[antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes Internet Phone Regulation
- From: "Bruce Kushnick" <bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:38:56 -0500
Chuck Sherwood
>And one more issue that I forgot to mention, as of the '92 Telecom Act, the
cablecos are permitted to pass through to the >subscribers all of the
franchise fees.
One of our recent findings -- under the term "surcharges" on New York
Verizon phonebill covers over the fact that Verizon is charging customers
about 6.5% (which they tax phone charges as well as the FCC Line Charge,
number Portability, the Universal Service Fund (we think but haven't found
confirmation on) for their own utility taxes, which they can pass through to
customers. This is of course a Truth in Billing violation since a) they
don't explain this on their web site and phonebills, and b) the term
surcharges is illegal, based on the guidelines.
And for a bizarre note -- believe it or not, there's also a 'MTA" tax, of
about 1% for the Metropolitan Transit Authority also hidden as a
surcharge. --- That's the NYC subway and bus system ---Note--- they found a
half billion in monies that were not used in the calculation of the recent
rate increases in 2003.
And talk about how bad it gets ---- Somewhere on the bill are other taxes
and surcharges that have been hidden. For example, this description of
"Telecom Service Excise Tax" that appears on the Verizon web site. Where is
it?
"Treated like a sales tax. The difference inferred in the name relates to
the incidence of the tax - whether the tax is the liability of the customer
or of the company. (If the tax is the liability of the company, regulatory
authorities usually allow us to recover it from customers, either as a
separate line on the bill or just buried in our cost of service)." (Emphasis
added)
If you examine this issue from the point of view of corporate 'enrichment'
and you add all these charges up.... to be continued....
Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: <Joshua.Barrett@xxxxxxx>
To: <antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 4:39 PM
Subject: [antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes Internet
Phone Regulation
>
> MSOs pay the cities taxes, franchise fees, and right of way fees. They =
> also pay county taxes.
> Another huge expense is pole permits fees. We have to pay the electric =
> company and or phone company
> a monthly rate per pole to attach cable and fiber. Some fees are based =
> on the total number of subscribers and some are based on homes passed. =
> MSOs also have to provide cable in the classroom - one video and one =
> data outlet for school libraries.
>
> The MSOs only own the content that they produce. (local content) The =
> programmers distribute their content=20
> via satellite to cable headends. We then distribute the content to the =
> cable subscribers)
>
> http://www.makethemplayfair.com/
>
> http://www.cox.com/facts
>
> The biggest selling point we have is that we provide more good jobs, =
> local investment, and local content than the satellite people. If the =
> ILEC started selling video via phone lines they might not be able to get =
> a franchise from the city.
>
> Disclaimer - This is my personal opinion only.=20
>
> Josh Barrett
> Voice / Data Sales Engineer
> Cox Business Services
> Tulsa, OK
> Desk: (918) 669-4893
>
> =20
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Lee [mailto:robertslee@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:39 PM
> To: antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes
> Internet Phone Regulation
>
>
>
> Dan,
>
> Very interesting. I had no clue they paid 10% of revenues. I feel like =
> =3D
> an
> idiot. That is an enormous amount. What do they get for that? Do the
> municipalities maintain the lines, etc?
>
> If the Bells are going to supply video over the PSTN how will they wind =
> =3D
> up
> supplying the content? For example, will they be able to get ESPN? Are
> there exclusive deals with arms length partners of the cable companies =
> =3D
> or is
> much of the content owned by cable companies and thus not available to =
> =3D
> the
> PSTN? Seems like that would become a very large lever to be plied.
>
> Seems to me the cable companies have the better part of an unregulated
> monopoly and so my question remains: How can the "government" regulate =
> =3D
> one
> and not the other, especially as the offerings converge?
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Robert Lee
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =3D
> [mailto:antidote-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Daniel Berninger
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:39 PM
> To: antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes =3D
> Internet
> Phone Regulation
>
>
> Bell envy of the cable co's represents yet another smoke screen. Keep =
> =3D
> in
> mind the cable co's pay franchise fees of various sorts to the local
> governments on the order of 10% of revenues. Local governments hold
> renewal of the franchises as a stick against the cable co's, although =
> =3D
> the
> normal sorts of corruption tends to limit the threat.
>
> Content represents the number one cost for cable co's. The Bells have =
> =3D
> no
> content costs.
>
> The cable co's understand how to sustain monopolies, but the notion of =
> =3D
> cable
> co having a better regulatory status than the Bellco's is false.
>
> If the Bells were indeed offered a chance to switch regulatory regimes =
> =3D
> with
> the Cable co's , I don't think you would get any takers.
>
> The game here on both sides is the pursuit of unregulated =3D
> monopoly....not
> "regulatory parity".
>
> Dan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Lee" <robertslee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <antidote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:49 PM
> Subject: [antidote] Re: Yet another change of heart: Powell Opposes =3D
> Internet
> Phone Regulation
>
>
> >
> <snip>
> > There is one terribly honest point the Bells make. Why the hell =3D
> should =3D3D
> > they
> > be pulled apart and eaten while the cable companies are not? Before =
> =3D
> the
> > actual history was explained to me by George Hawley I thought the =3D
> cable
> > companies had built their networks with no government protection. Boy =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > did
> > he open my eyes. Further, I saw in Philly what happened when RCN tried =
> =3D
> =3D3D
> > to
> > run a second cable network. The city stopped them.
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert Lee
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________
> The antidote list discussion covers issues related to getting beyond
> monopoly in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending message with 'unsubscribe' =
> =3D
> in
> the Subject field to antidote-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or via web at
> http://www.intercommunication.org
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________
> The antidote list discussion covers issues related to getting beyond =
> monopoly in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending message with 'unsubscribe' =
> in the Subject field to antidote-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or via web at =
> http://www.intercommunication.org
>
> ________________________________________________________
> The antidote list discussion covers issues related to getting beyond
monopoly in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending message with 'unsubscribe' in
the Subject field to antidote-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or via web at
http://www.intercommunication.org
>
>
________________________________________________________
The antidote list discussion covers issues related to getting beyond monopoly
in telecom. Unsubscribe by sending message with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject
field to antidote-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or via web at
http://www.intercommunication.org
Other related posts:
