 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to vic102482
Re: Cable has NO EXSCUSE TO CRY!!! said by vic102482:
Both have right of way, and both tear up city streets and both connect to the internet.
Both already pay franchise fees to cover those costs. Things like USF and other slush-fund BS should not apply to cable because its more of a luxury item than a phone, which some say is "life-critical" (I don't agree with that sentiment... if you want a phone, get a job that pays you enough to have one and buy it) and needs more reliability and wider distribution. Put more simply, no one ever died because their cable went out.
I agree with your point of view, but I take the stand that these fees should not apply to DSL service either, because like cable TV and cable modems, its not "life-critical" in any sense. Its a luxury item. People who want it and can afford it will buy it, but no one is entitled to it by any means.
--
The tobacco industry is more respectable than the telemarketing industry. |
|
 brandonSome truth included in this post.Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS | 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. |
|
|
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by brandon:
What about VOIP? That's cable companies providing life-critical telephony.
No its not. Read any TOS for VoIP and they will indicate that its a "best-effort" service if you try to use it to connect to 911. The phone companies are regulated to provide priority access to 911, VoIP by its very nature cannot do this (which is why it should not be regulated in such a manner):
»www.vonage.com/features_terms_service.php
But once again, if people want "life-critical" service, they can get landline phone service for a lot cheaper than VoIP.
--
The tobacco industry is more respectable than the telemarketing industry. |
|
 oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| 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.
It's not on DSL bills, USF is attached to the line, not the DSL service. You can get fixed point wireless DSL and not pay the tax. I'm wondering if Sprint Wireless DSL customers were charged USF. My "guess" would be they weren't/aren't.
Also, the Federal appeals court has issued a permanent injunction against Minn. and their VoIP regulation. »www.voxilla.com/Article28-nested···d0.phtml
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-10-07 17:21:52] |
|
brandonSome truth included in this post.Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS | 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. |
|
oliphant5Got Identity?Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Why should it be forced to have 911? So should we now force Fisher-Price to offer 911 on their walkie-talkies? How about a USF for can and string sales? All bullhorn manufacturers should not collect a USF.
VoIP is a CONTENT SERVICE not a distribution network. And as such VoIP providers AREN'T IN CONTROL OVER THE DISTRIBUTION as the telcos and cell providers are. VoIP companies can't FORCE reliability on the distributors who own the networks. Vonage has no control over the latency on Time Warner's network or through put to every Comcast customer. Vonage HAS NO WAY of insuring viability and as such can't be regulated into doing so.
What people need to do is GROW UP and actually read the warning labels instead of ignoring them and then later crying foul. Americans today act like children needing parenting at every step.
Keeping open competition through regulation is one thing but protecting the stupid from themselves is something quite different. There is NO reason I or any other VoIP subscriber should be paying extra because there are a few people so stupid as to not be able to read the TOS/AUP of a VoIP service that is forced upon you prior to receiving the service.
The highways will not flow red with blood if Packet8 doesn't offer 911 and we won't revert to the dark ages if Vonage customers don't pay a USF.
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-10-07 17:39:09] |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by oliphant5:
What people need to do is GROW UP and actually read the warning labels instead of ignoring them and then later crying foul.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
--
The tobacco industry is more respectable than the telemarketing industry. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to brandon
said by brandon:
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.
Think about this for a second... how can you regulate VoIP when it almost always uses someone else's network? How can Vonage or any other provider be regulated like a phone company when it doesn't use a network it even owns?
--
The tobacco industry is more respectable than the telemarketing industry. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to oliphant5
said by oliphant5:
The highways will not flow red with blood if Packet8 doesn't offer 911 and we won't revert to the dark ages if Vonage customers don't pay a USF
Yes it will! Just ask the ILEC.... |
|
 SarickIt's Only LogicalPremium
join:2003-06-03
USA | reply to oliphant5
I don';t see any difference in pricing for Vonage VoIp you pay $34 for VoIP access and get internet based problems.
Your Cost per minit isn't any better..
Isn't MCI Neiberhood $40 unlimited State to State and Local calls? Sheesh vonage is a ripoff.
Anyway it's not really VoIp thats making the cable tax its the use of the cable. Internet is more than informational now days. Sometimes internet is up when phone lines are down.
Statalite on the otherhand could also be for internet could also be regulated in this since if it is capible of VoIP..
However most of the services aren't PPV etc use the modem to send request out but it doen't recieve the info over it. |
|
