puck0114
join:2005-12-24
Washington, DC | reply to hottboiinnc
Re: No....
Then you agree that phone companies shouldn't have to abide by cable franchising laws, right? After all, video isn't their primary service. |
|
Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
Aubrey, TX
| said by puck0114  :Then you agree that phone companies shouldn't have to abide by cable franchising laws, right? After all, video isn't their primary service. waiting patiently for this reply... |
|
ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT
1 edit | reply to hottboiinnc
quote:
NOT a telco provider
Does comcast or any other cable co. have telephone customers ? Umm the answer is YES. Therefore, theyre a PROVIDER.. Just as AT&T and Verizon now provide TV. I really worry about your IQ sometimes hottboi.
Who cares if its internet based? Its telephone service. Does it sound any different ? No.. Oh wait, most cable co fanboys will tell you it sounds BETTER.
Dialtone is dialtone. Thats it. |
|
TWTom
@rr.com
| reply to Rob
The Telco's don't abide to the same rules and taxes as the MSO's (i.e Verizon and ATT) with the FTTH TV services,MSO's shouldn't have to abide to the same rule and taxes as the Telco companies.Plan and simple.Franchise rules don't apply to the Telco with their TV services,Why should Comcast have to be tax the same for their phone services?..Come on now |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
 ·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to Corona
Cable is taxed by the states. Their phone is taxed by the states.
They pay into the Cities for to offer use the phones and required to carry channels to each city. The agreements are made with the cities. I don't think that it is fair for AT$T's crying ass or even VZ to pay the states off to make a State law that does NOT let a cable company use the same agreement because they have agreements with the cities.
Cable companies are NOT allowed by law to cherry pick. ATT and VZ are allowed to. Any one can become a TV provider in Ohio just by paying $2,000 to the state by the sounds and text ATT had the state write up and sign.
TWC, Cox, Buckeye Cable, Charter, Armstrong, WOW, Insight and others are not allowed to do that.
Maybe Qwest wouldnt be in such a mess if they'd lower their prices instead of raising them.
Lower your prices customers will come back and help pay your taxes that they owe. Also if Qwest would build out a network that can compete with Comcast they'd have business.
Qwest lost that boat back when they were paying out the ass to keep iProvo and UTOPIA from coming online. That money should have went to actually build out a new network. The same as ATT should have done with the money they spent at the state levels and battling cities in court over their damn boxes. Use the money and actually build out a new network and play by the rules of the game instead of trying to change them. |
|
TWTom
@rr.com
| reply to ITALIAN926
First of all,There's Telco's and there are cable companies.Even when the Telco companies were still calling themselves Telco companies...Cable companies changed their names to MSO's why haven't the phone companies done that yet Italian? Quack,Quack!!! |
|
TWTom
@rr.com | reply to puck0114
Re: No....
They don't abide by the same franchising laws.....especially here in Califrnia.!! |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
1 edit | reply to TWTom
very true!
a cable company doesnt run around saying they're losing landline customers or DSL customers either.
They'll say they lost TV customers. NOT telephone customers.
They do not offer telephone either. they offer Digital Voice. 
Also remember there is a difference between HSI by Comcast and HSI by Qwest and every other phone company! Remember how must of everyone on here claims that DSL is better because its a dedicated "line" between you and the PHONE company's central office. Cable doesn't do that.
There is another difference for you. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to roozy
It's not the same services. Telcos want cable companies taxed for VOIP and digital services as if they were POTS lines, which they are not.
This is merely an attempt to hobble the competition. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to TWTom
very true. In Ohio VZ and ATT and any NEW provider just goes to the state to get "approval" to enter into the business. a cable company that already has a contract with the cities can NOT do that. Why? cause ATT and VZ claim they don't offer Cable TV. they offer IPTV. But as Italian says If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck it must be a duck. Right? if that is so then ATT and VZ should have to go to each city before they can offer TV too? why its the same thing juts delivered different. |
|
Syncognition
join:2008-01-12
Winter Park, FL
| reply to hottboiinnc
Then "telcos" don't provide telephone either. They actually provide analog voice. See, I can spin things, too.
If cable companies want to provide voice service, they should be taxed accordingly. They should also have to be regulated by the PUC in the same ways as well. If they insist their product should be a replacement for a utility, then they should have to follow the same regulations as a utility provider, not an entertainment provider.
And as long as cable companies advertise their service as Digital Phone/Voice/Person-to-person-residential-home-oral-communication and insist on being competitive with Analog Phone/Voice/Person-to-person-residential-home-oral-communication companies, they should have to pay the same taxes, if only for the sake of fair competition. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc :Cable is taxed by the states. Their phone is taxed by the states. They pay into the Cities for to offer use the phones and required to carry channels to each city. The agreements are made with the cities. I don't think that it is fair for AT$T's crying ass or even VZ to pay the states off to make a State law that does NOT let a cable company use the same agreement because they have agreements with the cities. Not sure which state you are talking about but in my state BOTH cable and telcos can apply for statewide franchise and both have to follow the SAME rules. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to Syncognition
You, VZ, ATT, Qwest and many states think that. Well guess what, the FCC has ruled that they can not be taxed as they are a VoIP product; Telephony.
You may want to read some of the FCC headlines regarding VoIP: »www.fcc.gov/voip/#Headlines
one is for ATT's product as well. Another is for Vonage. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to BF69
Not in Ohio.
If you have an active agreement with a city you can NOT apply for a statewide agreement until the city one has expired or an over builder has come into the area.
Go read the Ohio law. |
|
ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT
1 edit | reply to hottboiinnc
Verizon FiOS is NOT IPTV, dont make comments unless you know what youre talking about. Verizon goes TOWN TO TOWN getting franchises. Now youre a little more educated.
We already know why VoIP ISNT taxed according to your FCC rulebook. Thats the point of this topic and thread, it should be changed. |
|
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
2 edits | said by ITALIAN926 :Verizon FiOS is NOT IPTV, dont make comments unless you know what youre talking about. Verizon goes TOWN TO TOWN getting franchises. Now youre a little more educated. We already know why VoIP ISNT taxed according to your FCC rulebook. Thats the point of this topic and thread, it should be changed. Not now, but it will be according to this.
»www.engadgethd.com/2007/09/25/ve···ds-iptv/
Verizon announced that it will transition its FiOS TV service to an IPTV model over the next three years. Even though Verizon doesn't have plans to provide unique/exclusive content, the "request-send" IPTV model has advantages over traditional "push" broadcast in today's increasingly fragmented entertainment space. Verizon is betting that these differences will differentiate FiOS TV from its more traditional competitors, according to analyst Adi Kishore. VOD, interactive features, and place-shifting can all be pitched directly to customers, but there are advantages for Verizon as well. First and foremost, of course, is the one-two punch of microscopic user metrics and targeted advertising. That pipe flows both directions, and as FiOS evolves, expect use of the upstream side to increase. Still, providing tailored access to non-exclusive content is an interesting alternative strategy to generic access to exclusive content. |
|
GPSrob
join:2007-05-21
| reply to hottboiinnc
Give me a break. Cable is competing from a completely different cost structure, some by their choices and others by government fiat. The ones dictated by the government should be applied equally to all sides regardless of what company is involved.
In all fairness, any taxes should be based on the services delivered.
If you can talk on it, tax it like a telecom service -- VoIP, POTS, Digital Phone (cable), wireless, etc.
If you can watch TV on it, tax it as such -- Cable TV, Satellite TV, IPTV, FIOS, etc.
Furthermore, each ought to be subject to the others' rules. CATV doesn't face any mandatory build out rules ("provider of last resort"). Either they ought to be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars to meet one customer's service needs that will never meet payback or telco should be released from such requirements.
It is utterly ridiculous that you are arguing the applicable tax code should be based on what each original entity was incorporated for as opposed to the services being offered. |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Anonymous_
said by Anonymous_ : Voip IS an DATA SERVICE not phone SERVICE IP means data if you did not know that Ok, so the thesis is that if the digitized voice goes over a wire all the way to my house, it's data, but if digitized voice gets turned into squiggly signals elsewhere before it gets to my house, it's suddenly not data?
Interesting...
(Not to mention the fact that you seem to deny the entire existence of non-digital data). |
|
ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT
1 edit | reply to TWTom
quote:
First of all,There's Telco's and there are cable companies.Even when the Telco companies were still calling themselves Telco companies...Cable companies changed their names to MSO's why haven't the phone companies done that yet Italian? Quack,Quack!!!
Usually when theres a first of all, theres a second of all... but anyway, Who cares what the companies are calling themselves?? That is completely and totally irrelevant !
The cable companies and telephone companies BOTH provide customers with phone service. There is no right reason in the world one should have an unfair price edge on the other.
This is simple common sense.. this shouldnt even be a discussion. |
|
