The Universal Service Fund and Taxing Internet Content Providers

Big Government ^ | April 25th | Nick R Brown

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

This past tax day I wrote an article examining whether the government might soon be coming after content creators like Google or Netflix. Such a notion would leave many in complete befuddlement after the past two years have seen the pro-Net Neutrality camp deeply entrenched in spreading concerns of impending doom that would be headed to the Internet if we continued even one more day without a regulatory regime placing its grip over the network.

One must understand that the heart of the much of the Network Neutrality debate has been the fear that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like that of Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T would begin charging content creators to receive prioritized connections to the Internet. If they were to do this, then the pro-regulation crowd suggests that this would create an unfair advantage for large or established web companies and that small startup companies would not have the capital to pay these fees or “taxes” for faster, prioritized service and would therefore be at an immediate disadvantage. Therefore any present day suggestion that any governmental agency or program should place a taxation on content as a right of way to exist on the Internet seems contrary and ironic to the goals and concerns that have been much of the fight for the pro-regulatory side of the debate.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Yet again, they are targetting content. That is, the net neutrality crowd.

Even though they promised they wouldn't.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

techping, if you feel it necessary.

As the net neutrality crowd turns up the heat, and unmasks themselves more and more, we need to track them. We need to be able to point out every step they’ve made so there can be no doubt

At some point, the final hammer will be brought out to snuff out the final breaths of freedom. That’s always how it is with statists.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Here it is again, the net neutrality crowd is targetting content. But note the sly way they do it.(just as with the iphone apps) From the above article:

At a February 23rd Congressional Internet Caucus panel, Shirley Bloomfield, CEO of National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) who notes themselves as being "the voice of rural telecommunications" said that, "We would really like to see the FCC also grapple with the contribution side of the equation as well."

...

When Bloomfield commented on discussing the contribution side of the program, Blair Levin, fellow at The Aspen Institute, and former chief architect of the National Broadband Plan, interjected that bringing about the discussion of remodeling the contribution side of the USF while the discussion of the distribution side was currently underway would be a “recipe for absolute stalemate”.

They're going to keep ratcheting up the heat.

One of the commenters(marasu66) really captured the stupidity of the net neutrality crowd:

"any... suggestion that any governmental agency or program should place a taxation on content as a right of way to exist on the Internet seems contrary and ironic to the goals and concerns that have been much of the fight for the pro-regulatory side of the debate" That's the rub! They seem to want "Net Neutrality" not to cost anything and still be effective. They don't seem to acknowledge that they would need to raise revenues or to appropriate monies from something else first.

[antiRepublicrat]

Thanks for the strawman.

Nothing in your post addressed net neutrality whatsoever. This issue is a natural progression of the very old issue of telephone communications access to people in rural areas. The issue pre-dates the Internet by a number of decades.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

[antiRepublicrat]

Another quote from Levin from the article that you conveniently forgot:

"Levin did not want to comment on the issue of how taxation of content for the USF may relate to Net Neutrality regulation stating that he thought it was “irrelevant to the USF debate” and would therefore pass on commenting since he had “not been a player in the Net Neutrality debate."

NOT. A. NET. NEUTRALITY. ISSUE.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Of course a fellow of the Aspen Institute would say that.

Do you know what the Aspen Institute is and why no freeper should ever take anything they or their mouthpieces/fellows have to say?

It’s alright. These statists will keep trying. I’ll keep showing you and others.

We know the statists’ history. It’s inevitable that this will get worse.

That water you’re sitting in is going to get hotter before it gets colder, little froggy. I hope you’ll jump out in time.

[antiRepublicrat]

He’s your source, it’s your article, you can’t pick and choose credibility within it.

They are two separate issues, and this one has been around a lot longer than the Internet.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Time is on my side. Well, as far as these postings go. With respect to the tyranny of net neutrality, time is demonstrably not on my side. Or yours.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/business/fcc-plans-an-overhaul-of-the-universal-service-fund.html?_r=2&ref=business

How did I know? Why was I ahead of the curve? I told you this was related. I recognize the danger of the actual agenda. I know the dictionary differences between “agenda” and “conspiracy”. This is an agenda. They’re going to manipulate everything they can to get what they want, as they’ve already been doing.

Because I’m listening to these revolutionaries and taking them at their word. He’s now openly talking ‘universal broadband service’. It took less time than I thought it would.

Next step: “civil right” As a matter of policy, that is. I’m just showing off the news as it really is, not how the liberal media wants it constructed.

[antiRepublicrat]

Universal Service Fund, a program from the 90s with roots going back to the 30s.

Not net neutrality.

You didn’t need to listen to these people to know this would happen. The government has been pushing universal coverage of phone service for decades as an essential telecommunications service. Once broadband is considered the same, the same push for universal service would logically happen.