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.

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.

said by gpancner :

Municipalities provide services that many satellite subscribers want but are unable and/or unwilling to pay for.

Cell phone companies collect the same taxes as hard wire phone, so should satellite companies.

said by en102 :

There's 2 certainties in life:

Death and Taxes

said by gpancner :
It's about making the satellite subscribers pay the same tax amount that cable subscribers do.

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.

said by Keeping it real:

RGG said: The cable companies are granted a monopoly, so they should pay. If they can't compete, then the solution is not to tax the competitor.

Where do you guys get off with this monopoly theory? No hard wired cable system is "granted" any monopoly. There are MANY areas that have over-build areas where two systems lay cables in the same areas. The real reason why you don't see this often is because it's not cost effective and many companies are not willing to go in at a major loss in the name of competition! Laying plant is extrememly expensive and the amount of subscribers a second system would generate would never pay off.

There is no "monopoly status" granted to cable companies.. and this why DBS came into play. It was a way to reach more homes without the plant cost.

Now, in addition, I can see why the city would want a tax on satellite. The tax and spend system, which plagues our nation, is what is driving this more than anything.

Your cities have gotten used to the budget they have from taxed and depend on them. Common sense says that if the number of cable tv subscribers drop, the LFAs role would become less right? Afterall, the tax is based on a budgeted about on users. The fact that DBS is taking customers, which is ONLY GOING TO HAPPEN IN COMPETITION ENVIRONMENTS, means that the city needs to make up this money. Yes, cable is encouraging them to collect the tax, however, it is only fair that Satellite play on a level field. After all, if you don't support this method, then you are your own downfall.

You guys want cable to play fair, why would you not want it fair across the board? I will tell this group why, it's because the attitude here is "what's best for me" - there is alot of dual standards here.

And to sum this up, taxes don't have to have a "reason" to exsist. They just need to be voted into to law. A government can charge tax on what it feels they want and really don't need a reason. When DBS came into play, the industry doens't look at it as really "cable" any more.. rather now that cable is not a legally defined monopoly any more, they look at it as "delivered television" and therefore they are wanting to 1) tax a purchase made from the residents, and 2) tax a television service. Not to mention, many of the transactions are taking place in local areas now with the advents of resellers handing the satellite business anyhow.