California Wants To Tax Text Messages

[cawacko]

California regulators want to do this to fund programs to make phone service accessible to low income residents. Who's on board?




California Wants to Tax Your Text Messages. Here's Why


Have you found yourself texting people instead of calling them? Sure. Have you stopped to debate whether texting is a form of “telecommunications” or an “information service?” Chances are the answer is “no”.

California’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is betting you haven’t either — and the difference matters because the commission has jurisdiction over telecommunications, which includes telephone calls. What’s more, it wants to extend an existing tax on calls to include text messages, the Mercury News reports.

Should it get its way, then Californians may soon be taxed on every text they send from their cell phones.

Gather round, millennials and Generation Z, to learn about the landline era, when the U.S. federal government and states established so-called Public Purpose Programs. These programs charged all users of telephone services a surcharge that subsidized programs for lower earners. They also apply to other utilities such as electricity and natural gas. During the rise of the Internet, however, the telecoms industry managed to get an exemption for “information services” such as web browsing and email.

As mobile phone users have shifted their usage patterns away from voice calls, voice call revenues for PPP have dropped by about a third, while the budget for subsidizing poorer users has risen by almost half. So California’s PUC is exploring its options and, as texts share infrastructure with voice calls — even if the medium is different — it estimates it could raise $44.5 million a year with the change. Applied retroactively it could amount to a bill of more than $220 million for California consumers.

In response, the telecoms industry is filing complaints arguing that texting is an email-like “information service” and should be exempt from PPP. The FCC is meeting today to address the issue.

Of course, even texting is going out of fashion. Chat apps that route messages over the Internet, such as WhatsApp and iMessage, would be exempt and already represent almost triple the volume of texts, an industry group says.


http://fortune.com/2018/12/12/califo...t-message-tax/

[Superfreak]

I think they should go for it. Keep showing the rest of the country how bad their ideas are.

[cawacko]

Question for those more tech inclined than I. Would this just turn into a tax on the poor and elderly who are more likely to use traditional texting because they don't have phones or data plans capable of third party messaging and aren't able to figure out the workarounds to avoid texting fees?

[katzgar]

I think they should go for it. Keep showing the rest of the country how bad their ideas are.

You really hate prosperity don't you

[Cypress]

Should it get its way, then Californians may soon be taxed on every text they send from their cell phones.
http://fortune.com/2018/12/12/califo...t-message-tax/

Nope.

The report from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) says the tax on text messaging would likely be a flat fee added to a monthly bill instead of a per text tax and the money would be used to fund programs that make phone service available for low-income residents.

https://thehill.com/policy/technolog...ervice-for-low

My guess - a flat monthly fee, probably on the order of a few pennies.

[Superfreak]

Nope.



My guess - a flat monthly fee, probably on the order of a few pennies.

Thanks for proving what an idiot you are. It says in the article it is likely a flat fee. But way to go out on a limb and predict the very thing the article stated.

[Superfreak]

Question for those more tech inclined than I. Would this just turn into a tax on the poor and elderly who are more likely to use traditional texting because they don't have phones or data plans capable of third party messaging and aren't able to figure out the workarounds to avoid texting fees?

Of course fees like these are regressive. It won't hurt the poor if they truly use the funds to pay for phones for the poor... but it will have a greater impact on the middle class than the rich.

This is hilarious... "California’s Public Purpose Program charges residents a surcharge on utilities, including landlines. The program’s budget has grown from $670 million in 2011 to nearly a billion dollars in 2017"

Just keep handing out 'free stuff' CA. LMAO

[anatta]

f you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.

[Bigdog]

I hate texting. Tax the heck out of it.

It will get the kids to learn how to make old fashioned phone calls.

[Bigdog]

Bump for those that missed the thread.

[Text Drivers are Killers]

If CA would stop giving billions of dollars to illegals every year, there'd be plenty of money.

[Mott the Hoople]

California regulators want to do this to fund programs to make phone service accessible to low income residents. Who's on board?




California Wants to Tax Your Text Messages. Here's Why


Have you found yourself texting people instead of calling them? Sure. Have you stopped to debate whether texting is a form of “telecommunications” or an “information service?” Chances are the answer is “no”.

California’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is betting you haven’t either — and the difference matters because the commission has jurisdiction over telecommunications, which includes telephone calls. What’s more, it wants to extend an existing tax on calls to include text messages, the Mercury News reports.

Should it get its way, then Californians may soon be taxed on every text they send from their cell phones.

Gather round, millennials and Generation Z, to learn about the landline era, when the U.S. federal government and states established so-called Public Purpose Programs. These programs charged all users of telephone services a surcharge that subsidized programs for lower earners. They also apply to other utilities such as electricity and natural gas. During the rise of the Internet, however, the telecoms industry managed to get an exemption for “information services” such as web browsing and email.

As mobile phone users have shifted their usage patterns away from voice calls, voice call revenues for PPP have dropped by about a third, while the budget for subsidizing poorer users has risen by almost half. So California’s PUC is exploring its options and, as texts share infrastructure with voice calls — even if the medium is different — it estimates it could raise $44.5 million a year with the change. Applied retroactively it could amount to a bill of more than $220 million for California consumers.

In response, the telecoms industry is filing complaints arguing that texting is an email-like “information service” and should be exempt from PPP. The FCC is meeting today to address the issue.

Of course, even texting is going out of fashion. Chat apps that route messages over the Internet, such as WhatsApp and iMessage, would be exempt and already represent almost triple the volume of texts, an industry group says.


http://fortune.com/2018/12/12/califo...t-message-tax/

Well if anything can stop the Asian Invasion of California this could be it! LOL

[Bourbon]

I hate texting. Tax the heck out of it.

It will get the kids to learn how to make old fashioned phone calls.

Try walking in a store ... everyone's head is down and texting

[Centerleftfl]

California regulators want to do this to fund programs to make phone service accessible to low income residents. Who's on board?


California Wants to Tax Your Text Messages. Here's Why


Have you found yourself texting people instead of calling them? Sure. Have you stopped to debate whether texting is a form of “telecommunications” or an “information service?” Chances are the answer is “no”.

California’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is betting you haven’t either — and the difference matters because the commission has jurisdiction over telecommunications, which includes telephone calls. What’s more, it wants to extend an existing tax on calls to include text messages, the Mercury News reports.

Should it get its way, then Californians may soon be taxed on every text they send from their cell phones.

Gather round, millennials and Generation Z, to learn about the landline era, when the U.S. federal government and states established so-called Public Purpose Programs. These programs charged all users of telephone services a surcharge that subsidized programs for lower earners. They also apply to other utilities such as electricity and natural gas. During the rise of the Internet, however, the telecoms industry managed to get an exemption for “information services” such as web browsing and email.

As mobile phone users have shifted their usage patterns away from voice calls, voice call revenues for PPP have dropped by about a third, while the budget for subsidizing poorer users has risen by almost half. So California’s PUC is exploring its options and, as texts share infrastructure with voice calls — even if the medium is different — it estimates it could raise $44.5 million a year with the change. Applied retroactively it could amount to a bill of more than $220 million for California consumers.

In response, the telecoms industry is filing complaints arguing that texting is an email-like “information service” and should be exempt from PPP. The FCC is meeting today to address the issue.

Of course, even texting is going out of fashion. Chat apps that route messages over the Internet, such as WhatsApp and iMessage, would be exempt and already represent almost triple the volume of texts, an industry group says.


http://fortune.com/2018/12/12/califo...t-message-tax/

So all those unknown taxes in OTHER STATES on your phone bills go for WHAT? I'm positive you and I and everyone else are already paying for them. In fact, didn't the free phone programs get their start during Reagan? I'm pretty damn sure they did.

Phone vs. text? A distinction without a difference. (Except one is 'quiet')

ADDENDUM: I remembered correctly.


BY BRENDAN SASSO - 09/12/13 09:58 PM EDT - THE HILL

Acting Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn forcefully defended her agency's phone subsidy program for the poor in a speech on Thursday. Conservative critics have claimed the FCC's Lifeline program is a wasteful government handout and referred to it as the "Obamaphone" program.

"Here’s the truth. The Lifeline program long predates the current administration," Clyburn said in the speech at the New America Foundation. "It was actually created during the Reagan administration, so let's give credit where credit is due. The Lifeline program is a legacy President Reagan could be proud of." Congress first enacted the Lifeline program in 1985, and the FCC expanded the program to cover cellphone service in 2005 during the George W. Bush administration.

The program pays for phone service, not the phones themselves. But many companies that receive funding through the program offer free and low-cost phones to their subscribers.

[cancel2 2022]

California regulators want to do this to fund programs to make phone service accessible to low income residents. Who's on board?




California Wants to Tax Your Text Messages. Here's Why


Have you found yourself texting people instead of calling them? Sure. Have you stopped to debate whether texting is a form of “telecommunications” or an “information service?” Chances are the answer is “no”.

California’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is betting you haven’t either — and the difference matters because the commission has jurisdiction over telecommunications, which includes telephone calls. What’s more, it wants to extend an existing tax on calls to include text messages, the Mercury News reports.

Should it get its way, then Californians may soon be taxed on every text they send from their cell phones.

Gather round, millennials and Generation Z, to learn about the landline era, when the U.S. federal government and states established so-called Public Purpose Programs. These programs charged all users of telephone services a surcharge that subsidized programs for lower earners. They also apply to other utilities such as electricity and natural gas. During the rise of the Internet, however, the telecoms industry managed to get an exemption for “information services” such as web browsing and email.

As mobile phone users have shifted their usage patterns away from voice calls, voice call revenues for PPP have dropped by about a third, while the budget for subsidizing poorer users has risen by almost half. So California’s PUC is exploring its options and, as texts share infrastructure with voice calls — even if the medium is different — it estimates it could raise $44.5 million a year with the change. Applied retroactively it could amount to a bill of more than $220 million for California consumers.

In response, the telecoms industry is filing complaints arguing that texting is an email-like “information service” and should be exempt from PPP. The FCC is meeting today to address the issue.

Of course, even texting is going out of fashion. Chat apps that route messages over the Internet, such as WhatsApp and iMessage, would be exempt and already represent almost triple the volume of texts, an industry group says.


http://fortune.com/2018/12/12/califo...t-message-tax/

Fuck 'em!