how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to ross
Re: Said it before "Furthermore, AT&T is going to put their infernal boxes wherever they damn well please. Don't like it? Be prepared to be sued."
As a city that's being sued by telco for that very issue, that's the city's job - to look out for and enforce proper use of the public rights of way regardless of whether it may cause a frivolous telco lawsuit. Telco's do not have eminent domain power in the cities they serve, nor should they be allowed to act as if they do.
Again, if you want to fix it all, treat them all the same. Since a city would be negligent in giving away use of its r.o.w. for free (the city still has to maintain the r.o.w. and oversee placement of its utilities for its citizens), tax them all the same: A flat tax for all communications services.
--
Peter I. Collins
Information Technologies Manager
City of Geneva, Illinois
pcollins@geneva.il.us
630.232.1743 | | |
|
| said by PeterCollins:"Furthermore, AT&T is going to put their infernal boxes wherever they damn well please. Don't like it? Be prepared to be sued."As a city that's being sued by telco for that very issue, that's the city's job - to look out for and enforce proper use of the public rights of way regardless of whether it may cause a frivolous telco lawsuit. Telco's do not have eminent domain power in the cities they serve, nor should they be allowed to act as if they do. I agree wholeheartedly, but doubt the Telco lawsuit will be deemed frivolous by the courts, and, furthermore, the cities will probably lose. The point is the cities you say are collecting use taxes from end users to protect the right of ways are NOT collecting use taxes for this purpose, are NOT doing their job effectively, and will fail to prevent AT&T's placement policies because they, along with their state governments, have surrendered jurisdiction, either voluntarily, or involuntarily as a result of Telco lobbying at the federal level.
said by PeterCollins:Again, if you want to fix it all, treat them all the same. Since a city would be negligent in giving away use of its r.o.w. for free (the city still has to maintain the r.o.w. and oversee placement of its utilities for its citizens), tax them all the same: A flat tax for all communications services. No city gives away use of public right of ways, they charge the lessees a fee for such use. Cities are then trying to double-dip by taxing end users in the form of use tax for on services provided by the lessees which right of way costs are already included in the cost of service to end users, and then triple-dip through sales taxes on the services provided by lessees who have already paid the city for the leaseholds, and are desirous of extracting further tax revenue by taxing access to the internet as a separate service, and this behavior is unconscionable. Cities have NO INHERENT RIGHT TO TAX TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES OF ANY KIND. They especially have no right to collect internet access taxes, and in fact, are prohibited from doing so by the very legislation under discussion, up for renewal, and which, hopefully, will be made permanent. | |
| Again, your point is clear - cities, states, and feds have no right to tax communications.
But they do tax them and are not going to give up their existing revenue sources regardless of how many times you call them names.
The reality is that your closest shot of lowering the overall rates (services & taxes) is to encourage the best use of technology and level the tax playing field. | |
1 edit | said by PeterCollins:Again, your point is clear - cities, states, and feds have no right to tax communications. But they do tax them and are not going to give up their existing revenue sources regardless of how many times you call them names. The reality is that your closest shot of lowering the overall rates (services & taxes) is to encourage the best use of technology and level the tax playing field. You have some kind of vested interest in taxes on telecommunications, judging from your erroneous insistence that cities universally currently tax telecommunications.
They do not do any such thing in the city where I live. There are no city taxes on telecommunications anywhere in my geographic area. There are no internet access tax imposed by any tax authority anywhere, with the notable seven or so exceptions grandfathered in by the internet tax moratorium that is up for renewal. There is a very tiny ($0.27 on $11.50 phone bill) county assessment on telephone service in the county next to mine, but no such tax in any of the other surrounding counties, including mine.
The best thing to do about end user taxes on telecommunication services is to ban them all outright, thus allowing all technologies equal competition based on inherent merit/superiority/utility. That ban should include "use", "access" and "sales" taxes (except as result indirectly from income taxes on the entities providing service).
REUTERS:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez on Thursday urged the Senate to make permanent the moratorium on taxes for Internet access and electronic commerce.
In a statement, the cabinet secretaries said passage of legislation keeping the Internet free of access taxes by the time the current moratorium expires on November 1 would help keep the Internet an "innovative force".
The Senate Commerce Committee is expected to consider a bill to extend the moratorium on Thursday. The ban has been in place since 1998 and was last reinstated in 2004 for a period of three years.
Internet service providers say the price of Internet access could rise by as much as 17 percent if the moratorium on state taxes were allowed to expire.
"Preventing the taxation of Internet access will help sustain an environment for innovation, ensure that consumers continue to have affordable access to the Internet, especially high-speed Internet, and strengthen the foundations of electronic commerce as a vital and growing part of our economy," Paulson and Gutierrez said." | |
|
