N AT I O N A L C E N T E R F O R P O L I C Y A N A LY S I S

Inequities in Texas Telecom Taxation
Policy Report No. 352

by Pamela Villarreal and Kyle Buckley

November 2013

Telecommunications, cable and wireless service consumers pay a barrage of federal,
state and local taxes and fees imposed on these services and their providers. Telecom
services are usually taxed like tangible goods and other intangible services, but taxes
and fees vary among states and cities. California has the highest state sales tax rate
(7.50 percent), while Colorado has the lowest (2.9 percent).
Executive Summary

Dallas Headquarters:
12770 Coit Road, Suite 800
Dallas, TX 75251
972.386.6272
www.ncpa.org
Washington Office:
601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Suite 900, South Building
Washington, DC 20004
202.220.3082
ISBN #1-56808-225-8
www.ncpa.org/pub/st352

Many states do not charge sales taxes on certain items. State sales tax
exemptions vary, but are regularly granted for purchases of products used
in manufacturing final goods. States that typically exempt equipment used
to manufacture a tangible good do not always allow the same deduction for
equipment used to provide an intangible good, such as telecom or broadband
services. As a result, telecom and wireless services are subject to “double
taxation,” in which both an intermediary good and the services provided
are taxed. Until recently, Texas taxed telecom and wireless services in this
manner. Currently 20 states exempt on at least one or more services (telecom,
voice or broadband), whereas 30 states tax all three. However, Texas
consumers continue to face a heavy tax burden that varies widely from city to
city.
Sales taxes. Texas consumers pay a 6.25 percent sales and use tax on cable
and wire-line services. Municipalities, counties, special purpose districts and
transit authorities may impose additional taxes, up to a total of 8.25 percent.
State/Local Cable Franchise Fee. Cable video providers pay a stateimposed monthly franchise fee of up to 5 percent of gross revenues for the
use of public right-of-way (infrastructure). Municipalities also impose an
additional one percent Public Education and Government (PEG) franchise
fee. Revenues generated by the PEG cover cable television providers’ capital
costs for local public and educational access channels.
Right-of-Way Fees. Telecommunications providers must compensate
municipalities for use of the public rights of way in the municipality. The
right-of-way fee is considered a rental payment for the use of public property
and is assessed at fair market value. However, the fee is passed on to
consumers.
Texas Universal Service Fund. The Public Utilities Commission levies
a fee for the Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF) on all voice services,
including local, long distance, pager and wireless. Telecommunication
providers pay an average tax of 3.4 percent of taxable communications

 Inequities in Texas Telecom Taxation
receipts, and pass that cost on to consumers.
911 Emergency Service Fee and Equalization
Surcharge. These fees are assessed for emergency
telecommunication services. Consumers pay a set $0.50
fee every month, along with an variable fee averaging
$0.25 for areas served by Emergency Communications
Districts, the equivalent of a 2.14 percent unregulated tax.
One percent equalization surcharges are also imposed on
consumers, based on the cost of intrastate long-distance
services.

■■ Consumers in Laredo pay a 15 percent greater share
of the total average state aggregate consumer tax
burden than their share of the state population.
The evidence suggests that for every 1 percent increase
in the AETR (on fixed-line voice services), the regressivity
of the tax burden increases about 4 percent.
The tax treatment of the Texas telecom industry is far
from equitable. The industry faces tax hurdles not imposed
on other industries or in other states. The Texas legislature
should consider the following options:

Public Utility Commission Fee. The state assesses a
0.0017 percent fee on all public utility service providers
(which includes certified telecommunication providers) to
fund the Public Utility Commission.

Streamline Business and Cable Franchise Taxes for
Cable Providers. In Texas, non-satellite cable providers
are subject to a cable/video franchise fee that is not
required of satellite cable providers.

The 10 most populous Texas cities generated more than
$300 million in fee and tax revenue from cable television
and telephone services in 2011. In the 10 most populous
Texas cities:
■■ The average effective tax rate (AETR) on cable
television ranged from 14.13 percent in San Antonio
to 14.25 percent in most of the top 10 cities.
■■ The AETR for a fixed-line phone ranged from
21.79 percent in San Antonio to 27.16 percent in
Arlington.

Reduce Right-of-Way Fees to their Original
Intended Use. State law allows municipalities to derive up
to 21 percent of their revenue from right-of-way fees. This
may benefit local coffers, but it burdens consumers and the
telecom industry. Right-of-way fees should be assessed
annually based on the actual maintenance and operating
costs of public rights of way.

Major metropolitan areas such as Houston, San Antonio
and Dallas maintain the lowest tax rates, and consequently
the lowest annual burden for consumers. Arlington, Laredo
and Corpus Christi, on the other hand, suffer triple-digit
annual tax burdens for basic telephone services.
Adjusted for population and tax burden distributions,
cities with lower populations and lower median household
incomes carry a much larger share of the tax burden than
more populous and higher-income areas:

While the telecom industry’s changing and everevolving technology has benefitted consumers greatly,
the state of Texas still tethers the industry to outdated and
burdensome laws and taxes. Moreover, Texas may be
losing out to other states that provide tax exemptions for
equipment used to provide services. The telecom industry
still has room to grow in Texas, and the legislature should
recognize the opportunities that an equitable business and
consumer telecom tax system would help bring to the
state.

■■ Laredo, for example, has the lowest population
and lowest median household income of the top 10
Texas cities.

About the Authors
Pamela Villarreal is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis. Villarreal is an expert on retirement,
Social Security, economic growth and tax issues. She has authored studies and analyses on specific topics, including the
danger of 401(k) borrowing, Social Security disability, the expiration of tax cuts and the future of Social Security and
Medicare. Villarreal blogs about these topics and more at www.retirementblog.ncpa.org
Kyle Buckley is a former research associate with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

2

 Introduction
Telecommunications, cable and
wireless service consumers pay a
barrage of federal, state and local
taxes and fees imposed on these
services and their providers.1
Telecom services are usually
taxed like tangible goods and
other intangible services, but taxes
and fees vary among states and
cities. California has the highest
state sales tax rate (7.50 percent),
while Colorado has the lowest (2.9
percent).2 The highest local rate is
7 percent in Wrangell, Alaska. But
Tuba City, Arizona, has the highest
combined state and local sales tax
(13.725 percent).
Many states do not charge
sales taxes on certain items. State
sales tax exemptions vary, but are
regularly granted for purchases of
products used in manufacturing
final goods. States that typically
exempt equipment used to
manufacture a tangible good do not
always allow the same deduction
for equipment used to provide an
intangible good, such as telecom
or broadband services. As a result,
telecom and wireless services are
subject to “double taxation,” in
which both an intermediary good
and the services provided are taxed.
Until recently, Texas taxed telecom
and wireless services in this
manner. Currently 20 states exempt
on at least one or more services
(telecom, voice or broadband),
whereas 30 states tax all three.
However, consumers face a
heavy tax burden that varies widely
from city to city. This report will
examine the specific tax burden
Texas imposes on consumers

of telecom, cable and wireless
services.

Telecom Taxes and Fees
Passed on to Consumers
Texas consumers pay a 6.25
percent sales and use tax on
cable and wire-line services.
Municipalities, counties, special
purpose districts and transit
authorities may impose additional
taxes, up to a total of 8.25 percent.
For this study, the NCPA applied
the relevant taxes to each of the top
10 metropolitan areas in the state
of Texas. Service-specific taxes and
fees are described below.
State/Local Cable Franchise
Fee. Cable video providers pay a

“The tax burden on
telecommunication
Insert
callout
here.
services
vary widely
from city to city.”

were allowed to charge franchise
fees of up to 5 percent of gross
revenue. But in order to encourage
competition, a 2005 law allowed
new cable market entrants to
obtain a statewide franchise
license and pay a franchise fee of 5
percent of gross revenues without
negotiating franchise agreements
with individual cities. Cable
providers under the old system of
local franchise agreements had
to wait until those agreements
expired before they could opt for
the more streamlined state franchise
license. Today, the Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) assesses and
issues cable franchise fees and
licenses.5
Voice Services. The fees and
taxes levied on local and/or long
distance services in Texas are:

state-imposed monthly franchise fee
of up to 5 percent of gross revenues
for the use of public right-of-way
(infrastructure). Municipalities also
impose an additional one percent
Public Education and Government
(PEG) franchise fee. Revenues
generated by the PEG cover cable
television providers’ capital costs
for local public and educational
access channels.3

Right-of-Way Fees. Texas
imposes right-of-way fees for the
use of public property in accordance
with the state’s constitution,
which prohibits “gifting” public
property to private entities.6
Telecommunications providers
must compensate municipalities
for use of the public rights of way
in the municipality. The Public
Utilities Commission determines
the amount.7 The right-of-way fee
is considered a rental payment
for the use of public property and
is assessed at fair market value.8
However, the fee is passed on to
consumers. And because it is a
fee, and not a tax, there is no tax
exemption.

Before 2005, cable companies
wishing to operate in specific cities
made local franchise agreements
with each municipality.4 Cities

The state levies right-of-way
fees on a variety of companies for
the use of public infrastructure
(typically piping and wiring) to
3

 Inequities in Texas Telecom Taxation

Table I

Average Effective Tax Rate (AETR) and the Tax Burden for
Fixed-Line Phone and Cable Television Service

City
Houston1
San Antonio2
Dallas3
Austin4
Fort Worth5
El Paso6
Arlington7

AETR
Fixed-line
Cable
Phone
Television
23.58%
14.25%
21.79%
14.13%
23.03%
14.25%
22.17%
14.25%
22.10%
14.25%
24.03%
14.25%
27.16%
14.00%

Aggregate Consumer Tax
Burden
Fixed-line
Cable
Phone
Television
$45,818,655
$39,416,943
$25,764,534
$23,776,535
$26,300,315
$23,167,189
$18,070,770
$16,536,421
$14,361,532
$13,183,098
$12,756,619
$10,769,750
$ 9,062,037
$ 6,648,945

Annual Household
Burden
Fixed-line
Cable
Phone
Television
$ 99.03
$98.26
$ 91.50
$97.39
$ 96.71
$98.26
$ 93.10
$98.26
$ 92.81
$98.26
$100.91
$98.26
$114.07
$96.53

Corpus Christi8 25.13%

14.25%

$ 6,967,452

$ 5,624,234

$105.54

$98.26

22.51%

14.25%

26.64%
23.81%

14.25%
14.21%

$ 5,537,766
$ 4,196,056

$ 4,990,023
$ 3,194,450

$94.54
$111.90
$100.01

$98.26
$98.26
$98.00

$168,835,735

$147,307,587

Plano9
Laredo10
Average
Total

Authors’ calculations and source notes:
1.
“Fiscal Year 2011 Budget,” City of Houston Finance Department. Available at
http://www.houstontx.gov/budget/11budadopt/II_GFR.pdf.

“Adopted Annual Operating and Capital Budget,” Office of Management and Budget. Available at
http://www.sanantonio.gov/budget/documents/FY2013/FY%202013%20Adopted%20Budget%20 Document.pdf.
2.

“2011-2012 Adopted Annual Budget,” Office of Financial Services. Available at
http://www.dallascityhall.com/Budget/budgetFY_1112.html.
3.

“2012-2013 Approved Budget Volume 1,” City of Austin Financial Services. Available at https://assets.austintexas.gov/budget/1213/downloads/Vol_I_Combined.pdf.
4.

“City of Fort Worth General Fund Budget Summary FY2012,” Budget and Research Division. Available at
http://fortworthtexas.gov/uploadedFiles/Budget_and_Management_Services/FY2012/F-GeneralFund-ADOPTED.pdf.
5.

6.
“City of El Paso 2011 Budget,” Office of Management and Budget. Available online at
http://home.elpasotexas.gov/omb/_documents/FY2011%20Complete%20Budget%20Book.pdf.

“FY2011 Operating Budget,” Office of Management and Budget. Available online at
http://www.arlingtontx.gov/budget/pdf/FY_2011_4th_Qtr_BAR.pdf.
7.

“FY2011-2012 Budget/Performance Report,” Office of Management and Budget. Available online at
http://www.cctexas.com/files/g37/2012budgetperformancerpt4thqtr.pdf.
8.

“City of Plano Program of Service – Budget 2012-2013,” Budget and Research Department. Available online at
http://plano.gov/archives/89/2012-13%20Program%20of%20Service.pdf.
9.

“FY2013 Annual Budget,” Financial Services Department – Budget Division. Available online at
http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/Budget/Budget_Books/2012-2013/2012-2013_Budget_Book.pdf.

10.

4

 transfer products and services
from source to consumer. A
uniform method for assessing
fees for natural gas, water, sewer,
electric and telecoms is designed
to be administratively simple
for municipalities and certified
telecommunication providers. It is
also designed to be consistent with
state and federal law, competitively
neutral, nondiscriminatory,
consistent with the burdens on
municipalities created use of a
public right of way, and to provide
fair and reasonable compensation
for the use the right of way.9 In
telecommunications, right-of-way
fees historically applied only to
traditional landline services.10
Before 2000, the right-of-way
fee was assessed as a percent of
gross revenues. But new legislation
assessed right-of-way fees for
each access line: residential voice,
business voice and high-capacity
data lines.11 The use charges are
updated annually by a specific
formula. Consumers are still
charged for each service with one
exception: Internet-based television/
phone services are only taxable as
Internet services, despite increased
traffic on these lines.
Texas Universal Service Fund.
The Public Utilities Commission
levies a fee for the Texas Universal
Service Fund (TUSF) on all voice
services, including local, long
distance, pager and wireless.12 The
TUSF is a redistributive measure
to ensure that rural, disabled and
low-income customers can receive
phone services. While the actual
cost varies, telecommunication
providers pay an average tax of 3.4
percent of taxable communications

receipts, an amount they pass on to
consumers.
911 Emergency Service Fee and
Equalization Surcharge. These
fees are assessed for emergency
telecommunication services. Texas
consumers pay a set $0.50 fee every
month, along with an variable fee
averaging $0.25 for areas served
by Emergency Communications
Districts, the equivalent of a 2.14
percent unregulated tax. One
percent equalization surcharges
are also imposed on consumers,
based on the cost of intrastate longdistance services.
Public Utility Commission Fee.
The state assesses a 0.0017 percent
fee on all public utility service
providers (which includes certified
telecommunication providers) to
fund the Public Utility Commission.
Other Fees. Telecom companies
also pass on substantial federal
taxes, fees and surcharges to
the Texas consumer.13 Cursory
analysis suggests the equivalent
of an additional 3 percent federal
excise tax on all local and longdistance services. The Federal
Communications Commission
Subscriber Line (18.6 percent),
Federal Universal Service Fund
(4.7 percent), and Local Number
Portability Charges (0.94 percent)
are all variable. Conservative
estimates place combined state
and federal average effective
tax rates for Texas wire-line
telephone consumers in the range
of 45 percent to 50 percent for the
average consumer bill.

Calculating the Average
Effective Tax Rates for
Texas Telecom Consumers
Due to the proprietary nature
of telecom capital investment
data, the specific cost of taxation
on intermediary goods used to
produce telecom services cannot
be accurately estimated at the state
level. However, since most taxes
and fees described above are passed
on to consumers, it is possible
to examine the tax burden of the
telecom industry through taxes paid
by the consumers.14
Including taxable corporate
expenditures, licensing, permits
and fees, the 10 most populous
Texas cities generated more than
$300 million in fee and tax revenue
from cable television and telephone
services in 2011.
Current tax schemes are based on
the premise that franchise and rightof-way fees are used to maintain
related public infrastructure and
provide valuable services that
stimulate economic growth. Some
of the more egregious fees, like the
Universal Service Fund Fee, are
redistributive measures designed to
offset the cost of providing service
to low-income or rural consumers.
However, this fee is ultimately
offset by increased Extended Area,
911 and right-of-way fees passed
on to consumers in rural areas. The
maximum combined state and local
tax rate for Texas is 8.25 percent.
Table I illustrates the percentage of
service costs paid in taxes and fees
(average effective tax rate). In the
10 most populous Texas cities:
■■ The average effective tax rate
(AETR) on cable television
5

 Inequities in Texas Telecom Taxation

Table II

Consumer Burden in Excess of Maximum Tax Rate
Fixed-line Phone

Cable Television

Aggregate

Per Household

Aggregate

Per Household

AETR

$168,835,735

$100.01

$147,307,587

$98.00

8.25%

$ 60,048,878

$ 34.65

$ 85,473,897

$56.89

Difference

$108,786,857

$ 65.36

$ 61,833,691

$41.11

Sources: Authors’ calculations based on 2010 Census, Texas Telecom tax liabilities as reported by the Texas
Comptroller of Public Accounts, and aggregate revenue generation gathered from budgetary analysis of top 10
Texas cities; “Cable Customers 1998-2011,” National Cable & Telecommunications Association, available at
http://www.ncta.com/Stats/CablePhoneSubscribers.aspx; “Report on Average Rates for Cable Programming
Services and Equipment,” Federal Communications Commission, available at http://www.fcc.gov/document/reportaverage-rates-cable-programming-service-and-equipment-0.

ranged from 14.13 percent in
San Antonio to 14.25 percent in
most of the top 10 cities.
■■ The AETR for a fixed-line
phone ranged from 21.79
percent in San Antonio to 27.16
percent in Arlington.
Major metropolitan areas such as
Houston, San Antonio and Dallas
maintain the lowest tax rates, and
consequently the lowest annual
burden for consumers. Arlington,
Laredo and Corpus Christi, on the
other hand, have supporting tax
rates far in excess of 5 percent
above comptroller minimums,
as well as triple-digit annual
tax burdens for basic telephone
services.
Table II indicates the potential for
significant taxpayer savings if the
state applied fees more uniformly.
6

A statewide 8.25 percent tax rate
on all telecom services would save
consumers more than $170 million
annually. Texas consumers already
pay among the highest telecom
rates in the country. Traditional
telecommunication tax structures
lead to average effective tax rates
that are sometimes two or three
times the rate of satellite service
providers. Economies of scale in
the telecommunications and cable
television industries make it much
cheaper for providers to bundle
services. Unfortunately, despite
provider bundling, taxes and fees
for cable, Internet and phone
services are still independently
charged to the consumer. Lower
income households are more price
sensitive to externalities, and their
expenditures for services are lower.
Thus, these households are often

unable to purchase bundles, which
would lower their average effective
tax rate. Instead, they must choose
more expensive standalone services.
Thus, many telecom consumers
use the Internet to circumvent the
extensive taxes and fees on phone
and cable television services.15
Current Taxes and Fees Are
Regressive. Texas state taxes
and fees impose a total minimum
AETR of 20 percent on telephone
services and an additional 2
percent to 7 percent tax burden
based on location, services, usage
and prescribed access line fees.
Because right-of-way fees are
applied universally, the tax and
fee incidence is much greater
for households with smaller than
average expenditures for telecom
services. Thus, the average effective
tax for fixed-line telephone service

 is regressive, meaning that lowincome consumers pay a larger
share of their income in taxes than
high-income consumers.

and reduce the producer and
consumer tax burden, the Texas
legislature should consider the
following options:

Adjusted for population and
tax burden distributions, cities
with lower populations and lower
median household incomes carry a
much larger share of the tax burden
than more populous and higherincome areas:

Streamline business and
cable franchise taxes for cable
providers. In Texas, non-satellite
cable providers are subject to a
cable/video franchise fee that
is not required of satellite cable
providers. This circumstance
provides a competitive advantage
to satellite television providers.
Satellite services do not yet have
the technological ability to bundle
services such as cable, Internet and
telephone, limiting its competitive
advantage. Technological advances
and the shrinking customer base
for landline phones increasingly
benefits satellite services.17

■■ Laredo, for example, has the
lowest population and lowest
median household income of
the top 10 Texas cities.
■■ Yet consumers in Laredo pay a
15 percent greater share of the
total average state aggregate
consumer tax burden than their
share of the state population.16
The evidence suggests that for
every 1 percent increase in the
average effective tax rate (on fixedline voice services), the regressivity
of the tax burden increases about
4 percent. As a result, the current
system decreases aggregate
consumption and targets lowincome, low-population areas.

Policy Recommendations
Early in 2013, Texas legislators
finally approved regulations that
allow manufacturing sales tax
exemption for intermediary goods
used to produce telecom services.
This change could now increase
investment in Texas over what it
otherwise might be. However, the
heavy tax burden on consumers
represents a deadweight loss that
may limit them from purchasing
additional telecom, wireless or
cable products. In order to foster
investment, fairness in competition

Conclusion
While the telecom industry’s
changing and ever-evolving
technology has benefitted
consumers greatly, the state of
Texas still tethers the industry to
laws and taxes that are outdated and
burdensome. The telecom industry
still has room to grow in Texas, and
the legislature should recognize
the opportunities that an equitable
business and consumer telecom
tax system would help bring to the
state.

Reduce right-of-way fees to
their original intended use. Rightof-way fees produce more revenue
than intended needed for operation
and maintenance of rights of way.
State law allows municipalities
to derive up to 21 percent of their
revenue from right-of-way fees.
While this may benefit local coffers,
it burdens consumers and the
telecom industry, and provides a
competitive advantage to satellite
television over cable television.
Right-of-way fees should be
assessed annually based on the
actual maintenance and operating
costs of public rights of way. For
instance, right-of-way fees for
2013 could be determined based
on average maintenance costs over
a three-year period, such as 2010
to 2012. A three-year average, as
opposed to one year, would smooth
unanticipated costs during a given
year.
7

 Inequities in Texas Telecom Taxation

Appendix
Methodology for Calculating Consumer Tax Burden
All taxes and fees described in this study are controlled by the state only. Federal regulatory fees are not considered.
This analysis applies the state and local tax rates to each of the top 10 metropolitan areas in Texas. Because the specific
number of subscribers for a metropolitan area is largely considered proprietary information, and is often unreported, 2011
data from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) were used for nationwide cable video and
phone subscriptions.18 The 2010 U.S. Census Bureau population ratio estimates for Texas metropolitan areas and NCTA
percentages were used to determine active cable subscriptions for defined metropolitan areas.
Cable Video Services. Local and state tax rates were obtained through phone interviews with the Texas Public Utilities
Commission, State Comptroller’s Office and municipal budget officials. The cable television tax incidence was calculated
by multiplying the estimated number of cable television subscriptions for each metropolitan area by the average monthly
cost of $57.46, as reported by the Federal Communications Commission.19 This number was then multiplied by the
appropriate average effective tax rate (AETR) and by 12 to represent annual costs:
AETR = Combined State and Local Tax Averages + State Franchise + PEG or;
AETR = 8.21+5+1 = 14.21%
Annual Tax Burden = (Subscriptions x $57.46) x 14.21% x 12
Fixed-Line Phone Services. The NCPA estimated average household wire-line telephone bills at $35 per month in
order to calculate the percent incidence of municipal right-of-way fees. Costs for wired telephone services have varied
greatly over the last five years, due to the advent of Voice over Internet Protocol, service bundling, and increasing
numbers of households who maintain only wireless telephone service. In 2007, the cost of cable and wire line phone
service varied from $30 to $50, and an author survey of 2012 CTPs showed the range of wire or cable service is $20 to
$50 per month.20 National Health Statistics 2011 survey data indicates that 60.1 percent of Texas households have fixedline phone service.21
Aggregate Fixed-line Tax Burden = (HH x .601) ($35 x AETR) x 12.
Annual Household Burdens are a function of aggregate incidence divided by the number of applicable consumers:
AETR = TUSF + State and Local Tax Averages + PUC + 9-1-1 Fees + ROW
AETR = 3.4 + 8.25 + .0017 + 3.14 + 5.2 = 19.99 percent
Traditional municipal franchises are subject to contract fees negotiated with the city. The amount paid by customers
varies every year depending on taxes incurred by the provider. Consumers are also subject to fees based on expenditures
for long-distance services and additional services, such as Expanded Local Calling and Extended Area Services.
Tax Burden Inequality. Burden and Population Distribution inequalities for fixed-line telephone services:
Burden Distribution = (Local Tax Burden ÷ Aggregate Tax Burden) x 100
Population Distribution = (Fixed-line Households ÷ Aggregate Households) x 100
Burden/Population Distribution = [1- (Burden Distribution ÷ Population Distribution)]
For example, using the 2011 data for Laredo, Texas:
B=(4196056/168835735) x 100 = 2.49
P=(37498/1733012) x 100 = 2.16
B(P)=[1 - (2.49/2.16)] = -0.15
8

 Hence, the tax Burden (B) as a function of the Population (P) is 15 percent greater for Laredo, Texas, than average.
[See Table A-1.]
Less populous metropolitan areas (and less dense areas) have an even greater tax burden. Moreover, the funds
generated by franchise and right-of-way fees far exceed maintenance costs. During the 2012 fiscal year in Houston, San
Antonio, Dallas and Austin, the real cost of maintenance and services on all public utility infrastructure was between 2
percent to 10 percent of revenue generated by taxes and fees imposed on telecommunication consumers alone.22 These
franchise fees and conditions, as well as mandated access charges, are essentially used to pad municipal general revenue
coffers at the expense of consumers. Thus, millions of Texas consumers are footing municipal expenditures through
unregulated fee structures, funds that could potentially be used for additional consumer purchases. This runs contrary to
the Third Court of Appeal’s stated purposes of balancing tax structures with the need to raise revenue for the state and
encourage economic development.

Appendix Table

Tax Burden for Fixed-Line Phone by Population
Telephone

Metropolitan
Area
San Antonio
Fort Worth
Austin
Plano
Dallas
Houston
El Paso
Corpus Christi
Laredo
Arlington

Percent of total
telephone tax
burden
15.26
8.51
10.70
3.28
15.58
27.14
7.56
4.13
2.49
5.37

Percent of
total state
population
16.25
8.93
11.20
3.38
15.69
26.70
7.29
3.81
2.16
4.58

Burden relative to
Population (percent
over/under)
-0.06
-0.05
-0.05
-0.03
-0.01
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.13
0.15

Source: Authors’ calculations based on city population estimates from “State and Country Quickfacts,” U.S.
Census, available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4835000.html; and “Report on Average Rates for
Cable Programming Services and Equipment,” Federal Communications Commission, available at
http://www.fcc.gov/document/report-average-rates-cable-programming-service-and-equipment-0.

9

 Inequities in Texas Telecom Taxation

Endnotes
1.

“Understanding your Telephone Bill,” Federal Communications Commission, www.fcc.gov.

2.

Scott Drenkard, “State and Local Sales Taxes in 2012,” Tax Foundation, February 14, 2012.

3.

See S.B. 1087. Available at http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/pdf/SB01087I.pdf#navpanes=0.

4.

Ibid.

5.

Ibid.

6.

Constitution of the State of Texas (1876), Article XI, “Municipal Corporations.”

7.

See “Texas Local Government Code,” Section 283.055. Available at http://law.onecle.com/texas/local-government/283.051.00.html.

The Public Utility Commission defines a public right of way as the area “on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, public sidewalk,
alley, waterway, or utility easement in which the municipality has an interest. The term does not include the airwaves above a right-of-way with
regard to wireless telecommunication [or data transmission].” Available at http://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/communications/row/Default.aspx.

8.

9.

“Issues Relating to the Establishment of, and Annual Revisions to, Access Line Rates for Texas Municipalities,” Public Utilities Commission.
Available at http://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/communications/row/orders/24640_order_2012.pdf.

10.

Cellphone and data streaming services are regulated separately.

“Background Information on Municipal Public Rights-Of-Way Fees Set By Statute: Key Legislation from 1999, 2005 and 2011,” Texas
Municipal League and Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues, August 13, 2012. Available at http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/commit/
c510/handouts12/0814-SnapperCarr.pdf.

11.

12.

This is separate from the federally mandated Universal Service Fund fee, which is charged at a similar rate.

13.

Federal impositions are not within the purview of this study.

14.

Total revenues from telecom franchise fees are based on author calculations of data from FY2011-2012 metropolitan budget analysis. Because
it is difficult to determine the exact configuration of service subscriptions, annual burdens on Texas households were determined by taking total
revenues divided by the number of households for each metropolitan area.
The Texas State Comptroller’s office has recently expressed frustration about the inability to effectively tax Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP)
services such as Skype or Vonage. Revenues generated by taxes on more traditional telephone and television services have been increasing with
the utilization of mobile phones and modern technologies, thus functioning as an inertial, disproportionate tax burden.
15.

16.

See Appendix.

17.

“20 Questions and 20 Answers: Cable vs. Satellite TV,” www.digitallanding.com.

“Cable Customers 1998-2011,” National Cable & Telecommunications Association. Available at http://www.ncta.com/Stats/
CablePhoneSubscribers.aspx.
18.

19.

This denotes the average monthly bill for Expanded Basic Service, which covers 85 percent of households. “Report on Average Rates for Cable
Programming Services and Equipment,” Federal Communications Commission. Available at http://www.fcc.gov/document/report-average-ratescable-programming-service-and-equipment-0.

Michael D. Pelcovits and Daniel E. Haar, “Consumer Benefits from Cable-Telco Competition,” Microeconomic Consulting & Research
Associates. Available at http://www.micradc.com/news/publications/pdfs/ MiCRA_Report_on_Consumer_Benefits_from_Cable.pdf.
20.

21.

This percentage is adjusted to account for the 39.3 percent of Texas households which have only wireless phone service. Stephen J. Blumberg
and Julian V. Luke, “Wireless Substitution: Early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2011,” National
Center for Health Statistics, 2012. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr061.pdf.

22.

10

Authors’ calculations based on interviews with Office of Management and Budget staff and examination of 2011 Municipal Budgets.

 About the NCPA

The NCPA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization established in
1983. Its aim is to examine public policies in areas that have a
significant impact on the lives of all Americans — retirement, health
care, education, taxes, the economy, the environment — and to
propose innovative, market-driven solutions. The NCPA seeks to
unleash the power of ideas for positive change by identifying,
encouraging and aggressively marketing the best scholarly research.
Health Care Policy.
The NCPA is probably best known for
developing the concept of Health Savings
Accounts (HSAs), previously known as
Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs).
NCPA President John C. Goodman is
widely acknowledged (Wall Street
Journal, WebMD and the National
Journal) as the “Father of HSAs.” NCPA
research, public education and briefings
for members of Congress and the White
House staff helped lead Congress to
approve a pilot MSA program for small
businesses and the self-employed in 1996
and to vote in 1997 to allow Medicare
beneficiaries to have MSAs. In 2003, as
part of Medicare reform, Congress and
the President made HSAs available to all
nonseniors, potentially revolutionizing
the entire health care industry. HSAs now
are potentially available to 250 million
nonelderly Americans.
The NCPA outlined the concept of
using federal tax credits to encourage
private health insurance and helped
formulate bipartisan proposals in both the
Senate and the House. The NCPA and
BlueCross BlueShield of Texas developed a plan to use money that federal,
state and local governments now spend
on indigent health care to help the poor
purchase health insurance. The SPN
Medicaid Exchange, an initiative of the
NCPA for the State Policy Network, is
identifying and sharing the best ideas for
health care reform with researchers and
policymakers in every state.

NCPA President
John C. Goodman is called
the “Father of HSAs” by
The Wall Street Journal, WebMD
and the National Journal.
Taxes & Economic Growth.
The NCPA helped shape the pro-growth
approach to tax policy during the 1990s.
A package of tax cuts designed by the
NCPA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1991 became the core of the
Contract with America in 1994.
Three of the five proposals (capital gains
tax cut, Roth IRA and eliminating the
Social Security earnings penalty)
became law. A fourth proposal —
rolling back the tax on Social Security
benefits — passed the House of Representatives in summer 2002. The NCPA’s
proposal for an across-the-board tax cut
became the centerpiece of President
Bush’s tax cut proposals.
NCPA research demonstrates the
benefits of shifting the tax burden on
work and productive investment to
consumption. An NCPA study by Boston
University economist Laurence Kotlikoff
analyzed three versions of a consumption
tax: a flat tax, a value-added tax and a
national sales tax. Based on this work, Dr.
Goodman wrote a full-page editorial for
Forbes (“A Kinder, Gentler Flat Tax”)
advocating a version of the flat tax that is
both progressive and fair.

A major NCPA study, “Wealth, Inheritance
and the Estate Tax,” completely
undermines the claim by proponents of the
estate tax that it prevents the concentration
of wealth in the hands of financial
dynasties. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
(R-TN) and Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
distributed a letter to their colleagues about
the study. The NCPA recently won the
Templeton Freedom Award for its study
and report on Free Market Solutions. The
report outlines an approach called
Enterprise Programs that creates job
opportunities for those who face the
greatest challenges to employment.
Retirement Reform.
With a grant from the NCPA, economists
at Texas A&M University developed a
model to evaluate the future of Social
Security and Medicare, working under the
direction of Thomas R. Saving, who for
years was one of two private-sector
trustees of Social Security and Medicare.
The NCPA study, “Ten Steps to Baby
Boomer Retirement,” shows that as 77
million baby boomers begin to retire, the
nation’s institutions are totally unprepared.
Promises made under Social Security,
Medicare and Medicaid are inadequately
funded. State and local institutions are not
doing better — millions of government
workers are discovering that their pensions
are under-funded and local governments
are retrenching on post-retirement health
care promises.
Pension Reform.
Pension reforms signed into law include
ideas to improve 401(k)s developed and
proposed by the NCPA and the Brookings
Institution. Among the NCPA/Brookings
401(k) reforms are automatic enrollment
of employees into companies’ 401(k)
plans, automatic contribution rate
increases so that workers’ contributions
grow with their wages, and better default
investment options for workers who do
not make an investment choice.
11

 About the NCPA

The NCPA’s online Social Security
calculator allows visitors to discover their
expected taxes and benefits and how
much they would have accumulated had
their taxes been invested privately.
Environment & Energy.
The NCPA’s E-Team is one of the largest
collections of energy and environmental
policy experts and scientists who believe
that sound science, economic prosperity
and protecting the environment are
compatible. The team seeks to correct
misinformation and promote sensible
solutions to energy and environment
problems. A pathbreaking 2001 NCPA
study showed that the costs of the Kyoto
agreement to reduce carbon emissions in
developed countries would far exceed
any benefits.
Educating the next generation.
The NCPA’s Debate Central is the most
comprehensive online site for free
information for 400,000 U.S. high school
debaters. In 2006, the site drew more than
one million hits per month. Debate
Central received the prestigious Templeton Freedom Prize for Student Outreach.
Promoting Ideas.
NCPA studies, ideas and experts are
quoted frequently in news stories
nationwide. Columns written by NCPA
scholars appear regularly in national
publications such as the Wall Street
Journal, the Washington Times, USA
Today and many other major-market
daily newspapers, as well as on radio
talk shows, on television public affairs
programs, and in public policy newsletters. According to media figures from
BurrellesLuce, more than 900,000 people
daily read or hear about NCPA ideas and
activities somewhere in the United States.

What Others Say About the NCPA
“The NCPA generates more analysis per
dollar than any think tank in the country.
It does an amazingly good job of going out
and finding the right things and talking about
them in intelligent ways.”
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the
U.S. House of Representatives

“We know what works. It’s what the NCPA
talks about: limited government, economic
freedom; things like Health Savings Accounts.
These things work, allowing people choices.
We’ve seen how this created America.”
John Stossel,
host of “Stossel,” Fox Business Network

“I don’t know of any organization in America
that produces better ideas with less money
than the NCPA.”
Phil Gramm,
former U.S. Senator

“Thank you . . . for advocating such radical
causes as balanced budgets, limited government
and tax reform, and to be able to try and bring
power back to the people.”
Tommy Thompson,
former Secretary of Health and Human Services

The NCPA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public policy organization. We depend entirely on the financial support of individuals, corporations and foundations that believe in private
sector solutions to public policy problems. You can contribute to our effort by mailing your donation to our Dallas headquarters at 12770 Coit Road, Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75251,
or visiting our Web site at www.ncpa.org and clicking “Support Us.”