wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| reply to thegoldwater
Re: Daniel Berninger - conflict of interest?
said by thegoldwater  :By that argument, Google should be taxed to help pay to run copper down the road. You do realize that Ed Whitaker et. al. are arguing that very point, do you not? 
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to thegoldwater
Google doesn't provide voice communications. If they did, that part of their business should have to collect USF fees. Just like companies providing full time multi-channel video services should either ALL be subject to local franchise agreements, or none of them should. There shouldn't' be a double standard. But it works the other way too. The large incumbents should be in charge of how/where the money is spent either. If you're going to have government intervention, it needs to be as equal as possible or you eventually end up with market imbalances. (like say large service duopolies) |
|
thegoldwater
Thegoldwater
join:2002-03-10
Parkton, MD
| reply to TKJunkMail
Why shouldn't ANY *service* companies be left off the hook. When you read the enabling legislation for the USF-- it is about providing access through infrastructure to rural areas, not necessarily *services*. The original intent of the legislation was to make sure that telcos were actually wiring rural areas in the same manner they wire urban areas.
Why should services subsidize hardware infrastructure?
By that argument, Google should be taxed to help pay to run copper down the road. |
|
