Re: Let's face it in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r12444958 en Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:26:27 EDT Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:26:27 EDT Re: Let's face it http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12452953 anon : Since they want so badly for us consumers to pay a tax recovery fee for something that THEY have to pay for, then I say we turn the tables on them and let them know we want them to pay a tax recovery fee to US for the taxes we have to pay.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12452953 Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:13:19 EDT Re: Let's face it http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12447346 PhoenixDown : Have them tally the line items before the bottom line.

x - $10
y - $10
z - $10

Total - $30

Taxs - $whatever
--
www.pulsetoday.com -- marketing forums!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12447346 Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:21:32 EDT Re: Let's face it http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12446836 Madness : Yannow, I just got my bill yesterday and did some comparisons to your your "dirty phone bill." I'm in MA and have the Local Package (Local Unlimited + 3 option features) which is $24.95 by itself. All those taxes & fees add almost another $10 to that.

That's just the POTS side. Verizon 1500/128 @ 29.95 + the $2.40 FUSF they've been hitting w/ since early last year. Now I'm expected to see this new "recovery tax" starting next bill? Did receive that email and had to laugh at the opening. Like: "Dear Valued Customer, since you're *so* valued to us, we decided to add some more fees to your DSL bill!" Me: }:-þ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12446836 Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:27:02 EDT Re: Let's face it http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12445850 LegoPower77 : I, for one, would rather have an itemized description of why it costs so much. My phone line costs $29.95, but after the government gets done with it, it's upwards of $45. I'd rather know why I can't get cheap service rather than just paying a no-questions-asked $45/month.

By the same token, I'd rather us have to pay our taxes by writing a check every time we get our paychecks than to have it taken out in withholdings and not even feel it; it's BS. I'm just an idealist, but that would change things.

I agree, that dirty phone bill is outrageous, but I don't blame the company, I blame congress and the people who elect them.
--
"Those who want to take our money and gain power over us have discovered the magic formula: Get us envious or angry at others and we will surrender, in installments, not only our money but our freedom"—Thomas Sowell.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12445850 Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:24:58 EDT Re: Let's face it http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12445743 TheGhost : The issue was, this cost of doing business was always there, it was just "included" in the fee. The issue arises in that they did not lower the cost of service, but rather just added this new fee, thereby they did a rate increase, no matter how you look at it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12445743 Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:11:01 EDT Re: Let's face it http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12445199 Jason Levine : Perhaps it's directly tied to the product or service, but it isn't a fee that they are being told to charge the customers. They are being charged it and they are passing the cost onto the consumer.

This, in and of itself, isn't unusual. Businesses do it all the time. It's how they do it that's underhanded. They don't announce that DSL prices will rise by X amount. Instead, DSL prices stay the same in all of their ads and a fine print fee is added to the bill.

The phone companies have realized that this is a perfect way to get away with what would otherwise be false advertising. They advertise a low price for a service and then load up on fees in the bills themselves to raise the price and get more profit.

For an example, check out this "Dirty Phone Bill":

»www.newnetworks.com/dirtyphonebill.htm
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12445199 Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:06:24 EDT Re: Let's face it http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12444958 Jim Gurd :
said by Shamayim See Profile:

These fees are nothing but ripoffs. They're crafted by cunning corporate suits, arcanely labeled, petitioned for at the FCC or local municipality, granted permission by the FCC or local municipality, and then passed on to the poor schlub consumer with the explanation "the FCC mandates us to begin charging . . . "
I have to disagree with you here. They are merely itemizing the cost of government. It is in fact a tax, though an indirect one for the consumer. The govt taxes the corp to provide subsidized internet for the masses and the corp passes it on to the end user. It's truth in advertising.

Now some people will argue that they could then start itemizing all taxes like corporate income and property taxes and that may have some validity. What's different about this FCC imposed fee is that it is directly tied to the product or service being sold thus driving up the cost of providing it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12444958 Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:36:31 EDT Let's face it http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12444783 Shamayim : These fees are nothing but ripoffs. They're crafted by cunning corporate suits, arcanely labeled, petitioned for at the FCC or local municipality, granted permission by the FCC or local municipality, and then passed on to the poor schlub consumer with the explanation "the FCC mandates us to begin charging . . . "
--
"tick...tick...tick..." »www.jtf.org/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12444783 Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:14:40 EDT