| Author |
Message |
BR
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:23 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 03:57:44 +0000, Warren wrote:
| Quote: | VOIP is an Internet thing, leaving the end point on the customers
Internet connection, and not hitting the phone network until it gets to
where the VOIP provider takes it off the Internet. Essentially you're
not making the phone call. The VOIP provider is making a phone call.
|
Umm...you can have point to point VoIP.
http://www.skype.com/products/
Only times you need a VoIP provider is when you're contacting someone on
the POTS (Cellphones fall under this umbrella), or need say a generally
accessable phone number (555-1612), or some other features. e.g.voicemail.
--
-- James Fenimore Cooper
The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity, since the tastes,
knowledge, and principles of the majority form the tribunal of appeal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Warren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:46 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
Greg wrote:
| Quote: | We are rapidly approaching a point where the definition of "phone
company",
"cable company" and "ISP" will blur to being the same company. I think
all of
these regulations need to be thrown in the pot and dished out again.
I bet by the end of the decade they will just be selling bandwidth and
what you
do with it is moot. I'm sure there will still be some POTS service,
the same
way that we still support granny's 1946 Dumont TV but that is not
where most
people will be buying their telecom service.
|
That would make sense except for two things:
1. No level of government is going to give up any existing taxes
they get without a fight.
2. No one is going to be able to push through new taxes without
committing political suicide.
How things are regulated is going to have more to do with where the tax
dollars go than what makes sense. It's not the regulations that matter.
It's the tax dollars those regulations generate.
--
Warren H.
==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Black & Decker Landscaping Tools:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Warren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:47 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
BR wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 03:57:44 +0000, Warren wrote:
VOIP is an Internet thing, leaving the end point on the customers
Internet connection, and not hitting the phone network until it gets
to
where the VOIP provider takes it off the Internet. Essentially you're
not making the phone call. The VOIP provider is making a phone call.
Umm...you can have point to point VoIP.
http://www.skype.com/products/
Only times you need a VoIP provider is when you're contacting someone
on
the POTS (Cellphones fall under this umbrella), or need say a
generally
accessable phone number (555-1612), or some other features.
e.g.voicemail.
|
Which makes it even less of a telephone thing.
--
Warren H.
==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Black & Decker Landscaping Tools:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:10 am Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
| Quote: | 2. No one is going to be able to push through new taxes without
committing political suicide.
|
To think the government is incapable of raising taxes is just being naive.
There is a serious funding problem on the horizon (when SS goes upside down and
pension funds start failing) so they are going to try to tax everything in
sight.
Regulation is another issue. Will they let "bandwidth" be a free market or will
they think they need to protect the small players with access requirements as
they have done with POTS? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Warren
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:12 pm Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
Greg wrote:
| Quote: |
To think the government is incapable of raising taxes is just being
naive.
|
Raising taxes is different than creating new taxes.
The only members of Congress or Senators who can vote for a new tax are
those who won't be facing a serious challenger in the next election.
With campaign finance reforms slowly being enacted, the advantage of the
incumbent is decreasing. There also has been a cultural shift to
disfavor the bums that are already in there. So fewer and fewer
politicians are in a position from which they can advocate any new taxes
no matter how great the need.
And it gets worse as you move down to the state and local levels. But at
least on the local level an advocacy group can campaign for public favor
of new taxes when there is an obvious enough of a need, and they can
articulate a better campaign than the anti-tax advocates.
Now, can we really expect Federal action that will allow the taxation of
"bandwidth", and then action to create new taxes? I think anyone who
thinks that this can be accomplished without some major cultural
paradigm shifts is being naive.
Could there be a major cultural paradigm shift that will result in
people being willing to allow additional taxes? Possibly. But I don't
believe it will happen until *after* major systematic failures occur.
Perhaps not until the baby boomers are dead, and Gen-X realizes that if
they don't change, they'll meet the same fate as their parents did,
suffering through retirement in poverty.
But I'm widening the scope too much.
I believe that if anyone wants to bet against me, I can become a rich
man betting that there will *not* be any taxes on "bandwidth" in the
next decade regardless of any needs for those taxes.
--
Warren H.
==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Black & Decker Landscaping Tools:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Hunter
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:06 pm Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
Warren wrote:
| Quote: | Greg wrote:
We are rapidly approaching a point where the definition of "phone
company",
"cable company" and "ISP" will blur to being the same company. I think
all of
these regulations need to be thrown in the pot and dished out again.
I bet by the end of the decade they will just be selling bandwidth and
what you
do with it is moot. I'm sure there will still be some POTS service,
the same
way that we still support granny's 1946 Dumont TV but that is not
where most
people will be buying their telecom service.
That would make sense except for two things:
1. No level of government is going to give up any existing taxes
they get without a fight.
2. No one is going to be able to push through new taxes without
committing political suicide.
How things are regulated is going to have more to do with where the tax
dollars go than what makes sense. It's not the regulations that matter.
It's the tax dollars those regulations generate.
|
I think you have the real answer nailed down. The regulations may
change, but the tax revenue will have to remain the same, or higher.
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ron Hunter
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:10 pm Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
Warren wrote:
| Quote: | Greg wrote:
To think the government is incapable of raising taxes is just being
naive.
Raising taxes is different than creating new taxes.
The only members of Congress or Senators who can vote for a new tax are
those who won't be facing a serious challenger in the next election.
With campaign finance reforms slowly being enacted, the advantage of the
incumbent is decreasing. There also has been a cultural shift to
disfavor the bums that are already in there. So fewer and fewer
politicians are in a position from which they can advocate any new taxes
no matter how great the need.
And it gets worse as you move down to the state and local levels. But at
least on the local level an advocacy group can campaign for public favor
of new taxes when there is an obvious enough of a need, and they can
articulate a better campaign than the anti-tax advocates.
Now, can we really expect Federal action that will allow the taxation of
"bandwidth", and then action to create new taxes? I think anyone who
thinks that this can be accomplished without some major cultural
paradigm shifts is being naive.
Could there be a major cultural paradigm shift that will result in
people being willing to allow additional taxes? Possibly. But I don't
believe it will happen until *after* major systematic failures occur.
Perhaps not until the baby boomers are dead, and Gen-X realizes that if
they don't change, they'll meet the same fate as their parents did,
suffering through retirement in poverty.
But I'm widening the scope too much.
I believe that if anyone wants to bet against me, I can become a rich
man betting that there will *not* be any taxes on "bandwidth" in the
next decade regardless of any needs for those taxes.
|
Warren,
I am one of the baby boomers who has recently retired. I wouldn't
say I live in poverty, but that is ONLY because both I and my wife
worked and we both have retirement, and social security. Anyone who has
to get by on a single retirement income is likely to be in poverty
unless they provide for themselves outside of SS and/or pension income.
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chip Orange
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:31 pm Post subject:
Re: High Court to Hear Cable Internet Case |
|
|
"Greg" <gfretwell@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041214011013.07763.00002100@mb-m01.aol.com...
| Quote: | 2. No one is going to be able to push through new taxes without
committing political suicide.
To think the government is incapable of raising taxes is just being naive.
There is a serious funding problem on the horizon (when SS goes upside
down and
pension funds start failing) so they are going to try to tax everything in
sight.
Regulation is another issue. Will they let "bandwidth" be a free market or
will
they think they need to protect the small players with access
requirements as
they have done with POTS?
|
Just to add one more point; a *lot* of the regulations are to protect the
consumer, not the small business players. Many more are to require, and pay
for, items which our society has deemed necessary and important to the
functioning of civilization (such as universal 9-1-1 access; being able to
locate someone's cell phone signal, phone service for even the poorest
people, etc.). It's not always about business, nor is it always about
government keeping itself going, sometimes it really is about people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in