John Taylor
join:2001-12-20
Hartland, WI
| New "Recovery Fee" on T1 Contract
I'm in month 8 of a 3 year contract with AT&T for a T1 circuit. The most recent bill is $20.34 higher than the previous bills. It now includes a $19.35 "Federal Access Recovery Fee" (FARF) plus 99 cents of state sales tax on the $19.35. This is summarized as "Regulatory/Other Fees". The bill notes indicate that this charge started with the "first bill after July 1, 2008".
It is my understanding that the $19.35 is not, strictly speaking, a tax but rather a "pass through" of taxes charged to AT&T by Local Exchange Carriers, and that the "pass through" of these charges to the customer is allowed by the Feds but not mandated.
My question is...does AT&T have the right to add this fee beginning in the middle of a contract period? The 7/1/08 date does not appear to be linked to any new taxes that AT&T is paying, so it isn't just a matter of passing through a new tax.
The AT&T bill refers to a web site: www.att.com/access_reform and the FAQ's at that site state (in part):
What is the Federal Access Recovery Fee (FARF)?
The Federal Access Recovery Fee (FARF) is a charge designed to recover, in part, AT&T's costs of purchasing local access service from the Local Exchange Carriers (LECs), which include regulatory fees that LECs assess on AT&T.
Which enhanced services will FARF apply to and when is it effective?
Effective with the first invoice after July 1, 2008, AT&T will begin billing a monthly Federal Access Recovery Fee (FARF) and applicable taxes. This charge will be based on the price of the local access service component when integrated into the following enhanced services: Managed Internet Service (MIS), and/or Private Network Transport (PNT) service and AT&T VPN Tunneling Service (AVTS). The FARF percentage is subject to change.
I suspect that this is a case of "suck it up and live with it", but I'm curious to know if anyone else has challenged this new charge during a contract period and, if so, with what degree of success. |
|
schja01
I need to get a life.
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-27
Morton Grove, IL
clubs:   | AT&T, those Communist bastards. |
|
dslwanter
Broadband blackhole no more
Premium
join:2002-12-16
Lowellville, OH | reply to John Taylor
Yuk...as if T1 isn't crazy expensive as it is, now you get nickled and dimed. |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to John Taylor
That description might have made sense before SBC purchased AT&T. But now they are the same company. So it seems to me that AT&T is the LEC, and the description stops making sense.
Or maybe I am confused.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; openSuSE 11.0; firefox 3.0.1 |
|
Old_Grouch
Don't just sit there silly DO something
Premium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
| Probably some claim to equality involved.
at&t the new name for the ILEC charges a variety of cost-recovery fees to each of it's customer groups including hi-cap (re)sellers. The hi-cap group includes companies inside and outside the collective so at&t charges all equally so it isn't accused of bias.
The hi-cap organization that sports the funny blue 'n whatever logo merely passes the cost-recovery money along just like the competitors are allowed to do.
Does everyone do it? Who knows.
Isn't this a slick way to minimize the internal cost of overhead? Oh, yeah. 
Can you get them for changing the price during the contract? Don't know, but if they didn't alter the price of the service and are "merely" passing along taxes, regulatory fees etc.....
--
At Team Discovery we know how to get more outta that danged 'puter of yours!
If you paid taxes it's a rebate. If you didn't, it's welfare. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to nwrickert
Confusing, to be sure. But, if the T1 is provided by AT&T Worldnet Service, well, they still have to buy access from the ILEC, AT&T Internet Services.
I saw similar when I worked in Shipping at HP. HP buying from HP, and I was shipping for one division, and walked the product across the shop floor to Receiving, which processed the product for the other division. All under one roof.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
ArgMeMatey
join:2001-08-09
Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to John Taylor
I just got a similar increase on POTS lines from an ILEC. I looked back at my notes and the contract and all the references were to the line charge at a stipulated rate for the length of the contract. However, fees and add-ons are not locked like line rates.
So now they have added the EUCL and a long distance minimum charge for all these lines where we use no long distance and a very small amount of traffic altogether. Perfect for sales reps, who can quote a line rate that WILL NOT CHANGE over the life of the contract. This is why I usually read stuff more carefully! We will just eat it for the two years left on the contract.
It is still cheaper than AT&T, so they've done their homework, but the competition of the early 00s is long gone.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder |
|
CapitalistOinker
@comcast.net
| reply to schja01
said by schja01  :AT&T, those Communist bastards. What is the point of a contract if AT$T can just jack the price up whenever they want? |
|
Unit649
I B U, Who U B?
Premium
join:2000-01-22
Stockton, CA | reply to John Taylor
Whats the cost of the T versus the fees? I know locally my jurisdiction charges a 1% fee on all "utilities" including internet access. |
|
tao
Chaos Impends
Premium
join:2000-12-03
Lansing, MI | reply to John Taylor
You should seek the advice of a lawyer. Unless such a fee is allowed within the terms of your contract, the company has breached.
My sense says breach. |
|
John Taylor
join:2001-12-20
Hartland, WI
| reply to Unit649
The monthly fee is approximately $400. The new charges are approximately $20. At the heart of the matter is whether these are taxes which AT&T is entitled to pass along or expenses which can't be added in mid-contract. It is my opinion that they are not taxes since the fee itself is being taxed, but AT&T is categorizing them as "regulatory fees" which makes them sound like taxes.
My guess is that it would take a protracted legal battle to reverse the policy which obviously isn't cost effective (and that is probably part of AT&T's analysis as well!) |
|
lolwhat
INSERT LOCAL LEGAL HERE
Premium
join:2001-06-11
everywhere
·AT&T Midwest
| IANAL. However, if the word fee is used for the line item, then it's not a tax, even if one of the words state and federal is also used. A fee is charged at the discretion of the phone company, whether it be for recovery purposes or otherwise, while a tax is required by law. Thus, a fee tacked on mid-contract would typically be grounds for termination-and-no-ETF by the customer, while a tax would typically not be. It's also a solid bet that it's illegal to call a fee a tax, and vice versa.
The gotcha is that phone company contracts typically have a clause stating that if fees are added mid-contract, you only have a limited period of time afterward to terminate sans ETF. If you let that period lapse, the contract - which, of course, you signed well before the extra fees got going - states that you've implicitly agreed to the fees, so you won't be able to terminate without an ETF. |
|
ArgMeMatey
join:2001-08-09
Milwaukee, WI
·AT&T Midwest
| said by lolwhat :The gotcha is that phone company contracts typically have a clause stating that if fees are added mid-contract, you only have a limited period of time afterward to terminate sans ETF. If you let that period lapse, the contract - which, of course, you signed well before the extra fees got going - states that you've implicitly agreed to the fees, so you won't be able to terminate without an ETF. You betcha! I called around after I got the notice and couldn't find anybody with a better net price.
So there's a chance they haven't done their homework, but this is what the market dictates right now.
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder |
|
