Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Would You Pay an Internet Broadband Tax?

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the show-me-the-money dept.

Google 601

An anonymous reader writes "Remember the Internet Tax Freedom Act? The whole point was to prevent the government from ever taxing the Internet. But that's the proposal from the FCC — and backed by companies like Google, AT&T and Sprint. Would you pay a buck or two extra for fast access — or vote for someone who thinks you should? 'If members of Congress understood that the FCC is contemplating a broadband tax, they'd sit up and take notice,' said Derek Turner, research director for Free Press, a consumer advocacy group that opposes the tax."

cancel ×

601 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Universal service. (5, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 2 years ago | (#41136707)

If it means universal service provisions for broadband internet access, then yes.

There are people in rural areas right now that don't have Internet access because telcos aren't willing to spend the money to run it out to them.

Universal service provisions allowed telephone service to reach every single person in the entire country back in the day. The same thing should happen for broadband internet access today.

Re:Universal service. (5, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 2 years ago | (#41136737)

I would be fine if it added stuff like that. However chances are, it would just be corporate welfare. Companies would get money from the government, ostensibly to do or provide something, and they would provide it in at most, some token fashion (or not at all). No, I don't think this will end well for the customers/consumers/taxpayers.

Re:Universal service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136799)

Or it gets burned down, like the case of Possim Kingdom, Texas (Graford) and they just refuse to repair it, even with the lines and customers still in place.

Re:Universal service. (2, Funny)

hackula (2596247) | about 2 years ago | (#41136827)

What does a nation of opossums need broadband for anyway?

Re:Universal service. (2, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41136927)

Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again? You're calling us "opossums". I had one British guy say if we don't reelect Obama it will prove we are a "backwards nation". And on and on. Lately everywhere I go I see Europeans slagging-off on Americans.

It makes me think the U.S. should quit NATO rather than be allied with people who hate us. ("We should avoid entangling alliances with european powers that could draw us into bloodshed..... rest assured while one European leader runs-around mad, and the others act as if they are halfway there themselves, we shall remain at peace here in North America." - George Washington)

Re:Universal service. (3, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#41137015)

They have their own problems they don't want to face, like the fact that their continent is falling apart as their socialist and fascist policies have destroyed their economy such that nothing is left but the facade, and that is starting to break apart.

Re:Universal service. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41137053)

Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again?

Why shouldn't they? Opossums is a very mild insult compared to the things the U.S. government (That was put in place by the U.S. voters.) does all over the world. When the U.S. stops meddling with the foreign nations the U.S. population will be a lot more popular around the world.

Re:Universal service. (1)

heypete (60671) | about 2 years ago | (#41137059)

woosh.

Re:Universal service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41137061)

Do you honestly believe that we are not currently moving backwards as a nation?
If not, well, you may be an opossum. IMHO, of course.

Re:Universal service. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41137063)

Hey retard, he was making a joke based on the comment above him. Kill yourself.

Re:Universal service. (4, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about 2 years ago | (#41137085)

Why do foreigners think it's okay to insult Americans again and again?...

For the same reason we make fun of them when they do something stupid. When our nation comes off as a series of paranoid religious zealots eagerly awaiting the next talking point from Fox News I can understand why we get insulted. Like it or not, we live in a global economy and we cannot just take our ball and go home. People like you need to develop a thicker skin and realize that it's not personal.

Re:Universal service. (4, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#41137109)

If someone makes an uninformed comment, just dismiss it as uninformed. If someone says something true you find upsetting, you need to examine the root of what they say.

I think you just may be selectively hearing things that displease you. From what I've seen, everyone everywhere says insulting things about everyone else. Right now there is probably some Norwegian making snide comments about Swedes that flies below your radar.

Re:Universal service. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41137139)

And on and on. Lately everywhere I go I see Europeans slagging-off on Americans.

You know, it's hard not to. You've become exceedingly xenophobic, you're increasingly allowing your religious wingnuts to try to foist their morality on the rest of your society, you've never really played nice with other countries (as evidenced by the rest of your post), and you're so opposed to anything most people would consider progressive as to be a joke. As a nation, you seem increasingly anti-science and backwards, sticking with dogma over any actual facts.

Maybe the rest of the world is tired of the American sense of entitlement, your tendency to export really bad laws onto everybody else, and the fact that ... well ... as a nation you're kind of assholes on balance. At least, that's how you project yourselves. And to the rest of the world, people like George Bush, Sarah Palin, and Run Paul all reinforce that. You're a country who figures the rich should stay rich, and the poor should go fuck themselves.

Bad American debt played a huge part in the financial melt-down of '08 since you guys exported crap debt as if it had any value. America wants to tie their foreign aid to be sure nobody gets access to abortion or contraception (again, your religious wingnuts), and your food export is mostly Monsanto seeds nobody is supposed to actually plant.

It's not just Europeans -- most of the world is tired of putting up with how your country behaves, which is essentially like a spoiled rich kid who wants to be sure he has more than everybody else at the end of the day.

Americans like to think they're the good guys, but they've oblivious to what everyone else in the world wants, and seem totally incapable to having relations with a country in which they're not the ones setting the terms.

Seriously, read some news coverage that originates outside of the US and get a little different perspective. It's not that your allies "hate" you, it's that they're tired of putting up with your shit.

Re:Universal service. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136739)

If it means universal service provisions for broadband internet access, then yes.

And you actually believe that will ever happen? With the sociopathic filth that gets elected over and over again? Oh, wait, let me guess... *your* party is not like that at all, right?

Will you people ever learn? EVER?!

Re:Universal service. (4, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#41136807)

Considering it worked for the phone network, I would say it has a reasonable chance of working.

Re:Universal service. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136751)

My only concern with such a use of the tax, or any tax at all, is that it will never go away. Will we need a universal service tax in 2050? Will it become one of those zombie fees that live on every phone bill, that look like they're an FCC fee but really aren't?

Re:Universal service. (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#41137111)

It becomes another Tax that you don't consider as a Tax, because it's collected from you at other times and in other ways than on April 15th on a tax form. Just like your car taxes, your property taxes, your hunting licenses, your public park licenses, your telco taxes and fees, your broadband taxes and fees (I don't know about you guys, but my cable broadband bill already includes taxes and fees that are supposedly government-related).

Hey, I'm stuck in a big city where I have access to more job opportunities and super fast internet speeds, but housing is expensive as fuck here. I demand that everyone who owns a house or rents one in a smaller town be forced to chip in a few dollars for me so that I can afford one of these fancy houses. Oh, wait, nevermind. I made the choice that internet access and job opportunities were more important to me than living out in a less serviced area and having a cheap home.

You can have your cake and eat it, too. But I'm not responsible for buying it for you.

Re:Universal service. (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41136775)

If it means universal service provisions for broadband internet access, then yes.

What are you some kind of socialist?

Re:Universal service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136933)

Tired meme is tired.

Re:Universal service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136809)

Only if it helps the poor and steals from the rich, then yes. Go OWNS you greedy bastards.

Re:Universal service. (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41136823)

Correction: According to the FCC itself only 4% of Americans are stuck with service slower than 3 Mbit/s. Many of them, like myself, do already have broadband but we do not meet that unusually high requirement. (I have 1 Mbit/s and it works just fine; don't need anything faster.)

Instead of taxing the customers, the FCC should be taxing the companies by passing a simple mandate that they Must provide 3 Mbit/s wired service to any customer who asks for it. These billion-dollar corporations can afford to fund this subsidy for a mere 4% of the population.

Re:Universal service. (1)

BorgDrone (64343) | about 2 years ago | (#41136913)

1MBit is not exactly broadband and I don't think 3Mbit should be called that either.

The problem is that what could be considered broadband is a moving target, so we need a more flexible definition: e.g. 10% of the most current standard speed for home networking equipment. (So that would be 10% of 1Gbit = 100Mbit right now, which seems reasonable).

Re:Universal service. (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41137079)

>>>1MBit is not exactly broadband

My current 100,000,000-hertz wide service is "broader" in frequencies than the 4,000-hertz wide service (dialup) I have before. Therefore the term broadband is appropriate..... it is not narrowband. Furthermore I don't WANT faster than 1 Mbit/s.

I have the option to get 50 if I so choose from Comsucks, but I voluntarily choose the slower service because it's cheaper ($14.99). Who the hell is the FCC to add another 13% tax to my plan each month? I don't want it. And frankly I can't afford it.

*
*$2

Re:Universal service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41137107)

The fastest I can get is 3Mbit down/ 356kbit up
That second number is PATHETIC.

I live 10 miles outside Huntsville AL. Home of NASA and MSIC. It's pathetic that the fastest service around is 6.0M/786k.

Re:Universal service. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#41137129)

That's kind of silly. So by that definition, about 99.94% of the country does not have "broadband". Better crank up those FCC fees (again, wtf does the FCC have to do with the internet?) to a fuck of a lot more than a few dollars a month!

Re:Universal service. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136935)

4% of America is still over 13,000,000 people

Re:Universal service. (2)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#41137049)

How many could be helped if the same amount were spent elsewhere? Let's say that people were taxed at the same rate, but got to choose where the tax went. They could give it to any charity, or they could spend it on goods and services to help improve the economy and their own living situation.

Re:Universal service. (2)

An Ominous Coward (13324) | about 2 years ago | (#41137023)

From my reading of the FCC's Internet Access Report, that analysis came from people with >200 kbps connections. Basically, for ISPS advertising broadband service, how many are meeting the new requirements. That figure does not indicate how many people only have the option of dial-up.

Re:Universal service. (0)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41137041)

3 megabit isn't considered broadband in developed countries.

Re:Universal service. (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#41137091)

Instead of taxing the customers, the FCC should be taxing the companies by passing a simple mandate that they Must provide 3 Mbit/s wired service to any customer who asks for it. These billion-dollar corporations can afford to fund this subsidy for a mere 4% of the population.

Who? It's easy when you have a national monopoly for a telephone company - they are required to provide the service to everyone. When you have a set of geographical monopolies as telephone or Internet companies, which one do you force to provide coverage to anyone outside a certain area? How do small companies start up in such an environment? And what happens when Verizon (for example) becomes an umbrella corporation that just puts customers in contact with wholly owned subsidiaries that actually own the network infrastructure, but only in a small area each.

And, longer term, how do you stop this from just being city dwellers subsidising rural house prices? In the UK, it's very common for house prices a few miles outside of town to cost half to three quarters of what an equivalent house would cost in the town. In a really rural area, it can cost under half as much. This difference is because most people are unwilling to pay as much to be so far from infrastructure. If you're spending public money on adding that infrastructure, then you're effectively moving money to the pockets of rural home and land owners.

Re:Universal service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136887)

Yes that sounds great, they'll say "$2 in taxes and we'll bring broadband to rural areas"....then they'll come back and say "we need to charge $5 to continue the project".....and so on and end the end you'll end up paying $25/mo in taxes and nobody will have broadband in rural areas, nor will they care because it have been replaced with something better, no thanks to the govt.

Re:Universal service. (1)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41136889)

'Universal service provisions' simply means setting up a monopoly and raising prices for everybody. No, I would not pay this tax.

Re:Universal service. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136969)

If it means universal service provisions for broadband internet access, then yes.

There are people in rural areas right now that don't have Internet access because telcos aren't willing to spend the money to run it out to them.

Universal service provisions allowed telephone service to reach every single person in the entire country back in the day. The same thing should happen for broadband internet access today.

No, if you choose to live where there is no broadband, then why should taxpayers money be spent bringing it to you? If you want broadband then move to somewhere that has broadband coverage. If you want snow on Christmas, but live on the equator, do you expect tax money to be spent to bring you snow on Christmas? Broadband is a nice to have, but not a need to have like healthcare.

Re:Universal service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41137069)

I'd much rather mandate that service providers are required to only market the bandwidth that they are 95% likely to achieve. I am sick of being promised xMb/sec only to achieve less and then being told its because of too many customers trying to use the internet at the same time.

Re:Universal service. (1)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#41137115)

Exactly. I chose to live in an area that doesn't have broadband, and paid $3000 to have a T1 line installed to my house, and pay an ungodly amount for the monthly service fee. It would be nice if one of the local wireless carriers would upgrade one of their towers to cover my house (my neighbors on all sides get signal, but not me), but I don't think my neighbors should be forced to collectively pay MORE than I am paying now to supply me with signal, especially given that it would certainly be lower quality than the service I am getting now. If the cost gets to be too much, I will move. Simple as that.

Re:Universal service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41137123)

No, if you choose to live where there is no broadband, then why should taxpayers money be spent bringing it to you?

If you want food on the table then perhaps you should move to a location without broadband. When are you going to realize that you don't have what it takes to live without relying on other people? Perhaps you should start consider their needs too?

Re:Universal service. (5, Informative)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#41136999)

I already pay a Universal Connect Fee on my phone bill which subsidize the phone company to go into rural areas. Never mind the fact that the AT&T was subsidized to put lines out there in the first place. When they came up with the Universal Connect Fee in 1997 ( 15 years ago ) they promised better communication access to rural customers. Not to mention, in October 2011 congress justified this UCF to stay on all of our phone bills by having the funds transition over to the "Connect America Fund" to subsidize broadband access in these same rural areas.

Why the hell would I want to pay that same fee on my broadband bill? Especially since the Fee has been collected for over a decade and I see no real competition or expansion in rural connectivity since its inception.

Sure Google, AT&T, and Sprint are for it. After all its more corporate welfare earmarked for their use. They act like they won't charge the rural customers for this access, and believe me they will.

People who say yes to this are naive.

Re:Universal service. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41137007)

It won't mean universal service. Far from it.

To tax it you've got to control it - and you've got to identify those using it to extract the tax from them. For example: you have a wireless access point that's open. Who is using it... and why aren't they paying the tax?

It's nothing but a way to make sure that everyone has control measures in their PCs - AKA Trusted Platform Modules (TPMs), with people only being allowed to connect to and from software stacks that are properly signed.

Re:Universal service. (2)

chaboud (231590) | about 2 years ago | (#41137011)

It is, in fact, a realignment of the Universal Service provisions. That said, I'm not okay with this going to private companies if they retain exclusive rights to the developed infrastructure. The fiber/air should be government-owned and leased to private companies (or better still, just deployed as government-owned network service).

As we've demonstrated that forced competitive leasing by regulation is too frail (one congress can hose that up quickly), the only safe bet is persistent government ownership of the infrastructure that the *government* laid out. I know it's a crazy prospect, but maybe giving monopolistic freebies to enormous corporations isn't in the public's best interest.

Re:Universal service. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41137017)

If it means universal service provisions for broadband internet access, then yes.

There are people in rural areas right now that don't have Internet access because telcos aren't willing to spend the money to run it out to them.

Universal service provisions allowed telephone service to reach every single person in the entire country back in the day. The same thing should happen for broadband internet access today.

Didn't we already give the telecoms $200 billion [newnetworks.com] for universal access, which they never delivered? How about we hold them accountable for that instead of providing another subsidy?

So what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41137065)

There are people in rural areas right now that don't have Internet access because telcos aren't willing to spend the money to run it out to them.

I'm sure they'd also like an international airport nearby, high speed rail, all the best medical specialists, museums, and everything else that you can find only or mostly in big cities. Those things are in big cities because the population density there is able to support such a thing.

There are many things in the cities that i would love to have close by, but I don't demand my legislators to tax everyone else to put those amenities near me - if I really desire those things to be close, I'll move to the city.

tl;dr - Why are folks in rural areas entitled to amenities of cities when they don't have the population density to support them?

Re:Universal service. (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 2 years ago | (#41137151)

Since we pay universal service already - as you pointed out. And since we pretty much DO cover every where with phone lines, and yet we're all still paying the universal subscriber fee.

Can't we (Congress) just dictate that the quality of such lines must support data as well?

Why pay a second fee for what we are already paying for.

Not unless we get something for it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136715)

Looks like this tax appears to just help the existing ISPs who already do nothing but just add fees. Why should we want a tax that does nothing to help we, the consumers, but just lines their pockets even more?

A tax for wireless mesh broadband, yes. A tax so Verizon can charge us more for the same pitiful broadband allowances? No.

Re:Not unless we get something for it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136793)

No tax period.

It's a Congressional money grab that benefits no one. If I'm in the boonies, I'll erect a point to point microwave link [aowireless.com] and maybe fry a few turkeys. That technology can reach 50+ miles and can achieve gigabit speeds.

Only if ... (4, Insightful)

LordKaT (619540) | about 2 years ago | (#41136719)

Only if the money actually went to improving broadband access and speeds in America. The problem is that it just goes to the government coffers and is distributed, mostly, to Social Security.

If the money went to directly improving the system it taxed, then yes. I would love to see a tax that helped pay for a nation-wide fiber-optic system that replaced the aged copper system we rely on.

Unfortunately, it'll only go to lining the FCC board and chairman's pockets with money.

s/Social Security/the Military (1, Insightful)

mmell (832646) | about 2 years ago | (#41136803)

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:s/Social Security/the Military (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136849)

Well, since one of those two is a legitimate function of the federal government...

Re:s/Social Security/the Military (4, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41137003)

No he had it right the first time. Over half the budget goes towards either Social Security or Medicare. The military spending is only ~20% of the total budget and after Obama's cuts kick-in, it will drop even lower.

Ah yes, another tax... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136723)

And what am I getting out of this tax, that I'm not already paying for in other service fees?

I don't necessarily have a problem paying taxes if I feel the government is spending the revenue wisely. Problem is, I feel that way less and less with the current crop of idiots in Washington DC -- both Democrat and Republican.

Sure why not? (4, Interesting)

arcite (661011) | about 2 years ago | (#41136727)

I would gladly pay a small tax for super fast internet access...but the internet has to be free, no filtering, no censorship, no throttling, no blocking torrents ect. Information wants to be free, but there is no free lunch.

Re:Sure why not? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136851)

Yeah they would say "yes it's only $2 and you'll get everything you want"....then a few years later they'll say "in order to give you what you want we need to charge $5"....and a year after that they'll say "in order to maintain the low $5 we need to start filtering content"....then they'll come back and say "the filtering cost money so we need $10"....and the cycle will repeat until eventually you're paying $100/mo in taxes for nothing.

But what about... (2)

inode_buddha (576844) | about 2 years ago | (#41136747)

REALLY??

But what about all those billions that were given to the telcos to upgrade their infrastructure ???

Whatever happened to "Your subscription fees make up for the ad revenue, so we won't have to have ads every 20 minutes" ??

Aahahahahahhaa 'scuse me while I piss myself laughing at the blatant avarice of it all
.

"HBO Internet"'s an option (no commercials) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136945)

For those of you that run Microsoft Windows 32 or 64 bit? An automated hosts file creation & mgt. program:

---

APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32/64-bit:

Screenshot -> http://start64.com/images/win64/security/apk-hosts-file-engine-1.png [start64.com]

&

Download Site #1 -> http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74 [start64.com]

or

Download Site #2 -> http://securemecca.com/public/APKHostsFileInstaller/2012_06_01/APKHostsFileEngineInstaller32_64bit.exe.zip [securemecca.com]

---

INSTALLATION:

a.) Extract its sfx installer file from the zipfile
b.) Run the installer from inside ANY folder you like, extracting the executables + datafiles to any folder you wish (usually one you create for it, doesn't matter where, but you MUST run it as administrator for FULL functionality (simple & the "read me" tab shows how easy THAT is to do))
c.) Then, & lastly - Run either the 32-bit OR 64-bit version (rightclick on the executable & set it to run as Administrator, OR, make a shortcut that can for FULL functionality (like write-protecting the hosts file, & more...))

---

What's it do for you?

Custom hosts files gain me the following benefits (A short summary of where custom hosts files can be extremely useful):

---

1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites
2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware
3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use
4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers
5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content
6.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution)
7.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).
8.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs)
9.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
10.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O + electricity too - bonus!)
11.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).
12.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers - whereas the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself...)
13.) Blocking out TRACKERS
14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.

---

* The malwarebytes/hpHosts site admin another person/site hosting it (Mr. Steven Burn, a competent coder in his own right), said it's "excellent" in fact and has seen its code too...

(Write him yourselves should anyone doubt any of this -> services@it-mate.co.uk , or see his site @ http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download [hosts-file.net] )

A Mr. Henry Hertz Hobbitt of securemecca.org &/or hostsfile.org can also verify that this program is safe - write him @ -> hhhobbit@securemecca.com

---

* I told myself (since i built it in late 2003 in version 1.0++ & have rebuilt it 5x since in Borland Delphi 3.0/5.0/7.0 32-bit & currently into 64-bit using Delphi XE2) this:

That IF things didn't get better on the "malware front" by 2012, out it would go for the general public to get the above enumerated multiple & versatile benefits custom hosts yield for end users!

(Mainly in saving them money on speed + bandwidth they pay for each month as well as added "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" AND reliability & even a bit better "anonymity", all noted above...).

APK

P.S.=> It works for ALL of the enumerated benefits above - here are the SPECIFICS/Details of those:

---

A.) Offers massively noticeable increased speed for websurfing via blocking adbanners

B.) Offers increased speed for users fav. sites by hardcoding them into the hosts file for faster IP address-to-host/domain name resolutions (which sites RARELY change their hosting providers, e.g.-> of 250 I do, only 6 have changed since 2006 - & when sites do because they found a less costly hosting provider? Then, they either email notify members, put up warnings on their pages, & do IP warnings & redirectors onto the former IP address range to protect vs. the unscrupulous criminal bidding on that range to buy it to steal from users of say, online banking or shopping sites).

C.) Better "Layered-Security"/"Defense-In-Depth" via blocking host-domain based attacks by KNOWN bad sites-servers that are known to do so (which IS, by far, the majority of what's used by both users (hence the existence of the faulty but for most part working DNS system), AND even by malware makers (since host-domain names are recyclable by they, & the RBN (Russian Business Network & others)) were doing it like mad with "less than scrupulous", or uncaring, hosting providers)

D.) Better 'anonymity' to an extent vs. DNS request logs (not vs. DPI ("deep packet inspection"))

E.) The ability to circumvent unjust DNSBL (DNS Block Lists) if unjust or inconveniences a user.

F.) Protection vs. online trackers

G.) Better security vs. the DNS system being "dns poisoned/redirected" (a known problem for recursive DNS servers via port 51/53 misdirection)

H.) Write protecting the hosts file every 1/2 second (supplementing UAC) - even if/when you move it from the default location via this registry entry (which if done, can function ALMOST like *NIX shadow passwords because of this program):

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\Tcpip\Parameters

And changing the "DataBasePath" parameter there (I do this moving it to a faster media, a "true SSD" using DDR-2 RAM, in the 4gb Gigabyte IRAM I have).

I.) Automatic downloading & Alphabetic sorting of hosts files' records entries (for easier end user mgt. manually) from 15 reliable sources (of 17 I actually use).

J.) Manual editing of all files used (hosts to import list, hosts itself in its default location of %windir%\system32\drivers\etc, the hosts files to import/download & process, & favorite sites to reverse dns ping to avoid DNS (noted above why)).

K.) Removal scanners (if the users decide to remove hosts entries from imported data they can check if the site is indeed known as bad or not (sometimes 'false positives' happen, or just bad entries, or sites clean themselves up after infestation due to vulnerable coding etc./et al)).

L.) Removal of bloating material in many hosts files like Comments (useless bulk in a hosts file that's "all business")

M.) Removal of bloating material in many hosts files like Trailing comments after records (produces duplicates)

N.) Removal of bloating material in many hosts files like Invalid TLD entries (program checks this in a BETTER method than the API call "PathIsURL")

O.) Removal of bloating material in many hosts files like Trims entries (vs. trailing blanks bloat on record entries)

P.) Removal of bloating material in many hosts files like the conversion of the larger & SLOWER 127.0.0.1 blocking "loopback adapter" address (slower due to larger size bytes wise to parse, & slower if loopback happens) to the smaller/faster to parse & load 0.0.0.0

Q.) Uniformity of ALL entries in hosts (as to records inserted & format they use - reducing bloat AND repeated bloating entries).

R.) Filtration-Removal of sites that IF in a hosts file are KNOWN to cause problems on larger portals that use CDN etc.

S.) Custom hosts files protect ALL webbound programs, not just webbrowsers (like AdBlock addons, & it doesn't even block ALL adbanners by default anymore) & it does so @ a more efficient faster level (Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode) acting merely as a filter for the PnP design IP stack, vs. the slower level webbrowser programs & their addons operate in (Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode), which addons slow them even more by "layering on" parsing & processing that browser addons layer on.

T.) Custom hosts files also offer the speedup to favorite sites noted above, & even firewalls + browser addons do NOT offer that...

---

& MORE, in roughly 10-15 minutes runtime (on an Intel Core I7 920 Quad/4 core cpu @ 2.67ghz) over millions of hosts file record entries no less, & faster on faster CPU's (e.g. - Intel Core I7 3960 "extreme" 6-7 core CPUs = 7 minute runtime) & slower on slower CPU's (Intel 1.5ghz Celeron single core = 45 minutes).

(Above all else - Enjoy the program: It works!)

Thanks for your time...

... apk/b

If that took control away from corporations. (4, Insightful)

dmomo (256005) | about 2 years ago | (#41136749)

If that meant "we" owned the infrastructure, not the media companies. One requirement would HAVE to be net neutrality.

Re:If that took control away from corporations. (1)

1s44c (552956) | about 2 years ago | (#41137081)

If that meant "we" owned the infrastructure, not the media companies. One requirement would HAVE to be net neutrality.

I'm happy to pay income tax. One requirement is that the police and all other civil servants are polite and respectful to me whenever I deal with them..

Oh, we are not in happy dream land? Guess I don't get to make demands on the thieving government then.

No, I would not pay another dime. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136753)

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt earned a $16.4 Million salary last year.
I fail to see any innovation from my Internet provider.

Re:No, I would not pay another dime. (3, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | about 2 years ago | (#41136931)

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt earned a $16.4 Million salary last year.
I fail to see any innovation from my Internet provider.

He got paid 16.4 Million. I doubt he _earned_ that much money for any normal definition of the word.

As long as it comes with the right strings (4, Insightful)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 2 years ago | (#41136763)

I would absolutely pay for an internet tax, as long as any service receiving aid from that government tax coffer was forced to provide network neutrality by law.

As it stands, what this is actually earmarked to pay for is probably the "lawful intercept" features that government want to add to everyone's internet.

Re:As long as it comes with the right strings (0)

Idbar (1034346) | about 2 years ago | (#41137033)

I would also pay! Absolutely! But only if they make sure this money goes to all those kind non-profit broadband organizations, such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, which have been helping more and more the American citizens to get better services for less and less money!

Oh wait... this was intended for another parallel universe... the dotslash forum.

Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136765)

If the tax were required to be used only for making broadband access available everywhere, then yes. As it stands, broadband access is spotty, at best, with terrible discrepancies in upload to download speeds available. TCP/IP was designed to be symmetrical. :-|

Um . . . just to point something out . . . (2)

mmell (832646) | about 2 years ago | (#41136863)

TCP/IP doesn't really care that much about symmetrical speeds, just two-way communication. TCP doesn't care if upload and download speeds are different.

Physical

Data

Network

Transport

Session

Protocol

Application

Which layer looks like it cares about symmetry?

No (1, Insightful)

should_be_linear (779431) | about 2 years ago | (#41136769)

I am European, and I think that fast Internet for free should be available to anyone in EU, as part of basic human rights. I don't care how it is technically done, but this should be long-term goal, especially for social parties, in order to prevent new kind of illiteracy of poor people.

Re:No (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#41136941)

Don't you have public education in Europe?

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136961)

I am European, and I think that fast Internet for free should be available to anyone in EU, as part of basic human rights. I don't care how it is technically done, but this should be long-term goal, especially for social parties, in order to prevent new kind of illiteracy of poor people.

Strange, you sound exactly like an American stereotype of a European.

Re:No (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136971)

Should be easy seeing as the "European Union" will be down to about six people soon.

How many countries need to crater over there before you wake up?

Re:No (2)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41137001)

'human rights'? There is no such thing as a 'human right' that is supposed to give you a product. Who is going to pay for this, if 'everybody is getting it for free' exactly?

Re:No (5, Insightful)

ACS Solver (1068112) | about 2 years ago | (#41137043)

Yep, as an European, I don't get why I should pay such a tax. I pay for my own broadband connection, and while I agree that everyone should have access to the Internet, it's already available for free at libraries that are funded by my taxes anyway. So I don't get the point of a general "broadband tax".

Re:No (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 2 years ago | (#41137137)

I am European, and I think %anything% free should be available to anyone in EU, as part of basic human rights.

And this is why much of Europe is broke and and the EU is on the verge of breaking up. Of course, we American's are not doing much better. But the point is that our priorities are all out of whack. Everyone seems to want something for nothing. This attitude will not last the test of time.

Where would the money go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136773)

If the money went to something appropriate, sure. And the tax was what I'd consider reasonable.

I'm not one of those fools who thinks that taxation is theft, or that the government is an evil job-destroying people-eating monster.

It'd be cool if it was, but it's not.

Things I'd support the money being put into:

Spamhunter squads
Free software repositories
Access for the disabled, and for rural customers
Training Ninja Dinosaurs

Re:Where would the money go? (1)

1s44c (552956) | about 2 years ago | (#41136991)

Things I'd support the money being put into:

You misunderstand, this is a tax.

That means the government takes the money and keeps it. You don't get to make a list of things you will get in return.

Will it subsidise it? (4, Interesting)

MrCrassic (994046) | about 2 years ago | (#41136779)

If paying a small tax will guarantee completely free, uncapped and non-filtered broadband with a certain reasonable speed guarantee, then yes! Otherwise, what's the point?

Re:Will it subsidise it? (1)

codeAlDente (1643257) | about 2 years ago | (#41136983)

The tax controlled by the regulatory agency will not bring the freedom to the Internet. It might increase the speed at which the government can use the Internet to deliver the propaganda.

Re:Will it subsidise it? (1)

ichthus (72442) | about 2 years ago | (#41137155)

"If paying a small tax will guarantee completely free..."

This view of taxation and government provision never ceases to amuse.

One Rule. (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#41136815)

If you want me to pay a tax to subsidize broadband then I will never have a data cap. Ever.

but I already do (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 2 years ago | (#41136817)

I mean, getting broadband isn't free, I pay my ISP for connectivity and they provide it.. and by "extra fast", my ISP has varying levels of service they can give me (subject to the technology available where I live) so I can get faster speeds by paying more money. I can also get faster speeds by changing to a cable ISP rather than a standard ADSL one, or I could even buy satellite link. If I was really rich I could pay to have fibre put into my house too.

So, maybe this is just an Americanism. What you guys need is a working system of capitalism where competition drives innovation and delivery. The rest of us have this kind of free market, where market forces drive things forward, I guess you guys have monopolies that hold you back. Good luck.

Don't we pay tax on it already? (3, Informative)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#41136845)

Don't we pay tax (like state sales tax) on internet and other services already?
(Assuming you live in a state that has sales tax)

In The United States - Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136955)

Don't we pay tax (like state sales tax) on internet and other services already?

Yes. In my state we pay a local communications tax, a state communications tax, a USF fee and something else I can't remember right now. Fortunately, after already paying three or four taxes, my state does not charge sales tax on this service.

You forget... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136855)

New government mandated charges: $1
New charge to get that $1 to the government $0.35
Extra tax on that extra $1.35 on your bill: $0.14
Total cost of this per bill: $1.49.

So, will you pay a dollar? Maybe, but what about $1.49? If you'll pay $1.49, why won't you pay $3? If you'll pay $3, why won't you pay $20? It can go on and on and on, with promises made every step of the way, but broken through shady legal tactics or just downright failure of anyone with money to call them out on it. Around here, every time taxes get raised 'for education,' education gets cut and some other service gets a boost. The first time people fell for it, it was used to help re-do an already new city building...the next time it was used for a park in the city (quoted at a few hundred grand, total work done was what five guys and a few six packs could accomplish on a lazy Saturday afternoon). The first time it was voted down everyone was screaming about how we hate the children.

Expect the expected: Past is prologue (5, Insightful)

some old guy (674482) | about 2 years ago | (#41136861)

Sure, let's all chip in a buck.

Maybe thirty cents goes into "administrative costs" (the inevitable bureaocracy)

Twenty cents, at least, will be sequestered for other failing programs.

Another forty will no doubt be pocketed by recipient telco shareholders and executives.

Perhaps five cents will go for surveys and studies.

Maybe, if we're lucky, a nickel will go toward the intended purpose.

And so it goes.

Not without some improvements. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about 2 years ago | (#41136865)

If the government grew a pair and stood up to AT&T et al, and I was paying a reasonable price for internet and we got a speed more in line with the rest of the god damned world, then yes, I'd be more than willing to pay a tax.
But as it is now? Hell no.

Just Maybe (0)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#41136883)

Did anyone consider that those 19 million people without broadband access DO NOT want high-speed internet? Some folks like living off the grid, in the middle of nowhere, hours away from civilization. If that ~5% of the U.S. population wants broadband, they could move out of the rural areas they live in and get high-speed internet. Something tells me that it is not high on their priority list.

Re:Just Maybe (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136975)

without broadband access DO NOT want high-speed internet

hahahah!!!! thats rich.

They want it. They just do not want to live in a city... You are confusing living like that, with living 50 years ago.

They just do not like cities. They usually do however like modern things. Its worse than that though. There are *many* who want it. But will never get it because of lack of infrastructure. Also what you and I consider high speed, and what that survey considers high speed are 2 different things.

Already been done (5, Informative)

Scutter (18425) | about 2 years ago | (#41136893)

Weren't the telcos already given a crapload of money to expand broadband access, which they proceeded to piss away? I'm not paying yet another tax, on top of a USF, an FCC surcharge, a tiered-pricing plan, and all of the other ways they already nickle-and-dime us to death. We are already not getting what we're paying for.

ZOMFG! OF COURSE!!!! (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#41136905)

And that new tax revenue stream would go directly to creating a nationwide wonder network of gleaming fiber and BAH HA HA HA HA! Yeah, yeah... uh huh

And we'll all get freshly baked cookies delivered by the new "Keebler Over Ethernet" protocols, and pretty birds singing sweet rock and roll will gives us free porn apps! And Stallman and Doctorow will put up shiny new HTML 6/Web 3.0 web sites detailing the coming enslavement of humanity because some people like the iPhone.

Cue the ACs calling me a horrible person for being so negative about the government and not having a 1500 page solution to the world's problems that does not involve unicorn magic and well timed pandemics.

Wheee! Monday!

Sooner or later (1)

na1led (1030470) | about 2 years ago | (#41136919)

The Government will be taxes us for everything we do, including breathing.

To live Rural is a choice for most (1)

realsilly (186931) | about 2 years ago | (#41136943)

I'm sorry but we've already been sold this bill of goods by the companies themselves. They have stated on more than one occasion that they're increasing their cost to the customers to help build infrastructure. Now some (may most) is to help solidify the existing infrastructure, we've been told that it's also for the rural expansion. Those increased costs are also taxed, so in essence, we're already taxed for the rural expansion. Heck some of our regular phone bill taxes are supposed to help support the internet expansion.

Once again, the middle class customer is paying the bill for someone else just because they live in a rural area. /sigh

No, absolutely not (4, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | about 2 years ago | (#41136957)

As we have seen time and again with the Universal Service Fund, big health care (Pfizer being let off the hook for defrauding Medicare because punishing them would mean delisting all of their products from Medicare) and big finance (if you cannot immediately think of five major scandals, you've not been paying attention) the big guys get government money and aren't held accountable at all. At all. So, no. Not a single red cent to them. I don't give a damn how high and noble their stated goals are. Until we have an independent prosecutor who can hang one of these companies from the nearest lamp post for taking the money and not doing precisely what the money is for, the answer is "no."

And if you let your idealism get in the way and say "yes," you're an idiot who deserves to have your face rubbed into this when you get betrayed.

Would you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136963)

Would you suck my dick?

We already paid for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41136967)

We already paid billions for this in the 1990's.

We already payed the tax and continue to pay it (5, Insightful)

guruevi (827432) | about 2 years ago | (#41136979)

It's called the Universal Access Fund. It's still on your telco bill.

Why would we need yet another tax on our bill just so we can give more money to people that have demonstrated they have absolutely no intention into expanding their offerings.

It's not like the bandwidth is not available. If you have cable, most likely you are already able to get 100/100 Mbps without much of an investment (maybe replace the modem). The fact that you don't have it is because the cable companies don't have any incentive to give you more than 10Mbps because they're the incumbent, they have been granted monopolies in most places and they will rather spend money fighting any competition than giving you more access for free.

Dishonest summary (1)

Rix (54095) | about 2 years ago | (#41137025)

This wouldn't provide extra or faster broadband. It would be a tax on urbanites to subsidize rural broadband.

No, I would not want to see that. Let Farmer Joe pay his fair share.

Of Course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41137029)

Not paying my taxes would be a bad thing. Now would I SUPPORT an additional broadband tax? Depends on what it is used for. Initially I would say no, we currently have communication taxes in place that either need to be eliminated or the funds reallocated.

canada pays (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41137035)

13% we pay.....

Didn't we already PAY for faster internet? (5, Informative)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | about 2 years ago | (#41137099)

http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm [newnetworks.com]

I've been hearing about this for years but I was under the impression we already paid for 45 Meg up/down under the clinton presidency and while the telco's have been taking tax money for this, they still haven't built out the infrastructure we should have had several years ago.

Anyone know more about this?

It was also my understanding that the National Information Infrastructure was a result of the High Performance computing act of 1991 under Clinton and Gore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_Act_of_1991 [wikipedia.org]

So I have to ask. Why pay for more when we've been paying for it since 1991? I'm curious if other's can help me understand if I've misread what the act is supposed to do.

Sure they'd sit up and take notice... (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | about 2 years ago | (#41137103)

and then call the lobbyists and take the money and sell us out. Any idea that this is going to provide ubitquitous broadband service nationwide is a (pardon the pun) pipe dream. And once the tax is in place, it's never going away.

Sure, what's one more tax? (3, Informative)

silverhalide (584408) | about 2 years ago | (#41137131)

I mean, because obviously we have no sources of funding from our other taxes, so might as well start a new one, right?

Because it's just damn impossible to find funding in the rest of the budget stemming from:

Accounts Receivable Tax, Accumulated Earnings Tax, Alternative Minimum Tax, Aviation Fuel Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Cement and Gypsum Producers License Tax, Cigarette Tax, Coal Severance Tax, Coal Gross Proceeds Tax, Consumer Counsel Tax, Consumption Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Corporation License Tax, Electrical Energy Producers Tax, Estate Tax, Inheritance, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax, Fishing License Tax, Food Service License Tax, Fuel Permit License Tax, Gasoline Tax (8 to 35 cents per gallon), Generation-skipping Transfer Tax, Gift Tax, Gross Production Tax, Hospital Facility Utilization Fee Tax, Hunting License Fee Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Penalties Tax, Land Value Tax, Liquor License Tax, Liquor Tax, Local Tax, Lodging Facility Use Tax, Luxury Tax, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax,Metal Mines Gross Proceeds Tax, Metal Mines License Tax, Miscellaneous Mineral Mines License Tax, Miscellaneous Mines Net Proceeds Tax, Nursing Facility Bed Tax, Oil and Natural Gas Production Tax, Payroll Tax, Professional PrivilegeTax, Property Tax, Proxy Tax, Public Contractor's Gross Receipts Tax, Public Service Commission Tax, Public Utility Tax, Real Estate Tax, Real Estate Transfer Tax, Rental Vehicle Sales Tax,Resort Tax, Resource Indemnity and Groundwater Assessment Tax, Retail Telecommunications Excise Tax, Sales Tax, School Tax, Self-Employment Tax, Septic Permit Tax, Severance Tax, Social Security Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax, Statewide Emergency Telephone 911 System Fee Tax, Surtax Tax, Tariffs, Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, TDD Telecommunications Service Fee Tax, Tobacco Products Tax (Other than Cigarettes), Toll Road Fee Tax, Toll Bridge Fee Tax, Toll Tunnel Fee Tax, Tonnage Tax, Traffic Fines, Trailer Registration Fee Tax, Use Tax, Vehicle Registration and License Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Wholesale Energy Transaction Tax, Workers Compensation Tax.

We are taxed to death.

I already pay for that! (1)

aglider (2435074) | about 2 years ago | (#41137135)

I pay a tax when I earn money (income tax).
Then I pay an extra tax when I spend those taxed money (VAT).
Then I pat for goods/services themselves.

So, what'd be the point for this extra tax? Pointless!
If I want super fast giggo broadband, I buy premium.
If I want normal, I buy vanilla. That's it.

No, I would not. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41137143)

I'm sorry people living the in the middle of nowhere don't have broadband, but that's kind of the cost of living in the middle of nowhere. I live in a city so I can have easy access to a wide array of restaurants, movies, martial arts studios, hospitals, jobs, utility coverage, cable/telephone service, and retail stores. I have to pay higher taxes, deal with more crime, and more traffic congestion, but compared to the middle of nowhere, I'll take it. I understand it's a trade off, and people that want to live away from everything should recognize that as well.

Setting that aside, this program would turn into corporate welfare, not to mention the scary proposition of giving more government control over the internet. Sorry, this is a bad idea.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>