- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
And you are wrong, again!Wrong. See Universal Service Support Mechanisms | FCC.gov for example.
So let's assume that regulating the internet under Title II REQUIRES that the FCC charges an identical tax on internet services as it does now on phone services. That's false, of course, but we can assume it.
In any case, the FCC has a budget and needs to collect $X.XX dollars to fund USF activities, and it sets the percentage each quarter to the amount needed to meet those revenue goals. If we added internet charges to the tax base, the tax rate necessary to collect $X.XX in revenues would fall dramatically because the tax base would expand dramatically. So with a larger base, the rate wouldn't be 16.1% but some rate far smaller.
I keep doing that and keep proving you wrong....
The fund "required" contribution fee/tax, while it has been reduced at times, has steadily increased overall.
It was 3.9% in 1999. Now it is 16.8%
16.1% is what it was set at, making the previous article correct. That is what would have been charged had the new rate not gone into effect (making the claim correct) until adjusted again.
Do you really not get that?
It is now at 16.8%.
Your contention that it would not be left where it is and be a smaller rate instead is baseless.
There is no evidence that that will happen. None.
And as the article suggested, those increase in funds will be used for other projects.
Last edited: