Cable Opens Up > Cable has NO EXSCUSE TO CRY!!!

reply to vic102482

Re: Cable has NO EXSCUSE TO CRY!!!

said by vic102482:

---

its only fitting that CABLE should have to pay more, and lose to line sharers just like the telecom industry.

---

said by pnh102:

---

said by vic102482:

---

its only fitting that CABLE should have to pay more, and lose to line sharers just like the telecom industry.

---

If you want to pay more per month for cable that's fine. I'd prefer not to, and I certainly think a USF charge for cable is outrageous... this is for glorified TV service, why should people be getting that as a freebie?!

As for the ruling, I am not worried at all, this is the 9th Circus Court of Appeals after all... so the ruling will be overturned in due course.

---

said by vic102482:

---

said by pnh102:

---

said by vic102482:

---

its only fitting that CABLE should have to pay more, and lose to line sharers just like the telecom industry.

---

If you want to pay more per month for cable that's fine. I'd prefer not to, and I certainly think a USF charge for cable is outrageous... this is for glorified TV service, why should people be getting that as a freebie?!

As for the ruling, I am not worried at all, this is the 9th Circus Court of Appeals after all... so the ruling will be overturned in due course.

---

So why shouldnt cable internet suscribers have to pay the same fees as DSL suscribers? Thats like not having to pay a certain tax for roads beacuse you ride a motorcycle.

Both have right of way, and both tear up city streets and both connect to the internet.

---

reply to vic102482
The "Taxes" being debated here aren't real taxes. They are discussing the USF, this fee isn't paid to any government but is a direct slush fund for the ILECs to support the deployment of telephone service to unprofitable regions.

Telephone service is by it's nature a critical service because it provides quick access to emergency medical assistance, cable TV or internet access fulfills no such emergency need nor is there a need for universal deployment of Hispeed internet.

Because of this the FCC decision IS correct and the court is WRONG. Universal access to the cable lines will only serve to increase costs to the cable company and as a result make everything MORE expensive.

The FCC has been pushing the deployment of 2 to 3 major broadband providers in every market. This strategy is focused around Cable, ILEC's and Wireless/BPL. By having large companies like Cable and ILEC's providing similar service in the same market TRUE competition will exist and prices will serve the consumer (witness Verizon's price drops). The intent is that each Major internet provider then moves into each others monopoly market, ie the Telco's begin selling TV and the Cable companies being selling telephone and then every market in the US with a cable company then has at a minimum two providers of phone, data and TV.

The ILEC's are fighting this tooth and nail. In reality they do have a point, DSL should not be susceptible to USF fees, but again the ILECs supported that because it's gravy slush money for them. Now they want the cable companies to charge their customers USF fees and probably at the same time will demand that THEY get the money instead of the cable company.

There should be no USF on data transmissions. There should never be a Universal data line guarantee.

reply to Phoenix2088

said by Phoenix2088:

---

said by vic102482:

---

said by pnh102:

---

said by vic102482:

---

its only fitting that CABLE should have to pay more, and lose to line sharers just like the telecom industry.

---

If you want to pay more per month for cable that's fine. I'd prefer not to, and I certainly think a USF charge for cable is outrageous... this is for glorified TV service, why should people be getting that as a freebie?!

As for the ruling, I am not worried at all, this is the 9th Circus Court of Appeals after all... so the ruling will be overturned in due course.

---

So why shouldnt cable internet suscribers have to pay the same fees as DSL suscribers? Thats like not having to pay a certain tax for roads beacuse you ride a motorcycle.

Both have right of way, and both tear up city streets and both connect to the internet.

---

Cable is more like a McLaren F1 and DSL is like a Chevy Cavalier, lol.

---

reply to rahvin112

said by rahvin112:

---

The "Taxes" being debated here aren't real taxes. They are discussing the USF, this fee isn't paid to any government but is a direct slush fund for the ILECs to support the deployment of telephone service to unprofitable regions.

Telephone service is by it's nature a critical service because it provides quick access to emergency medical assistance, cable TV or internet access fulfills no such emergency need nor is there a need for universal deployment of Hispeed internet.

Because of this the FCC decision IS correct and the court is WRONG. Universal access to the cable lines will only serve to increase costs to the cable company and as a result make everything MORE expensive.

The FCC has been pushing the deployment of 2 to 3 major broadband providers in every market. This strategy is focused around Cable, ILEC's and Wireless/BPL. By having large companies like Cable and ILEC's providing similar service in the same market TRUE competition will exist and prices will serve the consumer (witness Verizon's price drops). The intent is that each Major internet provider then moves into each others monopoly market, ie the Telco's begin selling TV and the Cable companies being selling telephone and then every market in the US with a cable company then has at a minimum two providers of phone, data and TV.

The ILEC's are fighting this tooth and nail. In reality they do have a point, DSL should not be susceptible to USF fees, but again the ILECs supported that because it's gravy slush money for them. Now they want the cable companies to charge their customers USF fees and probably at the same time will demand that THEY get the money instead of the cable company.

There should be no USF on data transmissions. There should never be a Universal data line guarantee.

---

reply to rahvin112

said by rahvin112:

---

cable TV or internet access fulfills no such emergency need nor is there a need for universal deployment of Hispeed internet.

---

said by rahvin112:

---

Because of this the FCC decision IS correct and the court is WRONG. Universal access to the cable lines will only serve to increase costs to the cable company and as a result make everything MORE expensive.

---

said by rahvin112:

---

There should be no USF on data transmissions. There should never be a Universal data line guarantee.

---

reply to vic102482

said by vic102482:

---

Both have right of way, and both tear up city streets and both connect to the internet.

---

reply to vic102482
If cable was deployed using taxpayer money like we see with USF and grants to telcos then damn straight they should be forced to open the lines. I think they should open the lines no matter what...but if the network is 100% paid by corporate monies (no gov't grants, subsidized loans, etc) then the network is their to do with what they please.
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports

reply to rideboarder
what gets me is that cable seems to be more expensive now ( i pay $45pr mo) then dsl ( going rate is $35) and cable is exempt from certain taxes.. Well i have cable and dont want the price to go up anymore, im sure cable will pass it along to the user, but fair is fair.... both services provide www access just different forms both should pay same tax.Cars and trucks both use highway to get around and both pay same gasoline tax.

Also didnt realize that the USF charge is for developing telepone on poor areas... nice to see i can help out others in life. I wonder if thats where my x-wife gets money from when they shut off her phone and suddenly she gets it back on...

quote:

---

just different forms

---

reply to jimraelee

said by jimraelee:

---

what gets me is that cable seems to be more expensive now ( i pay $45pr mo) then dsl ( going rate is $35)

---

reply to oliphant5

said by oliphant5:

---

If cable was deployed using taxpayer money like we see with USF and grants to telcos then damn straight they should be forced to open the lines. I think they should open the lines no matter what...but if the network is 100% paid by corporate monies (no gov't grants, subsidized loans, etc) then the network is their to do with what they please.

---

reply to pnh102
cable goes up without the cable tv service... and in our area modems are included for like $5 pr month... and the mandatory telephone line... I dont consider that much becaue we all have phone lines.. and cable carriers our here require a phone line to update your movie downloads and on screen bill service... is cable realy that much faster than dsl... seems when my neighbors get online at night i see my speed drop... no much fun

said by jimraelee:

---

cable goes up without the cable tv service... and in our area modems are included for like $5 pr month...

---

said by jimraelee:

---

and the mandatory telephone line... I dont consider that much becaue we all have phone lines..

---

reply to pnh102
What about VOIP? That's cable companies providing life-critical telephony. Once a cable company starts selling VOIP, they should be required to pay up on the USF. Should a cable company that provides VOIP have USF tacked on to their cable internet customers' bills? No, but it shouldn't be on DSL bills either.

said by brandon:

---

What about VOIP? That's cable companies providing life-critical telephony.

---

reply to brandon

said by brandon:

---

What about VOIP? That's cable companies providing life-critical telephony. Once a cable company starts selling VOIP, they should be required to pay up on the USF. Should a cable company that provides VOIP have USF tacked on to their cable internet customers' bills? No, but it shouldn't be on DSL bills either.

---

reply to pnh102
You're right--vonage ISN'T regulated, and isn't required to "be there in an emergency". But it should be regulated if it is to be a viable telephony service, and it must be able to always reach 911, just like a landline. And then USF must be attached.

reply to rahvin112
How are the courts wrong in this matter? Did you read through the decision? Basically, there are 3 kinds of "service" defined for communications in general in the US:

1. CABLE SERVICE - one-way transmission of stuff to consumers, with a small provision for 2-way communication, provided that it is only the consumer making interactive requests for programming. Cable service is regulated by local franchises, which require up to a 5% tax to pay communities for ripping up roads and such.

2. TELECOMMUNICATIOS SERVICE - basically, transmitting data around the national communications infrastructure. Now this is the tricky part... This service originally was defined to describe telephone infrastructure, but as the internet grew, it has become painfully obvious that the internet backbone/infrastructure is what is *really* important (of course this is debatable, but this is the point really in contention between cable and telecos). Because of this, the courts have CORRECTLY ruled that cable companies do, in fact, transmit data around the national communications infrastructure. Of course, the cable companies also operate as an INFORMATION SERVICE, which is what the court said - they said that the FCC was incorrect in saying that cable companies were *only* INFORMATION SERVICES, but they are actually both INFORMATION SERVICES and TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES. Because the telephone service was built with massive public support... this type of service is highly regulated and taxed by the public.

3. INFORMATION SERVICES - this refers to the handling, storage, access, and movement of content over the telecommunications system. basically, your ISPs. They handle connecting you to data.

Now, as mentioned, the big point of contention is the designation of cable companies as part Telecommunication Service. The tricky thing is, the cable companies will say it is not fair for them to be regulated on this matter, because they built the cable system on their own, without public support.

While this is true that the public did not directly or willingly support the cable infrastructure deployment, the public *did* subsidize the internet and telephone development and infrastructure. So, the country, as a whole, has EVERY RIGHT to tax the cable companies, that want to get at *anything* on the internet. And, the cable companies have every right to refuse and go build their own, separate internet if they like.

Additionally, the American people, over the past 30 years have UNWILLINGLY subsidized the growth of the cable industry via the 1986 cable-rate deregulation debacle, which let the cable monopolies jack their prices by some 60% over 3 years! Plus, with the complacency of the FCC, the cable companies were still able to jack prices by more than 50% over what the FCC had originally estimated by the mid 90, DESPITE a failed 10% reduction and a laughable attempt at creating a 2-tiered pricing structure that basically let cable companies make/own new television channels which would go on the extended tier and which they could charge whatever they wanted. The result - virtually unregulated price jacking of the extended tier pricing structure due to horizontal ownership of the content production and distribution systems.

So... the courts were right. If the FCC is not going to make a legitimate, universal and balanced set of regulations for ALL communications in the US, keep slapping them down.

we need two sets of regulation. One set that manages any communications infrastructure be it cable, wireless, telephone. The other set manages any type of content management, be it broadcast spectrum, digital data, or voice over copper. Then, we would just have uniform media companies.