Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Huh? Must be New Math
Where do they get these people? |
|
mswann
join:2006-07-08
Rancho Cucamonga, CA | Bogus Fee
"There is no impact on the bottom line of the bill."
How about $2.97. |
|
bassthumpa
Premium
join:2000-12-26
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | Hmmm...
Makes me wonder if the AT&T suits sent a message over to the Bellsouth suits basically saying "WTF? Stop making waves during the merger approval period, you idiots!"
--
My Yahoo! 360° Page |
|
rmdir
join:2003-03-13
Chicago, IL | "There is no impact on the bottom line of the bill."
Did they hire ex Enron accountants to make this evaluation of the financial impact of dropping the fee? |
|
h4x0r3d
Premium
join:2003-04-13
Oxford, MS | haha |
|
bassthumpa
Premium
join:2000-12-26
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | reply to rmdir
I guess VZ's attitude is that the total on the bill will be the same as before the USF fee was eliminated. Instead of going to the .gov, they want it for their own pockets.
Some with both companies had to know that they'd catch hell for even trying this.
--
My Yahoo! 360° Page |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Speakeasy can lick my salty balls!
I was a loyal Speakeasy customer for years...referred so much business to them that I should have been on their payroll...then I had this tax/fee argument with their executive escalation guy.
He swore up and down, despite being shown proof to the contrary that the many, many bogus fees on my bill were legitimate. In fact, one fellow dslr member even had the fees removed from his bill because he went about it quietly instead of making a public scene like me.
I have since left Speakeasy in protest. True, my $200 won't put them out of business...but it's a matter of principle. I am now happily with Covad, paying more than I was paying Speakeasy...but the price I was quoted is the price I pay...and integrity like that is priceless.
Down with corporate scum like Speakeasy, Verizon and ATT. |
|
SuperJoker
join:2005-11-21
Yermo, CA
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon west (ex G..
1 edit | reply to Goober
Re: Huh? Must be New Math
said by Goober  :Where do they get these people? I dunno, But they need to get a refund as they ain't worth the powder to blow themselves to heck with.  |
|
MeKuN
join:2004-07-21
Eugene, OR | reply to kapil
Re: Speakeasy can lick my salty balls!
Im just confused. Why didnt they just raise rates instead of making a bogus fee. It makes no sense to me at all. They just come off looking like greedy asses instead of just greedy. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | Because companies aren't forced to include fees in their advertised price. So they made up the bogus fee to try to make it seem prices aren't going up. |
|
rid0617
join:2003-07-20
Greer, SC | reply to bassthumpa
Re: Hmmm...
Don't that make bunches of sense? They don't want upset customers before the merger takes place. I think you win the cookie. |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to bassthumpa
said by bassthumpa :I guess VZ's attitude is that the total on the bill will be the same as before the USF fee was eliminated. Instead of going to the .gov, they want it for their own pockets. Actually it did go to them already. The FUSF money goes to the incumbent who then uses it to offset to cost of providing service (hah gag).
I get a kick out of how it will take BellSouth (BS!) six weeks to implement the "unfee" removal. Something tells me they never had any plans to remove the collection of the FUSF fee and simply renamed it in their billing software.
I suspect Verizon will "see the light" in a few days. They just haven't admitted it yet...
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
mike1965
Geek4rent
join:2002-09-23
Marion, IL
| reply to bassthumpa
even Verizon states in the announcement that
"The underlying supplier surcharge helps Verizon to recover the cost of a local telephone line in situations where Verizon does not simultaneously provide both local voice and Internet services"
so people who have land line service should pay for those who have naked DSL?...I think now pass it on to users of naled DSL and realize they are making enough already from those of us who have both 
--
Free computer help »geek4rent.us |
|
whatthe
join:2003-05-13
Urbandale, IA | reply to insomniac84
Re: Speakeasy can lick my salty balls!
Why are telco's allowed to charge all these bogus fees? I can't think of any other industry that is this bad. I swear a land line bill is 2X the advertised rate. Haven't other sectors figured out how to buy off the politicians? |
|
rip_sketches
join:2002-05-25
Dallas, GA
| The fees aren't/weren't meant to be bogus when they were first implemented.
Take the Universal Service Fund for example, a fee the government imposed on carriers to subsidize communications services in rural areas.
In practice, say in an apartment complex where a mile of copper would serve 100 customers, tacking this fee on was supposed to help offset the cost of running 10 miles of copper just to service one single customer.
The reality today is that the copper is already there yet they continue to charge this fee to DSL customers only to turn around and NOT continue building out their service in the more rural areas as it was meant to be used. They were only using it to pad their bottom lines while it didn't have to be included in the advertised prices.
Just color me suprised at the low amount of responses to this story as this was one of the biggest HOT-Button issues when I first joined up here at DSLR. |
|
cork1958
Cork
join:2000-02-26
Fruitport, MI
·Verizon Online DSL
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to MeKuN
said by MeKuN :Im just confused. Why didnt they just raise rates instead of making a bogus fee. It makes no sense to me at all. They just come off looking like greedy asses instead of just greedy. You mean they come off looking like the people they are?!! 
--
Spread Free Opera. Fastest browser on Earth or in Cyberspace!! |
|
robie88
join:2003-04-19
New York, NY
| reply to mike1965
Re: Hmmm...
said by mike1965 :so people who have land line service should pay for those who have naked DSL?...I think now pass it on to users of naled DSL and realize they are making enough already from those of us who have both Well, the problem with that is if Verizon does what you want, then they become priced out of the market for their naked DSL by the cable internet providers. Part of the purpose of offering the naked DSL was to give people who have cable internet a reason to switch to Verizon.
Ultimately, the worst possible response is getting one DSL subscriber to be blaming another DSL subscriber for the "increase", though I'm sure your way of thinking would please Verizon to no end.
This isssue is clearly Verizon's fault. They have no business in adopting a 'you're going to pay what you're going to pay' position, regardless of costs, taxes, or whatever. The gov't came up here with a "giveback" to consumers, and Verizon is saying, 'not so fast, we'll take that for ourselves'. It would be my guess that they're not going to wind up getting away with it. In fact, if you call Verizon and tell them you're cancelling your one year agreement with them due to their change in terms, I think they will withdraw their increase quickly.
--
The best things in life are free...(after rebate and free shipping!) |
|
winky
Turn Left At The Moon
join:2001-02-11
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to mswann
Re: Bogus Fee
Here's an idea, don't provide service, send everybody a pink slip, and sell off all your assets. That doesn't make an impact on the bottom line of the bill either.
--
From this point forward Hoedown, from the ballet RODEO, by Aaron Copeland will not be reffered to as "The Beef Song". Thank You |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Verizon email about this
Just received an email from Verizon about this issue.
As others have posted I'd rather Verizon been more honest and set DSL price to whatever they needed to be profitable/competitive rather then nickle and dime customers with these bogus fees. I've applauded them in the past for being aggressive rolling out FIOS but this undermines the good will they have generated.
From: Verizon Online [mailto:billing.update3@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 10:42 AM To: Valued Verizon Online Member Subject: Important Information About Your DSL Account Dear Valued Verizon Online Customer, Effective August 14, 2006, Verizon Online will stop charging the FUSF (Federal Universal Ser vice Fund) recovery fee. We will stop being assessed the fee by our DSL network suppliers. Therefore, we will no longer be recovering this fee from our customers. The impact of the FUSF fee is as follows: for customers of Verizon Online with service up to 768Kbps, the fee eliminated is $1.25 a month; for customers of Verizon Online with service up to 1.5 Mbps or 3Mbps, the fee eliminated is $2.83 a month (based on current FUSF surcharge amounts). On your bill that includes charges for August 14, 2006 you will see either a partial FUSF Recovery Fee or no FUSF line item at all, depending on your bill cycle. Starting August 26, 2006, Verizon Online will begin charging a Supplier Surcharge for all new DSL customers, existing customers with a DSL monthly or bundle package, and existing DSL annual plan customers at the time their current annual plan expires. This surcharge is not a government imposed fee or a tax; however, it is intended to help offset costs we incur from our network supplier in providing Verizon Online DSL service. The Supplier Surcharge will initially be set at $1.20 a month for Verizon Online DSL customers with service up to 768Kbps and $2.70 per month for customers with DSL service at higher speeds. On balance your total bill will remain about the same as it has been or slightly lower. For more information, see the Announcement in the Help section of Verizon Central, located at » central.verizon.netWe regret the need to add this Supplier Surcharge, but we thank you for choosing high speed Verizon Online DSL. We appreciate and value your business. Sincerely, Verizon Online Broadband Customer Care Team |
|
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA
1 edit | said by tschmidt 's email :This surcharge is not a government imposed fee or a tax; however, it is intended to help offset costs we incur from our network supplier in providing Verizon Online DSL service. Then doesn't that have to fall under the actual price of the service as it is no longer a Federally imposed fee?? We need to see false advertisement or fraud suits against them and the FTC getting involved about this.
It's like saying I'll sell you a computer, but to get it put together and working will cost an extra $500. |
|
