Posted on 06/22/2006 11:30:15 AM PDT by TheBattman
WASHINGTON--An estimated 4 million subscribers to Internet phone services like Vonage could see new fees on their bills under a plan approved Wednesday by federal regulators.
The Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously at its monthly meeting here to require all voice over Internet Protocol services that connect to the public-switched telephone network--as opposed to using peer-to-peer technology, like Skype--to contribute to the Universal Service Fund.
The $7.3 billion fund, which has been a feature of U.S. policy for more than 70 years, subsidizes telephone service in rural and low-income areas. It also runs a controversy-plagued program called E-Rate that provides discounted Internet and phone service to schools and libraries.
Right now, only telecommunications services, including wireless, pay-phone, traditional telephone and DSL providers, are required to contribute a fixed percentage of their long-distance revenue to the multibillion-dollar fund. It had been unclear whether VoIP providers must also pay.
The same FCC order would also raise the share that cell phone providers must contribute to the pool, though it was not immediately clear how many consumers would see hikes or how much they would be. That's because the FCC raised the contribution rate for only one of three formulas that can be used by cell phone companies to determine how much they owe. If those companies choose to stick to the two unchanged formulas, their customers would likely see no additional fees.
"Certainly we're concerned whenever consumers are forced to pay higher government taxes or fees, but it depends on the carrier and what their approach is," said Joe Farren, a spokesman for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group.
The new contribution scheme takes effect immediately, and any new fees would likely appear on customers' bills later this year, said Thomas Navin, chief of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau. He declined to speculate on the differences customers of each service may see on their bills, saying it would depend on a variety of factors and "there's not one typical scenario for me to paint for you."
Calculating what's fair Pressured by consumer groups and the telecommunications industry, the FCC has long been contemplating changes to the USF contribution scheme. Critics of the current system say the means of calculating contributions needs sweeping changes. That's because the bulk of the money comes from actual or estimated long-distance revenues, which are steadily dwindling due to changing business models in the wireless and wireline worlds.
The FCC's decision Wednesday drew applause from the U.S. Telecom Association, which represents both large and small telephone companies.
"We applaud today's ruling for ensuring that all voice service providers are treated alike," Walter McCormick, the organization's CEO, said in a statement.
I never cease to be amazed at how the government will do ANYTHING to get in our pocketbooks. The Universal Service Fund is the biggest crock. As a member of the technology committee at school, I see first hand how the E-rate system works - and it's not really very fair - nor effective. And lets talk about accountability - where do the billions of dollars go that are paid into the program? If your school or public institution wants funding through E-rate, you have to go through an analasys that gives you a rating - a percentage that you are eligible for. Say if they give you a 60 - that means that you are eligible for the program to pay 60% of your technology needs. Our school has been anywhere from 70-88% in the last several years - and we received zero funding - because they start at the top (say those eligible for 100% or close to it) and usually run out of money (so they claim) before they get down to those who qualify for 85 or 80% funding.
I have seen some amazing technology labs put into schools with super-high percentages of minorities and poor neighborhoods - and the equipment is either stolen or broken within a year, while schools who actually could/would put the technology to work - and qualify for significant funding but never see funding - get nothing.
Just another reason the government (particularly federal) should not be in the education business - such wasteful funding and misuse of money.
THAT'S TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!.............
I suppose it's only fair that everyone has to pay instead of just one group but the Universal Service fund is mandated socialism. For people who CHOOSE to live in rural areas they get their phone service subsidized by other people. And before all the hill billies start jumping on my ass, the cost of deploying phone service in a congested area is cheaper than having to wire houses in sparse areas and haul the phone traffic over facilities.
Did I miss something or does the FCC now share constitutional authority with Congress to levy federal taxes? I must have been asleep that day in government class...
Pay your taxes. :) Millions of non paying illegals need the money. :)
More specifically, all bills(laws) regarding taxation must originate in the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives.
Well we should either scrap the fund altogether or make sure all voice carriers are treated fairly and no free rides. So at least this deals with the fairness aspect. It's up to all citizens to demand an accounting of how this money is being spent though.
It seems to be unconstitutional IMHO........
Bang. You nailed it. WHY do unelected bureaucrats have the authority to levy taxes?
Congress apparently, 70 years ago set this thing up and the FCC has been doing it ever since.........
My phone bill has between ten and twenty different taxes listed on it. That's just my land line. My cellular bill has more.
It would be a shame to see a service avoid some of those taxes... NOT!
is this something separate then from the "Gore Tax"?
That one was purely a bureaucracy-imposed fee as far as I understood it.
I think the "Gore-tax" was an increase of the fees normally assigned to this monstrosity.....
(That's Gore-tex you idiot.)
So the 16 people living in West Waterpump, SD sharing 3 phones get subsidized service off my dime. The same rational could be applied to coffee shops. The people living in rural and low income areas are deprived of lattes and so the government should subsize the building of Starbucks and other similar establishments in these areas through taxing everyone else who has a coffee shop.
You guys are just now waking up to this fact? Some of us have been saying for years that the FedGov is completely off its hook.
Question is now... what are we going to do about it? Kinda hard to throw an IP address into Boston Harbor...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.