Internet service for someone who chose to live in a rural area is morally bankrupt.

    • nishioka says:

      > Stealing someone’s at gunpoint to build Internet service for someone who chose to live in a rural area is morally bankrupt.

      Stealing at gunpoint…. lmao

      Everyone, please remember that engaging in hyperbole to make your point is practically the same thing as the Holocaust.

  23. Cerne says:

    Moronic idea. Instead of abolishing the universal service fund and scaling back the invasive nature and the size of the FCC lets give them more money and power!

    Family Guy sums it up nicely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NDPT0Ph5rA

    Universal, high speed internet is not a right and it is definitely not an area of government responsibility. If the companies mentioned like the idea so much let them spend their own money on it.

  24. Abradax says:

    Why can’t the government just mandate that the monopolies that they police be forced to wire rural areas? Why do they have to take our money by force to give back to the companies that didn’t want to do it in the first place?

  25. DownEaster says:

    I can just see all the ads now on TV and in fliers in the mail. “Free Government Broadband Internet” in big letters. Lots of people signing up. I already have seen this for cell phones and all you need to get one is to qualify for a government program such as Federal heating assistance in the winter. We pay enough fees on our phone bills already and don’t need more “fees”. Also prices should drop on high speed Internet. Maybe a guaranteed service price point or a Basic Broadband similar to Basic Cable.

  26. sendmoney2me says:

    NO NO NO NO NO! If you can’t afford to PAY for it then I don’t want to PAY for it FOR you!

    • nishioka says:

      > NO NO NO NO NO! If you can’t afford to PAY for it then I don’t want to PAY for it FOR you!

      Said by everyone who doesn’t know how much money it costs to roll out broadband to outlying areas.

      • NeverLetMeDown2 says:

        I have a very good idea of what it costs, and I completely agree. Until there’s a tax on all rural property to fund the construction of incredibly costly underground parking garages in Manhattan, so I can park for nearly free, there’s no reason my phone and Internet bills should be taxed to fund the construction of incredibly costly rural infrastructure so people in rural areas can get Internet at a huge discount.

  27. Nacho216 says:

    Great, more programs to freely give the lifeless and jobless of this country access to things you and I pay for…

  28. Shorebreak says:

    Remember May 26, 2006?
    “The Treasury Department said Thursday that it will no longer collect a 3% federal excise tax on long-distance calls and would refund about $15 billion to taxpayers. The tax was imposed in 1898 to help pay for the Spanish-American War. It was designed as a tax on wealthy Americans, back when phone service was considered a luxury.”

  29. sqeelar says:

    I hope they tax the outages double, and each call to tech support the same. Each spam should incur a triple tax. Gee, I missed the Spanish American War tax.

  30. Oh_No84 says:

    Amazon is not going to have any customers left if they keep adding in sales tax.