Re: What's wrong? in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r14329367 en Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:31:14 EDT Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:31:14 EDT Re: What's wrong? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14329367 marigolds :
said by SanJoseNerd See Profile :

Where I live, the city government taxes telephone service, but it doesn't regulate SBC nor does SBC have a franchise agreement. You don't need a franchise agreement to levy a tax on SBC.
SBC should have a phone franchise agreement. They are normally 30 year terms and automatically renewed with no option to deny though. The FCC retains all regulatory authority so the city cannot regulate SBC through the franchise.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14329367 Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:43:41 EDT Re: What's wrong? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14317696 carpdiem : I work for SBC. We have to pay for use of right of a way in cities. Not sure how it is in Texas but where I live the state is in the process of providing more city tax relief by moving state tax revenues to the counties and municipalities. Just my humble opinion here and I may be way off, but wouldn't it be more economical to establish a tax base by bringing in businesses to a community either in a downtown district or through a business park? I would think this would provide a greater relief for the residential property tax payers. Typically our public right of way structure is in place for our cables. The cities will be paid for public easements through the FTTN/FTTP initiative in cases where the existing easement isn't large enough to handle the new cabinets. Instead of a small fee per subscriber the city would be getting a larger upfront fee that they will have to learn to either budget or invest in bringing in additional businesses for a larger tax base. From a consumer and tax payers perspective...everyone's going to get a piece of my money somehow and at some point.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14317696 Thu, 08 Sep 2005 08:20:02 EDT Re: What's wrong? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14317662 cmscholloway : Since the city can no longer collect the franchise fees (from SBC and soon enough Time Warner), they will lose revenue. Because the franchise fee is collected at the State level, the cities won't be allowed to tax them "twice" for the same service.

In the Texas State legislature, the only way the interests of the people (and in this case Cities) are protected is when one huge corporation is opposed by another huge corporation. It's kind of like when the Eagles play the Redskins in the NFL. You wish there was a way that both teams could lose. Time Warner showed up at the Capital with one less suitcase full of money than SBC. So now we all suffer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14317662 Thu, 08 Sep 2005 08:08:20 EDT Re: What's wrong? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14317232 SanJoseNerd :
said by cmscholloway See Profile :

- The net result of this will be lost revenue to the city government (future revenue from SBC, and existing revenue from the Cable franchises).

- Cities, being the who they are, will have to make up for this revenue somehow (raise taxes, fees) or cut services.

Being a city dweller, I will now have to pay more taxes (or receive less services), whether I choose to subscribe to IPTV or not. This is EXACTLY the argument SBC uses against Municipal wireless. :mad:
Why is there lost revenue? Where I live, the city government taxes telephone service, but it doesn't regulate SBC nor does SBC have a franchise agreement. You don't need a franchise agreement to levy a tax on SBC.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14317232 Thu, 08 Sep 2005 04:05:41 EDT Re: What's wrong? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14316483 cmscholloway : Here's my problem with this law:

- Cities extract licensing fees from Cable companies in exchange for the use of the city owned right of way.

- This law exempts phone companies from having to deal with each city individually, and instead pays a "one time" fee to the State.

- Since phone companies got this sweetheart deal, Cable companies will be able to get the same deal once their existing contracts are up.

- The net result of this will be lost revenue to the city government (future revenue from SBC, and existing revenue from the Cable franchises).

- Cities, being the who they are, will have to make up for this revenue somehow (raise taxes, fees) or cut services.

Being a city dweller, I will now have to pay more taxes (or receive less services), whether I choose to subscribe to IPTV or not. This is EXACTLY the argument SBC uses against Municipal wireless. :mad:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14316483 Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:16:08 EDT Cable firms also get relief & BPL gets boost too http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14313775 TKJunkMail : The newly signed bill also frees cable companies from getting local franchise agreements when they come up for renewal. It also allows cable companies to petition release from local franchise agreements sooner if they serve less than 40% of residences in a local area. The bill also fosters BPL rollout as well by overriding local rules against BPL.

My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14313775 Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:42:39 EDT Re: What's wrong? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14313771 trey_w : I guess this is why Verizon has started taking orders today in Keller for FIOS TV ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14313771 Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:41:46 EDT What's wrong? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14313652 reub2000 : SBC is not going to hike prices because they will have compitition from the cable companies will drive prices down. That's how it works when more than 1 company offer a service.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14313652 Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:24:44 EDT