• 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!

F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules

I am ok with it being charged. But I also stated that I believed that exemptions were possible.

The FCC is using such an exemption. So, they are "required" but "not required" is your argument? Ok then. You claim they will eventually charge it, but I see no evidence of that.
Clearly you are not paying attention to what they even recognized, it is a "requirement".

As previously pointed out the law only allows for one exemption, and that is if the carriers contribution would be "de minimis".

This isn't an exemption. It is a temporary hold in applying what is "required" until other matters are settled.


Again;
Read what was said and learn.

Para 488 - page 235
or if you prefer, Scribe.

488. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for now we do forbear in part from the first sentence of section 254(d) and our associated rules insofar as they [highlight]would immediately require[/highlight] new universal service contributions associated with broadband Internet access service. The first sentence of section 254(d) authorizes the Commission to impose universal service contributions requirements on telecommunications carriers—and, indeed, goes even further to require “[e]very telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services” to contribute.[SUP]1469[/SUP] Under that provision and our implementing rules, providers [highlight]are required[/highlight] to make federal universal service support contributions for interstate telecommunications services, which now would include broadband Internet access service by virtue of the classification decision in this order. [SUP]1470[/SUP]

489. Consistent with our analysis of TRS contributions above, we note that on one hand, newly applying universal service contribution requirements on broadband Internet access service potentially could spread the base of contributions to the universal service fund, providing at least some benefit to customers of other services that contribute, and potentially also to the stability of the universal service fund through the broadening of the contribution base. We note, however, that the Commission has sought comment on a wide range of issues regarding how contributions should be assessed, including whether to continue to assess contributions based on revenues or to adopt alternative methodologies for determining contribution obligations.[SUP]1471[/SUP] [highlight]We therefore conclude that limited forbearance is warranted at the present time in order to allow the Commission to consider the issues presented based on a full record in that docket.[/highlight][SUP]1472[/SUP]
 
Required and exempted, yes. That's what I said. They want to further investigate the issue. They can elect to continue the forbearance. Will they? Who knows. Given the political fallout, I wouldn't be shocked if they leave that indefinitely.
 
Required and exempted, yes. That's what I said. They want to further investigate the issue. They can elect to continue the forbearance. Will they? Who knows. Given the political fallout, I wouldn't be shocked if they leave that indefinitely.
:doh
Wrong.
It was not exempted.
It was postponed until other issues are settled.
Did you really not understand what they said?
 
:doh
Wrong.
It was not exempted.
It was postponed until other issues are settled.
Did you really not understand what they said?

Do you really not understand? Yes, they want to look at other issues. The idea that they are guaranteed to do it is incorrect. They might look at those other issues and decided that applying the USF tax is unwarranted.
 
Do you really not understand? Yes, they want to look at other issues. The idea that they are guaranteed to do it is incorrect. They might look at those other issues and decided that applying the USF tax is unwarranted.

Clearly you have no clue as to what you speak.
And it is clear you did not read the order or the portion I provided for you. Either that or you simply do not understand what it says.

It is a requirement. They told you that. More importantly, the law tells you that.
It is temporarily on hold till the Commissioner considers the other matters.
Yes it is guaranteed to be implemented, as it is "required", by law, which the FCC can not change.
And as previously pointed out, the only exemption is in regards to the contribution being "de minimis", which is not going to happen. Especially given what order already pointed out they will be considering.
 
Clearly you have no clue as to what you speak.
And it is clear you did not read the order or the portion I provided for you. Either that or you simply do not understand what it says.

It is a requirement. They told you that. More importantly, the law tells you that.
It is temporarily on hold till the Commissioner considers the other matters.
Yes it is guaranteed to be implemented, as it is "required", by law, which the FCC can not change.
And as previously pointed out, the only exemption is in regards to the contribution being "de minimis", which is not going to happen. Especially given what order already pointed out they will be considering.

If they have to put it in, why are they not putting it in now?
 
If they have to put it in, why are they not putting it in now?
Really?
:doh
You want to argue in circles?
:doh :doh
They already told you it is a temporary hold and why it is a temporary hold. Read the order.
 
Really?
:doh
You want to argue in circles?
:doh :doh
They already told you it is a temporary hold and why it is a temporary hold. Read the order.

And all those other title II regs they're skipping, is all that temporary too?
 
We? I pay no fee.
:doh
Stop play games.

The fee is required and will be assessed. So yes we have to, contrary to your prior assertion that we don't.

And the "we" refers to those subscribing to the service.
Not the idiots sitting in their moms basement who pay for nothing.
 
:doh
Stop play games.

The fee is required and will be assessed. So yes we have to, contrary to your prior assertion that we don't.

And the "we" refers to those subscribing to the service.
Not the idiots sitting in their moms basement who pay for nothing.

I'm not playing games and I don't pay an pay any fee's yet. I want you to be more specific. Easy to address when you give specific details.
 
I'm not playing games and I don't pay an pay any fee's yet. I want you to be more specific. Easy to address when you give specific details.
:doh
Yes you were playing a game. "Any fee's yet" is a change and clarification from your previous post.
And the details are already in this thread. Read it.
 
:doh
Yes you were playing a game. "Any fee's yet" is a change and clarification from your previous post.
And the details are already in this thread. Read it.

No it isn't. No change. I've argued from the beginning the door is open, but that nothing has happened yet. Be specific.
 
No it isn't. No change. I've argued from the beginning the door is open, but that nothing has happened yet. Be specific.

Already was specific, read the thread.
 
It's not that hard jr. You're just wasting time.
Yes. It is no that hard for you to actually read the thread and ascertain the information.
Your refusal to do so while continually posting your nonsense is a waste of time.
And yet you continue do it.
What a shame.
 
Yes. It is no that hard for you to actually read the thread and ascertain the information.
Your refusal to do so while continually posting your nonsense is a waste of time.
And yet you continue do it.
What a shame.

You're just making excuses. Typical.
 
You're just making excuses. Typical.

at this point it must be asked... "do you read others posts, Excon has given you the facts repeatedly"...
you can not refute Excons well paid out succinct info on how it HAS TO BE TAXED AS A UTILITY" OVER AND OVER

do you pay bills at all ?
 
at this point it must be asked... "do you read others posts, Excon has given you the facts repeatedly"...
you can not refute Excons well paid out succinct info on how it HAS TO BE TAXED AS A UTILITY" OVER AND OVER

do you pay bills at all ?

I pay bills and have not been charged any such tax. Show me someone who has, I dare you.
 
I pay bills and have not been charged any such tax. Show me someone who has, I dare you.

at this point only devine intervention can help..
 
We? I pay no fee.

Doesn't come official for another couple of months.. I would say check your first bill in 2016 but that might even be too soon with all the court cases that are gonna be filed.
 
Lol, Travis, it's amazing that you can't tell me where the taxes are. It really is. However, that's no excuse for lashing out against Obama. All you have to tell me is where the taxes are. I can wait man, I swear I can.

All Public Utilities are taxed. Go check your phone bills. You will get taxed because it's a Title II now.
 
Back
Top Bottom