Regulating the Internet threatens entrepreneurial freedom

[bonnie]

From the Washington Post, Opinions Section

 

Ted Cruz: Regulating the Internet Threatens Entrepreneurial Freedom  

r




By Ted Cruz, November 13
Ted Cruz, a Republican, represents Texas in the Senate.


Never before has it been so easy to turn an idea into a business. With a simple Internet connection, some ingenuity and a lot of hard work, anyone today can create a new service or app or start selling products nationwide.
In the past, such a person would have to know the right people and raise substantial start-up capital to get a brick-and-mortar store running. Not anymore. The Internet is the great equalizer when it comes to jobs and opportunity. We should make a commitment, right now, to keep it that way.
The next generation of Internet-connected devices, apps and services will generate trillions of dollars of global economic growth in the years ahead. And Americans are perfectly poised to take maximum advantage — if the government doesn’t take those opportunities away in the form of crushing taxes, rules and regulations.
Yet the threats from Washington to stifle freedom, entrepreneurship and creativity online have never been greater. Washington politicians want the money, and they want more and more control over our speech.
 
Four basic principles should guide policymakers, in a bipartisan manner, to preserve America’s leadership role in developing the future of the Internet.
First, we must abandon the idea of further taxing Internet access and sales. At this very moment, online retailers face an enormous threat because Washington may pass a massive, new Internet sales tax during the next two months, in the lame-duck session of Congress. As the hashtag puts it,#NoNetTax.
Such a tax would force online retailers to comply with every sales tax jurisdiction in the country. There are more than 9,600 state and local sales tax jurisdictions across the nation. Forcing small online retailers to track all of them, keep records and collect the taxes, or risk being penalized for noncompliance by distant governments over whom they have no control is simply not fair.
But lobbyists in Washington love the Internet sales tax, because it benefits big business at the expense of the mom-and-pop online retailers — many of whom are women, minorities or young people struggling to achieve the American dream.
It would be a crying shame if the first thing Republicans do after winning a historic election is return to Washington and pass an unprecedented, massive new tax requirement — up to $340 billion over 10 years — on Internet sales nationwide.
Instead, the new Republican Congress, when it is sworn in, should demonstrate its commitment to a free, thriving Internet by making permanent the ban, originally signed into law by President Bill Clinton, on imposing any additional taxes on Internet access.
Second, we should dismiss all plans to give nations hostile to human rights and democracy more influence over Internet policy.
 
This year, the Obama administration took steps to end its contract with ICANN, a California nonprofit organization that manages basic Internet functions, including the creation of Web addresses and domain names. Once this contract expires, ICANN will be governed by a global, multi-stakeholder community that could grant nations such as Iran, Russia and China more authority over the rules and regulations that govern the Internet.
The likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Chinese President Xi Jinping should not dictate what can be read, written, distributed, bought and sold on the Internet. Countries that do not give their own people the right to speak freely deserve no say in what Americans can say and do on the Internet.
Third, we must promote growth in the technological sector, a consistent bright spot for the U.S. economy. But we won’t realize more of that dynamic growth unless we keep the Internet free from the kind of unnecessary regulation that is strangling our health-care, energy and banking industries.
And one of the biggest regulatory threats to the Internet is “net neutrality.”
In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.
President Obama this week came out aggressively for net neutrality and turning the Internet into a public utility. Some in the online community have embraced this call, thinking that cheaper prices will result. But when has that worked? Government-regulated utilities invariably destroy innovation and freedom. Which is more innovative, the U.S. Postal Service or Facebook and Twitter? Which is better for consumers, city taxi commissions or Uber and Lyft?
If the federal government seizes the power to regulate Internet pricing and goods and services, the regulations will never end.
Fourth, we must recognize that our constitutional rights are digital rights, too. In 2012, those who care about Internet freedom were shocked as bills such as the Stop Online Piracy and Protect IP acts, which would regulate speech on the Internet under the guise of protecting privacy rights, started gaining popularity in Washington. Thankfully, online activists were quick to mobilize to protect their free-speech rights. But we must remain vigilant. Intellectual property must be defended, but any threat to quell speech on the Internet must be treated seriously and subsequently defeated.
We don’t leave our constitutional rights behind when we go online. The same commitment to the principles of liberty that made the United States the greatest economic superpower that the world has ever seen must prevail in the virtual world as well.
We should keep the federal government out of the business of regulating the Internet. The United States has always been a place where someone with nothing can achieve anything. Freedom allows that social mobility, and the Internet is a haven for that entrepreneurial freedom.
Call it the American Dream 2.0.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-regulating-the-internet-threatens-entrepreneurial-freedom/2014/11/13/a0a852e6-6aaf-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html

Edited November 14, 2014 by Tom Wetmore
Link to source added; OpEd Title correction; Byline added

[LifeHiscost]

 

 

Regulating the Internet threatens entrepreneurial freedom  

re on Facebook

 

By Ted Cruz November 13 at 8:31 AM

Ted Cruz, a Republican, represents Texas in the Senate.Freedom allows that social mobility, and the Internet is a haven for that entrepreneurial freedom.

Call it the American Dream 2.0.

 

So long as there are those who consider themselves more capable than the average human being, for controlling the lives of others than themselves, the struggle will continue for dominance. We have yet to see how fast what the continuing loss of freedom in the U.S. entails.

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Gregory Matthews]

Such a tax would force online retailers to comply with every sales tax jurisdiction in the country. There are more than 9,600 state and local sales tax jurisdictions across the nation. Forcing small online retailers to track all of them, keep records and collect the taxes, or risk being penalized for noncompliance by distant governments over whom they have no control is simply not fair.

 

The above statement is an example of what is often posted on the Internet that is either an overstatement or is simply false.

 

Those who are most eager to require that Internet retailers, many of whom are very large in sales volumn, collect a sales tax recognize the problem.  They do not propose some 9,600 different lefvls of sales tax collection.  Rather they propose a more uniform sales tax such as would be for each State.  IOW,under this version there would be one uniform sales tax collected for any delivery in the State of California.

 

What the critics often fail to acknowledge is that companies that sell by mail are often required to collect a sales tax and that requirement has not prevented companies from doing business by mail.   Major proponents of charging a sales tax on Internet sales is to standardize the the requirements between Internet sales, catalogue sales and local on-site sales.

[bonnie]

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."
"If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."
"My administration is going to be the most transparent administration ever."
"Increasing the debt limit doesn't increase our debt"
"You didn't built your buisness. Someone else made that happen."

[bonnie]

When it reaches the smaller online sellers and it will at the very least that leaves 50 states to deal with. Many small sellers are stay at home moms,sometimes dads,many young women have moved from the welfare rolls, that have found a way to stay home and earn a much needed income. It is not as easy as it sounds and this added burden when it comes will simply phase out many sellers.

But the small sellers really do hurt the big guys and that will be a plus for them. Internet sales  are not the same as B&M stores with a physical presence.

It will never be enough tax money,this is only a start 

[Tom Wetmore]

Administrative Note:

Whenever you post any quoted material cut and pasted from elsewhere, please include the source. A link is preferable. And if you do not use a quote box, it should be made clear that it is not your own words, preferably by the use of quotation marks.  If you are post it here from some second-hand newsfeed or a forward from friends, either say so or do the homework to find the source.  

 

 
 

[bonnie]

Administrative Note:

Whenever you post any quoted material cut and pasted from elsewhere, please include the source. A link is preferable. And if you do not use a quote box, it should be made clear that it is not your own words, preferably by the use of quotation marks.  If you are post it here from some second-hand newsfeed or a forward from friends, either say so or do the homework to find the source.  

 

 

 

Sorry, I assumed all would recognize the original source of these comments as Obama. 

Just repeated by many people

[Tom Wetmore]

But the article you posted was not from Obama.  It was an OpEd by Ted Cruz.  Your erroneous assumption simply reinforces the importance of the Administrative Note that I posted.  And if your intent was to encourage people to think it came from Obama, rather than Ted Cruz, so much the worse.  

[bonnie]

But the article you posted was not from Obama.  It was an OpEd by Ted Cruz.  Your erroneous assumption simply reinforces the importance of the Administrative Note that I posted.  And if your intent was to encourage people to think it came from Obama, rather than Ted Cruz, so much the worse.  

Haven't gone line by line again but didn't notice those particular quotes used by Ted Cruz.

Those same statements came from Obama,Ted Cruz is not responsible for them. I could go back and use links to Obama using those phrases but most of us have heard them from Obama.

Yes,I can see how important it is that the proper links be used to give credit to the ones using those phrases. I apologize and will certainly do better next time

[bonnie]

The Net Neutrality Tax Hike Kevin Glass | Nov 14, 2014

 

 

President Obama's public stance that the FCC should reclassify broadband internet services as a Title II "common carrier" under the current Telecommunications Act carries many ramifications, but one is undeniable: there's going to be a hidden tax hike, and it's going to be paid for by consumers.

Title II common carriers are required to "contribute" to what's called the Universal Service Fund - a government program to bring telecommunications services to underserved areas with the goal of universal coverage. Whether it's called "contributions" or fees or whatnot, the function of the program is a tax on corporate revenues in order to fund services for those who might not have them otherwise. It's a redistributive corporate tax paid for by consumers.

The USF tax amounts to more than a 16% charge on top of consumers' bills. As broadband service providers are not currently subject to the USF tax, a reclassification would mean that all consumers would see a jump around that size in their bill. Considering that in some locales, the cheapest broadband service runs upwards of $50 per month, this will cost even the most price-conscious consumers an extra $100 per year - and for those at higher tiers, much more than that.

FCC commissioners past and present have agreed that the this net neutrality tax is unavoidable in a Title II reclassification scenario. In a discussion at the National Press Club on Friday, current FCC commissioner Ajit Pai laid out exactly what consumers would be seeing on their bills.

"Public utility regulation would mean higher broadband prices for consumers," Pai said. "Once broadband is classified as a telecommunications service, universal service charges would be assessed on carriers' broadband services. Many state and local taxes would automatically kick in."

"The net result is that every single American broadband customer would have to pay a new tax - or taxes - to access the internet."

An FCC decision to go with title II reclassification in order to enforce new net neutrality regulations would have a lot of deleterious effects. One of the most obvious is that it would be a tax hike on a service that the government believes is essential to American life.