M-13 - The End of the Internet as You Know it

[firebolt2000]

Okay, I did a search for this and it said no matches, so if there is a thread on this, mods, please feel free to close or move this.

I just recently heard that there might be postage on e-mail, meaning we pay a price for all the e-mails we send :td:. It is true that postal offices have been losing a lot of business since the amount of letters have been going down and the amount of e-mails have been going up.

Post your opinions on this, and please feel free to add any new news you hear of regarding this.

[Llopin]

Well, here's my two cents although I never heard of this. It's obvious that the normal pay postage is a lot less popular of what it was 20 years ago, for one simple reason: it's slow. Of course, it has always been the only means of sending files or documents of all sorts, but in these last 20 years there has been a clear revolution, the one concerning computers. Before, there was the telephone, but you couldn't transmit documents through it, so you still had to use the postage. However, it began with the fax. This device allowed to transmit documents instantly. Still, people sent postcards and letters as not everyone had that fax.

But when computers appeared, it all changed. Why send a letter through postage, if you can do it instantly and without paying? It makes no sense. However, people keep sending postcards, as they have a quality that can't be transmitted through the e-mail: postcards are a lot more personal. There are electronic cards, but they can't be compared with normal and classic postcards.

Anyhow, paying for sending an e-mail is stupid. You pay for the postage as you have to pay the transportation of the letter. But e-mail, being instant, why should be a paying service? Nobody works for it, there aren't persons who have to send it or transport it. Who should you be paying to, then? But there's one certain thing: postage will never disappear. It may be left aside, but it's always going to be around. Perhaps it's just me, but a hand-written letter seems more valuable and dedicated than a quick e-mail. Also, you can't send a package through e-mail. And I really doubt some day a method of tranporting packages instantly is invented. Teletransportation perhaps? Rather unlikely.

[Weatherby]

I can't beleive anyone would seriously consider taxing emails. The companies we use to send emails either charge us, use adverisements or both. Why should we pay extra?
That's silly.
Besides they earn money from online ordering.

[Nick]

Impossible. Absolutely impossible. Whoever came up with this bright idea clearly has no idea how the Internet works. I would like to know where you heard this rumour.

[Kassandra Amparo]

It's funny because a friend told me about this a few days ago and he later told me that it was just a joke,noone was stupid enough to charge you money for the emails you sent. Yeah,i believe those email companies are way too smart to invent such an idea.Those companies earn money through advertising and online ordering,if one of them decides to charge for the e-mail services,their customers will instantly leave them to use other companies' services, or even if all the email companies decide to charge money, internet users will still have other ways to keep in touch, like using instant messengers or PMs on some boards (:D)... Either way,it will result in more loss than revenue for those email companies.
I don't think we'll ever have to pay for email services, at least,not in the next 5 years.

[ViperGuy]

I've been hearing rumors about thiat for a long time. They'll never be able to regulate it, it's just impossible.

[Crystal]

I'm afraid it's an urban myth that has been around as long as email itself!
It first came to light in a hoax email and has periodically re-surfaced ever since!

[Auror Williamson]

www.snopes.com is a great source to find out if unbelievable things are true or not.

The text below is taken from Snopes.

"The U.S. Postal Service is going to impose a 5¢ surcharge on every e-mail message sent via the Internet.

Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 1999]


Dear Internet Subscriber:

Please read the following carefully if you intend to stay online and continue using email: The last few months have revealed an alarming trend in the Government of the United States attempting to quietly push through legislation that will affect your use of the Internet. Under proposed legislation the U.S. Postal Service will be attempting to bilk email users out of "alternate postage fees".

Bill 602P will permit the Federal Govt to charge a 5 cent surcharge on every email delivered, by billing Internet Service Providers at source. The consumer would then be billed in turn by the ISP. Washington D.C. lawyer Richard Stepp is working without pay to prevent this legislation from becoming law.

The U.S. Postal Service is claiming that lost revenue due to the proliferation of email is costing nearly $230,000,000 in revenue per year. You may have noticed their recent ad campaign "There is nothing like a letter". Since the average citizen received about 10 pieces of email per day in 1998, the cost to the typical individual would be an additional 50 cents per day, or over $180 dollars per year, above and beyond their regular Internet costs. Note that this would be money paid directly to the U.S. Postal Service for a service they do not even provide. The whole point of the Internet is democracy and non-interference. If the federal government is permitted to tamper with our liberties by adding a surcharge to email, who knows where it will end. You are already paying an exorbitant price for snail mail because of bureacratic efficiency. It currently takes up to 6 days for a letter to be delivered from New York to Buffalo. If the U.S. Postal Service is allowed to tinker with email, it will mark the end of the "free" Internet in the United States. One congressman, Tony Schnell (r) has even suggested a "twenty to forty dollar per month surcharge on all Internet service" above and beyond the government's proposed email charges. Note that most of the major newspapers have ignored the story, the only exception being the Washingtonian which called the idea of email surcharge "a useful concept who's time has come" (March 6th 1999 Editorial) Don't sit by and watch your freedoms erode away!

Send this email to all Americans on your list and tell your friends and relatives to write to their congressman and say "No!" to Bill 602P.

Kate Turner
Assistant to Richard Stepp
Berger, Stepp and Gorman
Attorneys at Law
216 Concorde Street,
Vienna, Va.


Origins: We
must begin by pointing out that three similar but distinctly different warnings are making the rounds:
Congress is going to impose a 5¢ surcharge on every piece of e-mail sent.

The Federal Communications Commission is going to impose a per-minute access fee on Internet connections (or allow phone companies to do so).

Congress is going to allow state sales taxes to be levied on goods purchased via the Internet.
This page addresses only the first of the items listed above, which is nothing more than a hoax. (Congress has never considered any such scheme.) The other two items have at least been considered, but no legislation has yet been proposed to implement either one of them. (We have a separate page to cover the rumor that ISP customers will be charged per-minute long distance fees for Internet access.)

The "5¢ e-mail surcharge" hoax presents us with a new economic villain in place of the FCC and phone companies: the United States Postal Service. Beset by falling revenues now that people are sending more and more e-mail (and consequently less and less real mail), the USPS is supposedly going to impose a 5¢ surcharge on every e-mail message to recoup the lost postage fees.

The Postal Service is one of those essential government services that's so easy to bash and ridicule. We pay little or no attention to them when they do their jobs; the only time we notice them is when they do something wrong, and then we grumble and gripe about how bumbling and inefficient they are. "They can't manage the simple task of delivering mail reliably and on time, and now they want to raise the postage fees again?" is the standard cry. So, it doesn't require much stretching of public opinion to portray the USPS as yet another self-serving government agency more concerned with preserving its existence than with serving its constituency. If the Postal Service can't get more money out of people for using its services, it's going to start charging people for not using its services. Everybody's gonna pay the USPS 5¢ per e-mail message for a service the USPS isn't providing.

The whole thing is bunk. There is no Congressman named Tony Schnell; no Bill 602P (Congressional bill designations begin with either H.R. or S., depending upon whether they're House or Senate bills); no law firm of Berger, Stepp and Gorman; no such address as 216 Concorde Street in Vienna, Virginia; and no editorial in The Washingtonian. This hoax actually began with a Canadian version that was later Americanized:

Please read the following carefully if you intend to stay online and continue using email:

The last few months have revealed an alarming trend in the Government of Canada attempting to quietly push through legislation that will affect your use of the Internet. Under proposed legislation Canada Post will be attempting to bilk email users out of "alternate postage fees".

Bill 602P will permit the Federal Govt to charge a 5 cent surcharge on every email delivered, by billing Internet Service Providers at source. The consumer would then be billed in turn by the ISP. Toronto lawyer Richard Stepp QC is working without pay to prevent this legislation from becoming law.

The Canada Post Corporation is claiming that lost revenue due to the proliferation of email is costing nearly $23,000,000 in revenue per year. You may have noticed Canada Post's recent ad campaign "There is nothing like a letter". Since the average citizen received about 10 pieces of email per day in 1998, the cost to the typical individual would be an additional 50 cents per day, or over $180 dollars per year, above and beyond their regular Internet costs. Note that this would be money paid directly to Canada Post for a service they do not even provide. The whole point of the Internet is democracy and non-interference. If the Canadian Government is permitted to tamper with our liberties by adding a surcharge to email, who knows where it will end. You are already paying an exhorbitant price for snail mail because of beaurocratic inefficiency. It currently takes up to 6 days for a letter to be delivered from Mississauga to Scarborough. If Canada Post Corporation is allowed to tinker with email, it will mark the end of the "free" Internet in Canada. One back-bencher, Liberal Tony Schnell (NB) has even suggested a "twenty to forty dollar per month surcharge on all Internet service" above and beyond the government's proposed email charges. Note that most of the major newspapers have ignored the story, the only exception being the Toronto Star that called the idea of email surcharge "a useful concept who's time has come" (March 6th 1999 Editorial) Don't sit by and watch your freedoms erode away! Send this email to all Canadians on your list and tell your friends and relatives to write to their MP and say "No!" to Bill 602P.

Kate Turner
Assistant to Richard Stepp QC
Berger, Stepp and Gorman
Barristers at Law
216 Bay Street
Toronto, ON
MlL 3C6
The same flaws appear in this version: There is no Canadian MP by the name of Tony Schnell; no Bill 602P currently before the Canadian parliament (parliamentary bills begin with either C. or S., depending upon whether they originated in the House of Commons or the Senate); no Richard Stepp QC; no law firm by the name of Berger, Stepp and Gorman; no such address as 216 Bay Street in Toronto; and no editorial in the Toronto Star.

This hoax continues to gain legitimacy because the media keep confusing it with the distinctly different issues listed at the top of this page. In May 2000, The Washington Post reported that bill H.R. 1291, introduced in the House by Rep. Fred Upton, would "block the idea" of Congress' imposing a surcharge on e-mail. The bill would (if passed) do no such thing — it would merely prevent the FCC from imposing per-minute access fees on Internet connections "for the support of universal service":
H.R. 1291

Internet Access Charge Prohibition Act of 1999 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from imposing on any interactive computer service or other information service provider any access charge for the support of universal service that is based on a measure of the time that telecommunications services are used in the provision of such interactive computer or information service.
There's nothing to this one at all, no matter how the newspapers may misreport it. The 1999 Human Development Report issued by the United Nations' Development Programme did suggest that a "bit tax" of one U.S. cent on every 100 e-mail messages sent worldwide could raise over $70 billion a year to fund the development of computer technology infrastructures in developing countries, but this was merely a pie-in-the-sky suggestion, not a concrete plan for member nations to adopt and implement.

Belief in the legitimacy of the "Bill 602P" hoax is so pervasive that a question about it was posed by WCBS newsperson Marcia Kramer during a 8 October 2000 debate between two candidates for a U.S. Senate seat from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Congressman Rick Lazio. Apparently none of the three realized that this bill is fictitious:

KRAMER: I'd like to ask you how you stand on Federal Bill 602P. I'm going to actually tell you what it is.

CLINTON: I have no idea. [Laughter]

KRAMER: I'm going to tell you what it is. Under the bill that's now before Congress, the U.S. Postal Service would be able to bill e-mail users five cents for each e-mail they send even though the post office provides no service. They want this to help recoup losses of about $230 million a year because of the proliferation of e-mails. But if you'll just send 10 e-mails a day, that would cost consumers an extra $180 a year. So I'm wondering if you would vote for this bill. And do you see the Internet as a source of revenue for the government in the years to come?

CLINTON: Well, based on your description, Marcia, I wouldn't vote for that bill. It sounds burdensome and not justifiable to me. I have been a supporter of the moratorium on taxation on the Internet. I think that we do have to let loose this extraordinary communication device and see how far it can go in connecting people up. And I'd like to monitor this closely and take a look at it in the time when the moratorium expires.

But is important that we do everything we can do build the infrastructure of New York to take advantage of the Internet. I have been all over this state to all 62 counties and I've been in countless schools, and some of them are the best in the world and the most highly wired and others are not. If we're going to take advantage of the new information economy, we have to be sure that all of our citizens and particularly our children are well prepared. That's why I have proposed high-tech infrastructure bonds as part of my economic plans that would enable us to provide low-cost Internet access and broadband access around the state. It's why I hope that we'll do a better job in providing the computers and Internet access to all of our children and all of our schools so that no child gets left behind. And it's why we need to close the digital divide throughout the state.

New York should be as Silicon Alley is: a beacon magnet throughout the state for the new economy. And I want to be partner with local officials, business, labor and others to make sure that happens. So I don't want anything to interfere with that kind of opportunity.

KRAMER: Mr. Lazio, your rebuttal.

LAZIO: I am absolutely opposed to this. This is an example of the government's greedy hand in trying to take money from taxpayers that, frankly, it has not right to. We need to keep the government's hands off the Internet. It has a capacity for creating more jobs, more high-paying jobs for New Yorkers than any other potential sector in the future. That's why I have voted for a moratorium on taxes on the Internet. That's why I have a hundred percent record on high-tech issues because I know that's important to New York.

I've been building partnerships with local businesses to create jobs for our young people. And I'll tell you, it's very, very important for us to keep our taxes low. And I distance myself, frankly, from Mrs. Clinton's 15 different support — 15 different tax increases . . .
In March 2001, an Australianized version of the hoax began circulating:

Please read the following carefully if you intend to stay online, and continue using E-mail. The last few months have revealed an alarming trend in the Government of the Australia attempting to quietly push through legislation that will affect our use of the Internet. Under proposed legislation, the Australian Postal Service will be attempting to bill E-mail users out of "alternative postage fees."

Bill 602P will permit the Federal Government to charge a 5-cent surcharge on every E-mail delivered, by billing Internet Service Providers at source. The consumer would then be billed in turn by the ISP. Canberra lawyer Richard Stepp is working without pay to prevent this legislation from becoming law. The Australian Postal Service is claiming lost revenue, due to the proliferation of E-mail, is costing nearly $230,000,000 in revenue per year.

You may have noticed their recent ad campaign: "There is nothing like a letter." Since the average person received about 10 pieces of E-mail per day in 1998, the cost of the typical individual would be an additional 50 cents a day or over $180 per year-above and beyond their regular Internet costs. Note that this would be money paid directly to the Australian Postal Service for a service they do not even provide. The whole point of the Internet is democracy and noninterference.

You are already paying an exorbitant price for ordinary mail because of bad efficiency. It currently takes up to 6 days for a letter to be delivered anywhere in Australia or longer If the Australian Postal Service is allowed to interfere with E-mail, it will mark the end of the "free" Internet in Australia

Our Canberra representative, Tony Schnell (r) has even suggested a "$20- $40 per month surcharge on all Internet service" above and beyond the governments proposed E-mail charges Note that most of the major newspapers have ignored the Story, the only exception being the Sun herald which called the idea of E-mail surcharge "a useful concept who's time has come" (March 6th, 1999 Editorial).

Do not sit by and watch your freedom erode away! Send this E-mail to EVERYONE on your list, and tell your friends and relatives write their Canberra or local polictian representative and say "NO" to Bill 602P. It will only take a few moments of your time and could very well be instrumental in killing a bill we do not want. Please forward this.
Does it really need to be said that there is no Australian Member of Parliament called Tony Schnell? Or that there is no public-minded Canberra lawyer Richard Stepp working without pay to defeat this fictitious bill? Or that no editorial calling the fake surcharge "a useful concept who's time has come" appeared in the Sun Herald on 6 March 1999 or on any other date?

In response to a number of protest letters over the surcharge, Communications Minister Richard Alston issued a statement on 29 March 2001: "There is no Bill 602P and the government will not introduce legislation to charge for e-mails." He said the federal government's information technology plan, launched in 1997, specifically ruled out a tax based on the amount of information transmitted on the Internet."

[vickygirl4]

This is the first time I have ever heard this rumor, but if people are even thinking about charging for e-mails, they're insane!!! Things like that make me so mad. If I have to pey for e-mail, I will never send another e-mail again! :banghead:

[hesdead-dealwithit]

There's no way they would ever do that - the gov't doesn't have that power. Only the email companies have that power, and if they did charge fees, no one would EVER sign up with them.

[haycheng]

First time I heard about it. However, how can they know you send email to start with? It is just so hard to actually charge people with the current internet system.

[Nick]

Lies lies lies. Anyone with a Telnet program and an Internet connection can send email, using whatever address and name that they like.

[cordeliablack13]

It's a completely dumb idea. How could they possibly charge someone on a public computer, like at a college or library, or even if more than 1 person uses a computer at home for email. There is no way it could ever work.

I also agree with the bit about a handwritten letter having much more value. I email some of my closest friends daily, but I write my best friend at least 6 letters a month. We prefer to write each other real letters and always have.

[rotsiepots]

My ISP charges me for sending emails. Sending email falls under the broad category of "uploading" information onto the internet, apparently.

Then again my ISP is evil.

[Kizz]

Lies lies lies. Anyone with a Telnet program and an Internet connection can send email, using whatever address and name that they like.
That's what's so good about those kinds of protocols, but what if accounts were setup server side? It is possible to implement - in the same way SMTP servers are supposed to be limited to who they accept mail from - that's why spam doesn't exist ;) *cough* The idea of charging people per email seems contradictory to having a fixed charge connection. In terms of internet traffic why on earth should we pay when a very large percentage is spam, most emails are also very small on the scale of things.

How could they possibly charge someone on a public computer, like at a college or library, or even if more than 1 person uses a computer at home for email. There is no way it could ever work.
When it comes to collecting money companies can be remarkably quick and effective.

[Doggy]

In sence, we already do pay a bit for emails since being on the internet costs money. On the other hand, that is a very small amount of money comparately. Like other people has said, there's no way of charging on the internet (that I know of).

Still, if people start charging, I'll go back to the ole normal regualy letters, because they do feel more personal than emails do.

[DRxD]

It would be pretty stupid.

And a lot of people send like a hundred emails a day (uh... right?) because of their job, imagine having to pay for that. Heh.

[Sarmi]

Here's my opinion.....

Oh, :censored: no! We're already paying too much on snail mail, I don't want to have to pay for sending an electronic transmission.

Sarmi

[Tyskater]

That would be horrible :no:

[PhoenixUK]

I've never heard of an idea to charge for email, but here is an argument that the EU (European Union) is considering, for fact.

It's called email postage. Anyone who uses email knows how much spam people get every day. But what most people don't know is that 90% of spam originates from just 20 people, who have companies that have computers connected to high speed connections, able to sent hundreds of emails every second. So, even if the amount of people replying is 0.001%, they still get a lot of money, as it costs them no extra.

What is being proposed is for each email to have to have a postage: a 3-4 second pause while is recieves some file information enabling it to be sent. While, for the average web user, the difference will be practically nothing, for super-spammers there will be a massive difference, as their sending capacity is cut to very low overnight. Hence, spam should be reduced a lot.

However, there were never any plans to charge for this, you only pay a few seconds of connection time, a price worth paying for a lot less spam, no?

[Tirwen Lupin]

Well, this is the first time that I've heard anything about this. I hope it's not true and it's only a rumour. :td::td:There are enough ways to make money on tne internet already, without making people pay money for keeping in touch in one of the easiest ways on earth! Even if they did start email postage, I doubt it'll be profitable, because most people would probably start using it less, or not at all. There would still be other way to keep in touch, as Kassandra said, like IMs and PMs on boards.

[LuvCreevey]

I don't think that it is a bad idea to add a surcharge to people who send insane amounts emails out, basically spammers. Why should they get free advertising? As for regular people sending ut email, I can't see how they could do that.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

However, there were never any plans to charge for this, you only pay a few seconds of connection time, a price worth paying for a lot less spam, no?
That's a great idea! People would still send spam, but there would be less of it. Complement that law with a no-email list and we could possibly stop spam once and for all! (or not - but it's fun to fantasize)

[opuskitty4ever]

:wow: I don't believe it! If we had to pay a charge for sending emails, I couldn't afford to keep up with it.

[Midnightsfire]

The End of the Internet as You Know it (http://oregonmag.com/InternetTax.htm)

The House has passed the Internet Tax Moratorium extension, and the responsible Senate committee has passed it to the floor, but Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Maria Cantwell of Washington and two other senators are blocking the vote.

If the Senate doesn’t immediately hold a vote, on midnight, November 1st, the moratorium will automatically expire and Katy bar the tax man’s door! Everything from email tax to multiple state sales taxes will be available to the big spenders. (If your message starts in Oregon and is routed through Texas on the way to Ohio, Texas will be able to tax it!) Some of these new taxes, like the server tax, won’t even require legislation because they fall under the regulatory control of the FCC, and possibly the ICC, as well.

Bureaucrats will be able to drop them right in your phone bill! Or your server bill!

If you just sit there and do nothing, it’s going to happen. Contact your federal senators no later than Thursday so a senate vote can take place on Friday, at the latest. Otherwise, on Saturday night the deed will be automatically done.

It will mean the end of the internet as you know it.

P.S. The reason why certain people want to tax the net is because the ability to tax is the ability to control. The net is, like talk radio, considered an unruly, dangrous place by American liberals. It's chock full of free speech, and they don't like that. The bill in question here is H.R. 49. (H.R.) stands for "House Resolution." The two senators whose names we didn't have at the time this piece was written are Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Alexander (R-Tenn).

As implausible as it seems, It may be a matter of time before they find a way... :rasp:

[BampotKaila]

They couldn't *really* charge you for email could they? :sigh: But, that would mean that email services like Hotmail or Yahoo wouldn't be free!! Gah! I'd have to use my Netzero email, which is slow and very annoying! :grumble:

[Auror Williamson]

I'm not completely sure it will be the downfall of the internet as we know it, but the thought of taxing every little thing we do is outrageous. It's kind of like taxing a lot of other things such as your income and having your family be forced to pay a death tax when you die.

And why exactly are these senators supporting an all-out taxation measure on the net?

[lanifiel]

The American Government cannot Tax the internet usage that goes on in my country. Nor any other country, also by ISP's changing their location but still catering to American users the Tax could be avoided. Still its a rather stupid thing to have happen, the internets idea was a free environment to exchange ideas and promote unification of peoples without borders. rather amusing that they want to try and control that really...

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Unfortunately I had a really bad civics teacher (Okay, I'll take the blame myself if you want ;)) so I don't understand how this thing would pass without a vote. But even so, I don't think any first term American president would ever dream of signing an bill opening the door to Internet taxes, because they'd be kicked out the door faster than you could say "No more free Hotmail." Or maybe that's just wishful thinking.

[Weatherby]

I'm sure they want to do this because they think it'll stop people from downloading or shopping online.
The local stores don't make as much money this way.
But then other people will lose money so it's possible they won't get very far with this.

[Midnightsfire]

I have this uncomfortable feeling that there will be an addition added to the charges listed on my phone bill in the not-so-distant future.

NGA Urges Congress to Extend Existing Internet Access Tax Moratorium (http://www.nga.org/nga/newsRoom/1,1169,C_PRESS_RELEASE^D_6038,00.html)

WASHINGTON - The National Governors Association (NGA) today called on Congress to extend the existing moratorium on Internet access taxes but cautioned lawmakers from broadening the ban to include telecommunications.
Legislation to expand the definition of Internet access and make the moratorium permanent was passed by the House in September and has been approved by the Senate Commerce Committee. The full Senate is expected to vote on the legislation before their anticipated adjournment in mid-November. The moratorium expires Nov. 1.

Governors support extending the existing moratorium on access taxes, which are applied to the fees consumers pay for connecting to the Internet. NGA's concerns are over language in the legislation (S. 150) that would expand the definition of Internet access and exempt a variety of telecommunications services that are currently taxed. Not only would the new language exempt certain telecommunications services but it also would expand the preemption beyond sales taxes to include some income, property and other business taxes on this industry.

As a result, states could lose between $4 billion and $9 billion in revenue by 2006, according to a study released last month by the Multistate Tax Commission.

Yesterday, Sens. Charles Grassley (R-IA), John Ensign (R-NV), John Sununu (R-NH), Gordon Smith (R-OR), and George Allen (R-VA) offered what they called a compromise to fix those concerns.

Unfortunately, the language to fix the definition of Internet access is nothing more than a slightly different way of stating what is already in S. 150, and therefore must be rejected, NGA said.

In an Oct. 22 NGA letter to Senate leadership, Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry and South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, chair and vice chair of NGA's economic development and commerce committee, said, "With little time to negotiate an appropriate definition of Internet access, we encourage you to support a simple, temporary extension of current law to allow Congress, industry, and state and local governments time to fashion a permanent moratorium that is thoughtful and fair."

In addition to NGA's letter, individual governors have been writing to Senators urging them to fix the legislation by clarifying that the moratorium applies only to access.

In a letter to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Ohio Gov. Bob Taft wrote, "I urge you to continue working with your Senate colleagues to narrow the preemption language to its original intent so as to affect Internet access only."

In writing to Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner said, "State and local governments have been working for several months with the Senate Commerce Committee and the Senate Finance Committee to craft a moratorium that is technology neutral without unduly burdening state and local governments by eroding their existing tax base. This is the optimum outcome."

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Indiana Gov. Joseph Kernan, Iowa Gov. Thomas Vilsack, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Missouri Gov. Bob Holden, North Carolina Gov. Michael Easley, Washington Gov. Gary Locke, West Virginia Gov. Bob Wise, and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle also have written letters to Senators.

State and local government groups including NGA wrote to House and Senate leaders Sept. 17 to voice their concerns with the legislation.

"Unfortunately, the new language is overly broad and may be interpreted to include traditionally taxable telecommunications. This ambiguity will only add to uncertainty for industry and consumers, encourage litigation, and unnecessarily expose state and local governments to unanticipated revenue losses they cannot afford," the letter said.

And there's more:

Excerpt:

Primer: The Internet Tax Debate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54954-2003Oct20.html)

The Internet Tax Moratorium: This law, first enacted in 1998 and extended in 2001, bars states and localities from placing any new taxes on Internet access -- such as dial-up, DSL or cable Internet service. It also prevents states from taxing electronic commerce in a "discriminatory" way, meaning that the sweater someone buys online can't carry any additional or different taxes than the sweater bought at the mall.
The moratorium expires next month, and Congress is considering legislation to make it permanent. The legislation as it's written could exclude other online services -- including music downloads and Internet phone calls -- from being taxed.

Internet Sales Taxes: E-commerce retailers are currently required to collect sales taxes if a buyer lives in a state that has a sales tax law and the business has some kind of presence (like a store, distribution center, sales office, etc.) in a buyer's state. For example, Wal-Mart.com -- based in Bentonville, Ark. -- would be required to collect a sales tax if the buyer lives in Little Rock.

[PrtVeela]

lol Katze :)
Of course we will, so what if the IRS will be after us, did u hear about the survey that stated that 12% of Americans feel its okay to cheat "a little" on taxes, and the IRS stated that they are going to crack down on low to moderate income family tax cheaters. >_<

Any way...I know I'll be writing my representaives because they listen to me...really they do my mom even said so. ;)


my sentiment: I don't like it, don't like it one bit.

[Rhoderick]

Thankfully, this legislation will only affect the Unites States of America.

I suggest trying to move to another country. Like Canada for intance! They even allow aquasition & use of pot!

Also, this is to be expected from the yanks. Another is that they do seem to want to crack down on free speech. Just imagine if they wanted a separate tax on porographic photos! I think they would!

[WeasleyIsOurKing]

I suggest trying to move to another country. Like Canada for intance! They even allow aquasition & use of pot!

Well, that is not necassarily a good thing. I don't think that making marijuana legal is a great idea, considering the vast amounts of people that will abuse it.

Watch out, or all the potheads from the US will move to Canada and corrupt that country too.

[hermy_weasley2]

I didn't read all replies, but I don't think the Bill will passed. Even if passes the Senate, President Bush can still veto it. If he wants to stay in office in 2004 he should probably start making popular decisions, and I'm willing to bet this Bill isn't very popular among the people. Some Senators and Representatives should be concerned about their jobs iif this is made into law as well. I could be wrong, and if it's already been passed let me know.I didn't read all the replies.I guess Congress could overturn the president's veto if they wanted to.

[triki1988]

It's like history repeating itself- when the Americas were being conquered and everyone wanted to tax everything.
How will you get billed? How can they even track your address?
(sorry if it was explained..too lazy to read today).

[hermy_weasley2]

It's like history repeating itself- when the Americas were being conquered and everyone wanted to tax everything.
How will you get billed? How can they even track your address?
(sorry if it was explained..too lazy to read today).

I thought it said they would include it in your phone or internet bill. Maybe we could have a cyber version of the Boston Tea Party. :D

[Cheetah]

That tax is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard, and I heard some pretty stupid things. What happened to the whole 'free speech' thing, or is it just to impress ones who don't live in US?

Move to another country, huh? Well, I'm in love with UK, at any rate. Maybe I will.

[Masterfroggy]

Free Speech will still be there, but only as long as you are willing to pay for it as for the UK we already pay tax on the internet, either on the Phone bill or on the cost of Broadband it's just no-one get told about it

Any one know why I am suddenly a second year :)

[hermy_weasley2]

That tax is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard, and I heard some pretty stupid things. What happened to the whole 'free speech' thing, or is it just to impress ones who don't live in US?

Move to another country, huh? Well, I'm in love with UK, at any rate. Maybe I will.

Free speech is still here whether our government likes it or not. I don't know if it's been in the news in the UK lately,but there have been a wave of communities suddenly deciding to remove displays involving the Ten Commandments from public places saying it intrudes upon freedom of religion, making it unconstitutional. I have my own opinions on that issue, but they're irrelevent(sp?). You see free speech is written in the constitution in the same ammendment as freedom of religion. In fact, it's the FIRST ammendment. The government must be blind if they can't see it. Once they are able to tax it, they will want to be able to control it. Like I said before, if this is made into law, along with everything else Washington has been doing lately, they all better be looking for new jobs.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Any one know why I am suddenly a second year :)
Because you have more than 100 posts. :)

About free speech, free speech does not mean that you don't have to pay something to speak. You still do, to publish a newspaper or whatever. Making you pay for internet access is not a violation of free speech.

[Masterfroggy]

Because you have more than 100 posts. :)

About free speech, free speech does not mean that you don't have to pay something to speak. You still do, to publish a newspaper or whatever. Making you pay for internet access is not a violation of free speech.

Thank you for telling me why I a second year, (don't know what I thought you had to do to become, but posting a lot was not one of them)

As for Freedom of speech, having just read your Constitution, and the Amendments that are relevent, and on several sites, just to negate any possable bias, and on no site does it say Free speech, all use the same words freedom, of speech.

Freedom
The condition of being free of restraints.
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
Political independence.
Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty

Free
Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.
Having political independence:

Now we have a popular problem that I have posted on several times, peoples understanding of words, Free does mean Costing nothing; gratuitous: but not as expressed in the First Amendment , it means simply that your bill of rights allow you to say, read, talk, think about, or believe, just about anything you want to, within the bounds of what is lawful at the time, but you have to pay what every the cost is, for the means by which you say read, talk, believe, so buy the news paper, give you money to MaBell, pay for the education that allows you to think, put you money in/on the plate/box/envelope, at you local church, chapel, mosque, synagogue, and by doing so, you are as you surely must, both paying for, and protecting your right to have freedom to speak, write, think, just about anything you want to.


First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

[Jinna]

I was hoping this was a joke, but apparently Snopes and decided that it's true. (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/internet.asp)



Snopes didn't say that it was true that the internet would be taxed. I says it was true that "A moratorium on Internet taxation will expire on 1 November 2003"

It also says this :
The claim that the Senate is considering a "tax on every item on the Internet, to include a tax on each e-mail sent out" is incorrect. The Senate is merely considering whether or not to extend the moratorium on Internet taxes created by the earlier Internet Tax Freedom Act and Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act; the Senate is not proposing any specific Internet-related taxes at this time. (If the Senate passes S. 150, as they are expected to do, then no such Internet taxes could be imposed at all.)

And Snopes is a pretty reliable source, in my experience.

[Midnightsfire]

Firebolt2000 started a similar thread earlier (I just now found it)

E-Mail postage (http://cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=18202) Deserves a look see.

[Weatherby]

Firebolt2000 started a similar thread earlier (I just now found it)

E-Mail postage (http://cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=18202) Deserves a look see.

I've merged the two. :D

Everyone is correct that making us pay a tax isn't exactly a violation of freedom of speech.
It would be more like print and broadcast that getting your opinions heard is more limited to the wealthy. It would be a pain to pay taxes on everything but it's not a violation of our rights.

[Bhodi]

Snopes didn't say that it was true that the internet would be taxed. I says it was true that "A moratorium on Internet taxation will expire on 1 November 2003"

It also says this :
The claim that the Senate is considering a "tax on every item on the Internet, to include a tax on each e-mail sent out" is incorrect. The Senate is merely considering whether or not to extend the moratorium on Internet taxes created by the earlier Internet Tax Freedom Act and Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act; the Senate is not proposing any specific Internet-related taxes at this time. (If the Senate passes S. 150, as they are expected to do, then no such Internet taxes could be imposed at all.)

And Snopes is a pretty reliable source, in my experience.


I'm not well read on this subject, but I was under the impression that the main potential tax threat was from state and local governments, not the feds... Perhaps I need to read up a bit more on it, though...

[Midnightsfire]

Had the same impression...

Governors support extending the existing moratorium on access taxes, which are applied to the fees consumers pay for connecting to the Internet. NGA's concerns are over language in the legislation (S. 150) that would expand the definition of Internet access and exempt a variety of telecommunications services that are currently taxed. Not only would the new language exempt certain telecommunications services but it also would expand the preemption beyond sales taxes to include some income, property and other business taxes on this industry.
Sens. Charles Grassley (R-IA), John Ensign (R-NV), John Sununu (R-NH), Gordon Smith (R-OR), and George Allen (R-VA) offered what they called a compromise to fix those concerns.

Unfortunately, the language to fix the definition of Internet access is nothing more than a slightly different way of stating what is already in S. 150, and therefore must be rejected, NGA said.

In an Oct. 22 NGA letter to Senate leadership, Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry and South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, chair and vice chair of NGA's economic development and commerce committee, said, "With little time to negotiate an appropriate definition of Internet access, we encourage you to support a simple, temporary extension of current law to allow Congress, industry, and state and local governments time to fashion a permanent moratorium that is thoughtful and fair."

In addition to NGA's letter, individual governors have been writing to Senators urging them to fix the legislation by clarifying that the moratorium applies only to access.

In a letter to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Ohio Gov. Bob Taft wrote, "I urge you to continue working with your Senate colleagues to narrow the preemption language to its original intent so as to affect Internet access only."

In writing to Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner said, "State and local governments have been working for several months with the Senate Commerce Committee and the Senate Finance Committee to craft a moratorium that is technology neutral without unduly burdening state and local governments by eroding their existing tax base. This is the optimum outcome."

[Midnightsfire]

A couple of scary updates:

Why We Don't Really Want Internet Security (http://slate.msn.com/id/2094336/)

A Visit From the FBI (http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/215)

[DsX Phoenix]

Unfortunately I had a really bad civics teacher (Okay, I'll take the blame myself if you want ;)) so I don't understand how this thing would pass without a vote. But even so, I don't think any first term American president would ever dream of signing an bill opening the door to Internet taxes, because they'd be kicked out the door faster than you could say "No more free Hotmail." Or maybe that's just wishful thinking.

What MNF is talking about is two senators blocking the vote to extend the internet moratorium. This is legislation already in place which gave the internet a certain amount of time in which the government would not tax it at all. This time period is running out, so unless Congress passes legislation extending this period, the moratorium will expire, meaning internet sales and such can be taxed.

And Auror, I doubt these senators are truly wanting to tax everything on the internet, but since the internet really took shape, I am sure several politicians have been dreaming about different taxes that they could charge on internet usage, or shopping...it would be a new revenue for the government, and it would give them control over the internet, in a sense. So, they may want to tax certain things on the internet (or the use of the internet), but not all things. However, for any taxes to be levied, the moratorium has to be lifted, first.

[Bhodi]

Here's the newest idea from Bill Gates on how to control spam... Email stamps! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&ncid=528&e=5&u=/ap/20040305/ap_on_hi_te/paying_for_e_mail_3)

I'm curious... What do folks here think about this concept? Would you be willing to pay for email (say, a penny per message)? Is spam really that big of a deal? (I suppose when you're a multi-billionaire, living without a care in the world, little, insignificant pet peeves [like spam] become the proverbial bur under your saddle... Or maybe he's just trying to figure out another way to add to his mountains of cash...)

[Drker2000]

Well, here's an idea that I think will work for everyone:

Payment required, if a number of KBs of E-mails is reached.

Let's say, you send at least 200KB in emails every week, then you must pay one dollar to some sort of third party company (charging a bit of interest, of course) for all outgoing E-mails answering to your IP addres and they distribute the correct funds to the correct E-mail provider(s).

But if you send less than 200KBs you don't have to pay at all.

If there is an automatic response (I.E. Subscriptions to threads and junk) than it counts toward your E-mail price. So, you would be careful which places you have subscriptions and junk in.

It also helps with security, because people can't send masses of emails with big viruses that require 40 KB. You would have to pay a lot of money, and most people would delete them.

So, what do you think?

[Tane]

Well if you already pay for access onto the Internet then are you not already paying your ISP for the use of E-Mailing anyway? Why should you pay for it twice over?

[Midnightsfire]

I have a better idea...

I get spam, they pay me!

[Drker2000]

Well if you already pay for access onto the Internet then are you not already paying your ISP for the use of E-Mailing anyway? Why should you pay for it twice over?

Good point Tane. I'm used to having Cable internet access. In that case, they could have preplans for E-mail, just like you have minutes on a cellphone. But, really, it's not paying them much. My idea is just trying to get rid of Spam while trying to make the average person better at sending efficient E-mails, not to mention slowing down virus traffic.

[Tane]

Good point Tane. I'm used to having Cable internet access. In that case, they could have preplans for E-mail, just like you have minutes on a cellphone. But, really, it's not paying them much. My idea is just trying to get rid of Spam while trying to make the average person better at sending efficient E-mails, not to mention slowing down virus traffic.

Yes but really I already am paying and I still get spam and viruses so where is all the money going other than in the pockets of big corporate firms. They do the minimal amount to correct such problems and yet charge quite a bit for their usage. I mean I would pay them if they got the system working to my full advantage but they do not and therefore I get a substandard service for my money.

[HollywoodBob]

The problem with paying to send emails is how does anyone regulate collection of e-postage? It's easy to make people by stamps and to make ISPs charge for email use. But my ISP doesn't give me email, I host my own domain and email service. So without giving the governments of the world a list of my friends that I host email for, there's no way for them to collect postage from my "customers", should I have to pay for any emails they send, even to each other, and then try to collect from them?

Postage for email is just stupid. I send hundreds of emails to my friends every day, e-postage would break me.

There's got to be a better solution to the spam problem. Frankly I don't think punishment for spammers or paying for each email will solve anything. The only way to stop it is to fine ISPs that don't protect their customers from spam. Make it the email providers job to prevent you from getting spam. I run 2 spam blockers and a virus scanner; my spam amounts have gone from 400 a day into my personal mail box, to under a dozen. Spam blockers aren't perfect but they're far better then nothing.

Gates' vision for the future of e-postage. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/03/05/spam.charge.ap/index.html) I like this idea, it creates a verification process for email, but I'm sure it will have flaws and work arounds that spammers will be able to exploit.

-HollywoodBob

[Nick]

Once again, I fail to see how this can prevent me from sending emails through a telnet session direct to an SMTP server ..

[Masterfroggy]

Once again, I fail to see how this can prevent me from sending emails through a telnet session direct to an SMTP server ..

It won't stop you, not will it stop anyone from dialling direct into an old fashioned BBS service and having them shunt mail the old fashioned way we used to do it, before the WWW and Internet started, with enough local BBS’s across the world it would keep the call cost would be kept to a minimum (or free) and taxed and over taxed e-mail systems will be avoided, but we all know that 99% of Internet sloth’s will not do either, because they are unskilled, lazy, or both.

The tax man will start with a penny per hundred and we will moan and b i t c h, before long it will vanish from our minds and with in a few years it will be a penny a dozen then a penny each and so on, by the time we notice how expensive it is, all the old methods will be dead and so much traffic will rely on the net it will be almost impossible to change back.

The new way forward will of course cost more for a (so say) better service, it happened in Britain when the then government of the time changed road fund tax on motorcars to a nominal tax on petrol (gas) now the tax on petrol is 65 time the cost of the petrol (plus profit for all concerned) and road tax is no longer a pittance but £180 per year.