[IP] Re: Bush Proposes Tax on WiFi]

[Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[Dewayne-Net] Re: Bush Proposes Tax on WiFi
Date: 	Tue, 07 Feb 2006 07:33:27 -0800
From: 	Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@dandin.com>
Reply-To: 	dewayne@warpspeed.com
To: 	Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@warpspeed.com>
References: 	<1139317651.43e89b9336bce@webmail.his.com>



[Note:  I'm cross posting this from another list.  I haven't seen  
another source run the same content as the RCR story, so Harold may  
have a point.  DLH]

> From: Harold Feld <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>
> Date: February 7, 2006 5:07:31 AM PST
> To: Robert Horvitz <horvitz@vol.cz>
> Cc: ipolicy@mailhost.soros.org,  
> openspectrum@listserv.media.mit.edu, unlicensed_advocates@kumr.lns.com
> Subject: [Openspectrum] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Bush proposes  
> tax on Wi-Fi, unlicensed spectrum
>
> PLEASE STAMP OUT THIS URBAN RUMOR BEFORE IT SPREADS!
>
> Not that I blame Robert, but I wish reporters would read things a  
> little more
> carefully.
>
> Ribbono d'almah kulah, the modem tax of the 21st Century.
>
> The President's budget message explicitly refers to unauctioned  
> LICENSED
> spectrum.  Nor does it impose a tax or fee, but authorize the FCC  
> to do so.
>
> This is an anual event here in the U.S. The administration has  
> wanted to impose
> spectrum user fees on broadcasters.  This has a snowball's chance  
> on Mercury of
> passing.  So this year, instead of saying "broadcasters" it  
> included all users
> of unauctioned licensed spectrum, with a justification that a user  
> fee will
> cause the licensee to internalize the cost of not using the  
> spectrum and spur
> the licensee to maximize the value of the resource.  Because, as we  
> all know,
> maximizing economic value MUST BE the highest best use of  
> spectrum.  Just ask
> any fireman.
>
> Now, dependng on how it actually got drafted, it COULD give the FCC  
> authority to
> impose some kind of user fee on "unlicensed" spectrum.  This would  
> very much
> depend on actual statutory language.
>
> Harold
>
> Quoting Robert Horvitz <horvitz@vol.cz>:
>
> > http://rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=25545
> >
> > by Jeffrey Silva, RCR Wireless News, 6 February:
> >
> > "The proposal, contained in the president's 2007 budget plan and
> > projected to raise $3.6 billion during the decade, is believed to
> > be aimed at unlicensed frequencies used for Wi-Fi and other
> > applications. It's unclear whether the 'user fee' tax would be paid
> > by equipment vendors or end users.
> >
> > " 'Spectrum assignment policy has not kept pace with the changing
> > market. Service providers using different technologies to deliver a
> > similar product can face different spectrum license acquisition
> > costs,' the budget stated. 'The lack of parity in spectrum
> > assignment creates incentives that can diminish the overall utility
> > of the spectrum...' "
> --
> Harold Feld
> Senior Vice President
> Media Access Project

Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>


-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/