U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

50–140 PDF 2010

CELL TAX FAIRNESS ACT OF 2009 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 1521 

JUNE 9, 2009 

Serial No. 111–41 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chairman 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MICHONE JOHNSON, Chief Counsel 

DANIEL FLORES, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 9, 2009 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 1521, the ‘‘Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009’’ .................................................... 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ........................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law .................................................................................................. 10 

The Honorable Jim Jordan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio, and Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 10 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ................................................................................................................ 11 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 12 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Robert D. Atkinson, Ph.D., President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

The Honorable Mara Candelaria Reardon, Indiana House of Representatives 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23 

Ms. Joanne Hovis, Columbia Telecommunications Corporation, on behalf of 

the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the 

National Association of Counties, the Government Finance Officers Association, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the Natiional League 

of Cities 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28 

The Honorable Joseph A. Gibbons, Florida House of Representatives 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 34 

The Honorable Don Stapley, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, on behalf 

of the National Association of Counties, the Government Finance Officers 

Association, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the National 

League of Cities 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 39 

Page

IV 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Federation of Tax Administrators, submitted by 

the Honorable William D. Delahunt, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Massachusetts ................................................................................. 63 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Robert D. Atkinson, Ph.D., President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation .............................. 77 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Mara Candelaria 

Reardon, Indiana House of Representatives ...................................................... 80 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Joanne Hovis, Columbia Telecommunications Corporation, on behalf of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the National Association of Counties, the Government Finance Officers Association, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the Natiional League of Cities ..................................... 84 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Joseph A. Gibbons, 

Florida House of Representatives ....................................................................... 88 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from The Honorable Don Stapley, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors ...................................................................... 93 

(1) 

CELL TAX FAIRNESS ACT OF 2009 

TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL

AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:35 a.m., in 

room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve 

Cohen (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Cohen, Delahunt, Watt, Sherman, 

Lofgren, Scott, Franks, Smith, Jordan, and Issa. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Norberto Salinas, Counsel; Adam Russell, Professional Staff Member; and (Minority) Daniel Flores, 

Counsel. 

Mr. COHEN. This hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will now come 

to order. Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare 

a recess of the hearing. I will now recognize myself for a short 

statement. 

In 2000, the National Governors’ Association issued a report concluding that existing State and local telecommunications tax systems were inefficient, complex, and not competitively neutral. However, only some States have reformed their telecommunications tax 

policies, with many others possibly losing out on economic growth 

while costing their residents billions of dollars in taxes and fees. 

Most State and local tax policies do not reflect today’s market for 

communication services, particularly the wireless industry. For example, some jurisdictions impose both a gross receipts tax and a 

general sales tax on wireless services. Others impose higher tax 

rates on wireless services when compared to other services. Still 

other States arguably discourage investments in telecommunications infrastructure by imposing excessive taxes on the telecommunications industry’s capital investments. 

These forms of discriminatory taxation affect the pocketbooks of 

consumers. This has the effect of chilling investment and impacting 

interstate commerce. 

Having been a legislator, I am aware of the need for revenue and 

also the difficulties sometimes in catching up with technology. 

Today we hold a hearing on H.R. 1521, the ‘‘Cell Tax Fairness 

Act of 2009.’’ H.R. 1521 would impose a 5-year moratorium on any 

new discriminatory tax with respect to mobile services, mobile service providers, or mobile service property. The legislation would preVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:34 Jan 19, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\060909\50140.000 HJUD1 PsN: 50140
2 

vent increasing taxes imposed solely on wireless subscribers and 

wireless providers. More importantly, the 5-year moratorium would 

provide the telecommunications industry and the State and local 

governments the opportunity to come together and work on reforming the current communications tax structure. Doing so will maintain a steady stream of revenue for State and local governments 

while ensuring a fair tax burden among communications mediums, 

including wireless services. 

It reminds me of Lyndon Johnson: Let us come together. 

This hearing will provide Members of the Subcommittee the opportunity to hear testimony from State and local governments’ reliance on taxes and fees on wireless services. Members will also hear 

testimony about how those taxes and fees impact consumers and 

wireless providers. 

Finally, Members will hear testimony about how important affordable access to wireless services is to the growth of broadband 

access in this country. 

This testimony should help us determine whether Congress 

should intercede with this legislation. I am cognizant of the current 

plight that State and local governments are experiencing vis-a-vis 

revenue. They are all cash strapped and I can sympathize with 

their concerns. They receive lower revenues but still are expected 

to provide essential services. 

This legislation is not intended to affect current State and local 

Government revenues. In fact, H.R. 1521 will not prevent taxing 

authorities to continue to tax wireless services and providers. It 

merely imposes a short moratorium on certain new discriminatory 

taxes. We need fair tax policies to encourage capital investment to 

help consumers. 

Accordingly, I look forward to today’s testimony. 

I now recognize my colleague, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Franks, for his opening remarks. 

[The bill, H.R. 1521, follows:] 

3 


HR1521-1.eps
4 


HR1521-2.eps
5 


HR1521-3.eps
6 


HR1521-4.eps
7 


HR1521-5.eps
8 


HR1521-6.eps
9 


HR1521-7.eps
10 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would 

like to start by thanking the Chair for holding this hearing. I really 

appreciate what you are doing today. Today’s hearing is the second 

in less than a year on this topic. 

H.R. 1521, the Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009, has 112 cosponsors 

in the 111th Congress. This is a nearly identical amount of support 

to a similar bill in the 110th Congress. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be one of those 112 sponsors, as I know you are. And I hope 

that with your leadership and that of Ms. Lofgren, we can have a 

markup of this legislation in the near future. 

I support the legislation because it is my belief that States and 

localities unfairly burden cell phone consumers with excess taxes. 

Nationwide, the average tax on wireless service is 15.19 percent, 

which is more than double the average sales tax rate for all businesses, which is 7.07 percent. These tax rates are more in keeping 

with sin taxes; that is, taxes on alcohol and tobacco, than with general business taxes. 

It is my understanding that these taxes on the wireless industry are estimated to be over $15 billion a year. That is an astonishing 

number, and something that warrants the attention of the Subcommittee. 

I know that discrimination, at least in this context, is often in 

the eyes of the beholder. However, by any definition imposing taxes 

on a wireless procedure that are more than double what general 

businesses pay should be considered discriminatory. 

I will also continue to oppose discriminatory taxes or excise taxes 

that are imposed by States that excessively punish individual industries. I strongly believe that consumers should be the ones to 

pick winners and losers and not government. 

And finally, I am heartened to see the two State representatives 

testifying today because I know that many States are hurting financially. My State is currently trying to close a $3 billion deficit, 

and I respect those concerned about this bill’s effect on State revenues. However, this legislation merely freezes current tax structures on wireless services for 5 years, and I believe that is a worthwhile purpose and one that will benefit consumers and technological advancements in the long run. 

And Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome one of the panel 

members especially today. Don Stapley is a member of the Board 

of Supervisors in my county, and he is a good friend, and I appreciate him being here. He is a little bit disoriented on this legislation today, but that is all right. We understand. That can happen 

even to people from Arizona. But I am very grateful for him showing up here. 

And with the Chairman’s permission, I would like to yield the 

balance of my time to Mr. Jordan for a brief opening. He just wants 

to go 60 seconds. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the Ranking Member. And I want to also 

thank the Chair and Ms. Lofgren for sponsoring this legislation. I 

have to go to an Ohio delegation meeting here at noon, so I won’t 

be able to stay for much of the testimony. 

I just want to say that I appreciate that this bill is being brought 

forward. I am a cosponsor and, like the Ranking Member indicated, 

it is good to see some State legislators here who support this legisVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:34 Jan 19, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\060909\50140.000 HJUD1 PsN: 50140
11 

lation as well. I understand that tax fairness is important, particularly in this area. So with that, I would yield back the balance of 

my time and thank the Ranking Member for yielding. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. I would now like to recognize the distinguished lady from California, who is a sponsor of this legislation, 

if she would like to make some remarks. Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I very much appreciate that you have scheduled this hearing today. 

I introduced this bill because I believe that wireless services and 

mobile devices are increasingly essential to affordable broadband 

access in the United States. 

Now, there is no doubt that expanding broadband speed and access should be a national priority. We rank 15th out of 30 members 

of the OECD in broadband adoption per capita. So we have a lot 

of catching up to do. Only about half of American households have 

access to broadband, most to relatively slow service, especially compared to what is widely adopted in other countries like South 

Korea and Japan. 

President Obama has recognized the imperative of building 

broadband capacity. The FCC is developing a comprehensive plan 

for national broadband as mandated by the stimulus legislation 

Congress passed a few months ago. Broadband Internet is a critical 

infrastructure. Just like highways or ports through the power grid, 

it is essential to daily life and to future economic growth. 

We have come quite a long way with wireless, but this is still an 

emerging technology, and we have a long way to go. In the first 

quarter of 2008, 37 percent of U.S. mobile subscribers paid for access to the Internet, and 15 percent used it at least one a month. 

Now use of the new spectrum from the 700 megahertz auction and 

the deployment of 4G networks are just beginning. These technologies have tremendous promise, not just faster Internet access, 

but also lots of new innovative applications. 

Anyone who spent even a few minutes looking at applications on 

the iPhone, my favorite toy, has caught a glimpse of what the future might hold. And we can’t let discriminatory tax policies deter 

innovation. 

Now wireless is increasingly important to Internet access for 

working class and lower income Americans, and that makes a lot 

of sense. Cell phones have become an essential tool in life for nearly everyone. If you are well off, you can afford multiple Internet 

connections, such as cable and DSL at home. But if you don’t have 

as much money, you might rely on what you can get on your phone. 

Wireless users earning $20,000 to $40,000 a year access mobile 

data applications more than users earning $100,000 a year. And 39 

million wireless subscribers have incomes of less than $25,000 a 

year. Wireless is also crucial to extending broadband to underserved rural areas. According to the FCC, at the end of 2007 wireless broadband was the most widely distributed of all Internet connection technologies. Ninety-four percent of all ZIP codes have it. 

Despite the importance of wireless services, they face a disproportionate and growing tax burden. The average wireless customer pays 15.2 percent in Federal, State and local taxes and fees 

as opposed to 7.1 percent for other goods and services. Taxes on cell 

phone service have gone up four times faster than taxes on other 

12 

goods and services between 2003 and 2007. These discriminatory 

tax rates will discourage both consumer spending and industry investment in more advanced wireless services like faster mobile 

data. 

The 5-year moratorium in this bill will spur investment in the 

near term. It will also encourage State and local governments to 

harmonize and modernize their taxes in the longer term. We have 

a similar moratorium on Internet taxes that has spurred investment and innovation on the Internet. 

These taxes are also regressive. This is not only because lower 

income Americans rely more on their cell phones, the taxes themselves are often highly regressive such as per line flat fees. 

I do recognize the concerns of State and local governments and 

until this year I had actually spent more time on the Board of Supervisors in Santa Clara County than I had in the House of Representatives. I know that times are tough, and I am very sensitive 

to the concerns of State and local officials. However, this bill would 

not affect existing taxes. It only has to do with new discriminatory 

taxes, taxes put in place after enactment. And it would also not 

prevent States and municipalities from raising taxes on wireless 

services unless the taxes were discriminatory. So if you have a tax 

that you are adopting on everything, wireless would not be exempted. 

Now, I respect the autonomy of States and localities. But when 

you have a nationwide need to deploy broadband as we do, we can’t 

allow local tax deployment plans to really interfere with that national goal. 

So I am grateful for this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. I would now like to recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee, a lion from the 

State of Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you for having this hearing 

today on such an important piece of legislation, and I would also 

like to thank our colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Ms. 

Lofgren, for introducing H.R. 1521, the Cell Tax Fairness Act of 

2009, of which I am an original cosponsor. 

There are now 112 cosponsors of this bill, Republicans and 

Democrats alike, including many Members of this Committee. That 

is a strong indication of the popular support that this legislation 

enjoys. 

It has become clear to me that telecommunications firms and 

consumers, and in particular wireless services, are taxed higher at 

the State level than many other businesses. In our increasingly mobile economy, we should encourage the deployment of cell phone 

and wireless devices, not inhibit their use through higher taxes. 

The fact that these devices facilitate interstate commerce certainly 

gives the Congress the authority to constrain the States’ taxing authority. However, just because Congress has the authority to do 

something does not necessarily mean that it should exercise that 

authority in every case. 

13 

The taxing power has traditionally been within the jurisdiction 

of the States. And given the state of our economy, I sympathize 

with States’ concerns about losing revenue because of congressional 

intervention. However, I also know that promoting mobile telecommunications is one way to increase American commerce and 

generate American jobs. This bill is specifically written to prevent 

discriminatory taxes after the date of enactment. Any taxes already 

in effect will remain untouched. So States will not lose any revenue 

as a result of this proposal. 

I do look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses to see how 

we can balance the problem of disproportionate taxation of telecommunications firms and consumers against the needs of States’ 

treasuries. Unfortunately, since I won’t be able to stay much longer 

at this hearing because of a previous commitment, I do have some 

questions that I will submit for the record, but I want to mention 

those questions now in hopes that the panelists might address 

them. 

One, are wireless taxes regressive, and do they disproportionately impact lower and middle income consumers? Two, does the 

bill limit States rights? And three, if Congress passes this legislation, what impact would it have on State and local revenues, on 

consumers, and on wireless service providers? 

Mr. Chairman, thank you and I will yield back. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. If there are no other statements from the Members, I am pleased to introduce our first witness, and we introduce the witnesses before their testimony. I want 

to thank each witness on the front end for participating. Without 

objection, your written statement will be placed in the record and 

we would ask you to limit your remarks to 5 minutes. We have a 

lighting system that shows green when you are starting and you 

are somewhere in between the first 4 minutes, and yellow means 

you have got a minute to go and red means you need to close. 

After each witness has presented his or her testimony to the 

Subcommittee, Members will be permitted to ask questions. They 

also have a 5-minute limit. 

Our first witness is Mr. Robert D. Atkinson. He is the Founder 

and President of Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based technology policy think tank. He is 

also the author of State New Economy Index series and the book, 

The Past and Future of America’s Economy: Long Waves That 

Power Cycles of Growth. 

He has an extensive background in technology policy, has conducted groundbreaking research projects on technology and innovation, is a valued adviser to State and national policy members, and 

a popular speaker on innovation policy nationally and internationally. Before coming to ITIF, Dr. Atkinson was Vice President of the 

Progressive Policy Institute and Director of that institute’s Technology and New Economic Project. 

Previously Dr. Atkinson served as the first Executive Director of 

the Rhode Island Economic Policy Council, a public-private partnership, including as members the governor, legislative leaders, 

corporate, and labor leaders. And prior to that he was Project Director of the former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. He has testified several times before Members of Committees 

14 

of Congress, so he knows what to expect. He has appeared at various news outlets, including CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, NPR, and 

NBC Nightly news. 

Thank you, Dr. Atkinson. I am looking forward to your testimony. I am always amazed at people who have think tanks. It is 

better than the other tanks, and ’tank’ you for being here as you 

begin your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT D. ATKINSON, Ph.D., PRESIDENT, 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION FOUNDATION 

Mr. ATKINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are certainly a 

think tank, not a do tank. So we think about things. And thank 

you also, Mr. Franks, for the opportunity to be here today to talk 

about the impact of discriminatory taxes on wireless telecommunication services and on economic growth. 

It is clear from looking at the evidence from a wide array of 

economists that the U.S. economy has been transformed in the last 

15 years by information and communications technologies, including wireless communications. One of the reasons why U.S. productivity growth has been so strong compared to the prior period there 

is a clear consensus among economists that it is due to the IT revolution. What is also important is that innovation in IT continues 

to emerge. We see that in Congresswoman Lofgren’s example of the 

iPhone. But that is the tip of the iceberg. We are going to see a 

whole wide array of new wireless uses. This is not a bill about cell 

phones alone. This is about a revolution that is occurring in the 

U.S. economy where wireless devices and wireless services are 

going to be ubiquitous. And one of them, but certainly not the only 

one, is going to be wireless broadband. 

We are poised to see the deployment of new technologies in the 

next, really the next 12 months of what is called 4G, where you 

will get services of up to maybe 60, 70 megabits per second on a 

wireless device. This now provides the opportunity for what we call 

a third pipe going into the home and importantly a new opportunity for people who might not have been able to access 

broadband, particularly rural residents or lower income residents. 

When you look at taxation, there are basically three principles of 

optimal taxation. One, it should induce little change on consumer 

behavior. Secondly, it is not borne disproportionately by low-income 

individuals, and, third, it is not placed disproportionately on activities with positive externalities. Unfortunately, discriminatory taxes 

on cellular telecommunications violate all three principles. 

There is an argument that opponents of the bill make that this 

doesn’t affect wireless adoption. It may not affect consumers getting a cell phone. It is clear that most consumers value that and 

have to have it. But what it does affect is consumers getting ancillary services, buying more minutes, getting broadband on wireless, 

getting a whole array of other things. And there have been several 

academic studies that show this quite clearly. 

Rappoport, Alleman and Taylor found that for every new dollar 

of discriminatory tax on wireless services, expenditures by consumers go down by $1.60. Ingraham and Sidak found slightly lower 

numbers, $1.23 to $1.29 negative elasticity. In other words, consumers spend less. 

15 

In thinking about broadband and wireless broadband, Austan 

Goolsbee when he was at the University of Chicago, Dr. Goolsbee 

is now at the CEA, he found that actually it is much bigger for 

broadband, with a $2.75 negative elasticity. So a $1 tax on wireless 

broadband reduces the consumption of that service by $2.75. 

Not only that, but Goolsbee’s work has shown that taxes on wireless don’t just affect the consumer side. They affect the producer 

side and will reduce deployment, particularly in slightly high cost 

areas. 

Secondly, these have discriminatory effects on individuals based 

on income. In one study, Rappoport, Alleman and Taylor found that 

low-income individuals were as likely to adopt cellular Internet 

service and wireless Internet services as high-income individuals. 

So essentially this is not something that just high-income people 

are getting and we can justify a tax that way which may be legitimate, but that is not what is happening here. Low-income people 

are big users of this. And importantly, as GAO noted in a recent 

report, price is a barrier to adopting broadband services. A recent 

study by the Pew Internet and Society found that 35 percent of 

dial-up users say the major reasons for not switching to broadband 

is price. 

Thirdly, again really I think the key point here, is that this is 

a service, a wireless service as well as IT in general, has what 

economists call large positive externalities; in other words, what a 

consumer does with this device doesn’t just benefit the consumer, 

it benefits all consumers. It benefits businesses. It benefits government. 

And there are several reasons for that. One is a traditional notion of what are called network externalities. In other words, as 

each individual user is able to use one of these, other people are— 

it makes it easier and beneficial for other people to use this. 

Again a study by Austan Goolsbee and Klenow found that there 

are these positive externalities, and in neighborhoods where they 

are controlling for income and all these other factors in neighborhoods where more people are using broadband, it makes it easier 

for other people to use broadband. And the reason is when some 

people in a neighborhood use it, other people know about it. They 

talk about it and so there is this, as I said, positive externality. 

How much is that positive externality? Igraham and Sidak found 

that every dollar of tax on wireless services, national economic welfare falls by $1.23 to $1.95. So in other words, adding $1 reduces 

overall economic welfare by $1.23 to $1.95. 

Hausman at MIT found slightly smaller numbers, between 72 

cents and $1.14 loss. So again either number you use those are 

quite significant. 

Finally, the numbers on broadband are even higher. Goolsbee 

finds that it is anywhere around $3.55 national welfare loss. 

I will just close by saying having worked for a governor before 

in my past, I understand the issue of States and their rights here. 

But this is an issue where essentially what States do impacts the 

country as a whole. State taxes benefit the State. They hurt the entire country, which to me is a reason for Congress to act on this. 

Thank you, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Atkinson follows:] 

16 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. ATKINSON

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Franks, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the impact of discriminatory taxes 

on wireless telecommunications services on economic growth and opportunity. 

I am president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. ITIF 

is a nonpartisan research and educational institute whose mission is to formulate 

and promote public policies to advance technological innovation and productivity. 

Recognizing the vital role of technology in ensuring American prosperity, ITIF focuses on innovation, productivity, and digital economy issues. I have studied and 

written extensively about the issues of information technology and broadband and 

their effects on economic growth and societal improvement. 

IMPORTANCE OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS

In the last 15 years, the U.S. economy has been transformed by information and 

communications technology (IT), including wireless communications. One result has 

been a significant increase in U.S. economic productivity, with most economists 

agreeing that the increase was due to the IT revolution.1 And as a key component 

of the IT revolution, wireless technologies have contributed to that growth. 

Moreover, innovation in the IT industry is continuing, with changes in the wireless industry being among the most rapid. The development of the Apple iPhone, 

and the introduction of similar offerings by competing cell phone manufacturers, is 

but the most recent and visible manifestation of this flourishing of innovation. Increasingly businesses are using wireless technology to become more productive and 

innovative, with everything from tracking inventory, to monitoring the performance 

of their business on a real-time basis, to enabling mobile workers to be connected. 

Consumers are using wireless for an increasingly diverse and novel range of purposes, from health applications like remote monitoring of diabetes to financial applications like mobile banking and peer-to-peer payments. 

In addition, more and more parts of the United States have access to advanced 

3G wireless services, and the rollout of advanced next generation 4G services, such 

as Wi-Max and LTE, is proceeding. These next generation services are important 

not just because they will continue to serve as a platform for robust innovation in 

mobile services and applications, but also because they offer the promise of enabling 

the entry of a third broadband ‘‘pipe’’ to the home (to compete with cable modem 

and DSL/fiber service). This new pipe offers to not only bring additional competition 

and consumer benefits to all Americans, but also to provide broadband services in 

some rural areas that now cannot access wired broadband services. In addition, because wireless broadband may provide lower priced broadband in all areas, it has 

the potential to help lower-income Americans who to date have not previously subscribed to broadband. In short, wireless services promise to be a growing and more 

important part of the IT ecosystem in the United States. 

It is in this environment of innovation and digital transformation that your Committee considers legislation to ban new discriminatory taxes on wireless services. 

Imposing discriminatory taxes on wireless services is in essence taxing one of the 

major engines of U.S. innovation and economic growth, and as discussed below has 

significant impacts on economic growth and economic fairness. 

Principles of Optimal Taxation: Many tax economists suggest that there are 

three principles of optimal taxation of commodities. An efficient commodity tax: 1) 

induces little change in consumer behavior; 2) is not borne disproportionally by low 

income individuals and households; and 3) is not placed disproportionally on activities with strong positive externalities. Discriminatory taxes on cellular telecommunications violate all three principles. I will examine each principle. 

DISCRIMINATORY TAXES ON WIRELESS SERVICES REDUCE CONSUMER USE

Opponents of federal legislation to ban the introduction of new discriminatory 

taxes on wireless services argue that the rapid growth in cellular telephone subscriptions suggests that the higher taxes on cellular service have no negative impact. And they point to the rapid growth of cellular telephone service. But the major 

impact of discriminatory taxes is not on the decision to buy or not buy a cell phone 

(although for some individuals this may be the case). Rather, it is on the consumption of wireless services, with individuals facing higher taxes purchasing plans with 

fewer minutes and fewer services. And for a whole host of other services which are 

not as necessary, as of yet, to daily life, discriminatory taxes reduce not only use 

but adoption of these services. These include wireless data services and wireless 

Internet. 

17 

Scholarly studies find that the impact of price (of which taxes are a component) 

on wireless expenditures is quite high. Rappoport, Alleman, and Taylor found that 

for the average monthly U.S. consumer expenditure on cell phone service ($52 per 

month),2 every dollar of additional tax reduces expenditures by more than $1.60.3

Ingraham and Sidak find slightly lower, but still high, elasticities of demand of between $1.23 and $1.29 (in other words, increasing taxes on wireless services by $1 

reduces consumption of the services by between $1.23 to $1.29).4

Because wireless data services, including broadband Internet access, are an even 

more discretionary purchase for most consumers, the impact of taxes on wireless 

data and broadband are likely even higher. Indeed, Austin Goolsbee finds the elasticities for broadband to be between 2.15 and 3.50, with an average of 2.75. In other 

words, increasing taxes on wireless data and Internet services by $1.00 reduces consumption of these services by an average of $2.75.5

This very high impact of taxes on consumer demand also affects producer decisions on where to deploy services. As the GAO reported, one of the most important 

factors for companies considering deploying broadband to an area was the expected 

demand for broadband service.6 Since adoption rates drive demand, not only do 

wireless taxes affect the ability of citizens to afford wireless Internet access, but 

they could also discourage some companies from deploying 3G and 4G systems. This 

conclusion is supported by research by Goolsbee who found that ‘‘in several medium 

sized markets, applying a tax on broadband would have reduced the potential producer surplus enough that suppliers would not be able to cover their fixed costs and 

would choose to delay the diffusion of broadband in those markets.’’ 7

DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACTS OF WIRELESS TAXES

It might be one thing if discriminatory wireless taxes affected mostly demand 

from higher income consumers. But of all advanced information technology and communications services, wireless is one of the most widely adopted services, with wireless services much more evenly distributed among income groups than fixed 

broadband. Rappoport, Alleman, and Taylor find that while the highest income 

Americans ($100,000 or more in annual income) adopted fixed broadband at 125 

percent the rate that the average income American adopted a set of telecommunications and computing products (PCs, Internet, Broadband, Mobile, Internet ready 

PCS and PCS Internet Subscriber (in 2003), mobile phone adoption was only 40 percent higher while mobile Internet use was just 44 percent higher. In other words, 

low income households were almost as likely to adopt wireless services as higher 

income households. Moreover, when examining just adoption of Internet-enabled cellular services (as opposed to all the listed services and products), low-income households (less than $15,000 per year) adopted the service at about the same rates as 

high income households. 

Because low income households are almost as likely to subscribe to wireless services as higher income households, discriminatory taxes on wireless services are more 

regressive than many other kinds of taxes. And because of the structure of many 

of these taxes, the distributional impacts are even worse. When some jurisdictions 

(like Baltimore, MD for example) impose surcharges on service, the tax is not proportional to use, but is the same on all users, regardless of income or use. 

These discriminatory taxes play a role in limiting wireless data and broadband 

adoption, particularly among low income households. As GAO reported, the ‘‘price 

of broadband service remains a barrier to adoption of broadband service for some 

consumers’’ and noted that ‘‘households with high incomes were 39 percentage 

points more likely to adopt broadband than lower-income households.’’8 Likewise, 

the Pew Internet and Society project found that just 25 percent of low income Americans with less than $20,000 annual income subscribe to broadband services, compared to 85 percent of households with over $100,000 in income.9 Moreover, over 

one-third (35 percent) of dial-up users say that price is the major reason for not 

switching to broadband.10 Raising the price of wireless broadband service through 

discriminatory taxes will slow adoption of broadband, particularly as it’s likely that 

for many low income households in the future, wireless will be an important means 

of accessing the benefits of the Internet. 

IMPACT OF DISCRIMINATORY WIRELESS TAXES ON ECONOMIC GROWTH

Telecommunications taxes have been high historically because states and localities could tax these with little fear of losing revenue to consumers shifting their 

expenditures. For example, high retail sales taxes could induce residents to shop in 

nearby jurisdictions with lower rates. In contrast, taxing services that people consumed in their homes was seen by states as a more reliable way to raise revenue. 

18 

This is one major reason why telecommunications services is in most jurisdictions 

taxed more heavily than other goods or services. 

This may once have made sense at a time when the principal telecommunications 

service consumed by people was ‘‘plain old telephone service.’’ But it certainly makes 

no sense now when telecommunications services, including wireless, are key drivers 

of the digital economy. In fact, many jurisdictions, especially the states and the federal government, recognize that it is a driver, and are investing public funds to promote it. 

One of the reasons why governments are investing in digital communications 

technologies, including wireless, is because they exhibit what economists call positive externalities (an externality occurs when the impacts of decisions by producer 

or consumers spill over to the broader economy.) One of the most important 

externalities from wireless services is network externalities. Network externalities 

are the effects on a user of a product or service of others using the same or compatible products or services. Positive network externalities exist if the benefits are an 

increasing function of the number of other users. In this case a good becomes more 

valuable to individual consumers as others also purchase that good. The classic example is telephone service, which becomes more valuable to a user if more people 

are connected. Indeed, telephone network externalities have long been recognized 

and have been a major rationale behind universal service policies. The same kind 

of externality exists with wireless telephone service. But externalities from wireless 

broadband are likely to be even more significant, in part because broadband enables 

new services to emerge that will benefit broadband users. 

There are two kinds of network externalities from broadband, direct and indirect. 

Direct externalities relate to subscribership. Just as the fax system became more 

valuable when more people had faxes, broadband becomes more valuable when more 

people have broadband; the more likely others are to subscribe. This is in part because the decision to purchase broadband is dependent in part on having sufficient 

knowledge about it. Unlike a service like haircuts or a product like TVs that most 

people are familiar with and can accurately value, fewer people are familiar with 

wireless data and Internet services and cannot always value their benefits. 

Empirical evidence suggests that this is a factor that affects subscribership. 

Goolsbee and Klenow found that people are more likely to buy their first computer 

if they live in areas where a high proportion of households own computers or if a 

high fraction of their friends and family own computers—even controlling for other 

factors affecting computer ownership. If ownership rates are 10 percent higher in 

one city than another in a given year, the gap will be 11 percent the following year, 

assuming all else stays constant.11 They explain this effect on the basis that the 

number of experienced and intensive computer users creates a ‘‘spillover’’ effect for 

non-users. They conclude that the effect is most probably related to the use of email and the Internet—consistent with the view of computers being the hub of an 

information and communications network. But it is also likely to be related to the 

fact that people who have friends and neighbors with broadband are more likely to 

be able to better understand its value. While dial-up connections also enable network externalities for applications like email, only wireless broadband would generate them for mobile applications. Moreover, these externalities are likely to be 

higher in lower-income neighborhoods where individuals may have less familiarity 

with these technologies. 

Indirect network externalities from broadband relate to its effect on applications 

and content that requires broadband transport to work effectively. One reason why 

broadband take-up is not higher is because data-rich applications that could be 

accessed over broadband have not developed faster. Why develop mobile applications, especially ones that need moderate- to high- speeds, when very few people 

would be able to access them? This ‘‘chicken-or-egg’’ issue slows deployment of wireless broadband. More data-intensive applications would make mobile broadband 

more valuable, while more mobile broadband subscribers would make data-intensive 

applications more commercially viable. Indeed, more mobile broadband would spur 

the development of a whole host of new applications that are not viable now. 

The second major kind of broadband externality relates to the fact that broadband 

enables consumers to become more efficient, thus in turn driving higher rates of 

productivity and economic growth. In the old economy producers produced and consumers consumed. Producers invested in new capital equipment to produce goods 

and services more efficiently and consumers in turn bought these cheaper goods and 

services. This dichotomy between producers and consumers is blurring in the new 

digital economy where a whole host of digital tools are enabling consumers to become, in the words of futurist Alvin Toffler, ‘‘prosumers’’ who act at the same time 

as both consumer and producer. 

19 

Whether it’s conducting mobile banking, getting real time information on traffic 

conditions, or engaging in e-government services, mobile Internet is enabling selfservice and becoming an important share of the economy, helping to boost productivity and to increase consumer convenience. Indeed, with the service sector now accounting for over 80 percent of employment, prosumerism will simply have to play 

a much larger role if we are to continue to boost incomes and economic growth. 

Wireless broadband promises to be a key technology for boosting prosumer productivity. 

Wireless Internet is also improving Americans’ quality of life. For example, using 

a wireless data reader that connects to standard telephones, patients can securely 

transmit the medical data recorded by these medical devices to their health care 

provider. Their physicians can then review the patients’ health information remotely, thereby reducing the number of office visits, a major benefit for patients 

with chronic diseases or who need frequent care. Similarly, obstetricians can remotely monitor the blood pressure and fetal heart beat of their patients at home, 

rather than requiring the patients to be admitted to the hospital.12 Wireless is also 

helping older Americans minimize the risks associated with solitude. Currently, for 

example, older adults and individuals with disabilities can use a personal emergency response system so that with the push of a button they can call for medical 

assistance. Personal emergency response devices typically consist of two components: a wearable wireless transmitter and a telephone unit that connects to an 

emergency response center. Such devices can particularly help adults who are at 

risk of a stroke or falling live independently. They can also save money by reducing 

the length of time for inpatient hospital care or nursing home care. 

Economic studies of the impact of taxes on wireless service support this argument 

that reduced wireless activity will have negative economic impacts. Ingraham and 

Sidak find that for every $1 of tax, national economic welfare falls by between $1.23 

and $1.95, depending on the level of the tax existing in a jurisdiction (if a state with 

already high taxes on wireless service increases taxes even more, the overall economic welfare loss would be 1.95).13 Hausman also finds significant, albeit somewhat smaller, impacts of societal economic welfare. He finds that for every additional dollar raised in taxes on wireless services, the marginal efficiency cost to the 

economy is between $0.72 and $1.14.14 In other words, when a jurisdiction adds a 

tax on wireless service, for every dollar it receives, society loses between $0.72 and 

$1.14. 

The impact of taxes on wireless broadband is likely to be even higher, given the 

even-broader network and prosumer externalities. In fact, Goolsbee finds this to be 

the case, with the overall economic welfare loss from $1 of taxes on broadband 

(wireless or wired) being between $3.46 and $5.15.15 In other words, for every dollar 

raised in taxes, society as a whole loses at least $3.46. 

THE RATIONALE FOR FEDERAL ACTION

Even with these significant negative impacts from discriminatory wireless taxation, some argue that jurisdictions should be free to impose these taxes. If these 

negative effects were confined to the jurisdiction imposing the taxes, the opponents 

of legislation would have a stronger, but in my view, still inadequate case. But the 

costs of discriminatory wireless taxation are not only borne by residents of the jurisdiction, but by all Americans. In particular, while sub-national jurisdictions also 

benefit from higher levels of wireless adoption, there is an asymmetrical distribution 

between the costs and benefits of taxes on wireless services. When jurisdictions tax 

wireless services, they receive all of the financial benefit of the tax, but the net social cost of lower rates of wireless service access extends beyond the jurisdictions’ 

borders to affect residents and businesses across the entire nation. 

Second, opponents of this legislation argue that it will hurt state and local fiscal 

health. But this legislation only prohibits new discriminatory taxes. Moreover, 

states and localities will benefit as higher levels of productivity generate lower 

prices for their citizens. In addition, the economic benefits of a healthy national 

economy will provide state tax administrators opportunities to increase their state 

tax revenue. 

Third, opponents will argue that this simply shifts taxes from one service or product to others. Of course it does. But that’s not the point. The point is that the negative effects of taxes on wireless services are higher than on most other services or 

products. For example, Hausman finds that the effect on welfare of general taxation 

and income taxation is between 54 to 71 percent less costly to economic efficiency 

and net economic welfare than taxes on wireless.16 And taxes on items with negative externalities, such as products like petroleum which emit greenhouse gas emissions, would have positive effects on economic welfare. Opponents also argue that 

20 

many types of industries are subject to their own special taxes. But again, the major 

reason why discriminatory wireless taxes are a bad idea is not because discriminatory taxes themselves are a bad idea. Taxes on tobacco products are rightly justified 

by the adverse health effects from smoking. Rather, it is discriminatory taxes on 

products or services with large positive externalities that are problematic. 

CONCLUSION

Wireless innovation is likely to continue to bring new consumer functionalities, 

business and government benefits and overall economic growth. However, the evidence clearly shows that taxes on wireless services, particularly discriminatory 

taxes, have a clear negative effect on adoption of these services and because of that, 

negative effects on both U.S. economic growth and economic opportunity for all 

Americans, and lower income Americans especially. 

Notes: 

1. Robert D. Atkinson and Andrew S. McKay, ‘‘Digital Prosperity: Understanding 

the Economic Benefits of the Information Technology Revolution,’’ (Washington, 

DC: The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, 2007) 

<www.itif.org/index.php?id=34>. 

2. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Spending on Cell Phone Services Has Exceeded Spending on Residential Phone Services,’’ 2007, <www.bls.gov/cex/ 

cellphones2007.htm>. 

3. Paul Rappoport, James Alleman, and Lester Taylor, ‘‘Household Demand for 

Wireless Telephony: An Empirical Analysis,’’ Presentation to the 31st Annual 

Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Sept. 19, 2003, George Mason 

University, Arlington, Va. 

4. Allan T. Ingraham and J. Gregory Sidak, ‘‘Do States Tax Wireless Services Inefficiently? Evidence on the Price Elasticity of Demand,’’ Virginia Tax Review, 

Vol. 24: 249–261, 2004. 

5. Austan Goolsbee, ‘‘The Value of Broadband and the Deadweight Loss of Taxing 

New Technology,’’ Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy: Vol. 5 : Iss. 1, 

Article 8. (2006) <www.bepress.com/bejeap/contributions/vol5/iss1/art8>. 

6. Ibid. 

7. Austan Goolsbee, ‘‘The Value of Broadband and the Deadweight Loss of Taxing 

New Technology,’’ NBER Working Paper 11994 (National Bureau of Economic 

Research, Feb. 2006): <papers.nber.org/papers/W11994>. 

8. Ibid. 

9. Pew Internet and American Life Project, Home Broadband Adoption 2008. 

10. Ibid. 

11. Austan Goolsbee and Peter Klenow, ‘‘Evidence on Learning and Network 

Externalities in the Diffusion of Home Computers,’’ Journal of Law and Economics, October 2002, Vol XLV (2, part 1): 317–344. 

12. E. Kyriacou, et al., ‘‘Multi-Purpose Healthcare Telemedicine Systems with Mobile Communication Link Support,’’ BioMedical Engineering Online 2 (2003), 

<www.biomedical-engineering-online.com/content/2/1/7> (accessed July 24, 

2008). 

13. Ingraham and Sidak, op. cit. 

14. Jerry Hausman, ‘‘Efficiency Effects on the U.S. Economy from Wireless Taxation,’’ National Tax Journal, vol. LIII, No. 3., Part 2, 733–742. 

15. Austan Goolsbee, ‘‘The Value of Broadband and the Deadweight Loss of Taxing 

New Technology,’’ op. cit. 

16. Jerry Hausman, op. cit. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Dr. Atkinson. 

Our next witness is State Representative Mara Candelaria, from 

the State of Indiana. She has experience in Congress, having 

worked for U.S. Congressman Peter Visclosky and has worked with 

the Democratic Party. As a former NCSL executive committee 

member, I welcome you here and appreciate your work in the Indiana State House of Representatives. 

Would you begin your testimony? 

21 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARA CANDELARIA 

REARDON, INDIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON. Thank you, Chairman Cohen and 

Ranking Member Franks, Members of the Subcommittee. My name 

is Mara Candelaria Reardon, and I have the honor of representing 

the 12th House District in Indiana. I serve on the Environmental 

Affairs, Government and Regulatory Reform and Ways and Means 

Committee in Indiana’s House. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning 

to offer my support for H.R. 1521, the Cell Tax Fairness Act of 

2009. 

The Cell Tax Fairness Act takes a thoughtful, pro-consumer, probroadband approach that will help to ensure affordable wireless 

services for my constituents and Indiana’s nearly 4.7 million wireless subscribers. 

Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Franks are to be commended for the broad bipartisan support they have garnered with 

this legislation. As a State legislator and particularly as a member 

of the Government and Regulatory Reform and Ways and Means 

Committee, any Federal legislation that places parameters on a 

State’s ability to tax is something that I believe should be done 

sparingly, judiciously and, most importantly, does absolutely no 

harm. 

I believe that H.R. 1521 meets these criteria. 

Our system of Federalism grants State and local policymakers 

with the ability to determine how States should levy taxes on individuals and businesses that reside within their respective jurisdictions. As a member of Indiana’s Ways and Means Committee, I am 

sensitive to preserving the State’s taxing authority to fund government services. But as a legislator tasked with writing Indiana’s tax 

laws, I also believe that another important precept of our Nation’s 

tax structure is that taxes should be levied equitably on our citizens, particularly when multiple jursidictions have the ability to 

tax. 

In Indiana my constituents pay a 9.55 percent rate in State and 

local taxes and a relatively modest combined rate of 13.74 percent 

in State, local, and Federal taxes, fees, and surcharges for their 

wireless services, as compared to the national average of 15.2 percent. Nevertheless, Indiana’s wireless consumers are now effectively taxed twice. They not only pay the State sales tax like consumers of other goods, but also included is the utilities receipts tax. 

In several States, consumers pay taxes, fees, and surcharges in excess of 18 percent on top of their monthly bills for their service. 

When tax rates reach those levels, as they do with alcohol and tobacco, the purpose is usually to inhibit use. 

Wireless services are no longer a luxury in our society. They 

have become a necessity. Preserving affordability should be an important public policy goal. H.R. 1521 provides a measured approach 

by only precluding new discriminatory taxes and fees from being 

added on an already excessive level of taxation imposed upon wireless consumers. 

Importantly, the legislation recognizes the revenue needs of 

States and localities and does not take away any existing revenue 

from State or local governments. In fact, H.R. 1521 allows States 

22 

and localities to raise wireless taxes if done in conjunction with an 

increase in taxes on other general goods and services. 

My focus here this morning will be to provide some historical 

context as to how we got here and where we are today and why 

I believe taking a time out from imposing new additional discriminatory taxes on wireless services is important to American consumers and consistent with principles espoused by the National 

Conference of State Legislators. 

The tax structure imposed on the communications industry today 

is a holdover from the days when the industry was operated by Ma 

Bell as a regulated utility. This tax structure was first instituted 

long before I entered public office and well before the first wireless 

call was ever made. As some may recall, as regulated utilities telecommunications providers were subject to taxes under statutes applicable to public utilities. The taxes imposed upon included gross 

receipts, franchise, and other industry-specific taxes that were 

passed on to consumers in the rates as part of the regulatory rate 

setting process. The phone company never had to worry about consumers looking for a cheaper alternative because there was no competition in the marketplace. State and local governments could tax 

telecommunications services at a much higher rate than other 

goods and services without worrying about constituent backlash because the natural reaction was, it is just the phone company raising my rates again. 

Fast forward to today, and the communications marketplace is 

drastically different than it was 20 years ago. Consumers have a 

myriad of options to choose from to be their communications provider as well as voice and data plans to meet their individual 

needs. 

However, the legacy tax structure remains in place. Our Federal 

and State income tax is structured such that if you earn more you 

pay more in taxes. That is not the case with respect to the payment 

of wireless taxes. 

As I mentioned previously, Indiana has approximately 4.7 million 

subscribers. Of that 4.7, nearly 14 percent of Indiana’s households 

have cut the cord and are wireless only. As of October, 2008, 4.5 

percent of Indiana’s wireless subscribers had income levels of less 

than $50,000 and 61.7 percent had income levels of less than 

$75,000. Regardless of whether someone is making $25,000 annually or $125,000 annually, they will pay the same tax rate on their 

purchases of wireless services. With the national average of 15.2 

percent, consumers who are of lower or moderate incomes pay disproportionately more for the same services than those with higher 

incomes. 

Why is this important to bear in mind? Access to wireless services is no longer a luxury for a select few but rather a vital necessity, particularly for those facing economic challenges. 

In preparing for this hearing, I took the opportunity to read an 

April 27 Dear Colleague circulated by Congresswoman Lofgren and 

Congressman Franks. The Dear Colleague highlighted an March 23 

Washington Post article chronicling how low-cost cell phones provide an essential lifeline to the homeless. 

23 

/1/ FCC’s Local Competition Report, September 18, 2008 

When you consider how important wireless services have become 

to consumers today, taxing those services at an excessive level is 

counterproductive. 

As I mentioned earlier, I am sensitive to the importance of preserving State and local governments’ ability to fund government 

services. Current tax revenues in Indiana are down 8 percent from 

last year. But as policy makers it is important that we also finance 

public services not to target one good or service for disparate tax 

treatment. 

I can go on. 

Mr. COHEN. I know you can but you also can’t. 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON. Thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Candelaria Reardon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARA CANDELARIA REARDON

Chairman Cohen, Ranking Member Franks and members of the Subcommittee, 

my name is Mara Candelaria Reardon, and I have the honor of representing House 

District 12 in Northwest Indiana. I serve on the Environmental Affairs, Government 

and Regulatory Reform and Ways and Means Committees in Indiana’s House of 

Representatives. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning to offer my support for H.R. 1521, the ‘‘Cell Tax Fairness Act of 2009.’’ The Cell Tax Fairness Act 

takes a thoughtful, pro-consumer, pro-broadband approach that will help to ensure 

affordable wireless services for my constituents and Indiana’s nearly 4.7 million 

wireless subscribers.1 Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Franks are to be 

commended for the broad bi-partisan support they have garnered with this legislation. 

As a state legislator and particularly as a member of the Government and Regulatory Reform and Ways and Means Committees, any federal legislation that places 

parameters on a state’s ability to tax is something that I believe should be done 

sparingly, judiciously and most importantly, does no harm. I believe that H.R. 1521 

meets these criteria. Our system of Federalism grants state and local policymakers 

with the ability to determine how states should levy taxes on individuals and businesses that reside within their respective jurisdictions. As a member of Indiana’s 

Ways and Means Committee, I am sensitive to preserving a state’s taxing authority 

to fund government services. 

But as a legislator tasked with writing Indiana’s tax laws, I also believe that another important precept of our nation’s tax structure is that taxes should be levied 

equitably on our citizens, particularly when multiple jurisdictions have the ability 

to tax. In Indiana, my constituents pay a 9.55% rate in state and local taxes, and 

a relatively modest combined rate of 13.74% in state, local and federal taxes, fees 

and surcharges for their wireless services as compared to the national average of 

15.2%. 

Nevertheless, Indiana’s wireless consumers are now effectively taxed twice. They 

not only pay the state sales tax like consumers of other goods, but also included is 

the Utility Receipts Tax. 

In several states, consumers pay taxes, fees and surcharges in excess of 18% on 

top of their monthly bills for their service. When tax rates reach those levels, as 

they do with alcohol and tobacco, the purpose is usually to inhibit use. Wireless 

services are no longer a luxury in our society; they have become a necessity. Preserving affordability should be an important public policy goal. 

H.R. 1521 provides a measured approach by only precluding new discriminatory 

taxes and fees from being added on an already excessive level of taxation imposed 

upon wireless consumers. Importantly, the legislation recognizes the revenue needs 

of states and localities and does not take away any existing revenue from state or 

local governments. In fact, H.R. 1521 allows states and localities to raise wireless 

taxes if done in conjunction with an increase of taxes on other general goods and 

services. 

My focus here this morning will be to provide some historical context as to how 

we got to where we are today and why I believe that taking a ‘‘time-out’’ from imposing new, additional discriminatory taxes on wireless services is important to 

24 

2 Centers for Disease Control NCHS March 11, 2009 

3 ComScore October 2008 

American consumers and consistent with principles espoused by the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

HISTORICAL CONTEXT REGARDING COMMUNICATIONS TAXES

The tax structure imposed upon the communications industry today is a holdover 

from the days when the industry was operated by Ma Bell as a rate regulated utility. This tax structure was first instituted long before I entered public office and 

well before the first wireless call was ever made. As some may recall, as regulated 

utilities, telecommunication providers were subject to taxes under statutes applicable to ‘‘public utilities.’’ The taxes imposed included gross receipts, franchise and 

other industry-specific taxes that were passed on to consumers in the rates as part 

of the regulatory rate setting process. The phone company never had to worry about 

the consumer looking for a cheaper alternative because there was no competition in 

the marketplace. State and local governments could tax telecommunication services 

at much higher rates than other goods and services without worrying about constituent backlash because the natural reaction was, ‘‘it’s just the phone company 

raising my rates again.’’ 

Fast forward to today and the communications marketplace is drastically different 

than it was 20 years ago. Consumers have a myriad of options to choose from to 

be their communications provider, as well as voice and data plans to meet their individual needs. However, the legacy tax structure remains in place. 

REGRESSIVE NATURE OF WIRELESS TAXES

Our Federal and State income tax system is structured such that if you earn 

more, you pay more in taxes. That is not the case with respect to the payment of 

wireless taxes. As I mentioned previously, Indiana has approximately 4.7 million 

subscribers. Of that 4.7 million, nearly 14 percent of Indiana’s households have ‘‘cut 

the cord’’ and are wireless only.2 As of October of 2008, 45.7% of Indiana’s wireless 

subscribers had income levels of less than $50,000 and 67.1% had income levels less 

than $75,000.3 Regardless of whether someone is making $25,000 annually or 

$125,000 annually, they will pay the same tax rate on their purchases of wireless 

services. With a national average wireless tax rate of 15.2%, consumers who are of 

lower or moderate income levels pay disproportionately more for the same service 

than those with higher incomes. 

Why is this important to bear in mind? Access to wireless services is no longer 

a luxury for a select few, but rather a vital necessity, particularly for those facing 

economic challenges. In preparing for this hearing, I took the opportunity to read 

an April 27th ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ circulated by Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Franks. The 

‘‘Dear Colleague’’ highlighted a March 23rd Washington Post article chronicling 

how low-cost cell phones provide an essential lifeline to the homeless and those who 

are experiencing economic difficulty. The article clearly brings into focus what many 

of us take for granted, but for others provides some modicum of much needed normalcy. 

‘‘Having a phone isn’t a privilege anymore—it’s a necessity,’’ said Rommel 

McBride, who spent about six years on the streets before recently being placed 

in a city housing program. . . . A cell phone is the only way you can call to keep 

up your food stamps, your housing application, your job. When you’re living in 

a shelter or on the streets, it’s your last line of communications with the world.’’ 

When you consider how important wireless services have become to consumers 

today, taxing these services at such an excessive level is counterproductive. Mr. 

McBride happens to live here in Washington, D.C., but there are thousands, if not 

millions of people throughout this country who rely on their cell phones to assist 

in finding a job; locating a place to live; keeping in touch with loved ones and 

friends; protecting their personal safety; accessing the Internet as well as a variety 

of other uses. For many, their wireless phone is their lifeline. 

FEDERALISM PERSPECTIVE

As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, as a state legislator, I am very sensitive 

to the importance of preserving state and local government’s ability to tax in order 

to fund government services. Current tax revenues in Indiana are down 8% from 

last year. But as policymakers, it’s also important, as we finance public services, not 

25 

to target one particular good or service for disparate tax treatment as compared to 

others. 

For example, state and local wireless taxes and fees increased from 10.2% to 11% 

between 2003 and 2007—this resulted in an increase in the rate of taxes on sales 

of wireless services that was four times the increase in the rate of taxes imposed 

on sales of other competitive goods and services. 

Opponents of H.R. 1521 claim that this legislation drastically departs from longstanding principles of federalism and that it provides favorable tax treatment to the 

wireless industry. Under our Federalist system, the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are expressly provided by the Constitution, 

with all other powers reserved to the states as set forth under the 10th Amendment. 

Thus, the federal government’s powers are limited. However, under the Commerce 

Clause, Congress is expressly granted the power to regulate commerce among the 

states. Due to the mobile nature of wireless services and the ability to use such 

services across the country, the provision of wireless services is clearly interstate 

commerce and well within the power of Congress to ‘‘regulate commerce among the 

states.’’ 

Additionally, the 14th Amendment provides that ‘‘. . . No State shall . . . deny 

to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws’’ and further 

specifies under Section 5 that Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. 

In my opinion, H.R. 1521 does not dramatically depart from our federalist principles. In the mid 1970s, Congress passed the federal 4-R Act which precluded states 

from discriminatorily taxing the railroad industry. And more recently in 2007, this 

Subcommittee played a leading role in the extension of the Internet Tax Freedom 

Act. 

It’s my understanding that the primary beneficiary of this legislation is the American wireless consumer, not the wireless industry. In 2007, Indiana subscribers paid 

over $326 million in wireless taxes and fees. The carriers remit these taxes to the 

state, but it is the consumers that pay the overwhelming majority of these taxes, 

not industry. I appreciate the temptation to try and obfuscate the issue, but if this 

legislation results in a five to ten dollar savings each month for my constituents, 

while at the same time, the state of Indiana continues to collect $326 million or 

more annually in wireless tax revenues—I consider it a win-win. 

Last year, wireless consumers across the country paid nearly $21 billion in state, 

local and federal taxes and fees imposed on their wireless services to fund government services. By anyone’s measure, that is a lot of money for one subset of consumers to pay for an essential service. H.R. 1521 does nothing to jeopardize that 

revenue stream. In all likelihood, state and local revenues from wireless services 

will continue to grow if this legislation is enacted. 

H.R. 1521 provides a common sense solution to a growing problem. Clearly, it is 

a bill that that has broad, bipartisan appeal, as evidenced by over 100 cosponsors, 

which is why I strongly support the passage and enactment of H.R. 1521, the ‘‘Cell 

Tax Fairness Act of 2009.’’ 

Thank you again for this opportunity to offer my thoughts. I would be happy to 

answer any questions that you may have. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Representative Reardon. We do need to 

try to keep to the red light. 

Our third witness is Joanne Hovis. Ms. Hovis is President of Columbia Telecommunications Corporation, which is a communications engineering and consulting firm. She is an attorney. She has 

practiced both in Chicago and in Washington, is an authority on 

municipal and community broadband topics and on governments’ 

role vis-a-vis. She has represented several impressive clients and 

knows when 5 minutes are 5 minutes. You are recognized. 

26 

TESTIMONY OF JOANNE HOVIS, COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS AND ADVISORS, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, THE 

GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, THE 

UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, AND THE 

NATIIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 

Ms. HOVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cohen, distinguished Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you 

here today. I serve as a member of the Board of Directors of the 

National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, 

and I am very pleased to be here on behalf of NATOA as well as 

the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, and the Government Finance Officers Association. I do focus on community broadband issues, working for State and local government and nonprofits across the country, and I am a long-time advocate for the need for greater 

broadband, bigger broadband, more broadband, and more affordable broadband in the United States. And so I commend all of you 

and agree with much of what Ms. Lofgren said just a few minutes 

ago that the need for attention to this issue is enormous. 

What I would like to talk about here today, though, is whether 

this particular piece of legislation will really result in deployment 

of a lot more broadband or affordable broadband. 

The issue of tax policy, tax is not my area. That is for elected 

officials to address because they are answerable to their constituency. I would like to, rather, correct what I believe are some of the 

misunderstandings surrounding the economics of the wireless industry and the actual barriers to deployment of wireless broadband 

services to all areas of our country. 

First and foremost, the current tax treatment of wireless services 

by Federal, State, and local authorities has not hindered product 

innovation, service growth, or industry profitability. This industry, 

the wireless communications industry, is strong and successful. 

Growth has been explosive in high-density areas of the country 

where the carriers have chosen to invest and to deploy networks. 

In 1995, there were just under 34 million cell phone subscribers in 

the United States. By 2008, that number 270 million, 87 percent 

of the Nation’s population. That is for wireless voice service. On the 

wireless broadband, or data side, we are seeing similar growth. 

Indeed, it is wireless that represents the greatest growth and opportunity for the communications industry in a variety of ways, 

and by its own account the wireless industry is very strong. 

Verizon, the country’s largest mobile service provider, posted profits of $1.65 billion in the first quarter of 2009 on wireless revenue 

growth of almost 30 percent. Most of the major carriers, as Dr. Atkinson mentioned, are moving very fast to deploy in the areas 

where they see a return on investment. 

4G services, there is explosive movement toward and development toward deployment of next generation broadband wireless 

services. AT&T is upgrading existing networks like the other carriers and is expanding from 350 to 370 metropolitan areas in this 

next generation. Given the strength and profitability of this industry, one wonders why the industry is seeking preferential tax treatVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:34 Jan 19, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\060909\50140.000 HJUD1 PsN: 50140
27 

ment, and I would like to address the issue of whether or not they 

actually are seeking it in order to deploy more wireless broadband 

networks. 

Given that the wireless voice and data industries are both profitable and growing at extraordinary rates in metropolitan areas of 

the United States, I think we should look at what is happening in 

the rural areas. Obviously we are not seeing that kind of growth 

in rural areas, and I should say that America’s local governments 

are as concerned and troubled by this lack as is the Subcommittee. 

While I commend those who believe our Nation should find new 

models for expanding deployment in less densely populated areas, 

it is important to understand that it is the economics of wireless 

communications that is the reason for the slow or nonexistent deployment. Deployment of communications networks is extremely 

costly. Communications carriers are private for-profit companies, 

and they quite rationally allocate their investment resources to 

areas of the country where they are likely to achieve the highest 

return on investment, those areas that have relatively dense populations and higher, and thereby greater, potential penetration and 

higher revenues per mile of construction. 

The basic reality of these economics will not be changed by preemption of a particular tax or by removal of any single cost of 

doing business. Carriers will still invest their money where they 

are likely to get the greatest return on investment, and this is the 

central broadband issue that we face as a Nation in our rural 

areas, that that return on investment simply does not exist in the 

same way in rural areas. That is a national problem, but this is 

not the solution. 

Finally, let me very briefly point out that this legislation is not 

timely and should await the result of the proceeding currently underway at the Federal Communications Commission that Congresswoman Lofgren mentioned a littler bit earlier. As directed by the 

Recovery Act, the FCC is currently engaged in an extensive proceeding to develop a national broadband plan, and as part of that 

plan the FCC released a notice of inquiry that included questions 

abouta wide range of various things that could be hindering 

broadband deployment in the United States. And the Federal Communications Commission is undertaking a year of extensive analysis, and this Subcommittee should consider waiting to see the expert agency’s conclusions before proceeding with this legislation, 

which is really a piecemeal attempt to deal with this issue. 

I know I am out of time. I want to thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hovis follows:] 

28 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOANNE HOVIS


Hovis-1.eps
29 


Hovis-2.eps
30 


Hovis-3.eps
31 


Hovis-4.eps
32 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Ms. Hovis. 

Our fourth witness is a State representative from the Sunshine 

State, Mr. Joseph Gibbons. He was elected in 2006. He has both 

parts of Broward and Miami Dade Counties. The football stadium 

may be in there, the baseball stadium. What do they call it now? 

Pro Player? 

Mr. GIBBONS. Yes. 

Mr. COHEN. Prior to his election to the House he was on the 

Broward County Planning Council and has been a city commissioner from the City of Hallandale Beach. 

We appreciate your coming before the Committee, and please 

begin your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH A. GIBBONS, 

FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Chairman Cohen, Ranking Member 

Franks, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Joe Gibbons, and I am a member of the Florida House of Representatives 

representing the 105th District. 

One of the committees that I serve on is the Energy and Utilities 

Policy Committee. It is my commitment to my work on the issues 

of that committee that brings me here today. 

As wireless services continues to evolve and becomes more about 

services other than voice, it is critical to recognize that consumers 

in this emerging environment are not the same individuals that 

could afford the expensive Internet experience. We should not create the same digital divide on broadband as we initially created on 

access to the Internet. 

While Federal legislatures recognize the need to prevent excessive and discriminatory tactics on the Internet by passing the 

Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments of 2007 and Federal and 

State policymakers embrace the desire to accelerate the deployment of broadband services, the fact remains that the current level 

of State and local taxation on telecommunications services is misguided and directly counter to economic prosperity. 

Unless the tax policies of the past are reformed to reflect the 

highly dynamic nature of the communications industry today, 

many of my constituents will be priced out of the ability to have 

affordable access to the most advanced wireless broadband services. The impact of the current level of taxation on wireless consumers is significant for the high level of seniors, African American, and Hispanic consumers, who as a group have shown a high 

adoption rate and significant use of both wireless and voice data 

services. My poorest constituents are more likely to have only a cell 

phone as opposed to having both a landline phone and a cell phone. 

Taxation should not punish disproportionately those who can least 

afford it. And in Florida that is the system in place today. 

I reach out to Congress today to help steer the course to telecommunications tax reform for all of my constituents, especially 

those that use their cell phone as a lifeline. In 2000, to simplify the 

taxes and fees imposed upon communications services at the State 

level, legislation was passed that replaced 11 different impositions 

into one consolidated communications services tax. The base was 

expanded to specifically include wireless, even though several of 

33 

the old impositions were for uses of the right-of-way or other public 

utility impositions. The current taxes imposed upon the entire communications industry, including wireless, appear to be excessive. 

One of the recent trends that the industry has highlighted has 

been to take the existing franchise and utility taxes that are already applicable to landline services and extend them to wireless. 

State and local officials are targeting wireless because the number 

of wireline customers are dwindling and they believe that wireless 

needs to fill that gap. 

It is incumbent upon legislators like myself to advance the needed reforms to the current tax structure at home so that this critical 

technology, a lifeline in the eyes of my constituents, is not taxed 

at rates in excess of 20 percent of their monthly bill. 

This bill does not preclude communication specific fees so long as 

the funds are solely used for that stated purpose such as funding 

for e-911 communications systems and universal service. This bill 

prevents taxes or fees from being imposed on wireless service that 

is not also imposed on general goods and services. I believe that 

those taxes should be as broadly and equitably applied as possible 

so that the cost of government is borne equitably by all constituents receiving the benefit of those services. 

As a former city commissioner and a part of the Broward League 

of Cities, I am intimately aware of the need for revenue to fund 

critical government programs. Like any State policymaker, I take 

any Federal intervention into State taxing authority very seriously. 

However, I believe that H.R. 1521 carefully walks that fine line of 

when Federal intervention makes sense. This bill does not preclude 

my ability to tax wireless consumers or the industry in a rational 

way. It only precludes my State from targeting these consumers for 

additional excess taxes. I believe that precluding new discriminatory taxes from being enacted strikes the right balance between the 

different sovereign powers. These services clearly operate within 

interstate commerce and as such are within Congress’ purview to 

address when they believe there is a social good to do so, and again 

I repeat, a social good to do so. 

Working with the States to address the existing tax burden on 

communication services has proven to be very challenging. This bill 

is seeking simply a time-out so that the situation doesn’t get worse 

during the time that the industry is continuing to work with elected officials to fix the existing problem. 

The bill would not prevent States or localities from increasing 

sales taxes, property taxes, or other broad-based taxes that apply 

to wireless consumers and providers in addition to other taxable 

goods and services. This bill would benefit wireless consumers by 

preventing them from being singled out for new taxes. 

I think the Federal, State, and local governments all have a role 

in working together to ensure that we don’t burden this technology 

with an onerous tax structure. This legislation seems to strike the 

right balance in our system of Federalism. It is not creating an unfunded mandate by ordering States to eliminate existing tax revenues imposed upon such services. It is simply identifying that State 

and local governments should not target wireless consumers unfairly to raise additional revenues or their existing tax structure 

might come up short. I believe precluding new discriminatory taxes 

34 

1Pew Internet & American Life Project, Seeding the Cloud: What Mobile Access Means fir 

Usage and Online Content, March 2008, 2Pew Internet & American Life Project, Seeding the Cloud: What Mobile Access Means fir 

Usage and Online Content, March 2008 

from being enacted strikes the right balance between the different 

sovereign powers. 

Thank you again for this opportunity here today, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions that Members of the Committee 

might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH A. GIBBONS

Chairman Cohen, Ranking Member Franks and members of the Subcommittee, 

my name is Joe Gibbons and I am a member of the Florida House of Representatives representing the 105th District which incorporates parts of Broward County 

including all or parts of Hollywood, Hallandale Beach, Miramar, Pembroke Pines, 

Pembroke Park and Westpark. My current responsibilities in the state legislature 

include participation on the Transportation & Economic Development Appropriations Committee, the Energy & Utilities Policy Committee, the Full Appropriations 

Council on Education & Economic Development and the Joint Legislative Budget 

Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1521, the ‘‘Cell 

Tax Fairness Act of 2009.’’ 

While federal legislators recognized the need to prevent excessive and discriminatory taxes on the Internet by passing the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments 

Act of 2007 and federal and state policymakers embrace the desire to accelerate the 

deployment of broadband services the fact remains that the current level of state 

and local taxation of telecommunications services is misguided and directly counter 

to economic prosperity and continued deployment of advanced mobile services across 

the country. Ultimately, unless the tax policies of the past are reformed to reflect 

the highly dynamic nature of the communications industry today, many of my constituents will be priced out of the ability to have affordable access to the most advanced wireless broadband services. HR. 1521 is a necessary first step to prevent 

further expansion of new discriminatory taxes on wireless services while simultaneously it is incumbent on legislators like myself to advance the needed reforms to 

the current tax structure at home so that this critical technology, a lifeline in the 

eyes of my constituents, is not taxed at rates in excess of 20% of their monthly bill. 

MY CONSTITUENTS WOULD BENEFIT FROM REFORM

My district is a diverse, multi-ethnic urban area which is one of the fastest growing areas in the state of Florida. The impact of the current level of taxation on wireless consumers is significant for the high level of seniors, African American and Hispanic consumers who, as a group, have shown a high adoption rate and significant 

use of both wireless voice and data services: 

• For use of non-voice data applications on handhelds, Hispanics and African 

Americans lead the way relative to caucasian Americans. Half of African 

Americans and 56% of English-speaking Latinos with cell phones, on a typical 

day, do at least one of 10 non-voice data applications such as taking pictures, 

accessing the internet for news, playing music, or texting. By contrast, 38% 

of caucasians do these kinds of activities on a wireless handheld device on the 

average day.1

• Mobile access builds on the cell phone, a device that is easier to use and more 

affordable than a computer. Adoption patterns have therefore been very different for the device, which is a key platform for ‘‘on the go’’ information access. Cell phone users are more likely to be found in groups that have generally lagged in internet adoption, such as senior citizens, blacks, and 

Latinos.2

All of the data points above are reflective of the broad demographics that make 

my district the center of diversity in the state and the impetus for the need of federal, state and local focus on the issue of taxation of wireless consumers. Florida 

undertook comprehensive measures in 2000, to ‘‘simplify’’ the taxes & fees imposed 

upon communication services. At the state level, legislation was passed that replaced 11 different impositions into one consolidated communications services tax. 

The base was expanded, to specifically include wireless, even though several of the 

35 

3 CDC, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview 

Survey, January-June 2007 4 CDC, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview 

Survey, January-June 2007 

old impositions were for uses of the Right of Way or other public utility impositions. 

Although simplification was accomplished, the excessive level of taxation remains. 

The state still has one of the highest rates on communication services in the country 

at over 20%. Recent efforts to reduce the rate imposed upon all communication services have failed but no time is better than the present to drive attention to this 

issue and create momentum for reform of the existing level of taxation of these services. What is clear though is that we shouldn’t allow the situation to get worse at 

the same time we are trying to fix the current system and the situation in Florida 

provides a prime example of that rationale. Once the state and local jurisdictions 

become dependent upon receiving the revenues from these excess taxes it is very 

hard to work to take it away, even when policymakers might agree that it is the 

right policy to pursue. That is the genesis of what H.R. 1521 will help accomplish, 

stopping the current tax situation from getting worse for wireless consumers. 

Furthermore, as a small business owner, I am profoundly aware of the impact of 

mobile communications on the level of productivity, the increased speed at which 

to react to customers needs and the cost of tools that enhance and add to the bottom 

line. State and local tax policy that discourages use and adoption by small businesses also drives away investment in infrastructure. The most effective means to 

encourage investment in the state relative to investment is to eliminate the high 

level of discriminatory taxes that retard infrastructure investment and drive up 

prices. The current tax policy in Florida is counterproductive to the thousands of 

small entrepreneurs that make up my district, companies that add significantly to 

the local and state economy. 

REGRESSIVE NATURE OF TELECOM TAXATION

The high wireless tax burden on Floridians is a major concern but the burden on 

those Americans, regardless of ethnic identification, that can least afford telecommunications services is a primary concern. The following statistics from the Center for Disease Control’s annual survey illustrates the concern of high taxes on wireless service: 

• Adults living in poverty (21.6%) were more likely than higher income adults 

to be living in households with only wireless telephones.3

• The percentage without health insurance coverage at the time of the interview among wireless-only adults (28.8%) was twice as high as the percentage 

among adults living in landline households (14.1%).4

As a former City Commissioner and Vice-Chair of the Broward League of Cities 

Diversity Committee, I am intimately aware of the need for revenue to fund critical 

government programs but there needs to be a fine balance in how revenues are obtained so that one service is not so heavily burdened with taxes that it effectively 

discourages the use of such services, pricing them out of reach for a segment of the 

population that arguably relies upon them the most. Clearly that is the case with 

cell phone taxation and as a result those that can least afford the onerous burden 

are impacted the most. Ironically and to my point, relative to taxation of their cell 

phone bill my wealthiest constituents contribute at the same level as my poorest. 

And according to statistics, my poorest constituents are more likely to have only a 

cell phone as opposed to having both a land line phone and a cell phone. Taxation 

should not punish disproportionally those who can least afford it and in Florida that 

is the system in place today. I reach out to Congress today to help steer the course 

to telecommunications tax reform for all my constituents especially those that use 

their cell phone as a lifeline. 

POLICY DOUBLE-SPEAK SO TO SPEAK

As wireless service continues to evolve and becomes more about services other 

than voice, it is critical to recognize that consumers in this emerging environment 

are not the same individuals that could afford the expensive Internet experience 

through the desktop computer. As pointed out by the Pew Internet & American Life 

Project ‘‘groups that have in the past trailed in ‘‘traditional’’ internet access are in 

a better position to shape cyberspace as the internet becomes more accessible using 

wireless devices.’’ For broadband to become available to the greatest number of 

American consumers, it’s incumbent on policymakers to make wireless services affordable through reasonable tax policy, thus lowering a significant cost barrier. 

36 

5Pew Internet & American Life Project, June 2007 

• In 2005, the percentage of African Americans with broadband service in the 

home was 14%; the percentage of all African Americans was 30 percent. In 

2007, the percentage of African Americans increased to 40%, nearly tripling 

in number; the percentage of all Americans was 47%.5

Broadband is critical to my community and communities across the State of Florida and the nation. The federal government has taken bold steps in recent months 

to stimulate the deployment of broadband services to all Americans. However on the 

flip side, policymakers are still seeking to tax wireless services to the point were 

the services are simply unaffordable. Taxation of products at rates close to the 20% 

level like those imposed upon alcohol and tobacco makes sense to most from a policy 

perspective because the intent is to discourage the use of such product(s) through 

the high level of taxes imposed. Conversely, taxation of wireless services, services 

that lawmakers want to ensure all constituents have affordable access to, at a 20% 

rate, makes absolutely no policy or economic sense. These high levels of taxation 

will stifle demand for such services, which in turn will also slow investment in critical broadband infrastructure so many policymakers continue to seek. We need to 

fix the existing problem as it is counterintuitive to many of our existing public policy goals of expanding the reach and affordability of broadband services. 

STATE SOVEREIGNTY

Like any state policymaker, I take any federal intervention into state taxing authority very seriously. However, I believe that H.R. 1521 carefully walks that fine 

line of when federal intervention makes sense. This bill does not preclude my ability 

to tax wireless consumers or the industry in a rational way. It only precludes my 

state from targeting these consumers for additional excess taxes. As we have already heard, Florida is already asking these consumers to bear more than their fair 

share of the state and local tax burden and we shouldn’t allow that to get any 

worse. Certainly not for a service that is critical to the overall health and productivity of our Nation’s economy. 

I strongly support H.R. 1521, the ‘‘Cell Tax Fairness Act’’ and its pro-consumer, 

pro-broadband intent. I welcome any questions you may have. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Representative Gibbons. I appreciate it. 

Our final witness is Don Stapley. Mr. Stapley is the Chair of the 

Maricopa County Arizona Board of Supervisors, which is Phoenix, 

which is where the University of Tennessee won the national 

championship a few years ago. He has risen through the ranks of 

NACo to become President, became President in Jackson County, 

Kansas City, Missouri. I am a former NACo member and attended 

a national conference of NACo in Jackson County myself many 

years ago. 

Welcome to the Committee, and we appreciate your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DON STAPLEY, MARICOPA 

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, AND THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 

Mr. STAPLEY. Chairman Cohen, thank you, and distinguished 

Members of the House Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. I will skip my introduction to save time for the complete presentation, but I do appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before you today on behalf of NACo as well as the Government Finance Officers Committee—Association, I am sorry, the United 

States Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities. If 

there is one thing all of our organizations have in common, it is our 

37 

longstanding opposition to efforts by Congress to preempt State 

and local taxing authority. This is especially true when it comes to 

telecommunications taxes. How to levy taxes fairly, how to ensure 

there is no discrimination among companies that provide different 

forms of the same service, and how to protect local government revenues are all appropriate debates, but these debates belong at the 

State and local level, and this is why our associations are united 

in our opposition to this bill. 

Local governments exercise their taxing authority to the extent 

provided by State law. As a result, local taxing authority and practices differs from State to State and oftentimes taxing policy differs 

from county to county and city to city within States. But this is 

good, because this means that every local government taxing authority tailors its tax policy by taking into account the sources of 

revenue available and the needs and wants of its residents. 

I was first elected to the Board of Supervisors in Maricopa County, Arizona in 1994. More than two-thirds of the population of Arizona lives in my county, which is also home to the State capital of 

Phoenix. Three weeks ago, the board adopted a tentative fiscal 

budget for years 2009 and 2010 of $2.1 billion. This represents a 

5.4 percent decrease from the current year’s budget. The board 

adopted a strategic plan to exercise sound financial management 

and build the county’s fiscal strength. To this end we cut jobs, programs, and some services and delayed capital projects which resulted in a savings of in excess of $122 million. 

Much of the county’s revenue comes from property taxes, sales 

taxes, vehicle license taxes, and jail taxes. We choose to continue 

minimizing the property tax burden that we impose upon our citizens. Because of the rapid growth that has taken place within the 

county, the board has lowered or maintained the overall property 

tax rate for the past 15 years. 

In today’s difficult economic times where State aid to local governments has decreased dramatically, local taxing autonomy is crucial in helping to ensure that the needs of local citizens, our mutual 

constituents, are met. The ability to make taxing and other fiscal 

policy decisions at the local level and without Federal intervention 

has enabled Maricopa County to provide the quality services that 

our constituents have come to expect. 

Some argue that the proposed 5-year ban set forth in this bill 

doesn’t hurt State and local governments because they can still 

continue to collect the taxes they currently impose. But this misses 

the point. 

What this legislation does is preempt State and local taxing authority and represents a Federal intrusion into historically protected State and local tax classifications. Enactment of this bill 

would lead other industries to seek similar special Federal protection from State and local taxes. 

It is important to remember that State and local governments, 

unlike the Federal Government, must balance their budgets. In 

this tough financial climate, this isn’t an easy task. Hard choices 

like those made in my county must be made. Essential services 

may be cut. Public employees may be laid off. Infrastructure repairs and construction may be put on hold. And yes, taxes may 

even have to be raised. But what is important to emphasize is that 

38 

when balancing the budget, all options must be on the table. What 

this bill does is take away one of those important options, to tax 

the wireless industry at the expense of other taxpayers and businesses. 

This bill fails to recognize the plain fact that not all jurisdictions 

depend on identical revenue sources. Some have income tax. Others 

don’t. Some tax food. Others don’t. As a result some jurisdictions 

may necessarily have to tax wireless services at a higher level than 

others. Enactment of this bill would force those jurisdictions to rely 

even more heavily on other types of taxes, thereby shifting the tax 

burden to those in the community less able to tolerate it. 

However, whether a particular State or local government has imposed too high a tax burden on the wireless industry is an issue 

that should be addressed at the appropriate State or local government level. The Federal Government should not step in and impose 

a uniform, nationwide taxing scheme that provides preferential tax 

treatment to a single industry, the wireless industry in this case, 

while preempting State and local taxing authority. 

Those who support this legislation must ask themselves whether 

the preemption of State and local authority is warranted. I urge 

that in this case, where legislation seeks to protect an industry 

that continues to experience explosive growth and profits at the expense of other taxpayers, it is most definitely not. I urge you to 

speak out against this measure. 

Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman, and the opportunity to 

be before you today, and I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stapley follows:] 

39 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DON STAPLEY


DS-1.eps
40 


DS-2.eps
41 


DS-3.eps
42 


DS-4.eps
43 


DS-5.eps
44 


DS-6.eps
45 


DS-7.eps
46 


DS-8.eps
47 


DS-9.eps
48 


DS-10.eps
49 


DS-11.eps
50 


DS-12.eps
51 


DS-13.eps
52 


DS-14.eps
53 


DS-15.eps
54 


DS-16.eps
55 


DS-17.eps
56 


DS-18.eps
57 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start with questions. I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Representative Reardon, you mentioned in your remarks that the 

national average wireless tax rate is now 15.2 percent and that 

consumers who are at low and moderate income levels pay a disproportionately flat rate for the same services as those of higher incomes. I would like each of the representatives and the county commissioner to discuss the idea of regressive taxes such as this and 

its effect on people. 

Representative Reardon. 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON. Well, the regressive nature of the tax 

is based on the economic—if you look at the income of the average 

wireless customer by the Pew Hispanic study here, where 84 percent of Hispanics now have wireless service that wouldn’t potentially be able to afford the services that we were talking about, the 

access to the wireless that Dr. Atkinson mentioned, the services 

that they could get if they are paying 10 or $15 in taxes. Those are 

services that they are unable to access for e-mail and other lifelines 

that they have to the community. And there was that article in— 

this is a lifeline for a lot of homeless people trying to access services for job opportunities and housing and food stamps. 

Mr. COHEN. Do you think wireless communications is kind of a 

necessity? 

Ms. CALENDARIA REARDON. I think it is becoming a necessity. 

These people that are living in homeless shelters, it is their only 

line of communication when checking on their housing situation 

and job opportunities. It is a way for them to stay connected to the 

world when they are living in a shelter, and they miss phone calls 

for job opportunities because they are using a pay phone or they 

don’t get messages in a timely fashion. I think it is becoming more 

and more a necessity in today’s society for everybody. 

Mr. COHEN. Representative Gibbons, do you have some thoughts 

to contribute on this subject? 

Mr. GIBBONS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I think that it hinders access, actually. You know, it is not just 

about voice any longer. It is about all these other services that are 

part of what I consider economic development and cost cutting. You 

can access all kinds of medical records and all kinds of medical 

services online now. If you don’t have access to that, then you cannot take advantage of the fact that there are savings involved in 

having that kind of access. 

What we are trying to say is, as we deploy it—see, when Internet 

services were first provided, there was a digital divide created. 

There were people who could afford desktop computers and people 

who couldn’t afford desktop computers. Those who could afford 

desktop computers had instant access, and it opened up a whole 

new world to them. 

Well, the same thing is going to happen with broadband now. All 

I am saying is let’s not leave anybody behind. Let’s make sure that 

everyone has equal access to the opening up of this whole new 

world, because, again, we don’t want two societies. And when we 

don’t have the opportunity to be exposed to things—because, you 

know, an opportunity is not an opportunity unless you have had 

the exposure to see it as such. So if I block your exposure, I block 

58 

your opportunities. And so, through the regressive nature of this, 

it blocks opportunities and it blocks exposure, and it keeps people 

living in certain conditions. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Commissioner Stapley? 

Mr. STAPLEY. Yes. You know, I think your question was, has this 

tax become regressive in some jurisdictions. And the answer to that 

is, if it has, I don’t know; it certainly hasn’t in my State and in 

my county. We don’t tax cell phones in my county. We don’t have 

the authority to. They may be taxed at the State level. 

But I can assure you, if it becomes a regressive tax, it is a lot 

easier to get rid of those politicians at the local level, by their local 

constituents, than it is to turn Congress over because they placed 

a ban on these taxes through a moratorium, a 5-year moratorium. 

So, in my opinion, it is a preemption question, not a question of 

regression. 

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask you this. So you believe that the Congress should not take a position and leave it up to all the locals 

and the States to have maybe different taxes levels, even though— 

this is, you know, different than fixed communications, the wireless 

folks can be moving from State to State, making calls from everywhere, and it is kind of a national form of communications. 

Do you not see a distinction of that in the old, traditional, Alexander Graham Bell—— 

Mr. STAPLEY. No, I get your point, Mr. Chairman, and I understand it. But I do believe that government works best that is closest to the people. And, in my opinion, taxes on cell phones should 

be the same. 

You know, one of my colleagues next to me pulled out a new 

phone the other day, and he said, ‘‘I threw away that extensive 

one, and I just got this one, and I am only paying $45 a month for 

unlimited service anywhere in the United States. It is a new program, it is great.’’ It allows—I mean, it fosters competition. 

But when you take a whole industry and you treat it differently 

than other industries, I think you run the risk of—— 

Mr. COHEN. But isn’t it different when I can hold this phone, and 

it has a Memphis area code, and dial from Washington to Phoenix 

and talk on Phoenix ESPN Radio with, you know, whoever? And 

maybe it is different than if I was picking up a phone that was attached to the wall and, you know, kind of pull it around and put 

it to my ear and not get too far and call Phoenix from Memphis. 

Isn’t that a little different? 

Mr. STAPLEY. It is different. But let me give you an example of 

why this preemption issue is the issue we are talking about and 

is more important than any of the other issues. And that would be 

the example of the Federal Government placing a tax on telephones, the kind that you are talking about—Alexander Graham 

Bell, fixed-on-the-wall line—to fund World War I, I believe, if I am 

not mistaken. That tax is still there. It has never been taken off. 

The express purpose of that tax, I think it was 11 percent, was 

to fund World War I. And Congress has never gone back and removed it. 

Mr. COHEN. Does that maybe speak to why we shouldn’t have a 

moratorium, because it is difficult to repeal a tax once you have 

59 

passed one, and you should do it right the first time rather than 

have just a hodgepodge? 

Mr. STAPLEY. I agree with you, except I think it is much more 

difficult at the Federal level than at the State and local level. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. Thank you. 

I am up. Abiding by the 5-minute rule, I now recognize the new 

Ranking Member, the Ranking Member once-removed, Mr. Issa of 

California. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, by the way, you have 

a missed call on your phone, I noticed. That is the problem with 

being here on the dais. 

Boy, there is so much and, as you say, Chairman, so little time. 

Mr. COHEN. It was Speaker Pelosi. She was really calling for you. 

Mr. ISSA. Oh, okay. As soon as I am done here, I promise. 

Well, you know, Mr. Stapley said we must ask, we who cosponsor 

this bill, and so I guess I will. 

Dr. Atkinson, just a couple of quick questions. First of all, don’t 

we inherently use less of what we tax? And can you think of any 

reason we would want to limit communication, either digital or 

voice? Is there any public interest in limiting that? Is it a bad thing 

in some way other than, well, driving down the road not on your 

earpiece? 

Mr. ATKINSON. Economists talk about elasticities of demand, so, 

in other words, what is the relationship of demand to the price. 

And there are different elasticities for different things. The elasticity, for example, of milk is quite low, or food. But the elasticity 

for cellular or wireless communications services is quite high. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay, so, going through that logic, again, Mr. Stapley 

was kind of, you know, sort of saying, ‘‘Stay out of our business. 

We need to do what we need to do.’’ Well, let’s go through this for 

a second. 

Wireline received access to public, State, city, county access to 

roads. They got right-of-ways. Were there any substantial right-ofways granted by local municipalities? Isn’t it true that wireless, 

they pay for every single booth and every single building that they 

put their cells on? They paid very dearly for their bandwidth when 

they went to auction. 

What is it that a city or a State gave to a wireline carrier? What 

asset did it give, loan, or provide? 

Mr. ATKINSON. To a wireline? 

Mr. ISSA. To a wireless, I am sorry, to a wireless, a wireless. 

Mr. ATKINSON. Wireless. I am not aware of any on wireless. 

Mr. ISSA. So, unlike wireline, they gave nothing. Unlike wireline, 

instead of being given, they had to pay. So where is the interest 

by a city or a county or a State in some harm or some offset for 

which they have a special right to tax greater than the ordinary 

tax? 

Which, if I understand my Constitution, we specifically have a 

prohibition on targeting taxes. You know, it is designed to keep 

from targeting one rich landowner out of business, but, in fact, you 

target an industry, it is somewhat the same. 

Is there anything that is so evil in wireless communication as to 

receive a special burden? 

60 

Mr. ATKINSON. No. It is to the exact opposite. I mean, it would 

be one thing if States or localities want to impose taxes that hurt 

their own economy or that hurt their own poor or low-income citizens. The Federal Government doesn’t have a job to protect them 

from bad decisions. 

The problem with this case, though, is that those decisions impact the rest of us. And they impact the rest of us by devaluing 

the value of the overall network. And that is what the—— 

Mr. ISSA. And going to that, isn’t the commerce clause probably 

the most cited reason for the Federal Government feeling that, in 

fact, the common good of all the citizens of the various States and 

the District are required to be protected by we in Washington? And 

if, in fact, you were to have a local municipality that made it burdensome to do business there, that it could degrade the ability of 

the rest of the country to do business with, let’s say, Arizona? 

Mr. ATKINSON. Absolutely correct. 

Mr. ISSA. So we do have a public interest. We do, in fact, understand that what we tax more we consume less of. We do understand there is nothing inherently wrong in that. 

Additionally, are there any offsets in the existing tax? For example, E911, although it is a wonderful service, and it is paid for out 

of the taxes on the system, in fact it is not a problem created by 

the system, but, in fact, an excess benefit created. I just want to 

make sure we understood that. 

I guess, Mr. Stapley, I have been referencing you because you 

were so vehemently opposed to our preemption. I will ask you one 

question and then let you answer sort of all of them. 

If, in fact, the good people of Arizona heard you today, or of 

Phoenix, and said, ‘‘Okay, fine, if that is the way he feels about it, 

we will all simply go get phones in another area code, and we are 

simply not going to pay your tax if we feel that it is one penny 

higher than the lowest tax in the Nation,’’ do you believe you would 

have any authority to do anything over your constituents choosing 

to pick a lower tax area under national law? 

And, if so, what we are proposing here, isn’t it, in fact, for your 

own good that we want to essentially say, since they have the ability to go shop elsewhere, we are simply keeping you from taking 

advantage of your constituents simply because they want an area 

code that is convenient? 

Mr. STAPLEY. I think the best answer I can give you is that those 

debates should be not here in Washington, D.C. Those debates 

need to take place in the States and in the counties and in the cities. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, I appreciate that, but I am a San Diegan, so I 

am sort of a suburb of Arizona all summer. And the ‘‘zoneys’’ all 

appreciate that. 

Mr. STAPLEY. Yes, right, exactly. 

Mr. ISSA. We take advantage of you in San Diego in a huge way. 

You can’t vote. And what do we tax at a disproportionate rate? 

Hotel/motel, all the—— 

Mr. STAPLEY. You are telling me. 

Mr. ISSA. Exactly. We have huge taxes. And do you know why 

we do that in San Diego? Because there is no constituency against 

it. 

61 

Mr. STAPLEY. Correct. 

Mr. ISSA. Isn’t, in a sense, when you say, ‘‘Hold us accountable, 

we are the ones closest, we are going to have the election,’’ isn’t it 

true that basically there is nobody that has ever been voted out of 

office for putting a tax on something that is pretty invisible to the 

consumer, such as a hotel or, in this case, even local ups and adds 

to a telephone bill? 

And, by the way, you have my personal apology that we haven’t 

yet paid for World War I and that we are still taxing it. Because 

I do think it is inherently wrong to be continuing to have these artificial taxes. 

Mr. STAPLEY. Well, I understand your point and do not disagree, 

but I do believe that the debates need to take place locally. And 

if there is a national problem, we can work together to solve that 

problem. 

But I don’t think, by preempting State and local governments 

from assessing these taxes—because, again, for the very reason 

that I said in my testimony, every county, every city has different 

revenues, has different needs, and constituencies have different—— 

Mr. ISSA. Right. But just one question: Do you understand—because you didn’t seem to in your statement—that it is only discriminatory taxation that we are objecting to? If you want to tax, 

if you want to have a 17 percent sales tax on everything, this bill 

would not preempt you in any way, shape, or form from including 

wireless and wireline or anything else. 

Mr. STAPLEY. I do understand that, but I also understand that 

that is the basic premise upon which most politicians are 

unelected. So that is not the issue. 

Mr. ISSA. So what you are saying is, if you had a 17 percent sales 

tax, your people would be unelected, but if you have a tax on this 

particular subset, it may not show so much? 

Mr. STAPLEY. No. I think the point is, I don’t think that the tax 

on this subset should be done at the Federal level or should be prohibited at the Federal level. It needs to be dealt with at the local 

level. 

Mr. ISSA. But you know we prohibit you from having a poll tax. 

Do you think that is reasonable? 

Mr. STAPLEY. I do. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So you do look at some arbitrary or some punitive or some discriminatory taxes that we prohibited as reasonable; 

you just don’t like this particular preemption? 

Mr. STAPLEY. That is correct. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Thank, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

I am going to, in the policy of Chairman Conyers, going to recognize Mr. Watt next and then Mr. Delahunt and then Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. Watt, you are recognized, having been here for the longest 

period of time today. 

All right then, I would yield and recognize the Vice Chairman, 

Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

62 

And I am also the vice chair of the States’ Rights Caucus. The 

gentleman to my right, Mr. Watt, has been chairing that particular 

caucus since I arrived here in Congress some 13 years ago. He is, 

I am sure, well-known throughout the country for his advocacy for 

States’ rights. And it is good to see that there is a Member in this 

branch that still believes in the viability of the 10th amendment. 

But I have been asked to submit for the record a statement of 

the Federation of Tax Administrators on cell phone taxation. And 

I would like to submit it for the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COHEN. Without objection, so done. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

63 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FEDERATION OF TAX ADMINISTRATORS, SUBMITTED BY

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS


1-1.eps
64 


1-2.eps
65 


1-3.eps
66 


1-4.eps
67 

Mr. DELAHUNT. You know, this is a debate that plays itself out 

in a variety of different ways, you know, preferential treatment, 

the interstate commerce clause. I have been very much involved in 

the issue of fairness as applied to the collection of the sales tax, 

you know, from out-of-State vendors. 

But let me just put a—if we continue here in Congress to limit 

the sources of revenue—and I am not even sure I am on this particular bill—but where are States and local governments and other 

subsets of States, where are you going to get your revenue? 

Mr. Stapley, do you have any ideas? Are you going to have a— 

are we are going to have to increase the property tax? Are we going 

to have to—which is clearly a regressive tax. It is a regressive tax. 

Or are we going to have to increase the sales tax rates and maybe 

increase it on such items as food? 

I mean, I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides of 

this issue. 

But let’s presume that in Arizona, or in California, for that matter, local governments are doing a good job, they are making some 

real tough decisions, and that the budgets that they formulate we 

could all agree on. Where are they going to get their revenue? 

In Massachusetts, because of the difficulty in collecting State 

sales tax from out-of-State vendors, we have a shortfall of some 

$400 million to $500 million. That is a pretty good plug. In California, Mr. Issa, I understand it amounts to billions of dollars in 

terms of shortfall. 

Mr. ISSA. $42 billion but rising. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, no, I am talking about just the shortfall because of the inability of the collection of sales tax. 

Mr. ISSA. Oh, yes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. You know, we can’t continue to avoid discussion 

of this issue, which is: How do State and local governments, which 

deliver the real necessary services that people demand, how are we 

going to fund them? Any ideas? Be creative. 

Mr. Gibbons? 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. 

I can tell you what they are doing. They are increasing fees— 

water fees, fire fees, sewage fees. Because in Florida we limited the 

local government’s ability to raise property taxes to a certain percentage of CPI. So what they did was, because we had falling property values, they started increasing fees. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. OK, we can increase fees. 

Mr. GIBBONS. That is what is happening. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. 

Ms. Hovis? 

Ms. HOVIS. Congressman, I am not a tax expert. I speak to the 

broadband issues. I don’t know—— 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, tell me, where would you get the money to 

fund teachers? 

Ms. HOVIS. I would say only that the—I can’t imagine how localities could exist if they don’t have control over taxing decisions at 

the local level. 

And while I respect the tax issues here, I deeply respect those 

concerns, I think that if this piece of legislation is about impacting 

broadband investment, it will have only effects at the far margins. 

68 

It will not solve the problem it purports to solve, even if it does 

have some kind of a basis in tax policy. There is not a broadband 

policy here. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you. 

Ms. Reardon, how do we fund the cops? 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON. Well, I think that this industry last year paid $21 billion in State, local, and Federal income taxes and 

fees. In Indiana alone, $326 million was paid by these taxes and 

fees. 

At some point we have to look at—— 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, what new revenue sources at the local level 

would you suggest? 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON. Well, I think that, you know—first of 

all, I don’t think that taxing the citizens any further, without looking at efficiencies in government—— 

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, I am not giving you the hypothesis that we 

have done all the efficiency, that the local people are doing a good 

job, we are at a barebones budget, and we don’t have enough 

money. How do you fund it? 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON. I can’t speak to that—— 

Mr. DELAHUNT. OK, thank you. 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON [continuing]. That land. I mean, we 

don’t live there, in Indiana. We have lots of—— 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I understand—— 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON [continuing]. Reforms, and I think—— 

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. But I am using a national argument 

here. 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON. Well, then you look at fees, you look 

at property taxes. I think those are the things that—— 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Property taxes, fees. Okay, thank you. 

Dr. Atkinson? 

Mr. ATKINSON. I would not tax a critical engine of economic 

growth and innovation. For example, I wouldn’t—— 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. Where would you tax? 

Mr. ATKINSON. What I would—— 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am not asking where you wouldn’t. Where 

would you tax? 

Mr. ATKINSON. Right, I understand that, but I needed to say that 

first. What I would tax, I would tax things that basically have less 

distorted impact. And most of the studies show—— 

Mr. DELAHUNT. You know, ‘‘distorted’’ is a great word. Where 

would you tax? 

Mr. ATKINSON. I am going to say it in just about 1 second. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. He is going to rule me out in another second. 

Mr. ATKINSON. As I said, I would therefore tax property, income, 

and sales. Income first, property—— 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you. Property, income, and sales. 

Mr. Stapley, you are my last shot. 

Mr. STAPLEY. Well, first of all, let me just say that, as representing the associations—the National Association of Counties, 

the League of Cities, the Conference of Mayors—we are not closed 

to telecom tax reform. We are interested in engaging and have engaged in that debate. We just are opposed to this what I consider 

to be a piecemeal approach. 

69 

To answer your question specifically—— 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Answer my question. Where would you tax? Let’s 

say this bill goes and we will never be able to tax wireless ever 

again. What are you going to do? 

Mr. STAPLEY. We are going to continue to tax at the same threelegged stool that we have in the past, that we just talked about. 

And we are going to have to learn to live within our means. That 

is the answer to your question. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am even giving you the premise you are going 

to live in your means. You have the barebones budget out in Maricopa County. I mean, you know, you are paying teachers $7,000 a 

year, okay, and you are really crunching them down. How are you 

going to pay for it? 

I yield back. I thank the indulgence of the Chair. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Watt, distinguished Member, head of the States’ Rights Caucus, and Mr. Congeniality. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me first applaud the testimony of Ms. Hovis, who didn’t deal 

with the tax issue here but dealt with whether this is really going 

to have any impact on the provision of phone or broadband service. 

I definitely agree with you. 

And we need to figure out a way to extend broadband deployment into rural areas. Taxes is not driving that one way or another. In my urban community, I don’t have any problem at all 

finding a network to do this. Whether they tax it or don’t tax it is 

not driving that. But when I retreat on the weekends up the mountains of North Carolina, no service of any kind there. And whether 

this gets taxed or doesn’t get taxed is not going to solve that problem one way or another. 

I am not an advocate of discriminatory taxes, even though I am 

cast as the States’ rights advocate here. I have the same questions 

that Mr. Delahunt has asked about that. But I don’t know that I 

think that is the issue either. 

My question is, how you define ‘‘discriminatory’’ here. And I just 

need a little more information, because I think the definition of 

‘‘discriminatory’’ that is in this bill is way, way too broad. 

The taxation of mobile service property is one thing. I think we 

should not be discriminating between fixed people and mobile people. But the service, I am not sure how the taxation is being done. 

Maybe Ms. Candelaria Reardon and Mr. Stapley can help me with 

this. 

Is there a discrimination now between a fixed land line tax on 

service, phone service, broadband service, and mobile service? Because that is really the comparison that I think we ought to be trying to make here if we are trying to eliminate discriminatory taxation. It is not between all other people who are not in the business 

of providing telecommunications services. 

Is that going on now? 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON. I believe it varies from State to State. 

In Indiana, for example, we pay the local, State, and Federal taxes, 

fees, surcharges. However, on top of that, we also pay a utility receipts tax. 

Mr. WATT. On land lines and mobile lines? 

70 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON. Yes. 

Mr. WATT. Or on just mobile lines? 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON. On both. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. So how is that discriminatory? 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON. Well, because there—— 

Mr. WATT. Yet it would be under this bill. If it gets charged to 

land line carriers and it gets charged to mobile carriers, how is 

that discriminatory? That is what I am trying to figure out. Yet it 

would be under this bill. 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON. Right. And we touched on that, I 

think Congressman Issa touched on that earlier, about the rightof-way fees that are charged for cellular use as opposed to land 

lines. 

Mr. WATT. I am not looking at the source of what the State or 

the local community has provided historically. All of that stuff has 

kind of gone out. The land lines are owned by private industry 

now. They are not owned by the State anymore. They are not run 

by the State anymore. 

So if we are going to make a comparison, it seems to me we 

ought to be making a comparison between how we treat land-line 

phone and broadband service versus how we treat mobile phone 

and broadband service. And if those two things are being taxed the 

same way, that is how—I mean, that is my definition of ‘‘discriminatory.’’ 

I am perhaps asking the wrong person this. Maybe I should be 

asking Ms. Lofgren this when we get to a markup; it is her bill. 

But it seems to me that the definition of ‘‘discriminatory’’ in this 

bill is way broader than I am comfortable with. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WATT. Let me go to Mr. Stapley, and then maybe I can get 

Ms. Lofgren to explain this. 

Mr. STAPLEY. Yes, I would just offer a brief opinion. And that is, 

irrespective of the bill, it could be considered discriminatory either 

way, whether the bill is in place or not. I mean, there is a difference. A good example—— 

Mr. WATT. My question is, are local communities taxing land 

telecommunication in a different way than they are taxing mobile 

telecommunication? And that seems to me to be the underlying 

question that I am asking. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I may? 

Mr. WATT. Yes, I will yield to the gentlewoman. My time has 

long expired. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The answer to that is ‘‘yes’’ because the Congress 

has passed an Internet tax moratorium. And we did so because we 

want to nurture the development of the Internet. 

Mr. WATT. I wasn’t all that happy about that either. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But the answer to the question is, if you have a 

DSL line, you can engage in discriminatory taxes on the DSL land 

because that is broadband that we want to nurture. You can do so 

on your 3G line, which is another reason why the bill was introduced. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. Well, maybe I just don’t have enough education 

and understanding about how taxes are being imposed. But it 

71 

seems to me that the definition of discriminatory in this bill goes 

well beyond differences in treatment of telecommunications companies and says you can’t discriminate between mobile telecommunication companies and any company. And that I am troubled by. 

But I will get, when we get closer to the markup—maybe we 

should have a hearing about that rather than whether it is a good 

idea to discriminate. It is never a good idea to discriminate, but it 

is always difficult to define ‘‘discrimination’’ and what is really discriminatory. 

So I am through, but Mr. Gibbons wants to respond to my question. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you for the question. 

To me, it is discriminatory when, in Florida, we tax all other 

goods and services at 6 percent but we tax these services at 20 percent. 

Mr. WATT. No, it is discriminatory if you tax land services, telecommunications services one way and mobile telecommunications 

services another way. It is discriminatory if you tax their property, 

the property of a non-telecommunications company one way and 

the property of a mobile company another way. That is discriminatory. 

But if you, the service that is being provided here, the telecommunications service, if you are treating land providers and mobile providers the same way, that doesn’t seem to me to be discriminatory. 

And that is what I am asking the question about. And I don’t 

know the answer to that. Maybe—— 

Mr. ATKINSON. Could I respond to that quickly? 

Mr. WATT. If you know the answer to that question. 

Mr. ATKINSON. I was going to answer that question. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. All right. 

Mr. ATKINSON. I think there are two kinds of discrimination that 

we are talking about. There is inter-industry and intra-industry. 

And what you are talking about is a discrimination within voice. 

And, clearly, the ideal would be no discrimination, but we do have 

difference rates right now. For example, as Congresswoman 

Lofgren alluded to, if I get on a user voice service, VOIP, voice-over 

Internet, on broadband, the broadband tax moratorium makes that 

a little bit—makes it less taxed than wireless. So that is discrimination. 

The point, I think, that is more important, though, is that it is 

not so much intra-industry, it is inter-industry, the fact that this 

overall set of services—— 

Mr. WATT. See, I don’t even want to go there. I mean, that is not 

the discrimination that I think we ought to be dealing with in this 

bill. That is just my own opinion. Maybe I am just out to lunch. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I have taken much more time. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you for yielding back the remainder of your 

time. 

Mr. WATT. I did not yield back any time. I just yielded back. 

Mr. COHEN. I will yield to the gentlelady of California, Mr. Sherman having joined the competition for congeniality. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

72 

And thank you, Mr. Sherman, for allowing me to ask my brief 

questions. At this time, I have to Chair a Committee hearing over 

in the Capitol in 7 minutes, so I will be brief. 

Dr. Atkinson, there has been some suggestion the taxation has 

no real impact, meaningful impact, on how this technology will be 

deployed. And I am wondering if you have a comment on that, 

number one. 

And, number two, you are a technology observer. And I am wondering if you have a view—you know, right now we have 3G. We 

are about to get a 4G rollout. In the next several years, unimpeded, 

what do you foresee will be developed in the wireless arena that 

is really at stake here, the related questions? 

Mr. ATKINSON. Well, the first question is on impact. And I think 

it is important to understand that the impact here is what economists would call ‘‘at the margin.’’ So if you have a tax or don’t have 

a tax, it is not going to affect wireless deployment in the middle 

of nowhere, doesn’t matter what the tax is. And it won’t affect 

wireless deployment in Silicon Valley. 

Where it will affect deployment, though, are places at the margin, where the costs are slightly higher than what you can make 

a return on. And that is clearly what Austin Goolsbee showed in 

his study. And the same thing happens on adoption. 

And I think it is important to recognize, on adoption, not everybody has a cell phone who uses wireless service as a traditional 

user. For example, we recently bought a cell phone for my fatherin-law, who passed away recently, but before he passed away he 

had Alzheimer’s. And he would walk around, and he didn’t know 

where he was sometimes. And his wife, my mother-in-law, did not 

know how to get hold of him. And we got him a cell phone from 

Verizon and we had, you know, with everybody’s permission, a 

tracking thing you can put on it so that she could go on the Internet and find out exactly where he was. And this was very, very 

useful to us and it allowed him to sort of have mobility and be out 

in the community longer than would have otherwise. 

Well, that was a discretionary purchase. Now, we were fine with 

making it, but there are lots of other people where having an 18 

percent tax on that might keep them from doing it. So I do think 

that there is clearly economic evidence that this is discretionary. 

In terms of where we are going, I think we are really only at, 

if you will, Internet, sort of, wireless 1.0. Wireless 2.0 is going to 

be an amazing series of things where we will be able to do medical 

data transfer, we will have 4G wireless, be able to have broadband 

to the home, a fourth pipe, a third pipe. There will be a whole 

array of new innovative services that the iPhone is really just only 

touching on. 

So I think that is the context we have to think about that. Do 

we really want, as a Nation, to be taxing this whole array of new 

services? I would argue it makes sense to have a 5-year moratorium on doing that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now, can you give us an international perspective 

on wireless development? Where is the United States relative to 

other countries? And where might we be relative to other countries 

in, say, 5 or 10 or 15 years from now? 

73 

Mr. ATKINSON. Well, in some areas we are ahead. We seem to be 

ahead, for example, on mobile services, wireless voice services. But 

in other areas we are behind. 

So, for example, the ability to use your cell phone—I was just 

reading today in the new iPhone announcement, you can use your 

cell phone to go get into your Zipcar. So if you get a Zipcar, you 

download the code, just wave your cell phone and it opens the door 

of the Zipcar—kind of a cool device. But we are so far behind on 

those. 

You take a country like Japan or Korea where you can use your 

cell phone to download movie tickets, walk into the movie theater, 

wave your cell phone, get into the theater. In Japan, the ability to 

have traffic information on your cell phone, you can look on your 

cell phone and know in real time what the road conditions are like. 

Those are the areas that we are farther behind on. And I think, 

unless we try to innovate more, we are going to continue to be behind there. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just note, before I yield back—I won’t take 

additional time. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. 

I do think, although not everyone agreed, that when we, the 

House and Senate, acted and the President signed the bill to do a 

moratorium on Internet access, it was really a mistake: This should 

have been included, and it was not. 

And I think, you know, that was a pretty broad consensus. Not 

every person agreed. But the country is now in a position where 

we are saying we are going to nurture Internet development. And, 

without including wireless, we are going to fall short. 

And, in fact, I think that wireless is going to leapfrog some of 

what we have already done, and that is just a personal opinion, not 

only in the United States but certainly in the developing world. If 

you take a look at parts of Africa, I mean, they are just going to 

leapfrog with the wireless technology that is being developed, provided that we take the right steps to nurture innovation both 

through our research efforts as well as our tax policy. 

So I thank you, all of the witnesses. And I apologize for running 

off to Chair my other Committee. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. COHEN. You are welcome, and thank you. 

And now Mr. Sherman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I should explain my uncharacteristic politeness in letting Ms. 

Lofgren go first. It is actually a clever tactic so that she would be 

outside the room before she heard me in any way criticize her bill. 

I don’t want anybody to think that congeniality is something they 

should expect from me except in extraordinary circumstances, no, 

not at all. 

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we in the Federal Government 

would make sure that our Federal tax laws were entirely devoid of 

unfairnesses and unreasonable distinctions before we then go tell 

the States how to make sure that their laws are fair. 

In my State, we tax scotch more than we tax beer. I have always 

thought that was unfair. And I don’t know why we aren’t dealing 

with that issue or hundreds of other issues where we could say 

that we have some unfairness at the State level. 

74 

The argument is that this is somehow preventing the deployment 

of a national network. Well, since 2000, subscribership in wireless 

has grown by 158 percent; revenue has grown 124 percent. And if 

I have to ask people in my State, ‘‘What are the big problems?’’ insufficient access to wireless communication is not one of them. The 

fact that summer school has been cancelled in Los Angeles for insufficient revenue, that is likely to be on the list. 

Now, Mr. Atkinson urges that we tax property, income, or sales. 

But in my State we can’t do that without a two-thirds vote, and 

we are not going to get one. 

Ms. Reardon, are you an advocate for taxing property, income, 

and sales to replace the missing revenue? 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON. Well, this bill does not actually impact revenue. The revenue that is already there will remain there. 

It is a moratorium on increasing sales taxes. It wouldn’t inhibit the 

revenue already collected. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, my State has a $42 billion deficit. We are 

looking for new sources of revenue. Clearly, we are going to need 

some more revenue. Would you say we should get it from property, 

income, or sales taxes? 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. Have you advocated increases in any of 

those taxes in your own State? 

Ms. CANDELARIA REARDON. We have a surplus in our State, currently. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Congratulations. Could you share some of that? 

Yes, exactly, in the spirit of foreign aid. California is sometimes regarded as foreign. 

I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that since we are having hearings 

today that would undercut State revenue, that we would also have 

hearings on a bill, maybe Delahunt’s bill, to reverse the Quill case 

and allow the proper collection of sales taxes that are already a 

matter of law. And, I mean, if we are able to pass such a bill, I 

think States could afford to see the passage of Ms. Lofgren’s bill. 

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman. 

And let me just say, because sales tax revenue, clearly, for most 

States is a significant part of their revenue source—and I, in the 

past, have suggested that the stakeholders come together. I would 

advocate, to nurture various industries and moratoriums, et cetera, 

that potential support if, in fact, we can resolve exactly the problem as described by my colleague from California. 

But I can’t support anything that will continue to erode the revenue base of State and local sources. I am finished doing that. Because until we address the major problem confronting States in 

terms of revenue sources, which is the sales tax, then everything 

else that comes in front of this Committee, I say, has to be deferred. 

And I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Just to explain the issue for those in the room 

that haven’t followed it, a large number of States impose a sales 

tax. Every State that imposes a sales tax also imposes a use tax, 

so that if you are able to buy something through a catalog or a 

75 

phone or Internet and escape the sales tax because it is shipped 

to you, then you are supposed to pay taxes on that as a use tax. 

The problem is that retailers outside your jurisdiction fail to collect the use tax or report the use tax liability. And so, as a practical matter, billions and billions of dollars of sales/use tax revenue 

is never collected. 

If we were able—and perhaps some of the people at this table 

could become advocates for a bill—to require retailers around the 

country to report when they ship something into Massachusetts or 

California or, better yet, to collect the sales and use tax and remit 

it to State tax authorities, if you want to put Zoe Lofgren’s bill on 

that bill, I will vote for final passage, and you will have at least 

two votes that you might otherwise not get. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman from California. 

And Mr. Jordan does not seek to ask any questions. And, with 

that, I believe we have concluded our questions. 

I want to thank each of the witnesses for their testimony and appearing before us. 

And I hope that if there are questions submitted to you, which 

there may be, by Members, that you will respond to them. You will 

have 5 legislative days to respond to those questions which might 

be submitted by Members of the Committee. 

Without objection, the record will remain open for those 5 days 

for the submission of any additional materials from Members. 

And I thank everyone for their time and patience. 

This hearing of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

77 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM ROBERT D. ATKINSON, PH.D., 

PRESIDENT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION FOUNDATION


2-1.eps
78 


2-2.eps
79 

f 


2-3.eps
80 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE MARA CANDELARIA

REARDON, INDIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


3-1.eps
81 


3-2.eps
82 


3-3.eps
83 

f 


3-4.eps
84 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM JOANNE HOVIS, COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS AND ADVISORS, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

COUNTIES, THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, THE UNITED

STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, AND THE NATIIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES


4-2.eps
85 


4-3.eps
86 


4-4.eps
87 

f 


4-5.eps
88 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE JOSEPH A. GIBBONS, 

FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


5-1.eps
89 


5-2.eps
90 


5-3.eps
91 


5-4.eps
92 

f 


5-5.eps
93 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE DON STAPLEY, 

MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS


6-1.eps
94 


6-2.eps
95 


6-3.eps
96 

Æ 


6-4.eps