seattlesam
@comcast.net
| reply to Maxo
Re: what is that for again
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. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | reply to Maxo
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. |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| 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 |
|
Nightwchtr
join:2001-09-10
Falls Church, VA | reply to Karl Bode
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. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to sirsloop
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. |
|
