sirsloop
Premium
join:2004-02-18
New York, NY | what is that for again
plz explain to me where the law is that states VoIP companies need to charge these fees? |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| There is no law. It is an entirely bogus official sounding fee, created by companies who feel they are due cash because regulatory guidelines are so unfair....
Actually that was the bells reason. VoIP providers are now doing it because, well, they can....not researching, you'll blame uncle sam for what's essentially a rate hike. |
|
Nightwchtr
join:2001-09-10
Falls Church, VA | And that is why I wont move over to VOIP, If my wife did no have her own business and some other stuff I get rid of my Land line aswell. Right now its just bear naked phone service. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
 ·Embarq
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode  :There is no law. It is an entirely bogus official sounding fee, created by companies who feel they are due cash because regulatory guidelines are so unfair.... Actually that was the bells reason. VoIP providers are now doing it because, well, they can....not researching, you'll blame uncle sam for what's essentially a rate hike. That's a pretty one sided view of it.
The other side (the communications industry) of the story is that they are passing the universal service charge that the FCC bills them on to the consumer.
The problem is that all back end company facing fees should be passed on to the consumer via their monthly charges like normal. By passing it on a separate fee that can advertise $xx.xx dollars a month and then charge you extra fees (such as the USC) on the side and never advertise the extra $$.
--
"Boys are girls" - Laura Bush
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | quote:
he other side (the communications industry) of the story is that they are passing the universal service charge that the FCC bills them on to the consumer.
If that were really true they'd include it with official USF fees already on user bills. By not doing so, that money essentially gets dumped in the coffers to do with as they like. It's a rate hike, regulation is the excuse for it.
Your second reason is accurate, it's a way of obscuring price hikes in adverts....but again, it's not a fee. And even if you could prove that money was going toward regulatory costs (good luck), it should be included in official fees, or included in the overall cost.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but Packet8 isn't paying directly into the USF system, so their use of these fees is even more misleading....they are largely unregulated. |
|
Pony99CA
join:2004-09-05
Hollister, CA
| reply to sirsloop
I hate fees as much as the next guy, but let's not get bent out of shape that a business is trying to recover government-mandated costs.
I assume this "regulatory recovery fee" is intended to recover money the company pays to the government. While the government may not require the company to pass the fee on to the customer, why do people expect the company to just eat the fee? In fact, I'd almost rather see the fee itemized and know about it than just see my monthly service increase by $1.50.
Think of it like sales tax. Businesses are not required to collect sales tax from their customers. They are required to pay sales tax to the government, though, and they simply pass that fee to the customer. People don't like sales tax, but they don't claim that it's fraudulent, either.
A business could choose to simply increase their prices and then advertise that they didn't charge sales tax. Would that make you happier? |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| I don't expect the company to just eat the fee. But it should be included in the monthly cost. The thing is that companies advertise something like, "Phone line for just $29.99/month" but it's actually $29.99/month + taxes + USC + fee x + fee z = $39.99/month.
If I delivered apples from point a to point b I wouldn't advertise, "Apple delivery $5 per round trip." then send out a bill that says:
Round trip X 2 $10
Taxes X $1.19
Gas $2
Truck wear and tear $1
Total: $18.19
Instead I would advertise, "Apple delivery $8 per round trip." This way the consumer knows what they are paying for before they choose. By putting those recovered cost else where they are being less than honest in their advertising.
--
"Boys are girls" - Laura Bush
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad |
|
Pony99CA
join:2004-09-05
Hollister, CA
| said by Maxo :I don't expect the company to just eat the fee. But it should be included in the monthly cost. The thing is that companies advertise something like, "Phone line for just $29.99/month" but it's actually $29.99/month + taxes + USC + fee x + fee z = $39.99/month. So you really don't want it included in the monthly cost, but in the advertised price. I agree that companies should do that, but it's not that easy. For example, if a company charges a fee that's based on usage, you can't really calculate that ahead of time. Also, for national advertising, those fees may vary from state to state, so the company would have to create 50 ads. That's why most of these companies have fine print in their ads (or really fast disclaimers on radio or TV ads).
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see better full disclosure of fees. I hate calling a hotel and asking what their nightly rate is, being told $100 per night, and then finding out on checkout that I owe $112.50 because of the 11% transient tax and the $1.50 phone charge (even if I didn't use their phones). They should be required to disclose those charges as part of the price, but I do like seeing them spelled out on my bill instead of just being included in the cost. |
|
seattlesam
@comcast.net
| reply to Maxo
p8 even says this is not to recover any fees charged by the government.
the fcc has ruled that state and local governments can NOT regulate VOIP providers - which make thier claim that they are charging this fee to offset the cost of "complying with inquiries and obligations imposed by federal, state and municipal regulatory bodies/governments and the related legal and billing expenses" pure bullshit.
i suggest everyone call p8 and schedule your service termination agreement for 5//1/05. Tell them to give you a call if they change thier mind about this additional fee. |
|
p8user4now
@comcast.net
| reply to sirsloop
here is my e to p8 over this issue.
The cost complying with inquiries and obligations imposed by federal, state and municipal regulatory bodies/governments and the related legal and billing expenses??
Give me a break. The FCC said back in November that you guys couldn't be regulated by the states.
ÒBy a 5-0 vote, the FCC said Internet-based phone service, called voice-over-Internet protocol or VoIP, should be free to grow without a "patchwork" of regulations put in place by 50 states and the District of Columbia.Ó - »www.vonage-forum.com/article1380.html »www.vonage-forum.com/article1380.html
ItÕs not like you even have a big fight on your hand over this.
"Support in Congress for the FCC's position on VOIP reaches across party lines, partly because anyone around the world can offer the service and customers can use it anywhere." -»www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-p···set=true
So drop the fee or you will find your customers dropping you.
-posted at - »Packet8 Joins 'Unfee' Trend and any other VOIP blog or board I can find. Word of mouth works both ways. |
|
nemo2
@adelphia.net
| reply to Pony99CA
They are a VOIP provider there are NO government fees they have to pay so this entire discussion is mute. The fee is not to cover any fee it is to cover supposed inquiries being made about the possibility of charging fees. Essentially it's a load of bull. |
|
cruster
join:2003-07-07
Midland, MI
| reply to p8user4now
I'll tell you (not you specifically, but the generic 'you') right now that if you think sending an email (or even snail mail) to sales, billing or support is going to solve anything, you are wrong.
If you want to get the attention of a company, the most effective tactic is to initiate a conversation with their Investor Relations department. Publicly traded companies do not care about prospective (and sometimes even existing!) customers. They *do* care about prospective investors. I had a huge issue with SBC and support refused to deal with me. I looked up the VP of Investor Relations and pretty soon I had the email address of SBCs Global President of something-or-other, his assistant, and a bunch of others all the way down to the guy who manages the local field techs (gotta love execs who don't use BCC). Within days the problem was diagnosed and a solution offered. I didn't take it, but that's another story.
In the case of 8x8, Inc., Investor Relations go through:
Joan Citelli
408-687-4320
jcitelli@8x8.com
As a prospective investor (yes, I do invest, so that is not a lie), I have sent her a nice email outlining why I was interested in 8x8, Inc. as an investment vehicle and why the 'regulatory recovery fee' tactic has soured my opinion of their long-term viability as an innovator in the VoIP marketplace. These are things that publicly traded companies understand. I have (unfortunately, too) many years of experience in pursuing satisfaction from companies to think that 8x8, Inc. will respond any differently than, say, SBC did above. It may take more letters than mine, however, to convince them that pulling a regular cost of doing business out of the monthly fee and couching it in pseudo-official sounding terms is a BadThing(tm).
HTH. HAND. |
|
