The iPad Tax and “Saving” the News: or How Not To.

Jeff Jarvis, author of “What Would Google Do?”, wrote a great article today over at the NY Post

Jeff Jarvis

outlining the Federal Trade Commission’s efforts to “save” journalism. As Jeff points out, the FTC “only circles its wagons around old newspapers and their fading business models.”

Here are some of the “solutions” that Jeff summarized:

Expanding copyright law and restricting the doctrine of fair comment to benefit legacy publishers.
Granting antitrust exemptions to allow publishers to collude on pricing to consumers and to business partners.
Giving news organizations tax exemptions.
Subsidizing news organizations by increasing government funding to public broadcasting; establishing an AmeriCorps to pay reporters; giving news companies tax credits for employing journalists; creating a national fund for local news, and giving the press an increased postal subsidy.

Personally, I find the antitrust exemptions troubling. On the other hand, that type of collusion could simply accelerate the demise of current outdated business models. Also concerning is how the FTC plans to pay for all this. They have identified potential taxes on broadband spectrum, a 5 percent surcharge on consumer electronic devices like the Apple iPad, and tax credits for companies employing journalists.

In particular, broadband spectrum is currently very expensive and is a leading reason why companies like AT&T need to shift from all-you-can eat data plans to lower more costly plans. Carriers need to be profitable on those data plans and are significantly impeded by the high cost the government charges for “renting” the broadband spectrum.

The CEO over at Apple could save the taxpayers a lot of money both from these costly initiatives the FTC is proposing and on the cost of the FTC investigation.

jobs atd s The iPad Tax and Saving the News: or How Not To.

Photo by Asa Mathat/All Things D

Steve Job’s answer? ““I’m trying to get [news gathering and editorial operations] to take more aggressive postures than what they charge traditionally for print because they don’t have the expenses of printing, they don’t have the expenses of delivery, and to charge a reasonable price and go for volume.”Charge less, sell more.