Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL | Or what?
If Verizon doesn't drop the fee what will the FCC do? They'll do the same thing that they've done for a long time, NOTHING.
--
YourIP.US - Quickly Locate Your IP! |
|
Derch
Premium
join:2004-10-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·Cricket Broadband
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Sure...
I bet he's furious... that he didn't recieve enough from the telco's  |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | FCC Not Going Far Enough
The FCC needs to require that all these fees be added to the advertised price of the service.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA | bogus?
Last time i checked, verizon wasnt a state run company. they can charge whatever they want. you choose to use them or not. |
|
P Ness
You'Ve Forgotten 9-11 Already
Premium
join:2001-08-29
Mineola, NY
clubs: 
| those fees are not illegal and there is nothing the fcc can do about it.
they can add a fee tomorrow called "fucked-in-the-ass fee" if they really wanted to...and prob would get away with it.
--
www.stopfcc.comI do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Dagda1175
said by Dagda1175  :they can charge whatever they want. And there's nothing wrong with that at all. However, Verizon needs to be honest with their customers about the total price of their service. In most businesses, advertising one price and charging a higher price is an illegal practice. The government is partially to blame for this because it has not enforced truth-in-advertising laws with respect to Internet and cell phone service.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by pnh102 :And there's nothing wrong with that at all. However, Verizon needs to be honest with their customers about the total price of their service. In most businesses, advertising one price and charging a higher price is an illegal practice. The government is partially to blame for this because it has not enforced truth-in-advertising laws with respect to Internet and cell phone service. And that is the key issue. They can charge what they want, but they should be upfront about it and not make up some phony line item charge to make it seem like it is a government tax.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
compugeek
I love making my own beer.
Premium
join:2002-07-30
Pickerington, OH
 ·Insight VOIP
·Vonage
| They are their own supplier?
Isn't Verizon their own supplier? Don't they have fiber running across the country? So are they just moving the money from one hand to the other in the company?
Geek
--
»www.itsnewtoyou.biz |
|
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK
| reply to Dagda1175
Re: bogus?
the choice between Verizon or nothing isnt a choice. If a customer could drop verizon to go with a competitor that would make sense, but verizon has exclusive deals in many areas. That would make them a monopoly and the fees are an abuse of their monopoly.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" |
|
mid_term_test
@verizon.net
| elections rise and fall
mid-term test for congress... they can't appear to look too greedy for the corporations which they've given carte blanche to come November... (gas prices falling, copper to fiber monopolies, eroded privacy becomes a boon to data miners/information resellers)
Hmm... and what you need to do;
vote the incumbants [aka, BUMS] OUT, be it republican, or democrat! |
|
Varlik
Without Honor You Will Never Be Free
Premium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC
1 edit | reply to pnh102
Re: FCC Not Going Far Enough
said by pnh102 :The FCC needs to require that all these fees be added to the advertised price of the service. Yes any fees that are not required by federal or state law should be outlawed. If they want more money for their services put the d@med cost in with the total price of the service itself. Then let us see if the market is willing to bare the costs.
--
"Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill. |
|
meskinct
Mad Scientist at Work
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Danbury, CT
clubs:
·Comcast
·magicjack.com
| Verizon Blames New Fees on 'Naked' Users
»www.lightreading.com/document.as···d=102016
Sure. It's all those Naked people. Like all 14 of them. Don't they charge almost the same for naked DSL as they do for POTS+DSL together?
--
Rich. My Website - ThisIsPico.Com including the AT&T/SBC Northeast/SNET Status Page and Graphs |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Varlik
Re: FCC Not Going Far Enough
said by Varlik :Yes any fees that are not reguired by federal or state law should be out lawed. Personally I don't care what fees are assessed, they can impose a "toilet paper folding fee" for all I care. Just as long as the sum of the fees adds up to the advertised cost I'll be happy.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
jrobcet
join:2003-02-16
Moscow, ID
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: bogus?
Exactly. Why has it become so difficult for corporations to be honest. Want to raise rates? Be honest with your customers. Let them know when, and how much. In my case, I would simply pay the extra $2.70. And do you know why? It's because Verizon has provided excellent service to my home.
But despite that excellent service, I'm seriously thinking about going with someone else because of this. Adelphia (now Time Warner) was not quite as reliable, but at least they were always honest with their rates. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to P Ness
said by P Ness :those fees are not illegal and there is nothing the fcc can do about it. they can add a fee tomorrow called "fucked-in-the-ass fee" if they really wanted to...and prob would get away with it. According to the article:
quote:
The Commission applied pressure late last week, saying it planned to send “letters of inquiry” to both carriers based on concerns that the new fees violated the Commission’s “truth-in-billing” rules.
So there might be some validity to the illegality of these fees. |
|
Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to TKJunkMail
They tell you what the fee is right on the web page where you order:
said by Verizon :
Additional surcharges, taxes, and other fees apply. These include, but are not limited to, a tax recovery fee which varies by state (where applicable), and a supplier surcharge of $1.20 per month for 768kbps plans and $2.70 per month for 3Mbps plans, which is not a tax or government imposed fee.
|
|
bhan261
join:2001-02-12
New York, NY
1 edit | I'm beggin' ya...
Dear FCC...Ple-e-e-ase send a letter to Speakeasy, too.
I don't mind someone making a profit, but don't add "below the line" fees under the guise of "the government made me do it". If these are legitimate costs, add them to your prices and let the marketplace decide if they're willing to pay what you ask. |
|
drkkgt
Boo
Premium
join:2003-08-26
Whittier, CA
| Still FUSF
I just got an ad from verizon yesterday that was printed in August and expired in spetember that still listed a fee in the fine print for the FUSF. I t also listed a tax recovery fee. What the hell is a tax recovery fee? So they have to pay taxes as part of doing business on their subsidized lines so they tack on a fee to make it a wash?
--
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila."-Mitch Ratliffe |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA | reply to pnh102
But then we'd have.......
I think truth in advertising is one of the signs of the Second Coming.
NV |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | reply to drkkgt
Re: Still FUSF
Simple answer to the problem:
Hit them with new regulations that address this sort of thing, once and for all.
Relying on their "personal responsibility" just isn't enough, because they have none. |
|
