backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 118 comment(s) - last by Evleos.. on Jan 15 at 9:45 AM

France may soon become the first nation to tax the internet

Taxing the internet has been a hotly debated proposition that is widely criticized by citizens, economists, and communications experts.  Still the government is always looking for new sources of income to pay for the escalating cost of military and social programs, so the issue enjoyed a long debate in the U.S. Congress, with an extension of the current tax ban passing only recently after much internal arguing within both parties.

Now French President Nicolas Sarkozy, oft labeled an iconoclast, has proposed taxing the internet in France to finance state-owned television.  The scenario provides the interesting reversal of a government looking to give television special privileges at the cost of internet, in this age, where usually the internet is constantly stealing TV's thunder.  President Sarkozy gave the announcement at a press conference from Paris's Elysee palace.

The President of France laid out an extremely controversial program to encourage state run television.  The first step, he says, is to "consider the total suppression of advertising on public channels" via legislation making them more viewer friendly.  In order to compensate for this loss of revenue, he suggests "an infinitesimal sales tax on new communication methods, like internet access and mobile telephony."

Audrey Mandela, founder of the independent London consulting agency Mandela Associates, is among the experts who say that gaining the support of the French legislature and the French people for such an initiative would be very tough.  She says, "Generally speaking, taxing the Internet is considered a bad idea, and a potential brake to net use and development, but without knowing the details of the French proposal, it's difficult to say how problematic an Internet tax there would be."

French internet use is growing by 14% per year, with a big 22% increase per year in high-speed connections.  Mandela suggested that a tax may cause some new users to give up the internet, hurting communications companies.  However, other users need the internet and simply could not give it up, so it’s not an option.  She explains, "The people most likely to balk at tax-increased Internet prices are new users who figure if it's getting more expensive, they can keep doing without it.  These days, there just aren't many people who could respond to higher Internet prices by saying, 'Forget it, I'll just do without the net from now on.  Ten, even five years ago, that wasn't necessarily so. Today, who has the choice?"

The likely proposal is estimated to be a flat tax per-user to Internet Service Providers (ISPs).  There are 16.1 million accounts in the nation, so a flat monthly surtax of one euro would raise roughly $290 million USD for the program (about 25% of the $1.2 billion USD in revenue from commercials on public TV). 

Some say the tax could be even higher, as France has very cheap internet service rates for Europe.  The average monthly bill is a mere $37, which is around 37% lower than the average of its neighboring countries.

Some critics point out that the plan will lead to job cuts in State TV's departments.  State TV official have come out strongly against the plan.  They point out that President Sarkozy's plan will send the over a billion dollars in advertiser revenue into the pockets of privately owned TV networks, including market leader TF1, owned by Martin Bouygues who is a close friend of Sarkozy. 

While some may simply say, "c'est la vie", this unsavory personal connection and the general implications of taxing the internet have many in France up in arms.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 1:29:54 PM , Rating: 3
> "Sarcozy [has] proposed taxing the internet in France to finance state-owned television..."

Better idea. Shut down state-owned television, sell that bandwidth to private firms, and use the money to finance development on next-gen internet services in the country.




RE: Better idea...
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 1:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
The difference in approaches that you point out clearly illustrates how socialist-leaning the French government is.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 1:46:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The difference in approaches that you point out clearly illustrates how socialist-leaning the French government is.

Either that, or how authoritarian masher's views are. People in france want state-sponsored TV, but instead he feels the need to not only take it away from them, but replace it with something they may not necessairly want.

You need to remember france is a democracy, and if any presidential candidate ran on a ticket that proposed getting rid of state-sponsored TV, they wouldn't get very far.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 1:50:26 PM , Rating: 4
> "Either that, or how authoritarian masher's views are"

Err, you might want to look up that word some time. Mandatory financing of state-sponsored media is certainly a more authoritarian measure than its absence.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 1:56:44 PM , Rating: 1
The financing of state sponsored media in france is supported by the people. Its a democratic choice.

You would prefer to take that service away from them, against their will, and pour the money from selling the resources into something they may not even want. I think its you who should be checking the dictionary.


RE: Better idea...
By Polynikes on 1/11/2008 2:04:11 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, because masher suggesting a different idea constitutes "authoritarianism."

The article says this has been a very controversial proposal... That doesn't sound like public support to me.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:10:41 PM , Rating: 3
> "Its controversial because the revenue would be coming from taxes of something other than TV"

Oops, the proposal also includes a bid to tax private TV to make up for the revenue from lost advertising on state TV. As reported by the BBC, that proposal is as controversial as the rest.


RE: Better idea...
By Hare on 1/12/2008 4:36:36 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
As reported by the BBC, that proposal is as controversial as the rest.
BBC, a state-owned corporation run by the BBC Trust; and is, per its charter, "free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners".

I don't see why every TV channel should be commercial/private. I personally believe that there's a place for state owned television because the whole idealogy behind the station is different from commercial channels.

Ps. TomZ can keep on watching Fox. Don't mind us crazy socialist Europeans that have a choice between n+1 commercial channels and state owned channels.


RE: Better idea...
By Spuke on 1/12/2008 6:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't mind us crazy socialist Europeans that have a choice between n+1 commercial channels and state owned channels.
Hey, as long as you're the one paying for it! It's all good to me.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:16:34 PM , Rating: 4
> "You would prefer to take that service away from them, against their will..."

Come now, surely you can see how silly this is. Removing a requirement that the government fund an activity is not an authoritarian measure.

By your logic, a law requiring Nazi Germany stop funding Jewish concentration camps would be authoritarian, because "the people" want them.

Authoritarian governments are defined by the measure of control they exert over the citizenry...regardless of whether or not that control is "popular" (and it usually is, at least at the start).

A law forcing people to pay for state-controlled television is authoritarian. Or more correctly, it's moreso than allowing people to choose whether or not they pay for private television services. This really isn't open to debate.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 2:22:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Removing a requirement that the government fund an activity is not an authoritarian measure.

quote:
Shut down state-owned television, sell that bandwidth to private firms, and use the money to finance development on next-gen internet services in the country.

Your proposal wasn't to drop government funding... it was to shift it away from where people want it to somewhere they may not want.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:29:48 PM , Rating: 1
No. My proposal was to stop forcing the citizens of France to pay for a service. Taxes are ultimately taken from their own pockets, after all.

Once that is done, the unused property (preexisting channels) obviously should then be sold off. Given those resultant funds were freely given (the purchaser chose to buy that bandwidth) there is no coercion involved.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 2:35:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
My proposal was to stop forcing the citizens of France to pay for a service

Last I checked, France was a democracy (a very lively one at that... if you do something they don't like, you'll get riots rather quickly, which then in turns generally leads to changes in policy). They also support paying TV taxes to have state-sponsored TV.

Your proposal was to remove something that they want, and spend the money on something that you think they'll want.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 2:44:56 PM , Rating: 3
I'm generally in favor of smaller government. However, the majority of the French support a TV tax. Getting rid of something like that would not make sense. A government should not act against the will of its citizens.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:49:24 PM , Rating: 1
> "A government should not act against the will of its citizens. "

In all cases? What if 51% of the population want to enslave the other 49%? Democratic rule doesn't imply that any and all things are moral and just, simply because a majority of the people desire it.