That's exactly what I thought. You can't prove what you say.
Originally Posted by Deuce
I have already proven the taxes part multiple times.
And regulation is a given as I stated. A given doesn't have to be proven. And since this is Gov regulation, it is absurd that you would attempt to deny what the Gov does.
But beside proving that taxes would come from such a classification, I also showed that even though Obama doesn't think it would be appropriate to apply, he acknowledged that rate regulation is part of Utility regulation, which should be proof enough, and doubles as proof that you are wrong.
Originally Posted by Deuce
No. That simply isn't true to what has been stated.
We were speaking about the position statements in the picture, and you know that.
That is all Obama proposed. [the one on the right]
And Cruz is the only one between the two proposing the non Governmental involvement like that on the left requires.
So who are the ones you are speaking about who also propose non governmental involvement as the one on the left requires?
No one but Cruz has proposed nongovernmental involvement.
And we are talking about actual proposals, not simply what non politicians may, or may not be talking about.
Obama has proposed gov involvement. Which is the one on the right.
Cruz has stated it should remain the way it is without gov involvement. Which is the one on the left. So where are these other proposals that support non-gov involvement like the one on the left?
If they are there you can certainly provide them. So why haven't you?
Ah what the heck. Just to satiate your ignorance.
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.
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. 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. It's a redistributive corporate tax paid for by consumers.
The USF tax amounts to more than a 16% charge on top of consumers' bills. 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.
FCC commissioners past and present have agreed that the this net neutrality tax is unavoidable in a Title II reclassification scenario. In a discussion at the National Press Club on Friday, current FCC commissioner Ajit Pai laid out exactly what consumers would be seeing on their bills.
"Public utility regulation would mean higher broadband prices for consumers," Pai said. "Once broadband is classified as a telecommunications service, universal service charges would be assessed on carriers' broadband services. Many state and local taxes would automatically kick in."
"The net result is that every single American broadband customer would have to pay a new tax - or taxes - to access the internet."
An FCC decision to go with title II reclassification in order to enforce new net neutrality regulations would have a lot of deleterious effects. 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.
The Net Neutrality Tax Hike - Kevin Glass
Classifying it as a Utility brings about rate regulation also.
While he may say that it wouldn't be appropriate to apply, even Obama acknowledges that rate regulation comes with classifying it as a Utility.
Even President Obama conceded that a strict Title II approach would not by itself be sufficient because there are hundreds of rules applying to telephone service common carriers that would be inappropriate to apply to broadband, like, for example, rate regulation.
In addition, even Title II does not ban paid prioritization completely.