• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Okee dokee. This has been fun.

BTW, LMAO at the "read multiple threads to find some link I can't bother to spend 5 seconds to provide."
:lamo
As I said. It has already been provided.
I have no need to continually provided that which has already been provided in one of the multiple threads concerning this issue.

But what you don't get to do is jump to making false allegations and say it hasn't been provided when it already has.
All you can honestly say is that I had not provided it in this thread.
Had you been civil and and not made a false allegations starting with your dishonesty claim I would have either quoted it for you or directed you to it.
But as it is, no. It has already been provided in one of the multiple threads concerning this issue. Go find it.
 
This got me wondering: what is the tax on a title II utility? I can't find it online, so I just simply pulled out one of my phone bills. Phone service is a Common Carrier and therefore a title II utility. Anyway, the total tax was $3.50 on a $140.00 bill. That's a 2.5% tax. So not 16.1%, not 140%...it's 2.5%. If that same tax were applied to my internet bill, I would end up shelling out an additional $1.50/month.
 
Last edited:
:lamo
As I said. It has already been provided.
I have no need to continually provided that which has already been provided in one of the multiple threads concerning this issue.

But what you don't get to do is jump to making false allegations and say it hasn't been provided when it already has.
All you can honestly say is that I had not provided it in this thread.

I looked and found you had cited a Forbes article and that article didn't link to anything to support the 16.1% charge. It's possible you linked to something else, but I have no idea which of the multiple threads this link might be in and so I looked elsewhere, and found there is a now over 17% nominal tax on the amount companies charge for interstate and international PHONE CALLS, but that in practice it works out to a tax of 5.8%. With a link. I also pointed out that state/local government charge another 12%, with a link. And that these taxes are phone services specific and wouldn't apply to internet services unless the FCC and/or state and/or local governments voted to apply taxes to internet services, so the tax on the internet could range from 0.00% to 9,271% or any other number one could imagine between 0 and infinity.

And all you can do is say - see some link in some other thread.....

Had you been civil and and not made a false allegations starting with your dishonesty claim I would have either quoted it for you or directed you to it.
But as it is, no. It has already been provided in one of the multiple threads concerning this issue. Go find it.

If I made a false accusation, which one? I backed up my 'accusations' with links, and with the common sense proposition that even if there was a 16.1% tax on interstate phone services, that is no basis to conclude that the tax on something else entirely, the internet or data services, would be equal to 16.1%. The tax if any on this different service, the internet, will require a separate vote, at the Federal, state and local levels.
 
This got me wondering: what is the tax on a title II utility? I can't find it online, so I just simply pulled out one of my phone bills. Phone service is a Common Carrier and therefore a title II utility. Anyway, the total tax was $3.50 on a $140.00 bill. That's a 2.5% tax. So not 16.1%, not 140%...it's 2.5%. If that same tax were applied to my internet bill, I would end up shelling out an additional $1.50/month.

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? :roll:

/sarcasm
 
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? :roll:

/sarcasm
Can your nonsense.


If I made a false accusation, which one? I backed up my 'accusations' with links, and with the common sense proposition that even if there was a 16.1% tax on interstate phone services, that is no basis to conclude that the tax on something else entirely, the internet or data services, would be equal to 16.1%. The tax if any on this different service, the internet, will require a separate vote, at the Federal, state and local levels.
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.
 
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? :roll:

/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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
*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:
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.
 
*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.
 
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.


B9LAFM7CEAE-EHP.jpg



Until it's voted on.

https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/563724099906568193/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:

qOf4NpQ.png

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?
 
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?
 
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?


if you note, I used a picture demonstrating the differences, that's not a meme actually, but you should also consider the post made. unles of course your goal was to be snotty to me, then, kudos sir, sucess!
 
if you note, I used a picture demonstrating the differences, that's not a meme actually, but you should also consider the post made. unles of course your goal was to be snotty to me, then, kudos sir, sucess!

The whole thing played like a meme, so not being snotty.
 
I've read about it, us rabble are not allowed to read what plans the ruling class has for us! how dare you sir!

Well I agree that it should be navigable. But you cant claim to know what it says without being able to read it. You must then be making assumptions.
 
I've read about it, us rabble are not allowed to read what plans the ruling class has for us! how dare you sir!

Well I agree that it should be available. But you cant claim to know what it says without being able to read it. You must then be making assumptions.
 
Well I agree that it should be navigable. But you cant claim to know what it says without being able to read it. You must then be making assumptions.

based on what has been said about it by those who have read it, yes.

I did the same thing with the health care bill, that's kinda what we do.
 
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".

Wrong. See Universal Service Support Mechanisms | FCC.gov for example.

How Much Do Companies Contribute for Universal Service?

Companies contribute a certain percentage of the amount billed to their residential and business customers for interstate and international calls. The exact percentage that companies contribute is adjusted every quarter based on projected demand for Universal Service funding.

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.

As you were already informed, the information has already been provided. Find it and avail yourself of it.

I keep doing that and keep proving you wrong....
 
Back
Top Bottom