bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| Different environments
The telcos and cablecos have a different regulatory history and evolution. So of course they're going to be different.
You can argue that we need to scrap current regulations and reinvent them... but I don't think you want to see VOIP getting treated the same as POTS. Unless you want higher bills. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by bogey780  :The telcos and cablecos have a different regulatory history and evolution. So of course they're going to be different. You can argue that we need to scrap current regulations and reinvent them... but I don't think you want to see VOIP getting treated the same as POTS. Unless you want higher bills. VoIP is treated the same. I have packet 8 and I was told last month they will now start having to pay state sales tax. In the last 2 years they've also had to add in a 9-1-1 charge, USF etc etc. No different than my phone bill from bellsouth/at&t was except it's still cheaper. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | No, they're still not treated the same. The FCC has nothing to do with state sales tax. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780 :The telcos and cablecos have a different regulatory history and evolution. So of course they're going to be different. I'm confused though... Didn't you argue for regulatory parity back a few months ago when the discussion was about statewide franchises ?
I think the fact that you have presented (different regulatory history) was one that people used in opposition to special franchise rules.
You can argue that we need to scrap current regulations and reinvent them... but I don't think you want to see VOIP getting treated the same as POTS. Unless you want higher bills. I think re-writing regulations might be the best idea... As long as those writing the regulations are aware of the fact that VoIP can't be regulated like POTS because the technologies are so radically different. The problem is that legislators are usually pretty ill informed about what they want to regulate - think Ted Stevens and his tubes. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | You didn't understand and still don't understand my argument.
And IPTV is radically different in it's nature to cable TV. What's your point? |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780 :No, they're still not treated the same. The FCC has nothing to do with state sales tax. hello USF, 9-1-1 that certianly has to do with FCC. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | Oh if that was all there was to it. So your state has added sales tax to it and the FCC is making them pay into funds they have direct access to. You're still a long way off from regulatory parity. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| reply to bogey780
said by bogey780 :You didn't understand and still don't understand my argument. I know what you are arguing, but it holds no water.
And IPTV is radically different in it's nature to cable TV. What's your point? My point is that your position keeps changing...
The only difference between IPTV and cable television (right now) is the transport mechanism, that is it. That difference does not justify special regulation.
VoIP, like on the Vonage or Packet8, is so radically different from POTS, cable digital phone or even cable/teclo provided VoIP that it can't operate in the same regulatory domain as POTS. |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| 'I know what you are arguing, but it holds no water.'
No, you've consistently shown you do not know what I am arguing in the way you address me or critique me.
'The only difference between IPTV and cable television (right now) is the transport mechanism'
Then the only difference between light and electricity is the transport mechanism. It's all energy, man!
'VoIP, like on the Vonage or Packet8, is so radically different from POTS, cable digital phone or even cable/teclo provided VoIP that it can't operate in the same regulatory domain as POTS.'
So radically different that the end-user requires nothing more than a new gateway to compensate for the switch from circuit based telephony to packet based telephony. Yea, that's the "radically" different technology. That's a whole lot more radical than having to install new tuners for each TV along with a whole new network topography and transport mechanism. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| said by bogey780 :No, you've consistently shown you do not know what I am arguing in the way you address me or critique me. Then refresh me, what are you arguing?
Actually, I would be the one that argue that...
'The only difference between IPTV and cable television (right now) is the transport mechanism'
Then the only difference between light and electricity is the transport mechanism. It's all energy, man! You don't want to open that can of worms... Its Friday and I don't feel like whopping out the "Physics-Fu".
So radically different that the end-user requires nothing more than a new gateway to compensate for the switch from circuit based telephony to packet based telephony. Yea, that's the "radically" different technology. Only partly true... Don't forget the whole concept of device portability (not tied to a single location), reliance on third parties for transport, etc. Third party VoIP is far more different that just a simple box. The difference is in the details.
That's a whole lot more radical than having to install new tuners for each TV along with a whole new network topography and transport mechanism. You do realize that the description you have outline describes cable years ago.
|
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| Look, I don't know anything about your experience...sometimes it seems like you have some experience. But if you're arguing IPTV is more like cable TV than VOIP is like POTS then I might as well just stop talking with you as you're just trying to bluff me on your experience. |
|
factchecker
@cox.net
| said by bogey780 : But if you're arguing IPTV is more like cable TV than VOIP is like POTS then I might as well just stop talking with you as you're just trying to bluff me on your experience. Whether you admit it or not, from a network architecture standpoint, the two are very similar, especially with the addition of SDV to digital cable. UVerse, for example, mimics HFC more than you think it does - head/central office to a node (VRAD) via fiber and then to the subscriber premises.
There are differences too and I have never said there weren't any. The use of IGMP groups (SDV mimics that functionality) and dedicated pairs instead of a shared coaxial medium are the main differentiators, but beyond that the services are similar.
So, I'll ask, in your mind what makes them such different services? Is it the different transport and physical layers? Is it broadcast versus multicast (a difference that will soon disappear)?
How, in your opinion, are they so vastly different ? |
|
