VOIP, a tax cut for government
Potential savings from federal, state, and local deployment
A white paper by Tocqueville staff and associates
October 25, 2004
Copyright © Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, all rights reserved
|
“Minimize administrative operating costs”
[36] |
Because
the federal government can directly change the rules to the contracts process,
it has the ability to decide internally to reward contractors that employ VoIP
or influence them to consider deploying the new technology. Any number of government policies could
reward, increase, or decrease vendor use of VoIP technology to fulfill
government contracts.
For example, Section 16 of
the Federal Acquisition Regulations outlines various incentives that the
government puts in place to reduce costs, improve delivery and improve
performance.[37] VoIP
usage policy could become a part of an incentive policy. Considering the enormity of government
spending on telephone service via its procurement process, government’s option
to develop policy focused on VoIP savings is as germaine to the savings
question as its direct spending on telephone services. Section E will explore policy
recommendations and VoIP.
7. Summary: Annual savings estimates with VoIP
Considering
empirical data, it is probable that estimates that support average line costs
above $60 annually are more probable than line costs below $60 annually. This produces a considerable range of
estimates. However, considering that it
is improbable
that line per employee ratios are much greater than 1:2 on average, we are left
with a smaller range of estimates: from
$6 billion to as much as $19 billion annually. Chart J illustrates this
point. Average military estimates
increase these numbers on average as much as $1 billion annually.
Indirectly,
the government supports an enormous telephone bill annually to meet its
operational needs. The estimate of $16
billion annually pushes the average telecommunications bill of government in
the range of $23 billion to $36 billion every year.
The
government cannot directly affect (or reduce) its indirect telecommunications
costs. However, it can directly influence
its own telephone bill. A savings of
just 30%, would produce an annual savings of $2.1 – $6 billion annually.
Chart
K provides a snapshot of this analysis.
Section D. A closer look at the VoIP tax threat
1. Overview: Tax revenue from telephone usage
The focus of concern over
VoIP and taxes is lost revenue for government. Thus, it is not only logical, but
imperative to analyze both sides of the financial picture.
In
So, what is the total amount
of tax dollars that unregulated, untaxed VoIP threatens?
2. Accepted total usage figure: $20 billion
For many years, the figure
of $20 billion has been the most accepted estimate of the annual amount of tax
dollars collected from telecommunications services. Thus, $20 billion has been one of the more
popular numbers VoIP detractors argue states and localities will potentially
lose.
A recent example includes
Senator Lamar Alexander (D) introducing the $20 billion figure in a
Senate Commerce Committee Hearing in February commenting, “state and local
governments across the
Members of the private
sector also embrace this number. Rowland
Curry, an Austin, Texas-based telecom policy consultant to state public service
commissions and consumer groups, noted in a private interview that it is also
very much about money: The states have $20 billion a year at stake in the
telecom Universal Service Fund and other fees, a sum they are loathe to lose to
VOIP.”[39]
Understanding
the origins of this estimate is actually helpful in understanding the question
of regulating VoIP.
2.1 COST Study
On
2.2 PFF Study
Extrapolating the tax rates
published in the COST Study, Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) published a
paper entitled, “the Tangled Web of Taxing Talk: Telecommunications Taxes in
the New Milennium” one of the first papers to use the COST study methodology to
estimate the aggregate amount of sales tax on telecommunications services
collected by government. The following
excerpt described their methodology:
“According
to FCC data, telecommunications providers reported receiving just over $230
billion in revenue in 1997, which translates into estimated total revenue in
the year 2000 of just under $270 billion-- if one assumes an annual growth rate
in revenues of 5 percent a year. Roughly 45
percent of this total comprised revenue from local calls, while revenue from
all intrastate calls (including local calls) made up 55 percent of the
total. As a rough first estimate, these
data suggest that state and local telecommunications revenue, or about $135
billion in the year 2000.”
Treating
the average burdens (see PFF tax chart attachment) as average tax rates, and
multiplying these tax rates by 50 percent of total project telephone revenue in
each state, suggest that state and local telecommunications taxes and charges
will impose a total burden of
$22
billion in 2000. This estimate equals
roughly 8 percent of total telecommunications revenue.[41]
2.3 Ernst & Young Study
A report by Robert Cline of
Ernst & Young (EY) published in 2002 further delved into the COST study
data, as well as using FCC, state and local data sets. The report called: Telecommunications Taxes:
50-State Estimates of Excess State and Local Tax Burden used a 2000 update
published by COST to and reported:
“Telecommunications providers and consumers of telecommunications
services paid a total of $18.1 billion in state and local taxes in 1999: $5.3
billion in provider business taxes and $12.8 billion of transaction taxes.[42]
3. Problems with assigning
$20 billion in losses to VoIP
Reading the COST, PFF, and
EY studies closely, in many ways the $20 billion ‘total’ derived from the
reports is not as discernibly linked to the VoIP tax issue as many would
like. After a closer look, there are 5
independent problems with linking a $20 billion decline in taxes to VoIP.
3.1
Vague
definition of ‘telecommunications’ taxes
As an overview, each of the
studies estimated the approximate amount of total taxes collected also point
out that there are significant problems with how telecommunications taxes is
reported by state and local municipalities.
Each author indicates that the vague and opaque nature of state and
local tax collections create inherent difficulties with discerning telecom tax
totals.
PFF wrote, “It is much
harder to characterize the scope of state and local telecommunications taxation
because of the multitude of different jurisdictions that collect these
levies…There are upwards of 20 different broad types of state and local taxes
and fees levied on telecommunications providers; and the range of specific
state and local variation in these charges is almost as broad as the number of
different taxing jurisdictions that assess these charges. Elaborating on the challenge of discerning
how states and local governments were reporting telecommunications taxes, PFF
wrote, “Estimating the total amount of revenue collected by state and local
governments from the taxes and fees described above is complex because some of
these taxes and charges apply only to revenue from local calls, others to
revenue from intrastate calls, and still others to all revenue…”
This problem has an impact on the
VoIP tax question another way as well.
While the $20 billion estimate refers
to total telecommunications taxes, VoIP (in its present form) almost
exclusively impacts landline telecommunications. The EY study indicates that its study does
not separate wireless taxes, writing: “In this study,
telecommunications transaction taxes are defined as those imposed by state and
local governments on local, wireless, and long-distance (intrastate
and interstate) service providers and their customers.”
3.2 The irony of
using excess tax study estimates
It is clearly not the
intention of the authors of the COST, PFF, or EY reports to suggest that states
and local governments should rightfully
collect $20 billion annually in telecommunications taxes, but quite the
opposite. Each of the authors
respectively, provide tedious detail and analysis to establish that in fact,
the $20 billion figure is much too high, as states and municipalities should be
collecting substantially less in telecommunications taxes.
All three of the reports
were excess study reports. Specifically,
the COST, PFF, and EY reports vehemently argued that telecommunications taxes
were significantly higher than sales taxes for other goods. Each study produced excess tax estimates,
state by state numbers that calculated the difference between sales tax amounts for products and
sales tax amounts for telecommunications
services. The premise of each report
argued that: 1. consumers and businesses
were being overtaxed and, 2. better policies should be implemented to more
fairly adjust taxes for telecommunications taxes.
The COST report begins with
this point writing, “The experience of the telecommunications industry,
document in this study, indicates that the tax system imposed on this industry
is no longer manageable, and therefore, no longer serviceable. The report demonstrates that the existing
telecommunications tax system is even more burdensome and unmanageable that the
complicated transactional tax system applicable to general businesses. The study indicates that a higher nationwide
average effective rate of transactional taxes applies to telecommunications
services (18%) than to sales of goods by general business (6%).”
EY wrote, “An estimated 39%
of all telecom taxes - $7 billion – are excess taxes that exceed taxes
generally imposed on other business and their customers. Excess taxes exceed 50 % of telecom taxes in
12 states. Summarizing the problem of
excess taxes, PFF wrote, “…Since sales and use taxes are important sources of
state and local tax revenues, there is a rationale for taxing telecommunications
services – but not more heavily and in a more cumbersome manner than other
goods and services. State and local tax
reform efforts should thus focus both on simplifying telecommunications taxes,
and on reducing their burden to levels that are commensurate with taxes levied
on other goods.”
In conclusion, while it is
not certain how much reform would lower overall taxes, it is quite apparent
that each author insists that the total amount of taxes collected is
exceptionally higher than it should be.
To this extent, the $20 billion total VoIP detractors use is out of
context. It is not credible to validate the
$20 billion statistic from these reports and exclude their central thesis -
telecommunications taxes are unreasonably too high and should be rolled back
considerably.
3.3 Taxes vs. fees
Another problem with the $20
billion calculation is that local and state governments collect both fees and
taxes from telephone companies.
Considering the broad range of fees listed, it is quite acceptable to ask:
1. What percentage of the
$20 billion are fees as opposed to taxes?
2. Would all of these
receivables necessarily disappear with unregulated VoIP?
Chart K lists the litany of
taxes and fees associated with telecommunications taxes.
The PFF report summarizes
this point adding, “determining when a charge that is levied on a
telecommunications provider “crosses the line” that divides fees from taxes is
not easy. Nonetheless, many
telecommunications charges do not appear to finance specific services provided
to telecommunications providers or their customers by state and local
governments, but instead are either relics of the days when telecommunications
providers were heavily regulated by state and local governments, or are charges
that effectively defray “public benefits.”
Some of the issues that arise are illustrated by right-of-way charges
and 911 fees…”
3.4 Business
taxes vs. transaction taxes
Another problem with the $20
billion figure is that almost 30% of the taxes are not directly correlated to
traditional phone bills. This is seen
most clearly in Chart L from the EY report.
The EY study breaks state and local telecommunications taxes into two
categories: transactions taxes and business taxes. If they are different types of taxes, can
they be linked together? More
specifically, would VoIP threaten both types of taxes equally?
The everyday phone bill
lists transactions taxes such as the gross receipts tax, consumer sales and use
tax, a 911 tax, and other transactions taxes.
However, the total amount of taxes included in the EY estimate of $18
billion includes property tax, capital stock tax and sales tax on business
inputs. Business taxes imposed directly
on firms in the industry, including property taxes, capital stock taxes on net
worth, and sales and use taxes on inputs purchased by telecom companies in the
EY study come to 29.2% or $5.3 billion of the total estimate.
The EY report does not
predict how much of the $5.3 would be directly impacted by unregulated
VoIP. However, it is very likely that they
would be significantly less interrupted because they are not impacted directly
by consumer or business VoIP usage. How
does VoIP impact property taxes? How
could VoIP possibly impact capital stock taxes of a company? These points suggest that applying the entire
$20 billion figure is problematic.
3.5 Inconclusive
threshold
VoIP detractors insist that
unregulated VoIP presents a direct threat to $20 billion in state and local
taxes arguing: a) unregulated VoIP diminishes the sale of all telecommunications
services, thus all state and local tax revenues will diminish as well, b)
unregulated VoIP will drive this number critically downward enough to adversely
impact state and local treasuries c) unregulated VoIP will injure the $20
billion imminently; and without immediate regulation, the $20 billion in
revenue faces a serious shortfall.
However, this event does not
happen tomorrow. It has to start and
begin at some date 2005, 2006, etc.
Meanwhile, VoIP detractors have not provided any qualifying events,
signposts, or indicators to show that the total taxes collected are diminishing
or have diminished due to VoIP; and when this tax decrease will accelerate to
more significant numbers.
In sum, it inconclusive 1) what the total tax
collected from states and municipalities really is (or should be), 2) what
amount would be impacted by VoIP 3) how the fast or slow the $20 billion number
diminishes due to unregulated VoIP.
4. CBO VoIP loss estimates
To date, the Congressional
Budget Office[43]
(CBO) in
The CBO letter is careful to
use the words “up to... $3 billion” -- emphasis added. Hence the amount could be substantially lower.[44] Regardless, a $3 billion loss over five
years is still a tremendous departure from an immediate $20 billion loss. Meanwhile, if the losses were $3 billion a
year beginning in 5 years, it would take almost an additional 6 years (over 10
years) for cities to lose a total of $20 billion dollars.
This is significant also
because the $20 billion dollar figure is an annual estimate not a total. Thus, according the CBO estimate, local and
state governments would still collect $20 billion annually until 2009, and $17
billion annually thereafter.
Another point is that some
would argue that 5 years is more like 10 or 20 years in the Internet age. For the $3 billion loss to occur, we must
assume that no other products of innovation will enter the market and generate
new sales taxes. For example, one
obvious new source of sales tax revenue could be from new VoIP equipment
sales.
A recent article in New
Telephony Magazine highlighted the associative increase in equipment sales from VoIP,
reporting, “Rebounding in the last quarter of 2003, sales of voice-over-IP
equipment rose 31 percent over the previous quarter and totaled $338 million
worldwide, according to figures from Infonetics
Research's quarterly worldwide market share and forecast service, Next
Generation Voice Products. According to Infonetics, "vendors benefited
from a surge of budget clearing and [an] overall trend to VoIP." For the long term,
Infonetics predicts the worldwide market will grow 305 percent to $5 billion
from 2003 to 2007, which is a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 42 percent.[45]
While equipment sales
worldwide grew, the
It is safe to speculate that
a significant increase in VoIP usage would lead to an increase in the sale of
new VoIP equipment and a respective increase in sales taxes from that
equipment. In sum, it is fair to
question whether these products or others will offset concerns of tax losses.
5. Summary: The VoIP tax threat is inconclusive
Each
study that has been credited with the $20 billion tax estimates also insists
that the number is either too high, inaccurate, or not associated directly with
taxes that VoIP would directly threaten.
Meanwhile, the CBO letter contradicts the $20 billion analysis directly
arguing that at best, we would only see a $3
billion yearly loss in taxes.
With
“best guess” estimates on both sides attributed to VoIP savings and VoIP
losses, the next logical step is to compare the benefits and losses to
government from VoIP deployment.
Section E. Unregulated VOIP: Impacts on government
1. Overview of estimates:
savings vs. losses
As discussed in the previous
section, with limited data available, the total telephone bill for local, state,
and federal government can at best be roughly estimated. The model(s) provided in this report can only
present ‘what if’ scenarios. Likewise,
examining arguments regarding VoIP’s threat to tax dollars it becomes clear that such conclusions are
not within the range of 100% certainty either.
The question, however,
remains compelling.
Today, government already engaged in VoIP deployment is saving millions annually. While the CBO maintains that government could potentially lose as much as $3 billion annually from VoIP, (starting in 2009), it is arguable within that time, local, state, and federal government could end up saving hundreds of millions annually from migration to VoIP. Thus, the question remains - with a ball park estimate of the government’s total telephone bill, and assuming a conservative savings from VoIP implementation, what would the net loss/gain to government be in 2009? Chart L speculates that net gain/loss from government VoIP deployment.
2. Adjusting estimates For slower migration to VoIP
The primary difficulty for
both government savings and government loss estimates points to the difficulty
of establishing a threshold—a confirmable time when either the savings or
losses begin. While VoIP savings has
already begun, without rate of deployment data, it is uncertain when government
would achieve 100% migration to VoIP.
As previously discussed,
CBO’s predictions for government losses due to VoIP do not begin for five
years. Without a rate of deployment
figure for VoIP to government, it becomes increasingly difficult to anticipate
how much of a savings government would enjoy by 2009 from VoIP.
Chart
M demonstrates that adjusting each net total for slower deployment at 40%, 50%,
and 60% respectively, we would still see significant net gains from government
use of VoIP.
3. The VoIP Tax Cut
Regardless of the empirical
and theoretical data, the net savings to government from VoIP deployment many
still would argue is tenuous. With
deployment being a key trigger to savings, deployment rate statistics like the
one the CBO letter all would be used by detractors to suggest that a) VoIP
adoption is not very significant and b) VoIP adoption would not be significant
enough to meet any of the VoIP savings projections. However, focus on this line of analysis
misses the the larger point of this study.
Whether government will
reach the savings estimates in this report is dependent upon government choice
to do so. Specifically, the gravity of
the VoIP government savings argument is the question of whether the savings
itself is enough of motivator to put government on track to enjoy the savings;
whether saving billions of dollars above the tax would be enough to motivate
government embrace a VoIP deployment policy.
3.1
VoIP as a tool to encourage sales tax reform
VoIP is being explored by
both traditional carriers and new entrants.
As more companies flock to this new technology, it becomes increasingly
probable that as more consumers and businesses enjoy fewer fees from using the
service, its attractiveness will only escalate.
VoIP becomes an effective tool for local and state government to speed
reform so they can keep tax revenue.
3.2
VoIP as a tool to increase sales taxes
VoIP installations could
substantially increase with government policy to offer entrepreneurs, VoIP
providers, etc. incentives to sell this equipment in the private sector. More equipment sales will also substantially
increase sales taxes. VoIP is a
broadband component. Thus, increased
VoIP will increase sales of hardware and software as well, all products that
generate significant sales taxes.
3.3
Low telecom taxes as an amenity for city residents
Debt unfortunately is
hurting hundreds of government entities across the country. The focus of states and municipalities should
be to encourage their state to become the lowest cost provider of
telecommunications services. The first
VoIP city or state will have exceptionally telecom service bill. Subsequently, this could increase growth and
investment in the state. But also,
government could offer this tax savings on telecom as a benefit to work and
invest in the state. Offering low taxes
and low service costs for telecom could ultimately be an excellent selling tool
for government
3.4.
VoIP as a tool
to lower the tax burden to business and consumers
Hundreds of governments
around the country are lowering their overall expense of doing business due to
VoIP. If government could lower its tax
burden on citizens due to VoIP, or give citizens a tax refund due to adopting
the new technology, VoIP deployment could offers several benefits to government
at one time.
4. Market Impact of Government Supported VoIP
Ultimately, the market
impact the government procurement has on telecommunications is colossal. Direct spending and indirect spending on
telecommunications easily approaches $40 billion annually. A VoIP- Centric policy that would a) reward
modernization and investment in VoIP and b) reward switching to the new technology
could easily spur job growth, economic development, and ultimately new
taxes.
This point is not
speculative. A unilateral decision by
local, state, and federal government to promote VoIP purchases could
significantly impact the GDP of the
5. VoIP issue as a template for disturbance
Convergence and disturbance
are inherent factors of the technology sector.
Cameras, PCs, software, wireless devices, recording equipment, etc. are
all changing in features and primary capability. Merging of technologies are affecting sales
taxes in every consumer electronics product category offered today. The explosion of investment in Internet
applications made voice another likely target of digitization. Current tax
policy on telecommunications is cumbersome and controversial. In addition, because the current
telecommunications tax structure increases barriers to entry, it adversely
impacts innovation and competition in the sector. Government needs a public policy strategy
that keeps pace with the tech sector that is efficient as well as effective
Economist Scott Mackey
comments, “the convergence of communications technologies is likely to render
industry-specific taxes obsolete, difficult to enforce, economically
inefficient and competitively non-neutral.”[47] Supporting government adoption of VoIP a)
would be economically beneficial but also b) become an excellent way to study
how supporting nascent technology can speed economic development.
As discussed earlier, it is not certain that
government tax losses from VoIP will not be replaced by sales taxes from other
new products. The purpose of promoting
VoIP deployment would mean that government could more closely study how VoIP in
the marketplace promotes economic development and new sales taxes within
respective jurisdictions.
6. Conclusion: When the facts become irrelevant
6.1 Government must be a responsible steward of public
dollars
Cognitive dissonance is often used by psychologists
to describe when individuals have a belief in one reality but reach a state of
denial when they encounter a truth that torpedoes their beliefs. In order
to assimilate inconsistent information with their beliefs, individuals
experiencing dissonance will often rationalize and even dismiss the facts
presented altogether.
This paper asks which two actions are more
financially advantageous for government: regulating VoIP with new taxes, or
supporting the status quo and allowing the new technology to continue as it has
been in the marketplace. While this
paper is not conclusive in its findings, the enormity of the potential savings
to government and taxpayers suggests that this issue should immediately receive
a much closer look.
The idea that government is focused on preserving its
$3 billion annually in revenues is understandable. But if its internal IT departments are of the
opinion that VoIP deployment can save them twice the amount of money they are
losing, we have to question whether government is being prudent when it is
moving opposite ideological directions.
This is not to deny local and state government its
regulatory authority to regulate VoIP. However, if the government’s
responsibility includes the stewardship of trillions of tax dollars, shouldn’t
its policy decisions take into account the best interest of its taxpayers – the
contributors of every dollar the government collects? As a steward of public dollars, shouldn’t its
decisions (as
often as possible) provide cost reductions to the public?
6.2. Should taxing and government spending be related
decisions?
Just like any other entity, government must generate
income and manage expenditures. Over
the last two decades to tackle debt, government has implemented policies to
decrease the size of government (and government spending) and lower taxes. In the case of the potentially tremendous
savings to government VoIP may afford, it is essential that government study if
reducing its spending on traditional telephone service is a faster and more
fiscally sound approach to increasing its operating revenue.
6.3. Government procurement
policy
Sub Part 16 of the Cost
Reimbursement Contracts lists a number of ways that government can change its
policy to encourage contractors. Cost
plus award fees, cost plus incentive or even cost plus fixed fees are a few of
the varied ways government presently structures it vendor relationships.[48]
As opposed to
focusing only on sales tax revenue, the government could structure its
procurement policies to 1. increase its deployment of VoIP
and 2. increase its savings
from VoIP, 3) increase its total spending on procurement.
Section F. Policy recommendations
1. Federal, state, and local agencies should study carefully the potential savings from conversion to VOIP and similar technologies. The state of California provides a useful model in this regard, particularly regarding the establishment of a timetable for bringing research to a conclusion and moving repaidly to implementation.
2. Calculating savings from VOIP deployment is rendered difficult by a woeful opacity of telecommunications expenditures, particularly at the federal level. Inspector generals at all the federal departments should demand from the companies, and provide to the public, greater transparency. The president's Office of Management and Budget should conduct a government-wide review of potential VOIP and other technology-upgrade savings.
3. Congress has its own oversight responsibility. The telecommunications industry has seen massive regulatory change and confusion in recent years; overcapacity and consolidation; and, it must be noted, in some cases, outright fraud in billing, as well as brazen lobbying and litigation. Tocqueville recommends that the relevant committees hold hearings regarding federal telecommunications expenditures, as a first step towards forming a coherent policy not only for VOIP, but other tax and regulatory questions regarding telecommunications.
Section G. Tables
The tables for this paper appear in a separate document.
HTML: To view (left click) or save (right click, then follow menu) the tables for this paper in ".html" format using your browser, click here.
DOC: To view (left click) or save (right click, then follow menu) the tables for this paper as a ".doc" Microsoft Word file, click here.
Section H. Acknowledgements
Tocqueville is grateful to dozens of local and state officials who took the time to provide us with statistics, facts, and perspective on their experience with telecommunications. Many of them are named in the text and notes; others are not; but we are grateful to them all.
Similarly, there are a number of private contractors, librarians, and others who provided valuable research or editorial input. Among those are Carolyn Polinsky, Justin Orndorff, Indra R. Morton, Dan Berninger, Ryan Voorhis, and Dan Gramelli.
Steven N. Fossedal coordinated many of these efforts, and provided independent research, and deserves special mention.
Ken Brown launched the effort, and received valuable advice and support from Gregory Fossedal, Dan Mahony, Mike Gravel, and many others.
Section I. Notes
[1]
Government began regulating telephone service with the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910,
legislation that mandated common carriers to provide service even where it was
unprofitable. [2] “VoIP
Regulation. Regulation Is a Political Not a Technical Problem for VoIP,” Jim
Barthold, July/Aug 2004. See
http://www.vonmag.com/issue/2004/julaug/features/voip_regulation.htm [3]“
…That's because
applications will run on that broadband pipe and VoIP -- as much as the
[7]
VoIP is Key to Capturing Government and Education Managed IP VPN Business, Tech
Update, David Parks, [9] Interview with Karen Hogan, Deputy
Chief Information Officer, Department of Commerce and Ken Brown of AdTI,
Department of Commerce, September 27, 2004 [13] http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040927005432&newsLang=en
[15]
“State IT Execs Betting On VoIP,
[16]
"Buying into VoIP," October 23, 2003, [17]
“State IT Execs Betting On VoIP, [18] VoIP’s Second Act, Alan Joch, [19] Although the research team for this
report was able to collect empirical data from a number of very cooperative and
helpful agencies around the country, it did not have the resources to collect
the totals for every state and federal agency in the U.S. Research team
solicited responses from about 200 agencies and received 47 responses over a 4
month period. [20] Federal Technology Service Overview
http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/channelView.do?pageTypeId=8199&channelId=-13291 [21]
Federal Acquisition Policy divides
purchasing into two divisions Civilian Agency Acquisitions Council and Defense
Acquisitions Council. GSA and DOD are its respective representatives. See http://www.arnet.gov/far/loadmainre.html
[22]
See Table section. [24]
Interview with Lawrence Harte, author, president of Althos Publishing. www.althosbooks.com,
http://www.lawrenceharte.com/ [25]
See www.census.gov. [26] www.fcc.gov [27] State by state estimates are provided
in the notes section [28] The variances of $20, $30, $60, and
$90 average line rates were chosen based on empirical data and anticipating
large long distance bill discounts and/or bulk rate discounts. These amounts are contrasted with of 1:1,
1:2, 1:5, and [29] Conversely, upon surveying different
government agencies, empirically, it is was not unusual for offices to have
higher than 1:1 ratios. Higher ratios
were due to the prevalence of private lines, conference room lines, lobby
lines, and a wide assortment of lines used for emergency and redundancy
purposes. Erring on the side of being conservative, these estimates predict
that most organizations have no more than one line per employee. [30]
U.S. Census, 2002 [32] Freedom of Information Act and
Privacy Act Request, AdTI, [33] [37] http://www.arnet.gov/far/farqueryframe.html,
Subpart 16.4- Incentive Contracts, Federal Acquisition System [40]
COST study, available online. [42]
"Telecommunications Taxes: 50-State Estimates of Excess State and Local Tax Burden," Robert Cline, State Tax Notes, June 3, 2002.
[43] www.cbo.gov. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5040&sequence=0
Letter to
Senator
Lamar Alexander in notes section [44] CBO interview with Kenneth Brown of
AdTI, [45] VoIP Equipment Sales Up 31%, New
Telephony, [46] “Carrier VoiP Equipment Ready for
Substantial Growth”, [47]
"The Excessive State and Local Tax Burden on Wireless Telecommunications Service," July 19, 2004, page 6. See, www.heartland.org.
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution white papers appear periodically on issues of public concern to the advancement and perfection of democracy. AdTI is solely responsible for their coneception and content and retains all rights thereto.
