Re: No.... in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21000453 en Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:54:01 EDT Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:54:01 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21008827 UnKown : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21008827 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:18:07 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21008551 hottboiinnc : just because you go town to down doesnt mean anything. They're doing that because its the fastest way go get the service out.

You and I and everyone else knows on here that if it was faster to get a state wide agreement VZ would be doing that too. Why do you think ATT's service is so limited; because they're fighting with the states. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21008551 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:25:04 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21006850 anon : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21006850 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:30:28 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21005990 ITALIAN926 : Sorry, but I knew that. FiOS is NOT IPTV in NJ.. is it? I work in NY.. in NEW YORK they have to go town to town getting franchise approval. OOOOH KAAAY]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21005990 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:57:59 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21005668 dave :
said by ITALIAN926 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21005668 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:57:06 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002787 hottboiinnc : LOL. well said.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002787 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:41:48 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002781 fruhead :
said by ITALIAN926 See Profile :

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.
Not in NJ. Verizon acquired a statewide franchise where the cable companies needed (and still need) individual town franchises.

Now you're a little more educated.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002781 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:39:22 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002769 hottboiinnc : Also--wasn't VZ shouldn't have to go town to town because it's not actual "cable tv" just like ATT?

YEP! but gave up and just started going town to town but are still fighting for a new franchise reform at the state and Federal level for their tv service.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002769 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:36:19 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002760 hottboiinnc : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002760 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:34:07 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002739 hottboiinnc : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002739 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:27:10 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002720 hottboiinnc : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002720 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:21:32 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002619 ITALIAN926 : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002619 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:48:03 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002248 fiberguy : 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"..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002248 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:13:57 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002242 fiberguy :
said by ITALIAN926 See Profile :

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 ..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002242 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:10:03 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002128 GPSrob : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002128 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:29:55 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002005 anon : "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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21002005 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:21:03 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001945 anon : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001945 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:53:19 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001938 hottboiinnc : POTS would be cheaper if they wouldnt put that line that says "other taxes and fees"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001938 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:51:11 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001443 en102 :
said by puck0114 See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001443 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:30:15 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001345 MadMANN :
said by ITALIAN926 See Profile :



Dialtone is dialtone. Thats it.
Would you tax Vonage or any other third party VOIP the same, since dial tone is dial tone?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001345 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:10:49 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001084 ITALIAN926 :
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001084 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:17:05 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001057 dave :
said by Anonymous_ See Profile :

Voip IS an DATA SERVICE not phone SERVICE

IP means data if you did not know that
Ok, so the thesis is that if the digitized voice goes over a wire all the way to my house, it's data, but if digitized voice gets turned into squiggly signals elsewhere before it gets to my house, it's suddenly not data?

Interesting...

(Not to mention the fact that you seem to deny the entire existence of non-digital data).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21001057 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:12:34 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000973 GPSrob : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000973 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:55:48 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000865 Cheese :
said by ITALIAN926 See Profile :

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.
Not now, but it will be according to this.

»www.engadgethd.com/2007/09/25/ve···ds-iptv/

Verizon announced that it will transition its FiOS TV service to an IPTV model over the next three years. Even though Verizon doesn't have plans to provide unique/exclusive content, the "request-send" IPTV model has advantages over traditional "push" broadcast in today's increasingly fragmented entertainment space. Verizon is betting that these differences will differentiate FiOS TV from its more traditional competitors, according to analyst Adi Kishore. VOD, interactive features, and place-shifting can all be pitched directly to customers, but there are advantages for Verizon as well. First and foremost, of course, is the one-two punch of microscopic user metrics and targeted advertising. That pipe flows both directions, and as FiOS evolves, expect use of the upstream side to increase. Still, providing tailored access to non-exclusive content is an interesting alternative strategy to generic access to exclusive content.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000865 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:31:20 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000858 ITALIAN926 : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000858 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:28:12 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000831 hottboiinnc : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000831 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:20:47 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000827 hottboiinnc : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000827 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:19:58 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000808 BF69 :
said by hottboiinnc See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000808 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:13:26 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000725 Syncognition : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000725 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:49:43 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000546 hottboiinnc : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000546 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:05:51 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000542 KrK : It's not the same services. Telcos want cable companies taxed for VOIP and digital services as if they were POTS lines, which they are not.

This is merely an attempt to hobble the competition.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000542 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:05:20 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000487 hottboiinnc : 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. :D

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000487 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:51:49 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000437 anon : They don't abide by the same franchising laws.....especially here in Califrnia.!!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000437 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:51:42 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000459 anon : 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!!!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000459 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:45:27 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000453 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.

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000453 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:44:28 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000427 anon : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000427 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:38:04 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000350 ITALIAN926 :
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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000350 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:17:47 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000222 Corona :
said by puck0114 See Profile :

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...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000222 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:46:09 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000192 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000192 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:39:26 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000105 Cheese :
said by CCNnorthcali See Profile :

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 :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000105 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:18:17 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000103 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000103 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:17:44 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000085 hottboiinnc : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000085 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:10:42 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000074 hottboiinnc : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000074 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:09:20 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999478 anon : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999478 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:05:22 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000055 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 !]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000055 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:04:04 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000043 Kearnstd : i think a big issue is that the Telcos had lots of free money given to them by the USF.

the cable company has had to build its network out of pocket.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21000043 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:00:30 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999949 Cheese :
said by Corona See Profile :

said by Anonymous_ See Profile :

said by roozy See Profile :

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.
Voip IS an DATA SERVICE not phone SERVICE

IP means data if you did not know that
not to the FCC it isn't. It's a telephony service. The fact that the intermediate transmission mechanism goes through IP packets or Time Division Multiplexing makes no difference to the end user.
Who regulates VoIP solutions?
Currently, VoIP has no regulations as the FCC has qualified IP services as Internet-based. A broader investigation is currently underway to evaluate the increase in consumer interest in VoIP and how the FCC should respond in order to safeguard public interest. For more information, visit the FCC's VoIP website at www.fcc.gov/voip.

»www.smartprice.com/phone/voip/gl···faq.html]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999949 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:34:47 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999924 Cheese : »www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/voip.pdf]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999924 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:28:53 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999891 Corona :
said by Anonymous_ See Profile :

said by roozy See Profile :

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.
Voip IS an DATA SERVICE not phone SERVICE

IP means data if you did not know that
not to the FCC it isn't. It's a telephony service. The fact that the intermediate transmission mechanism goes through IP packets or Time Division Multiplexing makes no difference to the end user.
--
"To be sincere, you don't have to know anything, you just say whatever makes you feel good and spin and smug circles in your tiny fucked up little head, happy as long as you're true to yourself. In other words, Sincerity is bullshit!" -Penn Jillette]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999891 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:19:34 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999767 Anonymous_ :
said by roozy See Profile :

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.
Voip IS an DATA SERVICE not phone SERVICE

IP means data if you did not know that]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999767 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:44:53 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999676 Cheese :
said by skrupowies See Profile :

said by Cheese See Profile :

said by dave See Profile :

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 :uhh:
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999676 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:17:31 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999657 skrupowies :
said by Cheese See Profile :

said by dave See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999657 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:10:57 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999500 Cheese :
said by dave See Profile :

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999500 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:27:27 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999487 Cheese :
said by Rob See Profile :

said by Cheese See Profile :

said by roozy See Profile :

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999487 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:24:30 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999480 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999480 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:23:27 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999472 Rob :
said by Cheese See Profile :

said by roozy See Profile :

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999472 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:20:46 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999452 Cheese :
said by roozy See Profile :

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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999452 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:14:56 EDT Re: No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999444 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999444 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:13:25 EDT No.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999416 Cheese : How about....no?

As long as I don't get taxed anymore here, I don't care TBH. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20999416 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:06:56 EDT