en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to puck0114
Re: No....
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 |
