 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | reply to Rob
Re: No.... 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 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
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. |
|
 MadMANNPremium
join:2005-08-19
kudos:2 | reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:Dialtone is dialtone. Thats it. Would you tax Vonage or any other third party VOIP the same, since dial tone is dial tone? |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to puck0114
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. Yup... just as AT&T doesn't have to pay franchising fees or provide local access channels for Uverse to local communities, Cable doesn't have to pay taxes for POTS.
Also, Cable VoIP is not as regulated as POTS is (i.e. lifeline service, 99.9% availability, etc.). POTS fees are there, as this service is regulated to be a lifeline and high availability. Cable VoIP is not a whole lot different than Vonage or Packet 8 or Uverse Voice, as it is an Internet based service, and is offered as a 'best effort' service. Cable VoIP and Uverse Voice have their own network to handle the traffic, and this is part of the reason they charge almost 2x what Vonage or Call Vantage (RIP) did.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
