  Subaru1-3-2-4Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT |  WTF??
| |
|
 | | | Re: WTF?? This is just typical FCC bs... let's make it easier for existing telco incumbents and harder for the VoIP upstarts because we don't want the 100-year-old companies to have any sort of real price competition. | |
|
| |  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | Re: WTF?? said by LinuxJunkie:This is just typical FCC bs... let's make it easier for existing telco incumbents and harder for the VoIP upstarts because we don't want the 100-year-old companies to have any sort of real price competition. Telco and Cableco are doing VoIP big time. Think. | |
|
| | Rediculous as always Another reason FULL disclosure of the total needs to be a law for these scumbags..
--
Irie | |
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | What a ripoff But I've got to say I'm not surprised. The average consumer only looks at the bottom line. Verizon knows most people won't notice or care.
But I think it stinks....
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
|
| |
| | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | Re: What a ripoff said by Mactron:It's one more reason I rate Verizon as ... THEY SUCK !Don't get me started on their CS !  You are probably not old enough to remember the Bell System. There was no such thing as Customer Service. If one had a problem, any problem, the Telephone Man made a house call, FOR FREE. | |
|
| | |  markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
 ·Comcast
| Re: What a ripoff And if the problem was on "your end", they usually just fixed it and left without saying a word. They also weren't taxed to the point that 15-20% of your bill was going to lawmakers.
The FUSF fee was collected by Verizon, reported to the FCC as collected, then spent on whatever Verizon chose. Verizon isn't "pocketing" new money, they've always pocketed the FUSF fee. That's how they provided "free" internet to schools and libraries AND got a tax write-off for doing it, maybe even subsidized funding in certain places. I don't know about other states, but here in PA, Verizon has collected billions upon billions of taxes, whether through their own collecting or through the state sales and income taxes.
Nothing new, different wording, vote out the corporate controlled lawmakers allowing this to happen. | |
|
| | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | Re: What a ripoff said by markofmayhem:And if the problem was on "your end", they usually just fixed it and left without saying a word. They also weren't taxed to the point that 15-20% of your bill was going to lawmakers. The FUSF fee was collected by Verizon, reported to the FCC as collected, then spent on whatever Verizon chose. Verizon isn't "pocketing" new money, they've always pocketed the FUSF fee. That's how they provided "free" internet to schools and libraries AND got a tax write-off for doing it, maybe even subsidized funding in certain places. I don't know about other states, but here in PA, Verizon has collected billions upon billions of taxes, whether through their own collecting or through the state sales and income taxes. Nothing new, different wording, vote out the corporate controlled lawmakers allowing this to happen. Where do I start? I'll keep it simple and just address one of your misunderstandings. In the days of the Bell System there was no *your end*. It was all Bell System, designed, manufactured and maintained. If your phone had a frayed cord the Telephone Man came out and replaced it. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: What a ripoff said by batterup:If your phone had a frayed cord the Telephone Man came out and replaced it. Should add to that, back then, it WASN'T your phone. It was Bell Systems phone.
So they were just fixing their property.  | |
|
| |
| | Typical "The surcharge helps offset costs we incur from our network supplier"
I'd love to be in a business where I could charge for a product, and then add additional fees to charge again for the same product.
This doesn't even have the appearance of being anything BUT a BS fee meant to boost profitability.
Ah well, like all the other bogus fees and surcharges, I suppose we just get to swallow them like usual.
Sure love my Voice Pulse VOIP - the price I get billed is the monthly service charge - no other crap (although perhaps that will be changing thanks to the ruling cited). | |
|
| lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: Typical Here's a thought. Since the entity originally known as UUNet is now Verizon Business, aren't they their own network supplier.
They should call it a "circle jerk" fee. | |
|
| |  nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | Re: Typical said by lesopp:Here's a thought. Since the entity originally known as UUNet is now Verizon Business, aren't they their own network supplier. They've always been their own network supplier.
-tom | |
|
| | cptmilesPremium
join:2004-04-22
Swayzee, IN | That's exactly right. Their network provider is the deregulated arm of themselves. It's like paying yourself to clean your own house and writing it off your taxes as a business expense. | |
|
|  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by axess_denied:"The surcharge helps offset costs we incur from our network supplier" I'd love to be in a business where I could charge for a product, and then add additional fees to charge again for the same product. Don't take this as defending Verizon because I'm not, but thanks to deregulation, Verizon the telco, Verizon the backhaul provider, and Verizon the ISP are all 3 separate entities within the Verizon umbrella. They essentially have to treat each other as separate companies, "charging" one another for services provided just like they would charge Covad or other CLECs or other ISPs.
That being said, I see this fee more like just another way to raise rates (even though the net gain is close to 0) without raising the advertised rates. Now as long as they stay away from my FiOS data connection...
--
Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? | |
|
 owenhomekeeper of the magic blue smokePremium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR | Eh? Soooo, basically, what they are doing is charging the same amount, but instead of passing the money on to the fund, now they just keep it?
Nice.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. | |
|
| Subaru1-3-2-4Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT | Re: Eh? said by owenhome:Soooo, basically, what they are doing is charging the same amount, but instead of passing the money on to the fund, now they just keep it? Nice. Thats what it looks like to mne :-/ | |
|
Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| call it what it is: price INCREASE don't be STUPID or live back in the 1980's anymore!
it's a price increase, now you have a choice:
buy the service, or cancel the service.
Plain and simple, stop whining about it, and think about your bottom line, either you want it or not. Just like the price at the PUMP, either you pay it and bend over, or not and stay home. | |
|
| markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: call it what it is: price INCREASE Not to nit-pick, but the fee being taken away is more than the fee being added, so your bill will be going down (only by a few pennies it seems). How is paying less an increase?
Either way, the FUSF was a BS charge all along, everyone knows that. The question I've always had: Is it better to have a bill completely broken out or "all-in"? When it's broken out, I get to see which areas my money goes to, but the "advertised price" is never accurate since they only advertise the real portion than tack on the other line items. The all-in price matches the advertised price, so I know what I'm going to pay before hand, but then I have no idea where my money is truly going.
As a consumer, I tend to lean towards the all-in price. | |
|
| |  Kxpuc
join:2004-05-04
Houston, TX | Re: call it what it is: price INCREASE said by markofmayhem:Not to nit-pick, but the fee being taken away is more than the fee being added, so your bill will be going down (only by a few pennies it seems). How is paying less an increase? it's still a price increase not based on how much you pay but how much they are charging. The FUSF was required they didn't have to raise their part of the price up. | |
|
| | | markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: call it what it is: price INCREASE Which brings up the same old argument since the FUSF fee was first introduced.
Would you rather see a bill for $24.88 or $23.98? Your saying that the bill for $23.98 is an INCREASE over $24.88. Yet, if Verizon stopped listing charges and just had:
Internet: $23.98
You would freak out. But at least you wouldn't be stressed over an "increase" that lowered your monthly bill. Is the raising of this fee good? Absolutely not. But knock it off with the "Let's call it what it is, an increase" threads. The FUSF fee went into Verizon's pocket from the get go. They handed over the money to the FCC and the FCC handed it right back. Their clever model for naming charges and fees never ceases to amaze me, but in the end I pay a monthly bill with one check, not the individual charges. The dollar amount on my checks went down, so I will call it what it is: a price decrease. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: call it what it is: price INCREASE Beyond you just being silly about this let's look at it from the beginning.
Before this "break out" was ever introduced I was paying $54.95 a month on my DSL service.
After they were so kind to "show me" that I am paying this fee by making it another line item, my bill went up accordingly. It was not 52.55 + 2.40 = 54.95.
So tell me again how this wasn't an increase. | |
|
| | | | | markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: call it what it is: price INCREASE Silly?
My bill went down 90 cents. Down, as in decrease, as in I now pay less per month than previously. Decrease, not increase. In 1998 I paid $78.57 per month for BA DSL if you wish to go back. My bill has gone down ever since. Even when the FUSF was first introduced, my bill went down because the price for the DSL itself was lowered from $39.99 per month to $34.99 per month. Now, with all taxes, surcharges, bells and whistles, I pay $23.98, which is 90 cents cheaper than the last 6 months. Not sure what the problem is here. Completely not understanding how one can pay less money per month and shout "increase!".
BTW, what package do you have that your paying $54.95 for dynamic IP DSL in August of 2006? Or are the prices lower, now. Is that another increase? If so, please "increase" all of my bills! | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: call it what it is: price INCREASE That price was the original DSL Pro package (3MB down) that SBC sold as I have the same. And in the beginning the price went up when they "broke out" this fee. They didnt do as the above post states and break it out from your bill which still equaled $54.95. It was there in addition to your $54.95.
I now pay 21.95 before their "BS fees" for the same package, but only because I proactively rerate my service when they make an "introductory offer". Something a majority of people do not do. I am sure if I never called them to rerate, which I have done 3 times now, I would still be paying $54.95.
Point is still the same, so dont try to sugar coat what they are doing. They advertise one price, which you can't get because they have these hidden fees attached to it. Every single price advertised should be the price before taxes (as those vary from state/county/city). They do not adhere to that and being that this is a voluntary assessed fee, they are providing false information to their customers.
Sure overall prices have gone down in relation to the speed. As they should over time. No sane person would argue that. However, don't try to hide or sugar coat the BS fee and keep in mind we wouldnt even be having this coversation if AT&T's low DSL speed was advertised as $14.99 (including BS fee) instead of $12.99 with the BS fee disclosure statement only. Truth in adverstising is all I am asking for. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Not to counter nit-pick, but there STILL is no naked DSL, and I know I'm not wrong about this-- that the POTS charges such as fcc line charge, and a few state and local taxes have been on the rise as of late, much to counter any loss you get over the spanish american war or other taxes so, as to say things are very taxing in dsl/pots land in STILL a widely understated thing.
What ever happened to $14.99 dsl? Was that a game just to make the "books" look good for shareholders? What I'm talking about is shifting of costs away from federally regulated programs into unregulated surcharges much the way cellular companies like Sprint, ATT do, fast and loose, the way they derive a percentage as a basis of how many minutes you use, vs cost of your plan.
What IS happening, is on the "quiet, low-down" Verizon is slowly unwebbing itself from federal regulatory fees. Although it could be argued that state taxes/fees are INCREASING, (anyone in NJ lately feel the pinch?). BP-Amoco almost got lynched out of Alaska because those hard working guys almost lost their $1,000 check they get every year due to oil profits. What Verizon is or isn't doing with rates/fees is almost beside the point. DSL will be at a tipping point around 2009 anyway. There will be millions of fttp subscribers and only a few hundred thousand dsl subscribers provided they deploy without the 1 man works, 15 stand around and watch for moral support.
Really, look at the bills carefully over the next couple of months, you may see a slight decrease in the bill, but SOMETHING is a-foot to raise it back up.. 5-13 cents is not a big deal either way, but if you live in one of a handful of states where Verizon does business, you will see added STATE charges to your bill. The greedy bastards at the state-houses around the country.. | |
|
 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | DIsband the FCC! 'nuff said... | |
|
| Tom517
join:2006-07-13
Greenville, SC | Re: DIsband the FCC! You might think differently if every time your neighbor answered his cordless phone your garage door opened and your TV changed channels. | |
|
| | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Re: DIsband the FCC! said by Tom517:You might think differently if every time your neighbor answered his cordless phone your garage door opened and your TV changed channels. I'm urging to create a different type of body to oversee the communication market, a strictly technical one. First step is to disband this circus called FCC and held these corrupt clowns accountable - then we can build something else. | |
|
| | | Tom517
join:2006-07-13
Greenville, SC | Re: DIsband the FCC! I understand what you mean, but even if the FCC were abolished and "re-engineered" as a technical standards body, whatever was no longer their responsibility would still be passed on to another body - or possibly several. RF spectrum might be handled by one group and power levels by another group...then interoperability with Canada, for instance, another... and, of course, they would all have different ideas as to how something should be done.
The FCC does indeed need some work, but I don't think you could just get rid of it then try to build something better. | |
|
| | Speakeasy does the same Just got my latest bill from Speakeasy. Of course the FUSF fee was reduced from $4.35 to $0.00, but, strangely enough, the "Regulatory Compliance Fee" was increased from $3.71 to $6.90! Amazing that their cost for "Regulatory Compliance" increased even though they don't have to collect and track the FUSF fee anymore. I would have thought it was less work for them... 
When I challenged Customer Service to explain this, this is the response I got:
"The FCC updated its FUSF policy regarding broadband services, making the FUSF optional. As of this coming August 14, broadband providers will no longer be mandated to contribute to FUSF. Speakeasy decided to no longer forward the FUSF charges to its customer.
We will be removing the Federal Regulatory Fee, as you can see the Federal Regulatory Fee is now $0 in your invoice, but will be fusing this to Regulatory Compliance Fee to make the invoice much simplier.
The combined Taxes saves you about 1% from 6.95%."
Gee, what a deal...  | |
|
|  MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Speakeasy does the same said by kbennett:as you can see the Federal Regulatory Fee is now $0 in your invoice, but will be fusing this to Regulatory Compliance Fee to make the invoice much simplier.
The combined Taxes saves you about 1% from 6.95%." so if they are fusing USF(which is $0.00) with 'regulatory compliance', how come it increased?
this is so disgusting
i would be so happy if somebody started class action lawsuit against ALL service providers that include this kind of bullshit.
or pass a law similar to airline fares..advertized price IS the price you will pay.
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: Signature can not exceed 20GB] | |
|
| | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | Re: Speakeasy does the same said by MxxCon:or pass a law similar to airline fares..advertized price IS the price you will pay. That is true but people sitting next to each other could have spent hundreds more or less for the same ticket.
The price does not state if you get coffee, tea or me from the stewardess. | |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | w00t! Gotta love Verizon! | |
|
 rothanPremium
join:2000-11-07
Peabody, MA | so... I save .10c ? | |
|
 ftthzIf love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | typical wow | |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | FiOS Needs Funding! Come on Verizon DSL Folks, FiOS program needs funding and Investors are getting worried! Now they got their extra funding.  | |
|
|  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: FiOS Needs Funding! Yeah.
It's called a cost reduction windfall from the FCC.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | Free enterprise cheats I've said it many times before... the ONLY way for a corporation or business in America to show a profit is in some way shape or form for that corporation or business to C-H-E-A-T its customers. That's just the way it is in the free world. | |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | Verizon has learn the lesson well. In a very short time Verizon went from a monopoly that did not have to advertise, lobby or bate-and-switch. Now Verizon can do all of that with the sleaziest of them. Well done Veriozn. | |
|
| | Verizon's official explanation Thanks for breaking this story.
Verizon spokeswoman Bobbi Henson tells me they attribute the need for the surcharge to the extra cost of the Verizon DSL division paying the Verizon network division (the supplier) for the lines required for naked DSL, and has nothing to do with suppliers of bandwidth. I had jumped to that conclusion just as some of your posters did.
The interesting related story is that Verizon is now offering "naked DSL" throughout their service area. I haven't run the numbers yet, but I believe I will find them unconvincing at best when I do.
Just confirmed they are happy to sell naked to me in New York. They call it "dry loop" It costs $5 more than the service when you have a Verizon phone line.
Dave Burstein
DSL Prime | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
neftv
join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA Reviews:
·SIP Global Phone
·QuantumVoice
| Just another way... USF is a scam as far as I am concern and finally someone woke up to eliminate it. Now with the the so called supplier fee I just see that as they need to really offset the cost for FIOS installs. Wished I owned a huge company and get away with it regardless of the "real" reason.. | |
|
 kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | What did ya' expect? This is sad. By making this move, Verizon is all but admitting that the FUSF charge on customers' bill was essentially a part of providing the service...with the FCC making the USF contribution go away, Verizon had to make up for the shortfall in revenue...and they couldn't do it by raising prices...how else are are they going to advertise DSL at prices artificially depressed to ridiculously low levels to stamp out what remains of competition/CLECs?
This is exactly why I pay Covad nearly 10 times as much for DSL...to keep competition alive ( not to mention the better service and support) | |
|
| | | Re: What did ya' expect? Not really. What it illustrates is that trying to tie what a company charges to some company incurred cost is an exercise in futility.
In a market based system, pricing has no relationship to costs, except that the price a company charges has to exceed its costs over the long term.
What the MBAs at Verizon correctly deduced is that people were willing to pay a given amount for DSL. When a specific cost was pulled away from them, they immediately replaced it with another, equally as bogus. | |
|
 xdeadhead220, 221, Whatever It Takes.Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA | actually, the BIG print giveth, and the small print taketh away.
--
I am not herbert. | |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| sniff sniff It amazes me that people cry over $1-2 a month for DSL .. MEANWHILE, we're getting close to $4 a gallon for gas.. &incredible heating prices coming this winter.
Its a price increase, pay it or go pay $20 a month more for cable. Not rocket science here. | |
|
 yuutomoThe Wonder KitterPremium
join:2001-08-27
Missoula, MT | WTF??
--
"The World is but a drop in the sea of time and space, and I am the current that flows through it" -Yuu Tomo (21st Century) | |
|
| | | Re: WTF?? I can't wait until this life ends, I can't wait. | |
|
|
|
