dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


Search Topic:
share rss forum feed


Milford, CT
reply to linicx

Re: Who should be taxed: carriers or content providers?

said by linicx:

If you tax the company that surreptitiously collects personal information and then sells it for a profit, you found the correct source.

This isn't about taxing spammers, it's about taxing legitimate web services like Google, Netflix, etc.

And even if you still think that taxing content providers is a good idea, where does it end? How can you justify taxing one web site and not the rest? Should Joe Average have to pay a tax because he wants to put up a blog? After all, he's now a content provider.

Oh, only big content providers will be charged? Can you guarantee that? Is the government going to put that in writing? Who decides how big you have to be before you get charged?

While we're at it, why not add a special tax to shipping companies to help maintain the roads? How about a special tax on companies like Amazon and eBay to help fund the post office? Maybe a tax on companies that make electric/electronic devices to help fund the electric companies?

And by the way, what happened to all that money that subscribers like me have been paying into the Universal Service Fund? I thought that was supposed to pay for telecommunications maintenance and expansion?

This is a clear case of double-dipping. I pay for internet access, companies like Google pay for internet access, I don't see why they should be the ones to pay for the ISP's infrastructure.

united state
This bafoon linicx just wrote a bunch of spam content that he provided for us. He needs to be taxed