gpancner
join:2001-09-27
Nine Mile Falls, WA
| reply to moonpuppy
Re: If you can't drop your own rates....
It's about making the satellite subscribers pay the same tax amount that cable subscribers do. Municipalities provide services that many satellite subscribers want but are unable and/or unwilling to pay for. So they tax the easiest target (i.e. cable). Now that so many ignorant, whining freeloader types have gone to satellite those municipalities are losing tax revenue on a grand scale. The only way of recovering the loss is to apply the same amount of tax to all providers of video. Cell phone companies collect the same taxes as hard wire phone, so should satellite companies. |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Here in MD, cable is not taxed. |
|
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs: | reply to gpancner
The only difference is that the Cable companies pay a fee to use the rights of way, sat companies do not use them. Why should they pay for the ROWs that they don't use? |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to gpancner
You have no clue what it is you are talking about.
Most cable taxes are there as franchise fees and other "payoffs" for them to have exclusive rights to that territory. How the muni uses that tax is up to them, but this attempt is simply cable trying to raise the rates of it's competitors without providing them more profit so they dont have to lower theirs.
If your muni wants to collect taxes to cover the cost of services being offered they need to find another way of doing it or drop the service. If not we can expand your flawed reasoning to having an internet tax on all purchases and even internet connections. |
|
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
| reply to gpancner
said by gpancner  :Municipalities provide services that many satellite subscribers want but are unable and/or unwilling to pay for. There is a reason for the tax levied on the cable since it uses infrastructure burried and maintainance of the roads etc where infrastructure passes costs to the city. With the Satellite the City does not incur any such charges and there is no reason to tax it. It would be taxation without representation.
However same money grab mentality that wants to tax VoIP is trying to tax the Satellite services.
Cell phone companies collect the same taxes as hard wire phone, so should satellite companies.
Cell phones needs to have towers in the neighborhood. You can make a case for that. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Agreed -
Dish and DirecTv pay $$$ to have their satellites, and I imagine that they also pay $$$ to use a certain amount of spectrum. Other than that, there are NO local resources used that could be taxed. Cable, power lines, gas lines, phone lines, water lines, and cell phones require land within a city, and are typically on public land (or under the streets). None of this is required for satellite. |
|
kinneyr2
join:2002-01-24
Carlsbad, CA
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to gpancner
I love the idea that taxing is a solution and not a problem. I can see where a foreign satellite company can beat cable and other providers simply because they will not be taxed.
People do respond to price; pharmaceuticals, internet shopping, etc. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
1 edit | reply to gpancner
said by gpancner :It's about making the satellite subscribers pay the same tax amount that cable subscribers do. Satellite companies must lease/purchase frequency/orbital positions in order to broadcast. Cable, since they aren't using public airwaves, don't have these expenses. Should the satellite companies lobby to have a tax levied on cable companies to help make a level playing field? No. The expense in acquiring the rights to transmit are part of the operating expense of the company, as is the cost of the satellite, launch, uplink facility, etc. Just like cable TV has the head end, telephone poles, buried cable, franchise fees, etc. It's just the cost of doing business.
I don't have a problem, other then having to spend more, with charging sales tax on the service equally for both satellite and cable service. But the "satellite tax" isn't a sales tax, rather a thinly vail equivalent of a franchise fee. Cable companies make a franchise agreement with the city that usually says in exchange for the cable company carrying PI channels and paying a fee, the cable company gets exclusive rights for cable service and public right of ways to lay cable. Essentially a monopoly on local service. What would satellite companies get out of the deal? They already have airwave rights, purchased/acquired through the FCC. They use no local infrastructure. There is no reason for the satellite providers to pay the tax. |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | reply to DrTCP
Cell phone companies are forced to pay these taxes while we also find the same taxes passed onto us by the backhaul providers.
The residents want more towers, the councils moan, but then agree to it but then stab us in the back with taxes. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | There's 2 certainties in life:
Death and Taxes |
|
gpancner
join:2001-09-27
Nine Mile Falls, WA
| reply to TheGhost
if a you hung a wire across a blind man's property, would you be using his right-of-way? Just because you don't see the satellite wavelength doesn't mean they're not using right of way. It's called violating air space when an unauthorized plane flies over other countries air space. The satellite companies use the public airways to make money, the government should get the same fees for using the right of way from satellite customers as they do from phone and cable. |
|
gpancner
join:2001-09-27
Nine Mile Falls, WA
| reply to Skippy25
cable has an exclusive right to territory as mcdonald's has exclusive rights to hamburgers. exclusive cable tv franchises are illegal (see Cable TV Act of 1984). The fees are just another tax, and should be assessed upon all video providers equally.. |
|
the dozer
Premium
join:2004-04-12
Douglasville, GA
| reply to gpancner
said by gpancner :It's about making the satellite subscribers pay the same tax amount that cable subscribers do. Municipalities provide services that many satellite subscribers want but are unable and/or unwilling to pay for. So they tax the easiest target (i.e. cable). Now that so many ignorant, whining freeloader types have gone to satellite those municipalities are losing tax revenue on a grand scale. The only way of recovering the loss is to apply the same amount of tax to all providers of video. Cell phone companies collect the same taxes as hard wire phone, so should satellite companies. Are you implying that all satellite customers are ignorant & whining freeloaders? Hey we chose a better medium and don't need government digging any deeper in our pockets. A better way of recovering the loss is to cut spending. Wow!!! Don't figure!! |
|
the dozer
Premium
join:2004-04-12
Douglasville, GA
| reply to gpancner
said by gpancner :if a you hung a wire across a blind man's property, would you be using his right-of-way? Just because you don't see the satellite wavelength doesn't mean they're not using right of way. It's called violating air space when an unauthorized plane flies over other countries air space. The satellite companies use the public airways to make money, the government should get the same fees for using the right of way from satellite customers as they do from phone and cable. Don't forget walkie talkies and other 2-way radios. Tax them as well. We can also tax that radio in your car. It uses the airways as well. |
|
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| reply to en102
said by en102 :There's 2 certainties in life: Death and Taxes And I am not so sure about Death...!
--
A is A |
|
gpancner
join:2001-09-27
Nine Mile Falls, WA | reply to the dozer
Most. |
|
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI
| reply to gpancner
said by gpancner :if a you hung a wire across a blind man's property, would you be using his right-of-way? Just because you don't see the satellite wavelength doesn't mean they're not using right of way. It's called violating air space when an unauthorized plane flies over other countries air space. The satellite companies use the public airways to make money, the government should get the same fees for using the right of way from satellite customers as they do from phone and cable. The difference with Satellite and traditional Rights-of-Way is that you legally give up the right to do anything to your property within the Rights of Way. ROW essentially lets you 'own' property, however you may not construct, sell, etc. anything on the property, yet you still pay taxes on it.
Satellite does not inhibit the usage of your property. You may construct a big steel contraption on your property, and the satellite companies can not do anything to stop you. |
|
