Pony99CA
join:2004-09-05
Hollister, CA
| reply to sirsloop
Re: what is that for again
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. |
|
nemo2
@adelphia.net
| 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. |
|
