oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| reply to boogie74
Re: A telephone is a telephone
said by boogie74  :
quote:
The content is VoIP...if your cell phones digital data was sent via the internet then I would say it's not a "telephone". But since cellular runs over a closed network, it's not the same.
So does this mean that anyone online can have conference access to phone conversations that go through Vonage?
No, just like no one intercepts your email or online banking.
quote:
Beyond that, if you want to say that since the conversations are carried over the internet it isn't a phone service, that means that since internet data traffic is carried over a phone network, it isn't a telecom service- and hence the Bells shouldn't have to offer lineshare capabilities.
Again shill...you fail to bother reading the thread. It's the INFRASTRUCTURE that's regulated, not the CONTENT.
quote:
Can't have it both ways.
Only the telco shills would argue that infrastructure and content are the same thing.
quote:
It isn't an issue of the fact that Vonage can be used for phone calls... It's literally designed and marketed to do so. Vonage is advertised as "The Broadband Phone Company" NOT "The streaming internet content provider that could be used for really crappy phone-like conversations"
You can call satellite service the wireless cable company, doesn't make satellite service a cable company.
quote:
No, it's actually saying that companies can't walk, sound, look and act like a duck and suddenly claim to be a goose if it's during duck hunting season.
Boogie
No, it's telcos looking to protect their stranglehold on consumers, offering them crappy service at high prices. Not that there is a viable alternative technology offered via the internet, they scrable to line politicians pocket books so that politicians the telco shills will do their bidding and protect their monopoly on residential communications.
VoIP is internet content, just like HBO is cable content. I know it bursts the bubbles of you telco shills to see your precious brainwashers going down in favor of better options for consumers but you'll just have to get over it.
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| quote:
No, it's telcos looking to protect their stranglehold on consumers, offering them crappy service at high prices. Not that there is a viable alternative technology offered via the internet, they scrable to line politicians pocket books so that politicians the telco shills will do their bidding and protect their monopoly on residential communications.
You've lost this argument already in 48 states AND Washington DC. There is undeniable and irreversable open competition for phone service. You may like to argue otherwise, but you've lost your fight to complain about the "stranglehold on consumers."
Find another reason to complain.
Boogie |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| said by boogie74 :
You've lost this argument already in 48 states AND Washington DC. There is undeniable and irreversable open competition for phone service. You may like to argue otherwise, but you've lost your fight to complain about the "stranglehold on consumers."
Find another reason to complain.
Boogie
quote:
Federal District Court Judge Michael Davis recently granted a permanent injunction against Minnesota's regulatory push. "State regulation would effectively decimate Congress's mandate that the Internet remain unfettered by regulation. The court therefore grants Vonage's request for injunctive relief,"
Sure shill, sure. It's the telco INFRASTRUCTURE that's open and subject to regulation Boog, not the content that runs over it. Find another anti-consumer telco position to support, you've lost this one (along with the rest).
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-10-17 10:28:26] |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to Sarick
Hopefully on to the US Supreme Court eventually.
Yep, great news. Now, the wait begins for another district court to decide in an opposite manner. Only by going to the Supremes will we be able to get a definitive conclusion to this.
Should be VERY interesting.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-17 13:59:48] |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to Zorglub
Re: A telephone is a telephone
I think you're missing the point.
The ruling itself wasn't really law based, but rather public policy based. We want to foster the growth of the internet.
One day, taxes and the like will hit these internet businesses, but for now it doesn't make sense. Guaranteed that if the case were about supplying power over the internet, it would have been decided the same way. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
| reply to Sprinter99
Re: Judge Michael J Davis for PRESIDENT!!!
. . . or his clerk (who did all the research and wrote the decision).
[text was edited by author 2003-10-17 14:10:49] |
|
Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA
 ·FrontierNet Intern..
| reply to Goober
Re: Hopefully on to the US Supreme Court eventually.
Lets just hope they don't that is all we need. A way to augment service fees on devices we don't even own. If these telcos get their way they will own rights to the TCP/IP protocol and a tax will be placed on a protocol.
The government has already decided not to tax the internet, the next step is to tax the protocols or something along that terms.
Internet Infrastructure Tax Incentive!
--
Sarick's Dungeon Clipart Page
Trouble spelling? www.iespell.com |
|
mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| Better read Vonage's own words on this topic from their Terms of Service document:
»www.vonage.com/features_terms_service.php
4.5 Taxes
Customer is responsible for, and shall pay any applicable federal, state, municipal, local or other governmental sales, use, excise, value-added, personal property, public utility or other taxes, fees or charges now in force or enacted in the future, that arise from or as a result of Customer’s subscription or use or payment for the Service or a Device. Such amounts are in addition to payment for the Service or Devices and will be billed to your account. If Customer is exempt from payment of such taxes, it will provide Vonage with an original government-issued certificate attesting to tax-exempt status. Tax exemption will only apply from and after the date Vonage receives the Tax Exempt Document.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-18 13:31:28] |
|
Sarick
It's Only Logical
Premium
join:2003-06-03
USA
·FrontierNet Intern..
|  Although this isn't vonage, I bought the device under the terms that it would always be free. My device still is free but if it by chance fails in the near future a replacement for the device would force me into the 510 model.
If push comes to shove I'll cancel the dish service. It's quite obvious that the new busyness model is a representation of the company that provides the dish service.
True to nature Sales taxes and federal taxes are a far cry from the device fees placed on the DVR system. Charlie comments on every showing how he believes in fairness and wants help from the viewers in regard to the satellite tax. Yet when given the opportunity to cash out on a hardware feature this busyness model has been made to profit off the consumer in the same manner.
The only difference with this model is state and federal taxes aren't directly pocketed into dish networks profits.
I used the term TAXES do to it's evil history you say fees and people don't give notice. On the other hand if you say taxes everyone has a grudge or interest. It's psychological targeting. My other reasonings for giving them the term taxes is based on Charlie's promoting fairness. His monthly broadcast of Charlie chat promotes cable companies lobbing to force an unfair tax on his consumers.
His busyness is investing a lot of cash to get consumers to support his anti-tax efforts. On the other side of the fence dish is doing the same to it's consumers.
I refuse to believe in his intentions to help the consumers subscription prices go down. On one hand he has the consumers interest and on the other are penny pinching ethics. Hasn't he thought this out? If the taxes he so opposes will upset so many people what makes him think this $5-$10 per month service fee won't make them upset just as equally.
Now that the PVR-DVR market has become saturated with mainstream service fees where is one to go. Dish could have used this to their advantage in a good way. Instead it was decided that taking money from the wallets of hard working consumers for a hardware feature is more profitable than getting more consumers. It's an odd approach because the feature is already free by design.
It all comes down to the choice to abuse the consumer vs entice the customer by bettering the service. This model is clearly not in the interest of the average dish consumer. The cost of this service is clearly out there costing upward of $120 a year. It's obvious that it's also being used as selling point for higher superscription level purchases.
--
Sarick's Dungeon Clipart Page
Trouble spelling? www.iespell.com
[text was edited by author 2003-10-18 14:15:24] |
|
