No wonder in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r12319025 en Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:12:30 EDT Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:12:30 EDT Re: No wonder http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12324396 roamer1 :
said by FreeMarketsNow:

The 1996 telco act states that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to Federal universal service in some equitable and nondiscriminatory manner - this has nothing to do with the excise tax. this is over and above it.
One thing a lot of people miss is that VoIP providers are *already* contributing to the USF -- although quite indirectly and not necessarily fairly, via what they pay to ILECs, CLECs, and IXCs (entities that clearly must contribute to the USF) for PSTN interconnection services (PRIs, DIDs, wholesale LD, etc.) and last-mile and intercity facilities (T1's and so on.) It does seem that VoIP is eroding USF revenues, though, mostly because of lower contributions from those sort of services vs. traditional phone service.

-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12324396 Fri, 07 Jan 2005 23:11:28 EDT Re: No wonder http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12321650 anon : Fees should not be imposed until fcc finalizes any taxes on Voip, rite now there are none!!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12321650 Fri, 07 Jan 2005 17:56:10 EDT Re: No wonder http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12321487 en102 : It's more of 'Here's what we have to pay our lawyers and lobbiests, and a slush fund' fee right now, and eventually, it will be 'Here's what we have to pay our lawyers and uncle Sam, and the rest is for the slush fund']]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12321487 Fri, 07 Jan 2005 17:39:14 EDT Re: No wonder http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12321151 Karl Bode :
quote:
Am I happy? no. would i rather pay $1.50 and keep the gvnmt out of my voip than pay AT&T level fees & taxes?


You're doing exactly what they want you to do. Namely blame what is purely a price-hike on Uncle Sam, not the provider.

It allows them to raise prices, advertise the old price, and make more money while you blame someone else for it.

The Regulatory Recovery Fee is not an official fee, and is not going to the USF, it's going right into their pockets.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12321151 Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:59:11 EDT Re: No wonder http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12320440 anon : Not that I am an expert in law, but just because a voip telco is unregulated doesn't mean it is exempt from certain laws - just that it doesn't have to be regulated by all the service interconnect fees etc or whatever those fees that telcos pay each other are called.

The 1996 telco act states that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to Federal universal service in some equitable and nondiscriminatory manner - this has nothing to do with the excise tax. this is over and above it.

This, from broadvoice:

The Regulatory Recovery Fee is $1.50 per line. This is a fee that BroadVoice charges its customers to recover costs related to the Federal Universal Service Fund (USF), other similar funds, as well as domestic and international fees and surcharges. Your monthly bill will reflect a Regulatory Recovery Fee a $1.50 for each line on your account. You will not be charged a Regulatory Recovery Fee for Alternate Phone Numbers.

I would guess that the regulatory fee most people are seeing is related to the FUSF. However, I would NOT be surprised if the voip provoders were slipping in something extra there.... (heck, broadvoice admits as much!)

To me it makes good sense - if voip wants to avoid getting regulated from congress it is paying money so mr & mrs middle-of-nowhere can connect to Al Gore's internet and thus placate provincial legislators. Am I happy? no. would i rather pay $1.50 and keep the gvnmt out of my voip than pay AT&T level fees & taxes? You betcha]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12320440 Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:43:12 EDT Re: No wonder http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12319200 Karl Bode : They use the same lame reason the bells do. It's in "anticipation" of future regulation.

quote:
This fee is charged to our Lingo customers to recover the costs of certain regulatory and compliance requirements imposed, or expected to be imposed


Can we as end users "anticipate" ass-ish service and deduct $1.50 a month?

Ironically in the bells case, they've been seeing significant de-regulation, so maybe they'll start paying us. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12319200 Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:20:48 EDT Re: No wonder http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12319169 HiVolt : How can they call it regulatory fee when VoIP isnt even regulated? WHat a crock of sh*t.
--
}·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´ ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12319169 Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:16:20 EDT No wonder http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12319025 asonnyb : my bills for cable and cellular keep creeping up. Telcos must be one of the most reviled industries ever.
--
If you're gonna be stupid, you gotta be tough...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12319025 Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:57:31 EDT