AT&T Urging Employees To Support Broadband Tax Ban Telcos, cablecos & content companies come together.... As we mentioned last week, the ban on Internet access taxes, first put in place in 1998, is set to expire November 1. Should it expire, states would be free to tax your broadband connection. Congress has been working hard debating whether to extend the ban or make it permanent. AT&T is also petitioning its employees to jump into the fight, urging them to send mail to their representatives via this web form at the "Don't Tax Our Web" coalition. Jim Cicconi, Senior Executive Vice President of External and Legislative Affairs for AT&T, sent this e-mail out to employees: For nearly a decade, Congress has supported a moratorium on states and municipalities taxing Internet access. This hands-off approach has been a tremendous success — giving companies a reason to invest, consumers a choice in affordable broadband services, and the U.S. a policy framework to realize exponential growth in Internet access.
All these gains are now in jeopardy. On November 1, the Internet Tax Moratorium is set to expire — leaving the Internet exposed and consumers vulnerable to higher Internet access costs. The Association for Competitive Technology predicts that if the moratorium is lifted, a consumer could expect Internet access cost increases of $85 or more a year.
But you can help by encouraging your members of Congress to actively support extending the moratorium. It's simple to do. Go to »ga3.org/campaign/dtow_att and send either a customized letter or the one provided. By entering your name, address and ZIP code, you'll ensure your message is emailed directly to your members of Congress. You may also want to encourage friends and relatives to contact their representatives as well by going to the website. Companies that have been at each others' throats over net neutrality and open 700Mhz access have come together under one umbrella. Both Google and Verizon have outlined their support of a permanent access tax ban at their respective policy blogs. Verizon even went so far as to applaud Google's commentary on the matter. States and municipalities are now facing immense lobbying muscle and the wrath of tax-loathing consumers.
|
  intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK |  here is one thing I agree with ATT on.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" | |
|  | | | Re: here is one thing I agree with ATT on. AT&T is also petitioning its employees to jump into the fight, urging them to send mail to their representatives via this web form at the "Don't Tax Our Web" coalition
i agree with you & AT&T, i don't mind paying my fair share of tax's,but IF you get a (detailed) bill as i do look at all the tax's already on it,13 lines of nothing but tax.
--
I've learned That when you plan to get even with someone, you are ONLY letting that person continue to hurt you.I REFUSE to allow YOU to hurt me anymore
| |
| |  ModusI hate smartassery on forumsPremium
join:2005-05-02
us | Ditto 
No more $#@% taxs! | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: here is one thing I agree with ATT on. said by Modus:Ditto No more $#@% taxs! What he said!
--Doug | |
|
|  MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA | Once the government drops a $4 tax on broadband, people might leave or downgrade. That'll start a dropping price war to reduce their own take.
AT&T wants all of the pie and the fork you brought to eat it. | |
| |  bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
 ·Charter
| I disagree on no more e-commerce taxes, unless it also follows that there are no more sales taxes.
Why? It's unfair to stores and local business. It should be all or nothing.
So either:
A) No more sales taxes in general.
OR
B) Every retailer, regardless of the method used to sell the product (store or web site) must collect the tax that applied to wherever the customer lives. I.E. IL customers pay IL sales tax, even on web sites. Same for MO, OR, NC, TX, and so on.
Though I admit that option (A) sounds better. | |
|
 Old_GrouchDon't just sit there silly DO somethingPremium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Wonder why I suppose you could imagine that at&t feels sorry for us and wants to champion keeping a lid on taxes.
Or, you could believe they are worried that if enough people get irritated at taxes they might have to withdraw some of their shared overhead costs on the bill like regulatory cost recovery and the slew of other "pay my expenses" treats they dish up monthly.
--
At Team Discovery we know how to get more outta that danged 'puter of yours! | |
| |  EUSKill cancerPremium
join:2002-09-10
canada | Re: Wonder why Good point. | |
| |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Who else is going to pay their expenses, if not customers? 
I see little difference whether it appears as a higher price or another line item masquerading as a tax. | |
| | | Old_GrouchDon't just sit there silly DO somethingPremium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Re: Wonder why If your monthly charges for service are those allowed by the regulatory agencies in each jurisdiction - - - only so much cost can be squeezed under the roof - - especially if you are out of rate-of-return and into a maximum price for service regardless of the costs that support it.
But, if you can exclude some of those costs and call them some trumped-up gibberish on a separate line of the bill, you can have your cake and eat it too.
Put the costs in the rate base and you impact (negatively) the money available to buy jets and golf memberships at Augusta. But, if you can slop the costs over to a legal-sounding line as though the gubberment made you do it, you have your costs offset and earn well at the same time.
I don't fault them for doing it. I merely like to clarify their apparent benevolence.
--
At Team Discovery we know how to get more outta that danged 'puter of yours! | |
|
| | | said by Old_Grouch:I suppose you could imagine that at&t feels sorry for us and wants to champion keeping a lid on taxes. Or, you could believe they are worried that if enough people get irritated at taxes they might have to withdraw some of their shared overhead costs on the bill like regulatory cost recovery and the slew of other "pay my expenses" treats they dish up monthly.
It really amazes me how the anti-AT&T'ers can turn something like "supporting a tax ban" into AT&T bashing. Whether it's for their own agenda or not, the bottom line is that if there is an access tax, YOU the consumer will pay that tax -- NOT AT&T. Whether you like AT&T or not you should be on their side on this issue. | |
| | | Old_GrouchDon't just sit there silly DO somethingPremium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Re: Wonder why When you have developed and shown unique skills or knowledge that qualifies you to tell me how I should "side", I'll let you know.
Any time I read that at&t (or almost any other large company) is turning up the flame under it's employee or share-holder letter writing machine, I usually suspect it is for their benefit rather than an act of benevolence.
Is that bashing? Call it what you will.
--
At Team Discovery we know how to get more outta that danged 'puter of yours! | |
| | | | | | Re: Wonder why said by Old_Grouch:When you have developed and shown unique skills or knowledge that qualifies you to tell me how I should "side", I'll let you know.
You are absolutely correct, you can side any way you'd like. And while I don't think this is an act of benevolence on AT&T's part, and it may very well be for their benefit, the bottom line is that you, Old_Grouch, will pay that tax -- not AT&T or Verizon or Quest or Comcast.......
I can't speak for you, as you've already pointed out, but I am paying quite enough taxes already, thank you very much. If you feel that you aren't, how about I send you some of my tax bills? | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  New Tax Agenda
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | Re: New Tax Agenda said by pnh102:The Democrat Party has stated that it will not renew any Bush tax cuts. I wonder if this tax ban is one of those that they won't bother to renew. Two Points:
1. The name of the party, as incorporated, is "The Democratic Party". If we are gonna leave letters out, then I think I will call the other guys "Repubics". 
2. Huge leap of logic, in the service of FUD. There has never been an Internet Access Tax. In fact, the ban started back during the Clinton Administration, as a bipartisan effort.
Now, I think Karl should take away your privilege of writing the phrase "Bush Bashing" for 2 weeks. | |
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: New Tax Agenda said by TScheisskopf:1. The name of the party, as incorporated, is "The Democrat ic Party". I'm being nice. As this is a family website, I won't write what I would normally call them.
said by TScheisskopf:2. Huge leap of logic, in the service of FUD. There has never been an Internet Access Tax. In fact, the ban started back during the Clinton Administration, as a bipartisan effort. We can both agree though, that if we can dream it, they can tax it, and that goes for both parties.
said by TScheisskopf:Now, I think Karl should take away your privilege of writing the phrase "Bush Bashing" for 2 weeks. I didn't write "bashing."
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | chomps
join:2005-09-28
Salt Lake City, UT | Re: New Tax Agenda guess what folks?? Have you ever heard of the supplier surcharge recovery?? That is a tax mandated by the federal government on dsl. If that isn't a tax I don't know what is. | |
|
| | rayePremium
join:2000-08-14
Orange, CA Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Clinton was a centrist with a republican congress. Not only is congress party changed hands, but committee chairs are under the most populist, leftist, socialist individuals in the Democra(ic) party.
I think this ban has a good chance of being lifted with the current batch of losers in control, which should pave the way for "repubic" congress in 2008 | |
| | | | | | Re: New Tax Agenda said by raye:Clinton was a centrist with a republican congress. Not only is congress party changed hands, but committee chairs are under the most populist, leftist, socialist individuals in the Democra(ic) party. I think this ban has a good chance of being lifted with the current batch of losers in control, which should pave the way for "repubic" congress in 2008 I have seen nothing, absolutely nothing, out of this congress that comes close to your description of the present congressional leadership.
But you go ahead and keep quoting the delusions of OxyRush, O'Loofah, Savage Weiner, Dreck and the others. Not that it will get you any closer to any objectively discernable reality, but hey, everybody needs a hobby, I reckon. | |
| | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Pure FUD. Actually worse. Completely false. I call B.S. on that post. | |
|
| Jonbo298
join:2004-01-12
Council Bluffs, IA | Except as said above, its not a Bush tax cut  Keep the ban! | |
| | | | Firstly not a tax cut and secondly not a Bush tax cut. This is Clinton era legislation. | |
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: New Tax Agenda said by PamelaTS:This is Clinton era legislation. I know this, however, the next few budget proposals set forth by the Democrats include provisions that do not extend the other tax cuts made by Bush. My question is, since they want these tax cuts to expire, would they want to allow for other tax cuts, including the one on Internet access, to expire as well.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | | Re: New Tax Agenda Again it is not a tax cut as it never existed. The question in '98 was to allow states to tax this new medium or not. This evolved to a ban on taxation. | |
| | | |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | true conservatives (not our current president or the republican controlled congress of late) believe in smaller government, less taxes, etc. even a cursory look at the past 6 years will clear up any confusion you have that you support true conservatives. record deficit, record debt, runaway spending by congress, failure of Bush to veto any spending bill (despite being bloated with pork)... no wonder the public is abandoning the republican party in droves. | |
|
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by PamelaTS:Firstly not a tax cut and secondly not a Bush tax cut. This is Clinton era legislation. Remember the Republican Mantra: Blame everything they don't like on the Democrats and the Clinton administration, and: Take credit for everything positive that ever came from said Administration.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by pnh102:The Democrat Party has stated that it will not renew any Bush tax cuts. I wonder if this tax ban is one of those that they won't bother to renew. This wasn't a Bush tax cut. The Internet Access tax ban began in the 90's and was heavily pushed for by Democrats, including, yes, Bill Clinton.
Now, It may have been re-upped under this administration (I think it was) but you can hardly call it a Bush Tax Cut. Also, it would be interesting to see where the Democratic party declared that. Everything I heard said they want to restructure them so they effect the average American more favorable and work on the debt.
Course, it's all politics.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | No problem for me ATT doesn't provide broadband where I live. SO I DON'T HAVE TO PAY THE TAXES! YAAAAAAYYYYYYYY (SORTA) | |
|
 DHRacerFire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
·Charter
·Verizon Online DSL
| Confused If internet access gets taxed, wouldn't that impact *consumers* only? I mean business can certainly afford higher costs than consumers could easily accomodate. So how would internet access costs go up $85? Why would ISP's raise their rates due to a tax that they wouldn't themselves levy?
I can't imagine that taxing internet access would increase the price by $85. I mean, that's more than double than most people pay already. That works out to a tax rate of like 200%, right? Isn't that a little egregarious?
Would taxing internet access actually be useful? I mean it would fund buildouts that the states could use to supplement the whiny incumbents who won't build out in areas they don't see as worth the investment. Of course, it would also probably turn into an abused fund just like the USF, and it would do nothing than serve as a slush fund like all the other taxes we pay, so I can see why it's also not a good idea when we already have issues with other "well-meaning but it's time to ditch them" taxes.
As for taxing ecommerce, I still get taxed like buying in any other store, if the place I do business with has a physical presense in the state I also live in (see MWave or NewEgg), so where's the no-tax on the internet commerce that some enjoy, but some states don't?
--
"No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them." (R&D Supervisor, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing /3M Corp.) | |
| | | | Re: Confused We wont have any bridges,scholls ect.. | |
| | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Confused do you mean schools ?
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | | | | Re: Confused said by en102: do you mean schools ? I think he means dentures and arch supports... | |
| | | | | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Confused yeah, Dr. Scholls wants some tax relief.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | | | | he must have went to public schools | |
|
| |  Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | Apparently the schoolsare not working anyways. JK | |
| | | |  2kmaroThinkPremium,ExMod 1 BC
join:2000-07-11
ColossalCave | Re: Confused You guys missed it all:
That's bridges as in oral bridgework, and while he left off Dr., it was clear to me he meant there'd be no funds available to purchase requisite Dr. Scholl's inserts to ease the pain of defeat.
Ease up a touch, we all skru up every once in a while.
--
...then THINK! again. | |
|
| amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| $85 per year ...which would be ~$7/month extra...
Still, 'net access is already priced about where it should be for what's available, in most cases. Any increases would truly be a shame, esp. in the form of taxation...
Most states (all?) do require in-state tax. That seems fair, and is usually pretty normal. It's been working fine for years anyway. I mean, it makes sense to me at least.
"Of course, it would also probably turn into an abused fund just like the USF, "
Yep. Agreed. | |
| | | DHRacerFire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA Reviews:
·Charter
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Confused ahh. per year. I was thinking per month, which was getting my "revolution!" sense all a tingling.
Seriously, we can't make do with the taxes we already have that should have died already, so considering past performance, I don't see why we need new avenues for fiscal abuse.
--
"No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them." (R&D Supervisor, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing /3M Corp.) | |
|
|  onDvineDon't litter. Spay-neuter.Premium
join:2005-01-29
So. CA, USA
kudos:7 | said by DHRacer:... Why would ISP's raise their rates due to a tax that they wouldn't themselves levy? ... Who do you think would be collecting the taxes levied? They'd be added to customers' monthly bills with the company as an intermediary.
--
The animals share with us the privilege of having a soul. ▪Pythagoras | |
| | Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA | said by DHRacer:If internet access gets taxed, wouldn't that impact *consumers* only? I mean business can certainly afford higher costs than consumers could easily accomodate. actually what will happen is business will simply pass on the cost to the consumer... this is a myth that businesses can afford higher costs... yes they can, but they will just pass it on to you and me... just like taxes get passed on to you and me... | |
| | | | "Business can certainly afford higher costs......"
This is a huge fallacy.
BUSINESSES DO NOT PAY TAXES!!!!
They pass the tax along to you, the consumer. Do you honestly believe that a business is willing to pay that tax and let it affect thier profits?
Just like your employer doesn't pay social security taxes, health care benifits, ect. All of that is taken out of your paycheck.
Business pass along all thier expenses to the consumer. | |
| | | jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
| Re: Confused Ridiculous.
Of course businesses pay taxes. The fact that the money they use to do so came from customers doesn't have anything to do with anything.
You need a few lessons in basic economics; if you really think your employer doesn't pay for health care or taxes, you are sadly mistaken. | |
| | | | | | Re: Confused Yes businessess literally pay taxes. However, if a business's profit is diluted because of of taxation, the only recourse the business has to recoup the loss of said taxes is to raise the cost of their product or service.
So, the customer ultimately pays the higher cost. And no need to thank me for giving you what is obviously your first course in basic economics. | |
| | | | | jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| Re: Confused I hope you don't think you impressed anyone here -- where the hell would one expect the business's money to come from, a magic ray gun? Of course it comes customers, or from investors.
What does this have to do with either my post, or the post I was replying to? Forget economics, you need a nice session on Reading Comprehension. | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Just used the link, thanks Fired off some emails, supporting Tax ban.
Thank you. | |
|  ftthzIf love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | I concur Tax ban !!! | |
| Reviews:
·Windstream
| Is this a Federal Government issue? I've never understood why the Congress stuck its nose into taxing internet access. It seems to me to be a state issue. But the quaint notion of Federalism seems to be a lost concept...
Congress can and should ensure that state taxes are not assessed on interstate e-commerce. | |
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Is this a Federal Government issue? said by LostInWoods: But the quaint notion of Federalism seems to be a lost concept... Just to clue you in, that happened around 1789. | |
| | dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | said by LostInWoods:Congress can and should ensure that state taxes are not assessed on interstate e-commerce. Since the Internet is an interstate (and international) service, it could easily be argued that Congress has a legitimate role in regulating taxes imposed on it's access.
Not that the federal government bothers with constitutional restrictions though- they act outside constitutional limits in most of what they do- leftist judges have interpreted the "interstate commerce clause" of the Constitution in such a way that grants the federal government almost absolute power over the states and thus rendering the 10th Amendment almost completely impotent. | |
|
| | Irritating Just hearing "broadband tax" irritates me. In no way is the state connected with many broadband connections, nor is the Internet in control of the government. Why should I pay Michigan a tax on my connection from Sprint? Sprint bought the rights to the frequencies, Sprint leases the T1 which is fed in to THEIR backbone, and Michigan has done NOTHING to help me (a few hundred feet from an RT) get broadband when I'm really not even that far from the city.
--
Charter 5M | Windows XP MCE SP2 | Mobile AMD Athlon 64 4000+ | 1.5GB RAM | ATI Mobile Radeon X600 128MB | 120GB HDD | |
| | | If they want to tax it Then they should build their own damn infastructure. Oh wait spending tax money to make tax money.  | |
| | | all or nothing ten states are allowed to charge taxes on internet access; including AT&T's home state of texas (texas exempts the first 25.00 monthly) -- they were states that charged some sort of tax on it before the "ban" originally went into effect and they were all grandfathered in.
so, you either allow all states to tax internet access (i would suggest no more than the regular retail sales tax rate); or you also deny those ten states from collecting taxes on internet access while establishing a true national ban on internet access taxes... not just a "4 out of 5 states ban". | |
| | | | Re: all or nothing I pay net access taxes here in WI. Have been since day1.
Nice.
 | |
|
| |
|
|
