 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | reply to roozy
Re: No.... said by roozy:The playing field for offering the same services should be level. I prefer no tax for all, but to be realistic... if telcos must be taxed then so should any company providing the services. A Telco is exactly that, a Telco, a CC is not a Telco and their primary business is not Telco but Cable TV. |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by Cheese:said by roozy:The playing field for offering the same services should be level. I prefer no tax for all, but to be realistic... if telcos must be taxed then so should any company providing the services. A Telco is exactly that, a Telco, a CC is not a Telco and their primary business is not Telco but Cable TV. So then you're saying Qwest should not call themselves a Telco provider, but a TV provider, but still offer telephone service and then they won't have to be taxed like a telco? |
|
|
|
| reply to Cheese
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.
The transport method shouldn't matter. In fact transport methods for the original telcos has changed over the years, but that didn't change the tax laws that governed them. Remember when a person was required to connect every call, to when mechanical switches did them, then circuit switched, and now telcos are starting to use packet-switched more and more.
If at the end of the day they supply dialtone over a landline then they should all be taxed the same. |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:7 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Cheese
Where I live, the telco mails out pamphlets trying to get me to switch to their TV service, and the cable TV company has TV ads selling their phone service.
There's no distinction (at the level of the connecton-to-my-house) between the two any more. |
|
CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | reply to Rob
said by Rob:said by Cheese:said by roozy:The playing field for offering the same services should be level. I prefer no tax for all, but to be realistic... if telcos must be taxed then so should any company providing the services. A Telco is exactly that, a Telco, a CC is not a Telco and their primary business is not Telco but Cable TV. So then you're saying Qwest should not call themselves a Telco provider, but a TV provider, but still offer telephone service and then they won't have to be taxed like a telco? Is/was the primary business Cable TV or Telco? If they started out as a Telco, they, I would imagine, would be considered a Telco. Comcast started out offering Cable TV, not phone service to which I would not consider them a Telco. |
|
CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1
2 edits | reply to dave
said by dave:Where I live, the telco mails out pamphlets trying to get me to switch to their TV service, and the cable TV company has TV ads selling their phone service. There's no distinction (at the level of the connecton-to-my-house) between the two any more. What company? I don't know of many Telcos offering their OWN service but rather using a third party, such as Dish. Comcast OWNS their own infrastructure to offer TV, no Telco does that I know of. That is a huge distinction. |
|
| said by Cheese:What company? I don't know of many Telcos offering their OWN service but rather using a third party, such as Dish. Comcast OWNS their own infrastructure to offer TV, no Telco does that I know of. That is a huge distinction.
Uhhhh, AT&T (Uverse) and Verizon (FIOS) are using their own services and their own facilities to sell those services. And since they are the two biggest Telcos I would say there are some.
This debate has come up many times in the past. The Comcast fanbois say no taxes but the reality is that if I can pick up my telephone, hear a dial tone and call Grandma in Kalamazoo then it's phone service and they know it, just don't want to admit it. |
|
CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | said by skrupowies:said by Cheese:What company? I don't know of many Telcos offering their OWN service but rather using a third party, such as Dish. Comcast OWNS their own infrastructure to offer TV, no Telco does that I know of. That is a huge distinction. The Comcast fanbois  |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | reply to Cheese
OH GIVE ME A BREAK !!
If it looks like a duck... if it quacks like a duck.. its a DUCK !
Taxing one telephone service and not the other is just ridiculous. Especially when Cablevision commercials here make it seem like they opted not to charge the customers those fee's .
Either drop the taxes and fee's for everyone or tax everyone the same ! |
|
Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| reply to Cheese
very true.
Qwest needs their landline business to stay afloat. Which is telephone service.
Comcast needs their CableTV business to stay in the game.
Those are 2 completely different services. Even when you factor in Comcast's HSI and digital phone. It's internet based which is different than using the network Qwest relies on for their business. |
|
| reply to ITALIAN926
Comcast does not look like a telco, does not sound like a telco which does NOT make it a duck.
They're a CableTV Provider. NOT a telco provider. What is their primary business? TV! Not phone. |
|
| reply to Cheese
Even Qwest offers their own TV service here in the Phoenix area. It's very limited, but it still does exist. Telecos are moving to offer everything cable does. You're just nitpicking. |
|
CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | said by CCNnorthcali:Even Qwest offers their own TV service here in the Phoenix area. It's very limited, but it still does exist. Telecos are moving to offer everything cable does. You're just nitpicking. Um...yea..I am just nitpicking |
|
| reply to hottboiinnc
Then you agree that phone companies shouldn't have to abide by cable franchising laws, right? After all, video isn't their primary service. |
|
 CoronaIt's cool, I'm takin it backPremium
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| 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... |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
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. |
|
| 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 |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| 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. |
|
| 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!!! |
|
