 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | reply to Cheese
Re: No.... 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? |
|
 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | 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. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | 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. |
|
| 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 |
|
| reply to puck0114
They don't abide by the same franchising laws.....especially here in Califrnia.!! |
|
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!!! |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
1 edit | reply to TWTom
Re: No.... 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. |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
 BF69Premium
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. |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
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. |
|
