« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Tech at Night: Jim DeMint does good, Texas races California to the bottom, FCC, AT&T, Copyright

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  May 14th, 2011 at 04:11 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Tech at Night

House pressure on the FCC continues, with Friday’s hearings on FCC process reform, including testimony from all four active FCC Commissioners (Republican Commissioner Meredith Baker has quit the FCC). I associate myself with the remarks of Seton Motley on the preferred outcome of FCC Process Reform: “FCC ‘Process Reform’ Should Be About Reducing FCC Power. Oh, and making them obey the law.”

Meanwhile, as much as we talk about what’s wrong with the FCC and other issues, it’s good when I get to report on people getting ready to fight back. Jim DeMint is questioning the plans for the new National Emergency Alert System, while Verizon’s fighting back on the ridiculous FCC price controls on data roaming designed to help Sprint compete without actually investing in a better network.

Rumors say AT&T is finally ready for a limited 4G LTE launch, but don’t let that fool you. They need spectrum in order to compete with Verizon in the long run. We all need more spectrum allocated to wireless Internet to meet growing need. AT&T’s spectrum per subscriber is lower than Sprint/Clearwire, MetroPCS, Leap, T-Mobile, and Verizon. If we don’t want mergers to be the only way for providers to get what they need, then let’s pass some good reform. Until then, government needs to get out of the way of a market solution to the mess it created.

Unfortunately the FCC isn’t the only source of problems online. Last year’s Internet power grab billl, COICA, is back with a misleading new name: PROTECT IP. However the real function of the bill by Senators Patrick Leahy, Chuck Grassley, and Orrin Hatch (all so well known for their love of property rights and liberty, eh?) want to impose a level of control of the Internet previously seen only in totalitarian states like the People’s Republic of China. Imagine a national blacklist of banned websites. That’s the future they want to bring us. This bill cannot stand.

Oh yes, and here’s another bit of censorship to chew on: DOJ is blaming Google because some of its customers, ad purchasers, are selling illegal products. I’m no fan of Google but I question the legitimacy of such a government act.

Moving on from the creeping shadow of government on our liberties online, I’ve run into some shocking news. Truly surprising. We all know of California’s problems, with legislative Democrats and Governor Jerry Brown only arguing about which taxes to raise and by how much, including a possible unconstitutional Internet Tax designed to punish Amazon for its success. eBay is looking to fight that idea, which is welcome news. But look at this: The Texas Senate has arguably jumped ahead of California in this race to tax the Internet. Yes, that’s right: Texas is the new cookie monster racing to gobble up our money faster and faster. Get it together, guys.

Note to Facebook: If you’re going to smear Google, don’t leave a paper trail. I have no doubt that, say, Microsoft has been key in pushing the blame-the-victim stories against Sony over the PSN attack and outage, but I also have no doubt they’re better at giving themselves deniability.

Closing with another security tip: Never run software you don’t trust. Even if you’re on a Mac. In particular I suggest that any software that doesn’t have source code available, is suspect.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • curtmilr

    As a small businessman in Texas, I am fully supportive of instituting sales taxes on all internet & mail order sales. Why should those sellers have an advantage over me when selling the same product?
    I’m not saying that I’m afraid to fight for the sale and make a discount to offset the “savings” to the consumer (BTW, technically in Texas the tax is due anyway as a Use Tax), I do so all the time. But why should my margins be beggared to feather the nest of an out of state seller or in-state tax evader?
    At the same time the lost tax receipts cause additional burdens for the State to raise revenue elsewhere. So even if I make the added discount to secure the sale, here comes the State again to tap me for the lost revenue from another direction. We have a relatively frugal State already. It doesn’t need to subsidize out of state sellers.
    The argument that it is a burden to collect sales taxes from many different tax districts is foolishness in this day of digital automation. An address sensitive database could be created to solve the problem seamlessly for any online seller.
    Nobody wants to pay more for something, of course, even me! But the playing field should be level for all players, not tilted to favor those out of state,

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    So we’ll file you under the “Doesn’t care about the constitution pile.” Say hi to Moonbeam and BHO while you’re there.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Get your own business online, and gain sells world wide. If you promote it right and have good stuff at good prices the you too can get in on the tax free gravy train!

  • curtmilr

    Neil,
    Guaranteed not the case!
    Every person buying online from out of state sellers and failing to report the purchase and paying the Use Tax is a criminal tax evader. Usually only a misdemeanor, but on big ticket items, it could escalate.This makes the online seller a tacit accessory to that crime. If you are either of those type people, and support the present circumstances, it is YOU who are perverting law and justice, not to mention the Constitution!
    I’ve never heard it argued as a Contitutional issue, BTW, as there is no restraint of or artificial barriers to trade. It is a simple case of levelling the playing field.

  • curtmilr

    Kyle,
    Not particularly interested in that model, certainly not internationally, as we deal in higher value goods. We have two websites already and a third under construction. Again, the issue is not a fear of competition, it is a desire for fair competition.
    As an example, on a $1000 item, the Texas sales tax would be $82.50. Now, I can offer that discount, and do.
    Now let’s say that the out of state seller is pricing based on a cost + 10% profit margin basis with free shipping. This is a quite normal procedure online, because many sellers work from their homes. That translates to a $900 cost + $10 shipping cost for a $90 profit margin. When you subtract the $82.50 sales tax discount, how is it possible to succeed in a business with normal overheads on $7.50 gross profit on a $1000 sale? A guy in a store can’t! A guy in his PJs can make it on that $90. The playing field isn’t level.
    Now we offer other services as incentives that no online seller readily can, not to mention personal interface, but they aren’t monetary. And not every product is a cost plus pricing model. This was just a real example to demonstrate the point.

  • GregInFla

    you gain business and benefit the same way that your out-of-state competitor does. Now unless you sell items mostly only desirable by Texans, like boots or hats, then you can compete under the same rules.

    The state of Florida is not performing any services that are not already taxed (cable, internet taxes, phone taxes) to enable the purchase of mine from your store in TX, so why are they entitled (yes, that’s the right word) to money from me?

  • acat

    The fact is that the internet is a disruptive technology, akin to the automobile and the printing press.

    The printing press put thousands of monks who earned their livelihoods by hand-copying documents out of business.

    The automobile put tens of thousands of horse breeders, buggy makers, and buggy whip manufacturers out of business.

    The internet, within its’ first ten years, has all but killed off the local travel agent.

    Evolve or perish, sir. It is the nature of the world we live in.

    Mew

  • curtmilr

    Greg,
    Sales taxes don’t relate to specific services tied to sales, but to sales in general. By avoiding/evading the sales taxes you are diminishing the normal revenue stream to the state, requiring them to shift the tax burden onto other areas. Again, we have a relatively frugal state that is trying to capture a regular tax on sales that is due NOW, just unreported and uncollected. It is called the Sales and Use Tax. Use Taxes are uniformly unreported by individuals because there is no way to audit shipments in bound.
    The goal is not to eliminate taxation, but to make the coverage uniform, and assure that the playing field is level.
    I’d be happy if 80% of taxes and government “services”, and the bureaucrats that provide them, went away, but realistically that won’t be happening soon.

  • curtmilr

    Hi, acat!
    Playing fields are always supposed to be level!
    This doesn’t mean they are, of course, but when we see a gaping hole, it can be mended.
    I buy books from Amazon, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t if they collected sales tax. In fact, it doesn’t factor into my buying decision. Sales tax is generally assumed on non-food or medical purchases. Why should it be otherwise? I thought the physical presence criteria was weak to begin with, and should have never been allowed. Sales are sales are sales!
    As I said earlier, we have 2 websites with a 3rd on the way. I’m not averse to adopting new technologies and trying my own hand at “disruption”. Quite the contrary, I tend to be an early adopter of technologies.
    Speaking of which, I have some CAD work that needs to be tended to! TTFN!