hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to ITALIAN926
Re: No....
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. |
|
puck0114
join:2005-12-24
Washington, DC | 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... |
|
TWTom
@rr.com | reply to puck0114
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
| 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 $2,000 to the state by the sounds and text ATT had the state write up and sign.
TWC, Cox, Buckeye Cable, Charter, Armstrong, WOW, Insight and others are not allowed to do that.
Maybe Qwest wouldnt be in such a mess if they'd lower their prices instead of raising them.
Lower your prices customers will come back and help pay your taxes that they owe. Also if Qwest would build out a network that can compete with Comcast they'd have business.
Qwest lost that boat back when they were paying out the ass to keep iProvo and UTOPIA from coming online. That money should have went to actually build out a new network. The same as ATT should have done with the money they spent at the state levels and battling cities in court over their damn boxes. Use the money and actually build out a new network and play by the rules of the game instead of trying to change them. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to hottboiinnc
Re: No....
said by hottboiinnc :Cable is taxed by the states. Their phone is taxed by the states. They pay into the Cities for to offer use the phones and required to carry channels to each city. The agreements are made with the cities. I don't think that it is fair for AT$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 | 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. |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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" |
|
GPSrob
join:2007-05-21 | 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. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| 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. |
|
viggent5
@comcast.net
| 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 |
|
