Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet The Almighty Buck Technology

ISPs Ask FCC For Tax On Big Tech To Fund Broadband Networks and Discounts (arstechnica.com) 47

Posted by BeauHD from the would-you-look-at-that dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Internet service providers are again urging the Federal Communications Commission to impose new fees on Big Tech firms and use the money to subsidize broadband network deployment and affordability programs. If approved, the request would force Big Tech firms to pay into the FCC's Universal Service Fund (USF), which in turn distributes money to broadband providers. The request was made on June 6 by USTelecom, a lobby group for AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink/Lumen, and smaller telcos. USTelecom has made similar arguments before, but its latest request to the FCC argues that the recent death of a broadband discount program should spur the FCC to start extracting money from Big Tech.

"Through focusing on the Big Tech companies who benefit most from broadband connectivity, the Commission will fairly allocate the burden of sustaining USF," USTelecom wrote in the FCC filing last week. The USF spends about $8 billion a year. Phone companies must pay a percentage of their revenue into the fund, and telcos generally pass those fees on to consumers with a "Universal Service" line item on telephone bills. The money is directed back to the telco industry with programs like the Connect America Fund and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, which subsidize network construction in unserved and underserved areas. The USF also funds Lifeline program discounts for people with low incomes.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel hasn't stated any intention to expand USF contributions to Big Tech. Separately, she rejected calls to impose Universal Service fees on broadband, leaving phone service as the only source of USF revenue. The USTelecom filing came in response to the FCC asking for input on its latest analysis of competition in the communications marketplace. USTelecom says the USF is relevant to the proceeding because "the Universal Service Fund is critical for maintaining a competitive marketplace and an expanded contributions base is necessary to sustain the fund." No changes to the USF would be made in this proceeding, though USTelecom's comments could be addressed in the FCC's final report.

ISPs Ask FCC For Tax On Big Tech To Fund Broadband Networks and Discounts More | Reply

ISPs Ask FCC For Tax On Big Tech To Fund Broadband Networks and Discounts

Comments Filter:

  • Just what is an ISP Business Plan? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Monday June 10, 2024 @03:22PM (#64538797)

    ISPs have a business plan, it involves charging customers for service. ISPs should look to the very customers that are asking to connect to "big tech" and then charge them accordingly. This is really straight forward, unless you've lost your mind because you have an artificial monopoly.

    • It's also worth remembering that for all-big-tech not named "Google", they are *also* customers of those same ISPs - paying for connection. Even then, Google probably still pays for some internet service in many places - Google Fiber isn't ubiquitous.

      • Re: Just what is an ISP Business Plan? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by LordofWinterfell ( 90845 ) on Monday June 10, 2024 @03:46PM (#64538905)

        Google, AWS, Microsoft all pay telcos 10a if not hundreds of millions for leasing connectivity and dark fiber.

        This is a joke. I canâ(TM)t even come up with a workable analogy. This is the private developer charging tolls and taxes to use a private road, and then saying that your grocery should pay them more to build more private toll roads since they get more grocery customers.

        They arenâ(TM)t a government entity, they canâ(TM)t tax 3rd parties.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Tailhook ( 98486 )

        It's also worth remembering that for all-big-tech not named "Google", they are *also* customers of those same ISPs

        Raise the price to big tech then. Why should the tax system be involved in that?

        Solving this problem with some screwy new tax scheme just invites corruption.

        The ISPs have been and continue to try to do anything other than simply compete in the market, and price their product accordingly. First they wanted to tier the Internet with "fast lanes" and other bullshit. That mostly got rejected by regulators, except in wireless. Now they're trying to get a bite of the big tech pie with this crazy income re

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by mysidia ( 191772 )

          It should Not... and the FCC's Role is not to pass additional taxes.

          That is up to Congress, and the authorizing law is 47 U.S.C. 254(d) which identifies Telecom providers specifically. NOT big tech. Telecom providers.

          telecommunications service

          The term “telecommunications service” means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.

          47 U.S.C. 254:(d)Tele

    • But... that's the service they're paying for already. Like if I buy a cake at a bakery, my friends that eat the cake with me don't pay the bakery, I already bought the cake.

      • Need to ask the companies increasing electricity use the most (data centers) to pay to upgrade the electrical grid.

    • The big ISPs' business plan involves collecting taxpayer money and then giving it away as stock dividends and executive bonuses.

      We paid the telcos hundreds of billions of dollars to build out the last mile and bring high speed internet access to every single subscriber. Instead they are currently working to shut down POTS so that they don't have to serve rural communities with ANY kind of service.

      The telcos are malicious actors and if there were any justice they would all be nationalized.

  • Of Course They Are (Score:3)

    by rsmith-mac ( 639075 ) on Monday June 10, 2024 @03:26PM (#64538827)

    But of course they are. Who doesn't like free money?

    • Re:Of Course They Are (Score:5, Interesting)

      by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Monday June 10, 2024 @03:36PM (#64538863)

      You're right. ISPs can charge for transport. That's allowed and necessary. If they want to make revenue on other parts of the stack, then build other parts of the stack.

      Verizon tried this with lots of FAILED purchases. They own significant parts of the transport layer. They can charge for that, subject to the market. The market has many competitors.

      Competition is good, and not what monopolies like to face. Instead, they charge lots of hidden fees, some of them not quite legal, and no longer face state-level regulatory authority for the very largest part. Now, in their back yards, many competitors are gnawing at them. No one cries any tears, save their stockholders.

      So long as there is sufficient revenue to do reasonable profits for network reliability (and security), then they can pound sand.

    • ISPs: Hey, FCC, can you lobby for a tax on big tech to pay for broadband rollouts?
      FCC: Sure we can. Just know that for every dollar we give you from those taxes, we'll own 1.5 dollars of anything you spend it on, since the state paid for it, the state will own it. We add a premium to cover the cost of collecting the taxes, administering the stuff we own, etc.
      ISPs: ....

      If you're not blinded by "government ownership == communism" type bullshit, the solutions are easy.

  • I pay my ISP for connection (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Monday June 10, 2024 @03:32PM (#64538841)
    So I can access products of the Big Tech companies. That is how it is supposed to work.

  • We already gave them money for that (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    We already gave them money for that and they squandered it.

  • If telcos complain that people subscribing to software makes them want and use more bandwidth (and therefore software companies should pay a surcharge), telcos use software to run their services, and thanks to Netflix everyone is upgrading.

    Seems that they should get a piece of telco subscription feesâ¦

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Xenx ( 2211586 )

      If telcos complain that people subscribing to software makes them want and use more bandwidth

      ISPs want you to need their service, but they don't want you using more of the service than they can easily provide. It costs them money to improve their infrastructure to handle increased usage.

  • I remember years ago (Score:5, Informative)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday June 10, 2024 @03:57PM (#64538935)
    seeing an SEC statement from COX or Comcast (I forget which) where they pointed out the entire cost for providing service (including maintenance, support, etc) was $10/mo per user. At the time I was paying $100/mo for an unlimited line, I'm now paying $120.

    They don't need subsidies, they need anti-trust law enforcement. They need cops to show up.

    We call the cops that police corporations "bureaucrats" and then we're trained to hate "bureaucrats". That is not a coincidence.

    • Something to keep in mind about this? The telcos are trying to find ways to make up all the funding that has been whispered may be drying up. No more free-for-all blank checks from the government to build out infrastructure. Though I doubt those will go away, they're talking about stopping them because it's election season. And it does appear there's a crackdown on junk fees and hidden add-ons sweeping through. That's a *LOT* of money they'll have to find a way to make up somehow. I was under the impression

    • ...and then we're trained to hate "bureaucrats".

      Nobody is actually trained to hate bureaucrats, that comes naturally from seeing them in action or, more typically, inaction.

      • You're simultaneously complaining about them doing nothing and then complaining about them doing their jobs. You don't actually care one way or the other You're just reacting with the hate that's been programmed into you. As an added bonus you're doing that thing where people argue pointlessly on the internet for the sake of argument.

        This is why the internet isn't it effective communication tool. There's too much professionally produced propaganda and two little critical thinking to cut through it

        • You're simultaneously complaining about them doing nothing and then complaining about them doing their jobs.

          I never said that they did their jobs, only that they acted (or not) and yes, when someone is incompetent you absolutely can complain about both their action and inaction since they choose not to act when they should and when they do act they act badly.

          Bureaucrats are like system administrators: if you have good ones you hardly ever notice them because they deal with problems appropriately when they arise so you are never aware of the problem or that someone fixed it. Thus the almost all the bureaucrats

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Hodr ( 219920 )

        That is called conditioning....which is a type of training.

  • If they are going to charge others for the services I'm accessing will they lower my bill?

    What are they providing? If you can't provide the service with what you are charging then increase your fees.

    Is this what the US has become? Corporate welfare.

  • If the logic was that those companies selling much of something that requires certain infrastructure, built and sold separately to people - like the electricity grid - should "fund" the sellers of such infrastructure, then clearly electric appliance vendors should be asked to fund the electric grid. But this is obviously nonsense, there is no reason to entangle those businesses, and there is only downsides to having an infrastructure subsidized by a few big companies, which then will start to discriminate a
    • Indeed. Whatever happened to all that federal money, not to mention the Universal Service fund for 'broadband infrastructure for rural areas?'

  • If the cost to the ISP of providing service to the customers has gone up because they are all streaming Netflix or making Zoom calls or watching YouTube or whatever it might be, just make the customer pay more to cover those costs instead of trying to force the tech companies to pay.

    • It hasn't. If anything, it has gotten cheaper as technology has improved. They want a handout. They also lobby against cities building their own fiber networks. If Google hadn't forced the ISP to increase speeds, we would still have DSL speeds.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by quall ( 1441799 )

      They are. Why do you think they boast record profits every single year?

      They don't need subsidies. They just want them. I mean when they can have the government subsidize internet costs even for people making $100k+ a year, then why wouldn't they raise prices? It's literally free money to them paid for by taxes.

  • Whatever comes of this, don't give them ANY money before they roll out the expansion(s) and can prove that it is up and running at least to the minimum federal broadband specifications across ALL of the expansion area.. Make them take the chance that they won't get it as well. That may slow down build out, but it will stop the taking and pocketing.

    If they want to fund something like the recent Broadband access discount plans (My terminology) then that would be reasonable. They would still need proof that

  • That most offensive proposal by that industry I've seen. Ever.

    • Even more offensive that those pharma companies that bought out smaller ones simply so they could massively increase the price of life-saving medications? I mean I agree this is offensive but the depravity of some companies is oh so much worse.

      • It's not a contest. Leveraging government for your own craven desires is the worst offense, your claim of doing good you use to shield you from criticism when, in fact, you do evil. Don't ask me about my meds, they are priced for maximum profit, and the current administration conveniently overlooked those particular inhalers when they took credit for limiting the costs to 'help'. When you figure out that medicine and food are the same thing you realize government is never a good thing. Make it less evil. An

  • This should be a sting operation. Any ISP that inquires about or backs such a proposal should be taken over by the government, carved up, and handed over to local municipalities to control.

  • I have an idea. (Score:3)

    by snowshovelboy ( 242280 ) on Monday June 10, 2024 @05:20PM (#64539163)

    How about these telcos build out the networks they already promised to build with the subsidies we already gave them. Over and over they ask for handouts, we give them, and they fail to deploy as promised.

  • The FCC has just as much authority to impose fees on information services as they do cans of pringles.

  • Whatever the extra fee or tax is, send the ISPs a bill covering it for all the electricity their customers are using in the tech company's data centers.

  • Do they not make profits? Every other business usually has to go out make profits and use that to build their business, either that or you can go out and get a loan or a bond to grow your business and get capital for growth. Apparently ISP's haven't figured this out yet, they keep pushing that neutrality taxes yada yada whatever it is they need they want money from everyone else. Then you to learn how to grow like most every other business does and quit whining
  • I say ISPs should pay to access the data to provide access to the consumers of internet to access the data! If there is no reason to use the internet, then why would anyone pay to access the internet. This is not a serious proposal but as laughably ludicrous as broadbands demanding money from the companies that make products and services that make people want more broadband from these jackasses. There are municipal broadband providers in the United States, much less around the globe, that make a profit and
  • Ever look at a phone bill? See that entry that refers to a "Line Tax"? That's a remnant of the Ma Bell days when the federal and/or state governments would charge a tax per phone line and (supposedly) use that money to help expand telephone service into areas that didn't have it. Anyone notice that they haven't taken it away? Yeah... so how about using that tax as a general fund for that.

  • These ISPs have been getting windfall funds for COVID and Rural Broadband and everything else and haven't delivered.

    Their entire business model seems predicated on government grants and they play the game extremely well.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't get suckered in by the comments -- they can be terribly misleading. Debug only code. -- Dave Storer

Close