Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
edit:
June 10th, @02:00PM
| reply to KoolMoe
Re: Good for them
So why Sat. TV providers don't need franchise agreement and pay local taxes? Last time I checked, I pay $7/month in my cable bill for local tax while my neighbor with DirectTV pay nothing. I'm all for paying tax to help improve local govt services. However I want every one to pay for it not just me. |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
 ·Patriot Media
 ·Cingular Wireless
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Foxbat121  :So why Sat. TV providers don't need franchise agreement and pay local taxes? Last time I checked, I pay $7/month in my cable bill for local tax while my neighbor with DirectTV pay nothing. I'm all for paying tax to help improve local govt services. However I want every one to pay for it not just me. I think because they dont exist on a local level, they cant have those rules applied, plus they serve an entire community instantly. Most cable companies wont serve an entire town without one. If Verizon does this, they will be alot of chaos resulting.
--
Liberalism weakening The USA everyday... |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | Satellite companies do not need to place equipment in the public right-of-way, which is why they don't need a franchise agreement. Communities would be foolish to grant access to this commodity without compensation. |
|
Foxbat121
join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
| said by JTRockville :Satellite companies do not need to place equipment in the public right-of-way, which is why they don't need a franchise agreement. Communities would be foolish to grant access to this commodity without compensation. First, last time my cable company laid cables in my neighborhood, it's the Virginia Dept. Of Transportation in charge of granting them the right to do so. Not local community. I don't about know other states.
Second, I can't understand why paying extra $7/month by me is a compensation to my community. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to JTRockville
said by JTRockville :... Communities would be foolish to grant access to this commodity without compensation. Yes, God forbid that land and rights of way owned by the city and dedicated to public use be used to serve the public without the local hall of lazy bureaucrats getting a cut of the money flow.
(Oh yes--how would you like it if your next UPS delivery will have a $1 surcharge to fund a city "franchise fee" imposed on UPS? I mean, communities would be foolish to grant access to their streets without compensation, right?)
Check and see--what local fees do the electric, phone, water, and gas companies pay? Why should video be the only service to be taxed?
And lets be realistic--if the city collects $100,000 in "franchise fees", do you not think that this is directly passed on to the subscribers? It's a damn tax--call it that.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
