Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 146

Thread: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

  1. #81
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,935

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    But some guy writing for Forbes said it's 16.1% with no link, so you're wrong, obviously. Why are you lying to us?

    /sarcasm
    I heavily suspect that the ".1" part of the "16.1" figure was thrown in to make a made-up number look more credible.

    Hey, get out your own phone bill -- does your tax rate look anything like mine?

  2. #82
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Can your nonsense.


    Wtf do you mean which one?
    I pointed out your assertions about me were false. I even pointed out that you started that crap with your assertion of dishonesty.
    Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything you linked to.

    And you will not get me to repost the information or direct you to the post. It isn't going to happen.
    But I will give you a clue.
    Use the article and wiki the specific fund he is talking about.
    Just for the record, the "dishonesty" was levied at right wing writers who have an obligation to inform readers. I Googled that "16.1%" stuff and found dozens of right wing links, including to that Forbes article, that assert such a tax 1) applied to some part of current phone bills (it really doesn't) and that 2) regulating the internet under Title II would mean similar taxes would apply to the internet (also false). None of them linked to any source document - they just repeated the number. None of them explained what the tax applied to - PHONE services at the provider level - or why regulating the Internet would mean the same tax rate would apply to data, because it won't.

    BTW, I did find the FCC document - the nominal rate is actually higher than 16.1% now, but it applies to interstate and international PHONE services. The document I cited showed the actual rate as applied is closer to 6% on average. I checked my bills. I have a bundled package at home that assigns $35 to "Phone" (although my "phone calls" and internet and television all come through the same line) - but the Federal tax/fee is $3.45 or about 10% of the amount of my total bill they say is for "Phone" services. For my mobile phone, the "phone" charges are $9.99 of a total bill of $53 for my line, federal taxes of $0.89. The total bill for 5 mobile lines is about $230, total Federal taxes $4.45, about 2%. State and local taxes and fees are about 7 times higher.

  3. #83
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Just for the record, the "dishonesty" was levied at right wing writers who have an obligation to inform readers. I Googled that "16.1%" stuff and found dozens of right wing links, including to that Forbes article, that assert such a tax 1) applied to some part of current phone bills (it really doesn't) and that 2) regulating the internet under Title II would mean similar taxes would apply to the internet (also false). None of them linked to any source document - they just repeated the number. None of them explained what the tax applied to - PHONE services at the provider level - or why regulating the Internet would mean the same tax rate would apply to data, because it won't.

    BTW, I did find the FCC document - the nominal rate is actually higher than 16.1% now, but it applies to interstate and international PHONE services. The document I cited showed the actual rate as applied is closer to 6% on average. I checked my bills. I have a bundled package at home that assigns $35 to "Phone" (although my "phone calls" and internet and television all come through the same line) - but the Federal tax/fee is $3.45 or about 10% of the amount of my total bill they say is for "Phone" services. For my mobile phone, the "phone" charges are $9.99 of a total bill of $53 for my line, federal taxes of $0.89. The total bill for 5 mobile lines is about $230, total Federal taxes $4.45, about 2%. State and local taxes and fees are about 7 times higher.
    *sigh*
    Still not paying attention.
    I didn't say Google it. I said wiki the fund he spoke about.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  4. #84
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,260

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Yeah, we actually know all that. In fact, the reason we want net neutrality is because we know what it is. From everything I can tell the people who oppose the FCC regulating the internet as a title II utility...
    No, you clearly don't "know all that" about packet prioritization et al.


    a)don't know what net neutrality is (this is the simplest and most common issue)
    b)don't know that net neutrality is something we've had since essentially the rise of the internet and think net neutrality is new
    c)cannot or will not explain in detail, and beyond emotional rhetoric, how the new regulation will stifle creativity/competition/etc. (this one applies to you)

    Really? including me. I will gladly have an indepth discussion with you on the technology here. lol


    Tell me about netflix/comcast and how it applied to "net neutrality"...


    These three render debate with those people pretty much impossible.

    More like your posturing as if you know what you are talking about that makes this difficult.




    I was addressing the idea that the FCC will stifle competition when there are already clear cut examples of isps doing precisely that.
    This is NOT net neutrality, this is ISP monopoly which is created by two things, one "the last mile" of copper, fiber, etc, and the government telling these companies where and where not they can provide service.

    This has NOTHING to do with "net neutrality"... furthermore when you get luddites involved it gets even more stupid. for example, I there is no QoS over the internet, but if an ISP wanted to change packet priority so that VOIP calls had a higher priority than the porn torrent you are downloading, that may be preferable and I see nothing wrong with you having to wait 15 seconds longer to download it and that should be noted and allowed if an ISP so wanted to do this.

    Now, I do see punitive traffic shaping as a violation of contracts and should not be done and all traffic should be treated equally almost 100% of the time.





    You avoid this as if ignoring it will make the argument go away, even though "stifling competition" is one of the primary criticisms of the FCC's impending action.
    for the love of god and all that is holy, that is NOT net neutrality even if thats what the left is calling the bill.

    I know that Comcast fought hard and eventually successfully to remove the FCC's regulation and the ability to set NN in stone. I know that isps have lobbied successfully in (at least) twenty states to ban local communities from setting up their own isps. Internet providers have given every indication they don't have users' interests at heart, I don't trust them and neither should you.

    it is the role of government to start a business to compete with other ISP's?


    Trust my cable company, **** of course not, but what you are suggesting and discussing has NOTHING TO DO WITH NET NEUTRALITY


    So you want corporate monopolies then?
    You mean like we have now?

    no, and I especially don't want to set up municipal government internet monopolies.






    But lets start here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality


    What don't you see in this link?
    Last edited by ReverendHellh0und; 02-11-15 at 03:35 PM.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #85
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,935

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    No, you clearly don't "know all that" about packet prioritization et al.




    Really? including me. I will gladly have an indepth discussion with you on the technology here. lol


    Tell me about netflix/comcast and how it applied to "net neutrality"...





    More like your posturing as if you know what you are talking about that makes this difficult.






    This is NOT net neutrality, this is ISP monopoly which is created by two things, one "the last mile" of copper, fiber, etc, and the government telling these companies where and where not they can provide service.

    This has NOTHING to do with "net neutrality"... furthermore when you get luddites involved it gets even more stupid. for example, I there is no QoS over the internet, but if an ISP wanted to change packet priority so that VOIP calls had a higher priority than the porn torrent you are downloading, that may be preferable and I see nothing wrong with you having to wait 15 seconds longer to download it and that should be noted and allowed if an ISP so wanted to do this.

    Now, I do see punitive traffic shaping as a violation of contracts and should not be done and all traffic should be treated equally almost 100% of the time.







    for the love of god and all that is holy, that is NOT net neutrality even if thats what the left is calling the bill.




    it is the role of government to start a business to compete with other ISP's?


    Trust my cable company, **** of course not, but what you are suggesting and discussing has NOTHING TO DO WITH NET NEUTRALITY




    You mean like we have now?

    no, and I especially don't want to set up municipal government internet monopolies.






    But lets start here:

    Net neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    What don't you see in this link?
    I want to discuss the criticisms levied against the FCC making the internet a title II utility, and you only want to talk about what net neutrality is while avoiding the details of those criticisms as much as possible, as if I want to spend all day nitpicking the definition of NN. As we can't agree on what we even want to debate here, it's safe to say this is going nowhere.

  6. #86
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    *sigh*
    Still not paying attention.
    I didn't say Google it. I said wiki the fund he spoke about.
    *sigh* Already did that, read it, and it changes nothing. It's a tax/fee on PHONE services. And right there in the wiki article (a LINK!! see how easy that was?) is a discussion of how the split between "Phone" charges and all the rest of the stuff that comes into and out of my house on the same line is arbitrary. So if you take total charges for my mobile 'phone' the federal tax is less than 2%. Not 16.1%. For my home phone/internet/cable, federal taxes are less than that - not even 1% of the total bill.

    If your point is the Feds COULD charge 16% on internet services, of course. They COULD tax internet at 4,386% plus an annual monthly charge of $599 per house. Or they COULD charge taxes and fees of 0.00%. You know this, so I'm not sure why you're bothering with this lame argument.
    Last edited by JasperL; 02-11-15 at 03:45 PM.

  7. #87
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,260

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    I want to discuss the criticisms levied against the FCC making the internet a title II utility, and you only want to talk about what net neutrality is while avoiding the details of those criticisms as much as possible, as if I want to spend all day nitpicking the definition of NN. As we can't agree on what we even want to debate here, it's safe to say this is going nowhere.


    It's not "nitpicking" but you should no what something is if you are going to discuss it.


    This government is lying to you about "net neutrality", so much so it seems people like you have bought into it and call it "net neutrality".


    this "plan" is not "net neutrality", that is the point. it's taking control of the internet so it can tax you and I.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #88
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    *sigh* Already did that, read it, and it changes nothing. It's a tax/fee on PHONE services. And right there in the wiki article is a discussion of how the split between "Phone" charges and all the rest of the stuff that comes into and out of my house on the same line is arbitrary. So if you take my mobile 'phone' the federal tax is less than 2%. Not 16.1%. For my home phone/internet/cable, it's less than that - not even 1%, much less 16.1%.

    If your point is the Feds COULD charge 16% on internet services, of course. They COULD tax internet at 4,386% plus an annual monthly charge of $599 per house. Or they COULD charge taxes and fees of 0.00%. You know this, so I'm not sure why you're bothering with this lame argument.
    You clearly do not understand what has been said then.

    Classifying the internet as such would subject it to the 16.1% charge. As a requirement it is not a "could".

    As you were already informed, the information has already been provided. Find it and avail yourself of it.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  9. #89
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,039

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    So basically, the administration is calling over-regulation and control of the internet "Net Neutrality".

    You are not allowed to read the 333 page plan.





    Until it's voted on.

    https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/statu...568193/photo/1


    [/FONT][/COLOR]
    Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside.







    Look how proud that mother****er looks saddling us with more regulations and opening the door to taxation.


    for those slow on the uptake:

    Internet chain meme's are a very bad argument. So do you believe all meme's or just this one? Are you one of those annoying people that share's every insipid chain meme that comes cross your path?

  10. #90
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,039

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    It's not "nitpicking" but you should no what something is if you are going to discuss it.


    This government is lying to you about "net neutrality", so much so it seems people like you have bought into it and call it "net neutrality".


    this "plan" is not "net neutrality", that is the point. it's taking control of the internet so it can tax you and I.
    Ok what proof do you have?

Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •