 
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs: | No.... How about....no?
As long as I don't get taxed anymore here, I don't care TBH. | |
|
 | roozy
join:2004-09-30
Casper, WY | Re: No.... 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. | |
|
| |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: No.... said by 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. A Telco is exactly that, a Telco, a CC is not a Telco and their primary business is not Telco but Cable TV. | |
|
| | | 
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
 ·Comcast
| Re: No.... said by Cheese :said by 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. 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? | |
|
| | | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: No.... said by Rob :said by Cheese :said by 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. 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. | |
|
| | | | | ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT
1 edit | Re: No.... 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 ! | |
|
| | | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | 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 | Re: No.... 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
San Antonio, TX
| 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. waiting patiently for this reply... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: No.... 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 $2,000 to the state by the sounds and text ATT had the state write up and sign.
TWC, Cox, Buckeye Cable, Charter, Armstrong, WOW, Insight and others are not allowed to do that.
Maybe Qwest wouldnt be in such a mess if they'd lower their prices instead of raising them.
Lower your prices customers will come back and help pay your taxes that they owe. Also if Qwest would build out a network that can compete with Comcast they'd have business.
Qwest lost that boat back when they were paying out the ass to keep iProvo and UTOPIA from coming online. That money should have went to actually build out a new network. The same as ATT should have done with the money they spent at the state levels and battling cities in court over their damn boxes. Use the money and actually build out a new network and play by the rules of the game instead of trying to change them. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: No.... said by hottboiinnc :Cable is taxed by the states. Their phone is taxed by the states. They pay into the Cities for to offer use the phones and required to carry channels to each city. The agreements are made with the cities. I don't think that it is fair for AT$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
Toledo, OH | Re: No.... 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
| 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: No.... POTS would be cheaper if they wouldnt put that line that says "other taxes and fees" | |
|
| | | | | | | | | GPSrob
join:2007-05-21 | Re: No.... 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
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: No.... 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
| Re: No.... 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 | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
TWTom
@rr.com | They don't abide by the same franchising laws.....especially here in Califrnia.!! | |
|
| | | | | | | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| 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 | |
|
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by 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 ! 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 .. | |
|
| | | | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: No.... LOL. well said. | |
|
| | | | | | 
UnKown
The Underground Network
join:2002-09-08
Orlando, FL | 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. | |
|
| | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| 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. | |
|
| | | | | | ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT
1 edit | Re: No.... 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. | |
|
| | | | | | |
TWTom
@rr.com
| Re: No.... 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!!! | |
|
| | | | | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
1 edit | Re: No.... 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. 
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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Syncognition
join:2008-01-12
Winter Park, FL
| Re: No.... 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: No.... 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
TWTOM
@rr.com
| 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
cuda
@sbcglobal.net
| "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! | |
|
| | | | | | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: No.... 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT
1 edit | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: No.... said by ITALIAN926 : 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| 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".. | |
|
| | | | | | | 
MadMANN
Premium
join:2005-08-19
·Comcast
| said by ITALIAN926 :Dialtone is dialtone. Thats it. Would you tax Vonage or any other third party VOIP the same, since dial tone is dial tone? | |
|
| | | | | | | | ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT | Re: No.... 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: No.... 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. | |
|
| | | |
TWTom
@rr.com
| 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 | |
|
| | | | |
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| | | dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
| 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. | |
|
| | | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
2 edits | Re: No.... said by 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. 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. | |
|
| | | | | skrupowies
join:2002-08-22
Wallingford, CT
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: No.... said by Cheese :said by dave : 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. | |
|
| | | | | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: No.... | |
|
| | | | | 
CCNnorthcali
join:2004-03-07
Tempe, AZ
clubs: | 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. | |
|
| | | | | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: No.... said by 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. Um...yea..I am just nitpicking  | |
|
| | |
toolazytologin
@verizon.net
| 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. | |
|
| | |
| | |
Corona
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: No.... said by Anonymous_ :said by 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. 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 | |
|
| | | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
2 edits | Re: No.... said by Corona :said by Anonymous_ :said by 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. 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 | |
|
| | | dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Anonymous_ : 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). | |
|
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | 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. | |
|
| |
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | 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 | |
|
id_deleted
join:2003-05-01
Salt Lake City, UT
3 edits | For whom the bell will never toll. There are very good reasons why I havent been with Qwest for the last 12 yrs, and this is just another minor one to add to the huge list. I guess they are jealous that another company can get away with a few less fees on the bills of their customers than they happily impose.
If they cared at all for their customers they would be using the opposite approach, by requesting that Qwest's tax designations be adjusted more equally to Comcasts.
Qwest's answer to the consistant loss of their subs is to attack the competition using evey underhanded method they can come up with rather than improving their product and reducing their outrageous pricing. Some things never change.. | |
|
| 
needforspeed59
Cruise Ship Just Passing Through
join:2001-05-02
Glendale, AZ |  Re: For whom the bell will never toll.
--
Great success! High five! | |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
2 edits |  Comcast to Missouri: We're not a Telco, You Can't Regulate
A disagreement over whether or not the Missouri Public Service Commission has the authority to regulate a national company's Internet phone service has spilled over to federal court.
Comcast Corp., a national cable and Internet service provider based in Philadelphia, filed a complaint in federal court in Kansas City against an order from the PSC that Comcast's Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, service falls under the umbrella of a "fixed telecommunication service" and is subject to an array of state regulations.
Comcast believes the service should be classified as an "informational service," exempt from state regulatory guidelines. 1st link
2nd link
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
|
|
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: Comcast to Missouri: We're not a Telco, You Can't Regulate said by funchords :Comcast to Missouri: We're not a Telco, You Can't Regulate A disagreement over whether or not the Missouri Public Service Commission has the authority to regulate a national company's Internet phone service has spilled over to federal court.
Comcast Corp., a national cable and Internet service provider based in Philadelphia, filed a complaint in federal court in Kansas City against an order from the PSC that Comcast's Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, service falls under the umbrella of a "fixed telecommunication service" and is subject to an array of state regulations.
Comcast believes the service should be classified as an "informational service," exempt from state regulatory guidelines. 1st link2nd link Those links are the same exact article, just different sites. | |
|
| |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Comcast to Missouri: We're not a Telco, You Can't Regulate said by Cheese :Those links are the same exact article, just different sites. I should have explained why I did that. I did that because those where the only two copies of that story that I could find on the net, and one copy might disappear for whatever reason. It's not like a lot of syndicated stories that are copied 500 places. | |
|
| cyclone_z
join:2006-06-19
Ames, IA
·Qwest.net
| Oh I see, Comcrap isn't a telecommunications company... that's why they're a member of the trade group NCTA, the National Cable and TELECOMMUNCATIONS industry Ass.
I guess it's a telecommunications service when they market it to customers, but not when it comes time to deal with regulations. Comcrap is a bunch of assclowns. | |
|
| Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
3 edits | If I were Comcast (I'm not, unfortunately), I'd lobby the governments to reduce the Telcos' taxes to that of my own, to make the playing field level, rather than lobby that I get a lower amount.
The idea is that taxation is too high.
The bigger idea is that if Comcast were mature, they'd get a better deal for themselves and everybody else.
If Comcast goes to the table and says "hey look, I don't have fair competition in terms of the narrow field of view of state taxation (even though there may be other nongovernmental and other-jurisdiction-governmental factors that make the total different), because the Telcos are being taxed too much: please reduce their taxation to the levels I have", then I think they'd get further. Even though the politicians, being thieves, would balk at the idea of Comcast asking to tax anybody (even their competition) lower, they would see that they are not acting in their own self-interest in terms of the actual amount of money for the face value of what they're saying, and see that taxing differently is absolutely rediculous. As a result, the end governmental decision would probably be to average the two out, rather than raise the total amount Comcast the real life brat idiot retarded child bitch pays in taxes via its customers to that EQUAL of the telephone companies, causing total taxation and theft to RISE rather than level out, making it less level for everyone overall, benefiting ONLY the telcos. | |
|
SpiffyD
@comcast.net | OK Qwest, tell you what...... Give back the 200B in tax breaks and subsidies you've largely pissed away since 1996 and allow us to treat Comcast with access and special favors like you currently enjoy, then we'll have something to talk about. | |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Yes! Anyone with half a brain can see that Comcast and Qwest are competing for the same voice services. The taxes placed on Qwest services (based off of systems that have little relevance to the end consumer, especially when the cableco provides a backup battery), place Qwest at a competitive disadvantage, while Qwest also is held to a higher standard by the law. | |
|
ComcastFanboi
@comcast.net
| Oink Oink Oink @ USF trough If Comcast is a telco, how come they don't get their fair share of the USF bucks?
»www.fiercetelecom.com/story/cali···08-07-28
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee wants an accounting from 24 telcos on how they’re using the billions in Universal Service Fund subsidies.
His Top 10 list: AT&T ($1.3 billion in subsidies), Alltel ($967 million), Verizon ($915 million), CenturyTel ($870 million), Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. ($558 million), Embarq ($310 million), Citizens Communications Company ($300 million), Sprint Nextel ($282 million), Windstream ($250 million), Qwest ($233 million), and America Movil ($140 million).
| |
|
| cyclone_z
join:2006-06-19
Ames, IA
·Qwest.net
| Re: Oink Oink Oink @ USF trough said by ComcastFanboi :
If Comcast is a telco, how come they don't get their fair share of the USF bucks?
Last time I checked, they don't provide phone service to everyone. They only provide it in certain areas. And then, remember, as stated above in this thread, it's not phone service. It's IP and "IP is data". USF isn't for data.
So make up your mind. If it's phone service, they have to provide it to everyone, even people out in the middle of nowhere. They can get USF, but then they have to play by the rules that the RBOCs do, with all the taxes and fees. If it's not phone service, then they don't have to provide it to everyone, but they also don't get USF money. You can't have it both ways. Comcrap clearly wants it that way though. | |
|
| |
ComcastFanboi
@comcast.net
| Re: Oink Oink Oink @ USF trough said by cyclone_z :So make up your mind. If it's phone service, they have to provide it to everyone, even people out in the middle of nowhere. They can get USF, but then they have to play by the rules that the RBOCs do, with all the taxes and fees. If it's not phone service, then they don't have to provide it to everyone, but they also don't get USF money. You can't have it both ways. Are you suggesting USF/taxpayers subsidize two phone companies in each rural area? | |
|
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Because they're not subject to "Universal Service" requirements?
Then again, somehow cellphone companies have gotten themselves huge amounts of USF money too, so maybe the cablecos should be lobbying a bit more to spread "Digital Voice" far and wide. | |
|
trent25
join:2005-11-28
Philadelphia, PA
1 edit | What about ALL other VOIP? Comcast's phone service is a VOIP service.
So if you tax Comcast like regular teleco's for home phone service then Vonage should be taxed, T-Mobile's @Home service should be taxed... And when you keep dragging it out eventually you reach to a point where you'll have to even tax a non-US company like Skype. With Skype you can get a monthly unlimited US & Canada service with your own phone number much like what Comcast has to offer, and you can install one of their phone systems that operate independent of a PC and there you go a phone system that resembles that of the Telco's and Comcast!
But how will you tax Skype, a non-US company, under US law!!! | |
|
|
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: What about ALL other VOIP? said by trent25 :Comcast's phone service is a VOIP service. So if you tax Comcast like regular teleco's for home phone service then Vonage should be taxed, T-Mobile's @Home service should be taxed... And when you keep dragging it out eventually you reach to a point where you'll have to even tax a non-US company like Skype. With Skype you can get a monthly unlimited US & Canada service with your own phone number much like what Comcast has to offer, and you can install one of their phone systems that operate independent of a PC and there you go a phone system that resembles that of the Telco's and Comcast! But how will you tax Skype, a non-US company, under US law!!! Isn't Skype now owned by Ebay, a US company? Yes, I believe it is! And since they do business here in the US, I believe they can be taxed as well. | |
|
| |
trent25
join:2005-11-28
Philadelphia, PA | Re: What about ALL other VOIP? Oh ya you're right on that ... woops  | |
|
| | | |
| Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | Damn, that's a good point. I may need to port my number from Vitelity to LES.NET if they do end up doing that. (LES is Canadian, and Vitelity, I'm pretty sure, is US).
Taxes tend to make telco bills go about 5 times higher (at the low end). | |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| look at the idea, really look at it.. state taxation of VOIP service, no matter how much it may look like a POTS service is still VOIP which states have been barred from taxing. period. if UTAH is looking for something to tax.. try Churches, they seem to be extremely wealthy these days, oh wait.. they're tax exempt too. Hmm... let's see the other ways to profit... red light cameras, pushing the needy off social services, food stamps & free health care.... there are ways.. just some more acceptable in some states than others! | |
|
| ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT
1 edit | Re: look at the idea, really look at it.. Everything you wrote is completely senseless. Do you understand the topic here? Quest wants the rules CHANGED so the voice services ( SAME PURPOSE AND HAVE THE SAME FUNCTIONALITY ) are on even playing ground. We all know the rules on VoIP .. rules always seem to eventually change... and this is guaranteed to be one of them. If not sooner definitely later.
Utah is not looking to tax something.. QUEST is looking to make things competitively CORRECT. | |
|
| | kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL
clubs: | Re: look at the idea, really look at it.. Want to make it 'competitively correct', then have Qwest quit gouging caller ID fees. That alone should make up the difference. Oh yeah, the millions in subsidies probably make up for it as well. | |
|
anon101010
@verizon.net
| Dial Tone Dial tone is dial tone period. If you want to get technical POTS is only analog from the house to the C.O. Once it hits the switch it becomes digital and is transfered as a digital signal to were ever the call is going. Then converted back to analog for the last mile C.O to home. | |
|
notquitefair
@qwest.net
| Make them build out It is somewhat unfair. Not only does Qwest get taxed, but they are also required to provide dialtone service to all households in their service areas. If Comcast wants to offer phone service, then they should have to provide the same dialtone service to all houses in their areas. Right now Comcast doesnt have to provide anything to anyone. | |
|
| hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: Make them build out then if thats the case then Comcast and every other cable company wants in on that USF money as well.
Why should one get it and not the other. After all we have to level the playing field.
and Rainwind- are you ready to pay more for your phone services? TWC will have to tax you for the USF, their "other taxes and fees" the Federal Access charge, the city tax, state tax, federal tax. Everything has to be even. | |
|
| | viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| Re: Make them build out said by hottboiinnc :then if thats the case then Comcast and every other cable company wants in on that USF money as well. Why should one get it and not the other. After all we have to level the playing field. and Rainwind- are you ready to pay more for your phone services? TWC will have to tax you for the USF, their "other taxes and fees" the Federal Access charge, the city tax, state tax, federal tax. Everything has to be even. If cablecos deploy phone service into rural areas, then yes, they should get USF, just like cell phone companies and rural independent telcos. However, dial tone is dial tone, and it's all analog when it hits the phone set. But it's all digital when it hits the network/switch. So yes, the fees and taxes should be the same for the service, irregardless of the company providing the service. The FCC was wrong (imagine that!) when they declared VoIP an information service. | |
|
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
1 edit | Re: Make them build out the fees and taxes are NOT imposed by the Feds or the states. If you actually call the phone company they will tell you that they have no clue what that line is for except for taxes or fees they're allowed to charge but are NOT required.
They could charge what ever they wanted in that line and you would have no clue what the money would go toward. We still have no clue what it goes to today.
And i don't know how you claim that VoIP is not an information service? without the internet it does not work for the most part- Vonage, Magic Jack, Packet8/8x8, Teleblend, ViaTalk, and all the other providers. Hell since FWD is actually a VoIP product they should be taxed as well.
And if Comcast or TWC were to get the USF they would be one step ahead of the Telco's so they'd go back and cry some more that Cable is beating them hands down with cable customers and they'd have to many and wouldn't be able to offer services anyway. You and I both know that too. | |
|
| | | | |
RainWind
join:2000-10-20
Van Wert, OH | Sounds fair to me If they want to market phone service, tax them like a telco.
Every single commercial of theirs includes their telephone service offering. If they want to make if a flagship product then fine by me. Tax them the same as any other telco. | |
|
|
bt1972
@qwest.net
| Re: comcast is a bigger phone company than qwest They offer basically the same services they should be regulated the same, I think not being regulated is what has kept comcasts service growing so fast good for them but not a fair business practice for the fcc I bet the government is looking at this in a different aspect they see a big company taking away money from them in the form of lost taxes rest assured they will find a way to get it done | |
|
| | rody_44
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: comcast is a bigger phone company than qwest the reason one has the tax and not the other is simple. the telephone network was built with tax dollars. the cable network was built with the companies dollars. its as simple as that people. telephone is a service that is needed cable tv is not needed. so the taxes paid for upgrades and still does to this day to some degree. since taxes paid for the initial offerings they continue to have to pay the taxes. nothing unfair about that. | |
|
ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16
Stratford, CT
2 edits | exhale.. breathe. not their fault they ate lead as children Rody_44........ The telephone network was not built with tax dollars. 99% of it was built and is STILL maintained by RBOC revenue ! What are you talking about !? I know you cant be talking about 100 years ago... and the cables that have been replaced countless times since then?? on RBOC revenue.. lol
voIP never should have been allowed to touch the PSTN without being on even playing ground when it comes to taxes and fee's. All you would have is a glorified voice instant messenger that never wouldve taken off . Now that voIP HAS taken off, its time to remove the price advantages they have... its just not right.
Hypothetical.... Cable companies steal 99% of all phone customers. How in the world will rural phone customers now get phone service without USF collection?? Hmmm. These places dont even have broadband.. their only TV is satellite !
As cable companies take more and more phone customers, less and less is going into the USF. You ignorants seem to think taxing one and not the other is fair??? So flip that scenario ... I guess you would have a problem with it if the FCC deregulated RBOC's and stopped the madatory taxes and fee's ? You better have a problem with that or else your argument is senseless.
Now explain why untaxing landline customers would be unfair. LOL . Idiots. The only topic of discussion here is that the two types of TELEPHONE SERVICE should be equally TAXED. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
|
|
|
Qwest Wants Comcast Taxed Like A Telco
