'Net neutrality' - Obama's ticket to tax the Internet?
As many continue to question President Barack Obama’s latest attempted power grab to control the Internet in the name of “net neutrality,” conservatives are uncovering another possible motive behind the commander-in-chief’s recent attack on private communications giants in the private sector like YouTube and AT&T — new taxes.
Waiting just over a week after the midterm elections, Obama went after cable companies and Internet providers with a proclamation that they should be prohibited to cut deals with online services such as YouTube in order to get their content out more quickly.
But an increasing number of analysts are contending that the Obama administration has a much bigger agenda behind broadening its restrictions and control over the Internet — one that goes beyond tightly monitoring U.S. citizens on the web.
“President Obama's public stance that the FCC should reclassify broadband Internet services as a Title II ‘common carrier’ under the current Telecommunications Act carries many ramifications, but one is undeniable: there's going to be a hidden tax hike, and it's going to be paid for by consumers,” Townhall’s Kevin Glass asserts.
“Title II common carriers are required to ‘contribute’ to what's called the Universal Service Fund — a government program to bring telecommunications services to underserved areas with the goal of universal coverage.”
Glass says in layman’s terms that the Obama administration’s so-called “net neutrality” is basically a scheme or excuse to make consumers — the taxpayers — foot the government’s bill.
“Whether it's called ‘contributions’ or fees or whatnot, the function of the program is a tax on corporate revenues in order to fund services for those who might not have them otherwise,” Glass explained. “It's a redistributive corporate tax paid for by consumers.”
So, exactly what does this mean for consumers?
“The USF tax amounts to more than a 16-percent charge on top of consumers' bills,” Glass points out. “As broadband service providers are not currently subject to the USF tax, a reclassification would mean that all consumers would see a jump around that size in their bill. Considering that in some locales the cheapest broadband service runs upwards of $50 per month, this will cost even the most price-conscious consumers an extra $100 per year - and for those at higher tiers, much more than that.”
Industry not taking it lightly
Shortly after the president entered the longstanding fray between industry groups and Internet activists who caution Americans about what they call Internet “fast lanes,” trade groups and congressional Republicans alike unabashedly voiced retaliatory words against the administration’s latest attempt to more closely regulate the Internet.
"We are stunned the president would abandon the longstanding, bipartisan policy of lightly regulating the Internet and calling for extreme [regulation]," National Cable and Telecommunications Association president & CEO Michael Powell expressed.
Calling for an “explicit ban” on superior, faster service for businesses that spend more — or as Obama puts it, “paid prioritization” — the president insisted that federal regulators should begin reclassifying the Internet as a public utility, which would fall under the 1934 Communications Act’s Title II.
"For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business," Obama declared, in defense of the government’s tighter regulation of the Internet. "That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider.”
Obama argues that big government’s greater insertion into the Internet is necessary to protect customers, while leaving out any mention of raising costs dished out to consumers via higher taxes.
“It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call or a packet of data," Obama continued.
The president’s latest intrusion into America’s private business sector places him in the midst of a battle between numerous communications industry groups and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which has recently been pressed to stop broadband providers from creating the “fast lanes” to easily push web content. According to media reports, the FCC will soon decide the extent of its involvement when it comes to shielding consumers from pacts between big broadband providers such as Verizon and AT&T when they partner with content-providing companies, including YouTube and Netflix.
The real issue at hand: more taxes
Getting deeper into the issue and stating exactly what “net neutrality” means for American consumers, FCC commissioner Ajit Pai tried to clarify what Internet users could soon be expecting on their bills from their providers, noting that the net neutrality tax is inevitable in the case of a Title II reclassification.
"Public utility regulation would mean higher broadband prices for consumers," Pai explained. "Once broadband is classified as a telecommunications service, universal service charges would be assessed on carriers' broadband services.”
So, any notion of a “free Internet for everyone” will likely be dashed as government regulators clamp down harder on regulations.
“Many state and local taxes would automatically kick in,” Pai added. "The net result is that every single American broadband customer would have to pay a new tax — or taxes — to access the Internet."
Who decides?
Hitting the issue from a different direction, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler expressed a willingness to implement a “hybrid” solution to the debate that would be influenced by a culmination of 1996’s Telecommunications Act and Title II.
"We found we would need more time to examine these to ensure that whatever approach is taken, it can withstand any legal challenges it may face," Wheeler informed.
In January key components of the FCC’s 2010 open Internet regulation were overturned by a federal court, which ruled that it “failed to cite any statutory authority” to stop broadband Internet providers from blocking or discriminating against content on the web. Rebounding from the setback, the FCC is now coming to a consensus on new regulations that will meet the court’s requirement so that the Internet service providers can no longer control content.
According to Internet activists, the FCC should work to declare the Internet a public utility under the 1934 Communications Act’s Title II so that is has the authority to ultimately control the Internet.
Big government, big problems?
But such control over the Internet is the very thing private service providers are striving to stop as they press to maintain an open Internet that affords flexibility so they can create different ways to present consumers with new packages by which they can sell their Internet services.
Glass agrees that heightened government control over the Internet would put an extra burden on consumers.
“An FCC decision to go with Title II reclassification in order to enforce new net neutrality regulations would have a lot of deleterious effects,” Glass argues. “One of the most obvious is that it would be a tax hike on a service that the government believes is essential to American life.”
Industry leaders encroaching government regulation will stall Internet growth.
“[This] tectonic shift in national policy, should it be adopted, would create devastating results," Powell insists, contending that significant policy shifts should only be put in place by Congress.
Similar sentiment was expressed by The Wireless Association (CTIA), which says Obama’s plan to gain more control over the Internet is a “gross overreaction” that fails to take into consideration ideas expressed by industry experts.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) both agree with private sector industry leaders that Obama’s new Internet plan is an unwarranted gross overreach by the government.
"`Net neutrality' is ObamaCare for the Internet," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tweeted on the issue. "The Internet should not operate at the speed of government."
Source: 'Net neutrality' - Obama's ticket to tax the Internet?
.......................................
The only upside, the (dot) ca's for Canadian Companies will be more valuable.
The USA can tax US Hosting Providers or ISP's or anyone owning a .com, .net or .org as it's a US domain extension.
As many continue to question President Barack Obama’s latest attempted power grab to control the Internet in the name of “net neutrality,” conservatives are uncovering another possible motive behind the commander-in-chief’s recent attack on private communications giants in the private sector like YouTube and AT&T — new taxes.
Waiting just over a week after the midterm elections, Obama went after cable companies and Internet providers with a proclamation that they should be prohibited to cut deals with online services such as YouTube in order to get their content out more quickly.
But an increasing number of analysts are contending that the Obama administration has a much bigger agenda behind broadening its restrictions and control over the Internet — one that goes beyond tightly monitoring U.S. citizens on the web.
“President Obama's public stance that the FCC should reclassify broadband Internet services as a Title II ‘common carrier’ under the current Telecommunications Act carries many ramifications, but one is undeniable: there's going to be a hidden tax hike, and it's going to be paid for by consumers,” Townhall’s Kevin Glass asserts.
“Title II common carriers are required to ‘contribute’ to what's called the Universal Service Fund — a government program to bring telecommunications services to underserved areas with the goal of universal coverage.”
Glass says in layman’s terms that the Obama administration’s so-called “net neutrality” is basically a scheme or excuse to make consumers — the taxpayers — foot the government’s bill.
“Whether it's called ‘contributions’ or fees or whatnot, the function of the program is a tax on corporate revenues in order to fund services for those who might not have them otherwise,” Glass explained. “It's a redistributive corporate tax paid for by consumers.”
So, exactly what does this mean for consumers?
“The USF tax amounts to more than a 16-percent charge on top of consumers' bills,” Glass points out. “As broadband service providers are not currently subject to the USF tax, a reclassification would mean that all consumers would see a jump around that size in their bill. Considering that in some locales the cheapest broadband service runs upwards of $50 per month, this will cost even the most price-conscious consumers an extra $100 per year - and for those at higher tiers, much more than that.”
Industry not taking it lightly
Shortly after the president entered the longstanding fray between industry groups and Internet activists who caution Americans about what they call Internet “fast lanes,” trade groups and congressional Republicans alike unabashedly voiced retaliatory words against the administration’s latest attempt to more closely regulate the Internet.
"We are stunned the president would abandon the longstanding, bipartisan policy of lightly regulating the Internet and calling for extreme [regulation]," National Cable and Telecommunications Association president & CEO Michael Powell expressed.
Calling for an “explicit ban” on superior, faster service for businesses that spend more — or as Obama puts it, “paid prioritization” — the president insisted that federal regulators should begin reclassifying the Internet as a public utility, which would fall under the 1934 Communications Act’s Title II.
"For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business," Obama declared, in defense of the government’s tighter regulation of the Internet. "That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider.”
Obama argues that big government’s greater insertion into the Internet is necessary to protect customers, while leaving out any mention of raising costs dished out to consumers via higher taxes.
“It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call or a packet of data," Obama continued.
The president’s latest intrusion into America’s private business sector places him in the midst of a battle between numerous communications industry groups and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which has recently been pressed to stop broadband providers from creating the “fast lanes” to easily push web content. According to media reports, the FCC will soon decide the extent of its involvement when it comes to shielding consumers from pacts between big broadband providers such as Verizon and AT&T when they partner with content-providing companies, including YouTube and Netflix.
The real issue at hand: more taxes
Getting deeper into the issue and stating exactly what “net neutrality” means for American consumers, FCC commissioner Ajit Pai tried to clarify what Internet users could soon be expecting on their bills from their providers, noting that the net neutrality tax is inevitable in the case of a Title II reclassification.
"Public utility regulation would mean higher broadband prices for consumers," Pai explained. "Once broadband is classified as a telecommunications service, universal service charges would be assessed on carriers' broadband services.”
So, any notion of a “free Internet for everyone” will likely be dashed as government regulators clamp down harder on regulations.
“Many state and local taxes would automatically kick in,” Pai added. "The net result is that every single American broadband customer would have to pay a new tax — or taxes — to access the Internet."
Who decides?
Hitting the issue from a different direction, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler expressed a willingness to implement a “hybrid” solution to the debate that would be influenced by a culmination of 1996’s Telecommunications Act and Title II.
"We found we would need more time to examine these to ensure that whatever approach is taken, it can withstand any legal challenges it may face," Wheeler informed.
In January key components of the FCC’s 2010 open Internet regulation were overturned by a federal court, which ruled that it “failed to cite any statutory authority” to stop broadband Internet providers from blocking or discriminating against content on the web. Rebounding from the setback, the FCC is now coming to a consensus on new regulations that will meet the court’s requirement so that the Internet service providers can no longer control content.
According to Internet activists, the FCC should work to declare the Internet a public utility under the 1934 Communications Act’s Title II so that is has the authority to ultimately control the Internet.
Big government, big problems?
But such control over the Internet is the very thing private service providers are striving to stop as they press to maintain an open Internet that affords flexibility so they can create different ways to present consumers with new packages by which they can sell their Internet services.
Glass agrees that heightened government control over the Internet would put an extra burden on consumers.
“An FCC decision to go with Title II reclassification in order to enforce new net neutrality regulations would have a lot of deleterious effects,” Glass argues. “One of the most obvious is that it would be a tax hike on a service that the government believes is essential to American life.”
Industry leaders encroaching government regulation will stall Internet growth.
“[This] tectonic shift in national policy, should it be adopted, would create devastating results," Powell insists, contending that significant policy shifts should only be put in place by Congress.
Similar sentiment was expressed by The Wireless Association (CTIA), which says Obama’s plan to gain more control over the Internet is a “gross overreaction” that fails to take into consideration ideas expressed by industry experts.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) both agree with private sector industry leaders that Obama’s new Internet plan is an unwarranted gross overreach by the government.
"`Net neutrality' is ObamaCare for the Internet," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tweeted on the issue. "The Internet should not operate at the speed of government."
Source: 'Net neutrality' - Obama's ticket to tax the Internet?
.......................................
The only upside, the (dot) ca's for Canadian Companies will be more valuable.
The USA can tax US Hosting Providers or ISP's or anyone owning a .com, .net or .org as it's a US domain extension.
