UnKown
The Underground Network
join:2002-09-08
Orlando, FL | reply to ITALIAN926
Re: No....
VOIP is a completely different technology than pots, and it should be taxed differently.
The great state of UTAH thinks so, and so do i. |
|
viggent5
@comcast.net
| reply to hottboiinnc
well said! if you do your research, 80% of those taxes and fees you see on a telephone bill (not cable) are garbage, its just more free money for verizon/att/qwest, yet everyone is lobbying for the telcos. They suck, my cable phone through comcast works better than my old verizon did anyway |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926  : This is simple common sense.. this shouldnt even be a discussion. The problem is that people insist on confusing 'common sense' and 'what I want'.
For what it's worth, I don't want to be paying fees to Comcast either. But I don't recall that being the question asked. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to fiberguy
LOL. well said. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to cuda
Why are you jealous that Cable customers pay less for phone? It's not our fault.
Tell your ATT that you want cheaper service and you dont' wanna be charged their "other taxes and fees" which aren't taxes and fees. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
 ·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to ITALIAN926
you should tell your beloved Union to tell VZ and Comcast to drop the rates. After all its the Phone companies that are adding the "other taxes and fees".
Like i said above- Comcast, TWC, Charter, Insight, Bright House, Armstrong, CableOne, etc, do not have them. It's just a way for the phone companies to make more profit and then go to DC and say they need money out of the USF because they're not making enough money!
It's not the Cable company's fault they don't double dip. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to GPSrob
No do not add taxes to the other providers.
Have you ever called your Telco and asked them what the line of "other taxes and fees" means? They will tell you any fee they're "allowed to add to your phone bill BUT required to do so".
I don't see Comcast doing that. I don't see an extra $15+ on a Comcast, TWC Buckeye Tel, or any other cable provider's digital phone service.
You only get that from the Telco's because they think if they can't get away with charging you more for a service they'll add it in as a "fee" and get away with making more profit. |
|
ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT | reply to MadMANN
If they dont drop the taxes & fee's on POTS?? YES
Any VoIP home or business phone service that can connect to POTS lines should be taxed the same way. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to TWTom
Last time I checked it was Comcast Cable.. Not comcast MSO.. and it was Charter cable, not charter MSO.. maybe Time Warner MSO? ... um, nope.. it's Time Warner cable..
They didn't "change their names" to MSO's.. they ARE MSOs.. Multi Service Provider and Multi System Providers.. that IS what they are, however, they are still the "cable company".. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926 :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 ! You need to brush up on some case law and supreme court decisions. Comcast is offering an "information service".. not a telephone service.. Thank god our laws in this country are not emotional based and touchy feely.. otherwise, there would be opinions like yours ruling the land.. the law is the law and cute sayings about ducks don't establish our system .. |
|
GPSrob
join:2007-05-21 | reply to hottboiinnc
Isn't that the point of this entire discussion? Regulate/tax all services the same regardless of providers. Either all should have that line for a particular service or none should. |
|
cuda
@sbcglobal.net
| reply to hottboiinnc
"Digital Voice" Give me a damn break. Even POTS service is converted to digital at points during its transmission. And to put things in more perspective, Cable Cos phone service goes goes thru PHONE CABLES! Its only on the coax to the CO. Then the phone CO has to handle it and it is a REGULAR FRIGGIN CALL!.
TAX THOSE BASTARDS! |
|
TWTOM
@rr.com
| reply to Syncognition
Well,that an arguement for Verizon,ATT and the phone companies, who dance around and lobby in Washington and for some reason don't have to abide to the same franchising laws and regulations as cable do.It's an optional thing when it comes to provider as well.I'm sure if that was the case,Verizon and Verizon wireless wouldn't actually be seperate companies.Then it would be Utility company trying to replace another utility company? But yet they are the same company? Cable companies can't help if they are more innovated than the Ma Bell's.Same as satellite not going by the same franchising standards,if so they wouldn't be able to be in every cities or badwoods. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to GPSrob
POTS would be cheaper if they wouldnt put that line that says "other taxes and fees" |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| 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 |
|
MadMANN
Premium
join:2005-08-19
·Comcast
| 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? |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
