<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee??? in Speakeasy</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r16658047</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:44:14 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:44:14 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17027009</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : And in 2 states Verizon is also going to be charging a new Recovery Fee...  So - they did not do away with it totally...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17027009</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:55:59 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16986608</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/744104"><b>plutarch</b></A> : Doesn't look as if the complaint's going to make much difference, since the FCC didn't so much as acknowledge it. And it's possible that the input will cause it to be addressed.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16986608</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:01:59 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16985270</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1106467"><b>artisticcheese</b></A> : You will abandon FCC complaint becouse company was interested in your opinion but did nothing to address it?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16985270</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:49:03 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16981059</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/744104"><b>plutarch</b></A> : To Speakeasy's credit, someone from there did call and hear the concerns regarding the change in fees. While I still think the practices could be better, I do appreciate the time spent addressing my concern regarding them. I will abandon the FCC complaint filed should the FCC actually respond.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16981059</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2006 20:43:17 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16941727</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/314372"><b>KoolMoe</b></A> : I hear you and don't like the addition of fees on top of the stated cost myself, but it also doesn't bother me that much (conditioning? jaded? I dunno...). What bothered me the most about this latest round was their spin. I agree with your that adding fees on top of stated costs is not cool, but it's an uncoolness I can live with (and afford, as it's only like $5). What I can't stand is deliberate 'misleading' statements and spin.<br>So I'm understanding your point, no doubt, it's just not the one I was annoyed with ;-)<br>KM<br><SMALL>--<br>Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16941727</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:03:19 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16941010</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : I have read thru ALL of my posts in this thread - always referred it to them as the same thing - did not ever change...  I plainly stated more than once that the price guarantee is for the cost of the BroandBand service - but not for other fees and even included the line from their own TOS...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16941010</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:20:22 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16940824</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1148403"><b>Michieru2</b></A> : First you say this is not a fee and now you are saying it is a fee? Would you people make up your freaking mind already?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16940824</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:55:14 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16940350</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  KoolMoe <A HREF="/useremail/u/314372"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br>I understand DSL is a short-term technology. I understand a company trying to ensure its survival by expanding services (from DSL to VOIP, in this case). I understand if they need to take from one pot to help pay for the other. Again, I don't really like it, but it's not enough for me to cancel service - yet. </DIV>Again, it's less <I>what</I> they're doing than <I>how</I> they're doing it. Every company uses one line of business to subsidize expansion into another. How else can they afford it. However, they normally have to raise their prices, directly, to do so. Only in the telco sector can I cite examples of them "holding the (advertised) price" but being allowed to raise "recovery fees" to do their expansion.<br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16940350</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:36:41 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16939236</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/314372"><b>KoolMoe</b></A> : I don't think it's all the horrible to subsidize one service by tacking on fees to another service. I don't like it, but it doesn't offend me. How much of our cable bills are subsidizing thir VOIP service? I dunno... Every company has expenses and they can cover them however they like. Of course, the more open, honest, and direct - the better!<br><br>I understand DSL is a short-term technology. I understand a company trying to ensure its survival by expanding services (from DSL to VOIP, in this case). I understand if they need to take from one pot to help pay for the other. Again, I don't really like it, but it's not enough for me to cancel service - yet. <br><br>My biggest complaint was simply their lack of directness and silly, obtuse justifications. Just be straight-up with me and it's generally cool.<br>KM<br><SMALL>--<br>Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16939236</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:30:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16938633</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : Fees are not covered under their TOS price guarantee...  My bill has gone down by 1% and I do nto have VOIP.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16938633</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:34:51 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16938154</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1148403"><b>Michieru2</b></A> : The only problem I still see and has not been addressed is why non VOIP customers are being charged this fee. Also just want to make sure if any new customers are not or are getting this tax. Because then that would be a violation of there own TOS.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16938154</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:31:03 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16936811</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1347491"><b>gjgfjfgj</b></A> : Quick! Everybody PM him! I just sent him a PM about my &raquo;<A HREF="/forum/remark,16933229">I just got charged!</A> problem.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16936811</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:47:00 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16936640</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/459309"><b>Bondman</b></A> : One interesting thing is that Lawrencem has been on line checking things out but so far has stayed quiet!<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="/useremail/u/1072392">/useremail/u/1072392</A>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16936640</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:24:10 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16936398</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/138891"><b>claudeo</b></A> : If anything, the extra fees on top of Speakeasy VoIP are proportionally even higher:<br>Home VoIP Unlimited 1st TN Package <br>* VoIP Monthly Service Charge   27.95 <br>* Regulatory Compliance Fee   6.20<br>That's a whopping 22%.  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16936398</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:52:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16934664</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/459309"><b>Bondman</b></A> : I did find out as per the following link the Cyberonic does not charge any recovery fees:<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="/forum/remark,16921020">What fees are charged on top of published rate?</A>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16934664</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:22:56 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16931470</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : For everyone looking to leave - I believe I read that Sonic and DSLExtreme are also collecting fees the way SE is as well....]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16931470</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:12:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16931259</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/459309"><b>Bondman</b></A> : I completely agree that we who do not have or use VoIP should not have to pay into expenses to support Speakeasy's move into VoIP! This is under the pretext of collecting a black hole listed as "recovery fees".  If you have to raise your rates do it for the cost center having the increased expenses - VoIP!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16931259</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 06:40:34 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16930268</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  KoolMoe <A HREF="/useremail/u/314372"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br> <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>quote:</SMALL><HR>...while the FCC eliminated the FUSF fee for DSL, at the same time, they instituted a new requirement that we begin paying into the FUSF fund for VoIP. So you see, this is a dynamic environment. In addition, the FCC has instituted numerous regulatory requirements related to E911, CALEA, and general reporting. These new requirements, especially E911, were rapidly implemented by the FCC, giving industry little time to plan or design automated compliance systems. While large monopolies can easily absorb these additional costs until such systems are in place, smaller competitive voice<br>and data providers like Speakeasy cannot.<br><HR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV>A lot of mentions of VOIP-related fees. It appears that they're soaking us in order to subsidize their foray into VOIP but doing it through "recovery fees". They should not be allowed to do this. They shoul have to raise the base subscription cost, not bogus fees that aren't shown in their advertised rates.<br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16930268</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:49:45 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16929835</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/314372"><b>KoolMoe</b></A> : This cleared things up for me a bit, or was at least a fairly believable reply... Overall I appreciate it; I just hope I'm not being handed a line of BS.<br><br>My inquiry:<br> <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>quote:</SMALL><HR>Dear 'exec',<br>After a roundabout discussion with one of SE's support staff, who was at least polite, I've been referred to this email address to post my concerns about the Regulatory Compliance Fee on my monthly invoice.<br><br>The ticket thread is here:<br>{----}<br><br>Overall, I am not satisfied with the official explanation; essentially,<br>"The fees, Regulatory Compliance Fee and Federal Regulatory Fee, combined before the change in regulation (3.39+3.97) amounted to 7.36. Now that the fee was simplified to just the Regulatory Compliance Fee it went down to 6.30--that's where the savings is.<br><br>All of that 5.95% is being used to cover extensive increases in cost directly associated with regulatory compliance."<br><br>This explanation is not satisfactory considering, "...despite one fee being dropped, your current charges have not been halved. Surely, moving fees from one name to another is a type of accounting trickery SE should be above.<br><br>Needless to say, 'regulatory compliance' doesn't actually say a whole lot. What other (non-Federal?) fees specifically are to blame for this burden?"<br><br>As also mentioned in the referenced ticket thread, Verizon and Bell South have recently abandoned these fees, pointing even more to the invalidity. I would hope SE could do the same.<br>Regards,<br><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br><br>I quote select portions of Mr. McBride's reply:<br><br> <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>quote:</SMALL><HR>...when the government stopped requiring FUSF on broadband connectivity, we were able to pass on some of that savings to customers, but not all.<br><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br> <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>quote:</SMALL><HR>...while the FCC eliminated the FUSF fee for DSL, at the same time, they instituted a new requirement that we begin paying into the FUSF fund for VoIP. So you see, this is a dynamic environment.  In addition, the FCC has instituted numerous regulatory requirements related to E911, CALEA, and general reporting. These new requirements, especially E911, were rapidly implemented by the FCC, giving industry little time to plan or design automated compliance systems. While large monopolies can easily absorb these additional costs until such systems are in place, smaller competitive voice<br>and data providers like Speakeasy cannot.<br><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br> <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>quote:</SMALL><HR>I sincerely hope this adequately addresses your concerns.  It is certainly a dynamic environment: the internet.  It is even more interesting when the government begins looking for ways to harvest additional revenue from it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br><br>I like SpeakEasy. Maybe it's because I pay over $100/month for internet service that I feel I *must* like SpeakEasy! Their connections and network are fairly solid, tech support is still generally a pleasant, non-outsourced experience, and the liberal TOS makes it pretty much worth it.<br><br>Plus, I just like supporting the 'little guy'. If I have to pay more for a better, non-monopoly product, I will do so as I can afford.<br><br>And if the owners and workers makes some money in the process, God Bless America.<br><br>SE could have, IMO, avoided much of this controversy if they had just explained the various regulatory issues in the first place - instead of spinning the 'It saves you money!' line.<br><br>As long as their reasons are true.<br><br>I appreciate Lawrence's reply and will continue to stick with SpeakEasy - as least until FIOS is here...<br>KM<br><SMALL>--<br>Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16929835</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:44:59 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16929679</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/744104"><b>plutarch</b></A> : More handwaving and allusions to non-existent "regulations." Fat chance of it happening, but it should be illegal to line item "regulatory" or "government" fees that aren't 100% passed through to a government agency.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16929679</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:21:14 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16926949</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/638667"><b>waka</b></A> : Latest response:<br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>We do not provide itemized breakdowns of our fees.<br>I do not have specific details, but there are many smaller regulations, both <br>billed to us, and simply regulations that cost money to comply with. We provide <br>this as a separate item so that you see what is really being charged, <br>dollar-wise.<br>We've always had new regulations and we've had to boost this fee in the past, <br>however the last major boost was about 2 years ago. Since then, our costs have <br>increased but until now that has not been reflected in our fees.<br><br>Thanks,<br>xxxx xxxxx<br>Business Support Representative - Online Support<br>(800) 556-5829<br>My Hours Mon-Fri 5am-1:30pm PDT<br>www.speakeasy.net<br>---------------------------------------------------<br><br>Again, a non answer from SE to get details of what goes into the bogus and misleading "Regulatory Compliance Fee".  SE should be able to provide customer's a detailed invoice of what goes into their fee's.  If there are regulatory fees (State, Federal or whatever) than SE should be able to say with ease, "Yes we are charged this and this Fee from this state or government and we are passing it on to you."  But instead SE tells you they can't tell you the exact regulatory fees they are getting charged but to trust them that they exist and you must pay them anyways.  So SE can just arbitrarily increase this fee or any other fee at their whim because of this stance they are taking of not disclosing what supposed "regulatory" fees they are getting charged.  I'm not sure if this is illegal but it is definately unethical in my opinion.<br><br>I'm gonna file another FCC complaint and a complaint with the Consumer Protections division with the State of Washington Attorney General.  I might even give a lawyer a call and see if they would be interested in filing a class action lawsuit against SE for bogus Regulatory fees.  Anyone else on board? :)]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16926949</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:36:53 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16926334</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1106467"><b>artisticcheese</b></A> : I'm scared of ISPs which also do Web Design as a side business.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16926334</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:58:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16920161</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/459309"><b>Bondman</b></A> : Thanks for the info as well.  Cyberonic seems to have problems spelling the word Internet in their Terms of Service Document on their website.  There is one thing one needs to be aware of with Cyberonic's Terms of service:<br><br>"Upon the end of the term or termination of service, User agrees to return the CYBERONIC INTENET COMMUNICATIONS, INC. provided equipment at User's sole expense within 30 days, or will incur $399 equipment charges."<br><br>I have a 3 meg download with 768 upload speed with Speakeasy that was set up with the help of Kat.  With Cyberonic I could double my download for the same amount of money.  With Michigan's "wonderful" economy I don't know if I want a year contract right know but this is an option to consider.  The other question is whether Cyberonic has any surprise fees or not.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16920161</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:43:09 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16919354</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/744104"><b>plutarch</b></A> : Thanks, appreciate the suggestion and will check them out!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16919354</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:13:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16918343</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1148403"><b>Michieru2</b></A> : While this is offtopic to those who no longer want speakeasy and are looking for another provider which provides the same packages you can go here >> &raquo;<A HREF="http://www.cyberonic.com/" >www.cyberonic.com/</A><br><br>I was browsing around looking for alternatives and this is what I can across with, basically for 59.99 you get a 6.0/768 of course mileage may vary and for like 10 or 20 dollars more you can get 4 statics and more emails etc.<br><br>As for customer service, well I don't know been reading around that there email servers are crappy but for that price there is not much to be expected right?<br><br>I am completely moving away from DSL though, I am just going with Sprint EV-DO Rev A. But just sharing some research.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16918343</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 17 Sep 2006 01:20:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16908982</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/681212"><b>jcricket</b></A> : Of course they don't like being called on it. Their behavior on this issue is no different than Verizon, Qwest, etc. - <B>AND THAT'S WHAT'S SO DEPRESSING!</B><br><br>I don't think Speakeasy gets it. When there's no difference in how Speakeasy (your independent ISP) and the incumbents treats you, you will leave, because the incumbents will offer simplified billing and better prices.<br><br>In fact, in some ways their behavior is worse than the incumbents, because Speakeasy hasn't backed down (mainly because the FCC won't pressure them, as an independent DSL provider). Speakeasy could have "taken the hint" and changed their minds, but instead are trying to "fly under the radar" and hope most customers won't notice.<br><br>Unless things change, I'm voting with my feet/money as soon as I'm out of contract.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16908982</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:43:04 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16907213</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/744104"><b>plutarch</b></A> : They're just making stuff up, and they obviously don't care for being called on it very much.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16907213</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:08:09 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16898956</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1389124"><b>speakeasy2k</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  russotto <A HREF="/useremail/u/214274"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>Maybe it's the fee to send all your packets to RIAA and the NSA for examination.<br> </DIV><br>ROTFLMA! I think you nailed it!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16898956</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:47:41 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16898443</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/214274"><b>russotto</b></A> : Maybe it's the fee to send all your packets to RIAA and the NSA for examination.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16898443</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:31:05 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16898331</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/638667"><b>waka</b></A> : Here is the most recent note added to this ticket:<br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>I would provide an itemized breakdown, but I do not have one. This increase in <br>this particular item was simply meant to allow the absorption of both existing <br>regulations that have become very difficult to support with the previous <br>monthly regulatory charges, as well as new regulations that came into play with the <br>removal of the FUSF.<br>The changes made to the fee system was not that the FUSF was just no longer <br>required. They also involved the addition of some other regulations that we must <br>now support.<br><br>Thanks,<br>xxxx xxxx<br>Business Support Representative - Online Support<br>(800) 556-5829<br>My Hours Mon-Fri 5am-1:30pm PDT<br>www.speakeasy.net<br>----------------------------------------------<br><br>All I can say is, "HUH?!?!"<br><br>What "New regulations" and "other regulations that we must now support" is Speakeasy talking about?? Can you get any more vague??  Does any one know what these would be??  I've asked for more clarification.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16898331</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:14:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16891781</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/906493"><b>knightmb</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  jcricket <A HREF="/useremail/u/681212"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>Also - you can get a much cheaper hosting package from a true hosting provider, like dreamhost.com. $7.95/month for more than enough features for most people. I'd recommend most small businesses/non-profits separate their web sites from their access providers. That way you can switch either one without having to switch both. <br> </DIV>Not to bang on dreamhost.com because I have looked at their packages before, but mainly the problem I see is most of us using the speakeasy connection use it for hosting reasons beyond what a hosting provider can provide.  Why, mainly because dreamhost.com and others could never give me what my business needs as far as hosting without having to spend a fortune a month. It would be nice to let someone else worry about the apache servers for a while, but then I need something that's going to give me GB of hosting space and unlimited bandwidth a month for cheap and no true hosting provider does this (for cheap). Most of my friends who use Speakeasy because they are a "do what you want" ISP when it comes to service.  If you want to run your connection full bandwidth 24/7 then good for you, they won't care. If you want to use 12 static IP on one connection to host 200 websites, they will let you. If we had no choice but to use Comcast or Bellsouth then I could see where a separate hosting provider would come in handy because they are not as reliable as speakeasy, just like what was said earlier, time is money. When you spend your time talking to tech support at the ISP then you aren't working on more important things.<br><br>Also, hosting providers are not invincible, they have downtime and tech support issues with the ISP they deal with, just like the rest of us. I would just prefer to have everything in one place with only one person to yell at when things don't work. Sure, Speakeasy works through a lot of different companies, but for the most part they handle all of this so we don't have to. I've seen Speakeasy really whip up on Bellsouth when I had line issues last year, I never had to speak to Bellsouth once about this and I'm glad. The culture at Speakeasy I've noticed is to do business customers first, then residential later. I think that's why a lot of us here have such contrast when it comes to dealing with Speakeasy. A residential customer calls with a problem, they will get back to you. A business customer calls with the same problem, they bend over backwards to get it fixed as soon as possible. I've been a residential customer of Speakeasy for years before I moved to a business account and I noticed a big difference in the way customer service is handled between the two.  It might be the same tech guy who answers, but priorities are certainly in place for the business customers. At least that's what appears to be to me.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16891781</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:18:18 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16884678</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : Unless you are in Ohio and have TW cable....  My BIL is a installer for TW and I have been over there when the cable went out 3 times in 20 minutes - the one way they tell is if the modem is dead...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16884678</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:40:59 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16883024</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/681212"><b>jcricket</b></A> : <BLOCKQUOTE>I *will*, however, now think twice about recommending them to my smaller clients or non-profits; I'll also tell anyone considering them to shop carefully and make sure ALL fees are included in the quote.</BLOCKQUOTE><br><br>It won't matter. Speakeasy will just jack up some BS fee later (disguising a price hike) and there won't be anything your clients can do. Like they did this time. <br><br>I agree that Speakeasy has good up-time, but I rarely hear about downtime these days from any of the ILECs (DSL or Cable). Speakeasy does offer business VOIP, which is useful,  if you trust Speakeasy not to go out of business. I will guess that you'll get better tech support from Speakeasy when there is an outage than you will from an ILEC. That's just a guess.  <br><br>Also - you can get a much cheaper hosting package from a true hosting provider, like dreamhost.com. $7.95/month for more than enough features for most people. I'd recommend most small businesses/non-profits separate their web sites from their access providers. That way you can switch either one without having to switch both. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16883024</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:13:55 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16882572</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1389124"><b>speakeasy2k</b></A> : <I>Unless one has empirical proof that SpeakEasy is a good business ISP (e.g., an existing Business subscriber relationship that wasn't indicated in the statement)</I><br><br>Actually, this is the case. I informally (not as an official "Speakeasy partner") have recommended them to a number of my clients, many of whom are now using Speakeasy as their provider. I do believe Speakeasy provides quality, reliable, efficient service and support to their business customers, and the cost difference between them and a lower-priced option is far less meaningful given the value of the service they provide in a business context (where downtime means lost revenue, pretty directly).<br><br>I *will*, however, now think twice about recommending them to my smaller clients or non-profits; I'll also tell anyone considering them to shop carefully and make sure ALL fees are included in the quote.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16882572</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:02:12 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16866633</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  claudeo <A HREF="/useremail/u/138891"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br>Now, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What is your purpose here? Revenge, or trying to prod SE into better behavior? If you think SE is irremediably going down the wrong path, just cut the ties and turn the corner. Just forget them. But if you think that there is something worth salvaging, then it is also worth pointing out the positives. <br>Also, consider this: Are we harder on SE because it is a smaller and therefore apparently more amenable target for our efforts at reform than the Verizon, Qwest, Comcast, AT&T benemoths that wrote the book on bogus fees, or are we harder on SE because we feel betrayed? Those of us who signed on with SE when there was a no-nonsense TOS and a feeling of trust do feel betrayed, no question about it. <br> </DIV>Read more closely, grasshopper...<br><br>Unless one has empirical proof that SpeakEasy is a good business ISP (e.g., an existing Business subscriber relationship that wasn't indicated in the statement), it's silly to make a recommendation based on supposition. I'm not saying to say "I wouldn't use them for business", I'm saying that it does not make sense to provide a recommendation.  speakeasy2k <A HREF="/useremail/u/1389124"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> stated "Bottom line: if you're a business customer, Speakeasy should be on your short list of broadband providers, without a doubt. However, home users, beware: unless you're made of money, look elsewhere first for better values - and a better attitude," without indicating any real basis for such a statement (beyond the apparent supposition of "they're abandoning residential to pursue business, therefore they must be good at business service).<br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16866633</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 19:15:03 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16866598</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/138891"><b>claudeo</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  nixen <A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR><div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  russotto <A HREF="/useremail/u/214274"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br><div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  nixen <A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</SMALL><br><br>Dude, I wouldn't even drop that bit of a compliment. As a business owner, do you *really* want to do business with a company that, one day is great to you and the next day you simply aren't a priority? </DIV>Unfortunately, over the long term, ALL businesses are like that.  Well, except businesses like Verizon and Comcast for which you're never a priority.<br> </DIV>I'm just saying, I would not do SpeakEasy <I>any</I> favors. I would not indicate, at all, that they might be good for anything.<br><br>-tom<br> </DIV>Now, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What is your purpose here? Revenge, or trying to prod SE into better behavior? If you think SE is irremediably going down the wrong path, just cut the ties and turn the corner. Just forget them. But if you think that there is something worth salvaging, then it is also worth pointing out the positives. <br>Also, consider this: Are we harder on SE because it is a smaller and therefore apparently more amenable target for our efforts at reform than the Verizon, Qwest, Comcast, AT&T benemoths that wrote the book on bogus fees, or are we harder on SE because we feel betrayed? Those of us who signed on with SE when there was a no-nonsense TOS and a feeling of trust do feel betrayed, no question about it. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16866598</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 19:07:40 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16866184</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  russotto <A HREF="/useremail/u/214274"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br><div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  nixen <A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</SMALL><br><br>Dude, I wouldn't even drop that bit of a compliment. As a business owner, do you *really* want to do business with a company that, one day is great to you and the next day you simply aren't a priority? </DIV>Unfortunately, over the long term, ALL businesses are like that.  Well, except businesses like Verizon and Comcast for which you're never a priority.<br> </DIV>I'm just saying, I would not do SpeakEasy <I>any</I> favors. I would not indicate, at all, that they might be good for anything.<br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16866184</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:57:10 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16865676</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/312284"><b>bhan261</b></A> : Very well said.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16865676</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:45:23 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16865431</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/744104"><b>plutarch</b></A> : FCC complaint filed:<br><br>This complaint is regarding the FUSF on DSL service.<br><br>As you know, DSL providers were recently deemed to not have to pay into the Federal Universal Service fund. Previously, Speakeasy Communications passed on the FUSF as a line item they called "Federal Regulatory Fees".<br><br>Once Speakeasy and other DSL providers were not required to contribute to the FUSF, Speakeasy eliminated the "Federal Regulatory Fees" but increased another bill line item, the "Regulatory Compliance Fee" by almost the same amount. Their announcement, of which I have a copy if required, trumpets this sleight of hand as a net reduction in regulatory fees, while not mentioning that it resulted in their pocketing almost the entire amount of the FUSF contribution as additional revenue. <br><br>In my particular case, the FUSF portion ("Federal Regulatory Fees" on my June 25, 2006 bill were $2.62 and the "Regulatory Compliance Fee" was $2.24 for a total of $4.86. On the July 25, 2006 bill, the FUSF ("Federal Regulatory Fees") line item was reduced to zero and the "Regulatory Compliance Fee" increased by $1.92 for a total of $4.16 billed regulatory charges. Copies of these bills are available for inspection if needed.<br><br>I have attempted to obtain an official answer from Speakeasy as to what taxes and regulatory fees the newly increased regulatory fee that captured most of the FUSF fee is funding, and received no straight answer. In fact, the representative who answered the service ticket declined to give an official answer. I have asked that representative to forward my request to their executive offices and received no response to that request as of this writing.<br><br>Based on the FCC's indication that it had intended to investigate Verizon's and BellSouth's similar practices, I contend Speakeasy is engaging in the same practice and respectfully request they be required to cease their deceptive practice with respect to their increased "Regulatory Compliance Fee" and issue refunds in the amount of the increase after the FUSF contributions were no longer required. Thank you]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16865431</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:13:08 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16863631</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/420133"><b>TheOtherPete</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  russotto <A HREF="/useremail/u/214274"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>Unfortunately, over the long term, ALL businesses are like that.  Well, except businesses like Verizon and Comcast for which you're never a priority. </DIV>At least you always know where you stand with them.   :-)]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16863631</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 11:31:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16863107</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/214274"><b>russotto</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  nixen <A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>Dude, I wouldn't even drop that bit of a compliment. As a business owner, do you *really* want to do business with a company that, one day is great to you and the next day you simply aren't a priority? </DIV>Unfortunately, over the long term, ALL businesses are like that.  Well, except businesses like Verizon and Comcast for which you're never a priority.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16863107</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 09:50:37 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16862965</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  speakeasy2k <A HREF="/useremail/u/1389124"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br>Bottom line: if you're a business customer, Speakeasy should be on your short list of broadband providers, without a doubt. However, home users, beware: unless you're made of money, look elsewhere first for better values - and a better attitude.</I><br> </DIV>Dude, I wouldn't even drop that bit of a compliment. As a business owner, do you *really* want to do business with a company that, one day is great to you and the next day you simply aren't a priority? As a residential subscriber, it's merely annoying. As a business subscriber, such shifts can threaten your livelihood. As a business owner, I'd avoid such behavior like the f'ing plague.<br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16862965</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 09:15:30 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16862276</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1148403"><b>Michieru2</b></A> : Well said.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16862276</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 03:02:54 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16861935</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1389124"><b>speakeasy2k</b></A> : Great idea. I just changed my rating, too. Here's the text:<br><br><I><br> Since I've been a customer with them, in late 2000, there have been two very different Speakeasys.<br><br>The first - when the founder Mike Apgar ran the company - was great. They charged a little more, but they were insanely reliable, easy-to-contact, and exhibited a "do-no-evil" attitude that made me happy to pay a little more. I had years of reliable and pleasant service with them. Even when other broadband options and providers came available in my area with lower prices and faster speeds, I didn't think of switching, though I easily could have.<br><br>Unfortunately, the second Speakeasy - the one you'd sign up with if you started today - is a very, very different animal. The new owners have a "profit first, second, and last" attitude, and focus their time and attention on their much-more-profitable business customers at the expense of the home users. When questioned about their policies or business practices towards the "little guys", they've become increasingly reluctant to engage in any dialogue or provide meaningful explanations.<br><br>A case in point is the recent fee increase. The "Speakeasy regulatory compliance fee" - which is *not* a pass-through tax; it's in fact a tricky way of saying "Speakeasy additional profit" - was hiked by 50% or more with little or no warning in August 2006. What's worse is that Speakeasy chose to try and hide this fee increase by timing its introduction to coincide exactly with the end of the Federal USF (Universal Service Fund) fee. The net result was that customer bills should have gone down by $3 or so a month, but instead they dropped only slightly (.65 in my case) or stayed the same. Despite repeated emails and phone calls about this, current customers have been given only marketing doublespeak or (in my case) no answer at all, and have resorted to filing complaints with the FCC and their state Attorneys General.<br><br>Bottom line: if you're a business customer, Speakeasy should be on your short list of broadband providers, without a doubt. However, home users, beware: unless you're made of money, look elsewhere first for better values - and a better attitude.</I>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16861935</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:57:43 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16860851</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1148403"><b>Michieru2</b></A> : Googling around I see that the RCF is not a tax, so that applies to what you have said. That would mean though that all new customers should not be getting the RCF though.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16860851</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:40:27 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16860760</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/138891"><b>claudeo</b></A> : The damning language is in this quote from Speakeasy (see previous post with transcript of ticket):<br><I>In the event that Speakeasy's pricing increases, your monthly recurring charge will remain at the price set during order placement or special billing agreement for 12 months following your Activation Date, but this excludes applicable state and federal taxes, as stated in the ToS(speakeasy.net/tos). So, the changes are not in violation of the ToS.</I><br>"This excludes applicable state and federal taxes". The RCF is not a tax therefore according to this statement it should not be excluded from the guaranteed price. Oops.<br>Also, I hope you printed out a copy of the TOS at the beginning of the contract. They reserve the right to change the TOS so what you see now may not be what you signed for.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16860760</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:27:59 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16860508</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : I went to the FCC site, as well. I filed the following:<br><BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Recently, the Federal USF fee was discontinued. SpeakEasy communications previously passed on this fee as through a "federal compliance" fee as part of the monthly billing structure. After the FUSF was lifted, SpeakEasy deleted the FUSF line item from the monthly bills, creating a new, combined "regulatory compliance fee". This new fee is roughly the same as the previous separate "compliance" fees plus the FUSF fee. The only difference in this combined fee is approximately a 1% total fee reduction (versus the expected reduction by the amount of the FUSF removal). The overall description of the fee is worded to suggest that it is related to taxes on the line, however, the overall change in fees suggests that, while they are intimating the use of the fee for taxes that SpeakEasy is, instead, pocketing the fee. Essentially, they have instituted a rate hike through a fee so that they can misrepresent their subscription rates in public advertising. Requests for clarification on the fee have been met either by silence or obsfuscation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16860508</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:49:19 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16859533</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/420133"><b>TheOtherPete</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  russotto <A HREF="/useremail/u/214274"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>Artisticcheese -- didn't you say over in the other thread that your total monthly cost didn't go up?  If that's so, I don't think Speakeasy violated anything.  Just shuffled around the charges.<br> </DIV> No, they did not just shuffle around charges.<br><br>(made-up numbers for sake of simplicity) Before they paid the gov't $3 in taxes and charged $1 in compliance fees.   The gov't drops the taxes to $1 and they raise the complaince fee to $2.75.  Net net your bill may have gone down 0.25 but it should have gone down a lot more.<br><br>You can bet that if the gov't raise the taxes to $6 they would have passed that on, so why are they allowed to raise the compliance fee just because the gov't decided to lower the taxes?   Its a sleezy move that assumes that people are too stupid to realize the game they are playing since the bills went down.<br><br>CyclonRed, Speakeasy may be within their legal right (I'm sure we will never know) but its pretty obvious that when you sign-up for a fixed term (12 months) and they offer a price guarantee that they intention is that they will not raise the price during that term (excluding govt taxes which they pass thru as they have no control over).   <br><br>I also strongly disagree with you that you can never get a price guarantee without an "out" on a fixed term contract - that is simply false.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16859533</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 18:11:41 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16858503</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/214274"><b>russotto</b></A> : Artisticcheese -- didn't you say over in the other thread that your total monthly cost didn't go up?  If that's so, I don't think Speakeasy violated anything.  Just shuffled around the charges.<br><br>Cylonred -- Speakeasy does not leave open other fees where there is no guarantee.  They specifically leave taxes out of the guarantee, but these fees aren't taxes.  What is covered are the "recurring broadband service charges".  Speakeasy can try to argue that these fees aren't "recurring broadband service charges", but IMO that's going to be a hard sell to a court.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16858503</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:41:13 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16858282</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1106467"><b>artisticcheese</b></A> : Nobody argues that they might have a right to do so, question is wether they are being honest about doing business this way. Majority of people consider what they did is dishonest and some people see it's as ok and some people don't even know about it becouse total price did not really change.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16858282</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:59:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16858259</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : No - as per the TOS - they guaranteed PART of the price...  That is a HUGE difference...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16858259</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:56:07 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16858212</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1106467"><b>artisticcheese</b></A> : I meant they guaranteed the price for the term of contract, after contract is over I can understand that they might raise it and I might walk away if I don't like but what they did now is raised their price in the middle of the contract without any justification.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16858212</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:48:13 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16858174</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  CylonRed <A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br> <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>quote:</SMALL><HR>Even the old Baby Bells decided that this was too slimy a thing to do to their customers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br><br>Not quite right - they would never have given in if the FCC had not started to make a stink...  They were conjoled in - they did not decide separately from the FCC not to charge the fee.  The statement is a bit misleading...  JMOPO  :)<br> </DIV>True... Should have elaborated. Should have maybe said, "even the Baby Bells realized that, at their size, this was too slimy to get away with doing to their customers. SpeakEasy seems to realize that 'small is better' when it comes to getting away with being slimy."<br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16858174</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:42:14 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16858138</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : Technically - there is never a price guarantee with anything - I consider a "price guarantee" on a service to be a joke because you can bet there is an out everytime that favors the company or else they would eventually go out of business if they can't increase their prices or in foodstuffs - make the packages smaller (less product) for the same price and that never has to be disclosed.<br><br>That is why customers should not "expect" consumer favorable decisions by a company till the ink is dry and a new bill comes...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16858138</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:34:24 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16857958</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1106467"><b>artisticcheese</b></A> : But price guarantee is worhtless when they can raise fees whenever they feel like it.<br>While they might raise fees on occasions since it's happened in exactly the same time FUSF fee was removed tells me that it's not that their comliance expenses increased 2x fold at the same moment to justify the raise but they felt since consumer would not see much difference let's sneak in a fee to offset tax removal, call it something fancy so consumers would not revolt and pocket the money. I would feel this is warranted only if in fact their expenses doubled for compliance work right there on a spot when FUSF was removed but it's not and it's what it is - "rip off" which will cost them customers (starting with me after contract term).]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16857958</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:08:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16857881</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : "Pricing guarantee" is not a TOTAL price guarantee - they leave open other fees (non-descript on purpose) where there is NO guarantee.  This is in no way just SE that does this as just about all (I would say ALL) services that you pay for will have the same type of clause inserted into their TOS.<br><br>For a lawyer this clause would be the key in any litigation and there is not enough people to make a class action worth the time to a lawyer to even try it (unless the lawyer was desperate). <br><br>If, by a trillion to one chance, that a suit was successful companies will simply raise their prices and not have any type of guarantee of ANY price and the consumer loses again.<br><SMALL>--<br>Brian<BR><br>"Some people are like Slinkies...<br>Not really good for anything......<br>But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs."</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16857881</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:56:11 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16857846</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/214274"><b>russotto</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  CylonRed <A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR><div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  russotto <A HREF="/useremail/u/214274"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br>You can refuse to pay on the grounds that they breached the contract by raising the fee and sue them, or let them sue you.  Of course the lawyers fees will probably be more than the cost increase.<br> </DIV>and via the TOS the case would probably not even see the light of the court.<br> </DIV>The TOS isn't some magic wand Speakeasy can wave to keep its customers under its thumb.  The TOS contains the pricing guarantee, in fact.  At a quick glance, it does NOT appear to contain an arbitration clause, so they have no excuse to keep you out of court.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16857846</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:48:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16857309</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> :  <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>quote:</SMALL><HR>Even the old Baby Bells decided that this was too slimy a thing to do to their customers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br><br>Not quite right - they would never have given in if the FCC had not started to make a stink...  They were conjoled in - they did not decide separately from the FCC not to charge the fee.  The statement is a bit misleading...  JMOPO  :)]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16857309</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:10:04 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16857175</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  bhan261 <A HREF="/useremail/u/312284"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br>Good to see people revising their reviews of SE.  I modified mine last week.  Remember, you have to change your selections in the radio buttons at the top, as well.<br> </DIV>Actually, I'd revised the "radio buttons" section a couple weeks ago. Today, I updated the text section. In it, I changed it to:<br><BLOCKQUOTE><HR>I've had SpeakEasy for a number of years now. They used to be a good company to do business with. It's why, after several moves, I still have them. Unfortunately, it seems that SpeakEasy's business priorities have changed. If you are looking for residential service, is simply would NOT recommend them. I've not yet changed providers mostly due to not having time to do so.<br><br>While they've always been more expensive than their competition, they used to provide value for this price differential. The SpeakEasy forum used to be an example of this: they used to have employees participate in the forum to help customers. This policy seems to have ended in July of 2006. They've dropped a number of other things that made them "worth it."<br><br>Lastly, they like to advertise one price for their service then absolutely PILE on miscellaneous fees. They then like to attribute these fees to "compliance recovery" costs. Most egregious of these was with the recent repeal of the USF. Somehow, even though the USF was removed, some new "compliance fee" was introduced that pretty much offset this reduction. Even the old Baby Bells decided that this was too slimy a thing to do to <I>their</I> customers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br>Sound fair?<br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16857175</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 11:41:07 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16857039</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/312284"><b>bhan261</b></A> : Good to see people revising their reviews of SE.  I modified mine last week.  Remember, you have to change your selections in the radio buttons at the top, as well.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16857039</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 11:16:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16853648</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  russotto <A HREF="/useremail/u/214274"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br>You can refuse to pay on the grounds that they breached the contract by raising the fee and sue them, or let them sue you.  Of course the lawyers fees will probably be more than the cost increase.<br> </DIV>and via the TOS the case would probably not even see the light of the court.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16853648</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:28:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16853611</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/459309"><b>Bondman</b></A> : That is a great idea!  I just changed my review of Speakeasy.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16853611</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:23:51 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16852694</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1347491"><b>gjgfjfgj</b></A> : If you can get Covad to TNF you, you can get out of your contract. Of course, you would have to be having some kind of connection problem.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16852694</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:48:58 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16852398</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/214274"><b>russotto</b></A> : You can refuse to pay on the grounds that they breached the contract by raising the fee and sue them, or let them sue you.  Of course the lawyers fees will probably be more than the cost increase.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16852398</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:07:37 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16851986</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/420133"><b>TheOtherPete</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  bhan261 <A HREF="/useremail/u/312284"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>Unfortunately, until people start to "vote with their feet", I doubt letters and emails will result in much action on SE's part.  And perhaps they don't care if people leave.  As someone has already mentioned, they seem more interested in business-class customers these days and not the individual home DSL user.  </DIV> Those of us locked in a "fixed-price" 12 month contract cannot vote with our feet until the 12 months is up.<br><br>This is what I find so offensive about these stealth fee increases, according to the TOS SE can basically raise the fees to whatever they want and we either have to accept it or pay a severe early termination fee to leave.   <br><br>When my 12 months is up SE has lost me as a customer for sure.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16851986</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:52:22 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16851612</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/312284"><b>bhan261</b></A> : Unfortunately, until people start to "vote with their feet", I doubt letters and emails will result in much action on SE's part.  And perhaps they don't care if people leave.  As someone has already mentioned, they seem more interested in business-class customers these days and not the individual home DSL user.  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16851612</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:41:29 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16851306</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/638667"><b>waka</b></A> : Another thought may be to just re-review/rate Speakeasy through DSLR.  That way SE's ratings may go down and someone will be less likely to choose them as a provider.  SE tout's a "90% customer satisfation" on their website.  Maybe if we lower their rating SE will respond in someway.  Just a thought.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16851306</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:57:22 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16851234</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/638667"><b>waka</b></A> : Here was my complaint to the FCC.  You may want to reference "Truth in Billing" rule and also the Verizon inquiry in your complaints aswell.<br><br>----------------------<br>Speakeasy charges a "Regulatory Compliance Fee" and a "Federal Compliance Fee".  The fees I used to pay were $1.92 and $2.25 respectively.  Speakeasy has since stated they have combined the two fee's and now have raised their Regulatory Compliance Fee to $3.57.  This is despite the fact that they are no longer required to pass on the Federal USF fee.  I was also told by a Speakeasy Rep that their Federal Compliance Fee was indeed the Federal USF fee, just renamed.  Despite repeated requests for an explanation of Speakeasy&#146;s increase of their Regulatory Compliance fee and requests to get a detailed itemized list of what goes into Speakeasy's "Regulatory" compliance Fee I have been given the run-a-round with no other clear response addressing my concerns.  Therefore I believe Speakeasy is in direct violation in the Truth in Billing FCC rules.  I believe Speakeasy has committed a similar violation as Verizon and other carriers that have been in recent news (&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=102394" >www.lightreading.com/document.as&middot;&middot;&middot;d=102394</A>).<br><br>Please visit this forum for other people customers experiencing the same problem with Speakeasy:<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="/forum/remark,16658047~mode=flat">End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</A><br><br>Thank you<br>----------------------------------]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16851234</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:48:13 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16850939</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1106467"><b>artisticcheese</b></A> : When did you file FCC complaint? I filed yesterday and nobody called me so far.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16850939</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16850802</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1389124"><b>speakeasy2k</b></A> : <I>I also get the sense that the SE reps are being told to keep repeating the same tired mantra and tell us nothing else.</I><br><br>Yes, I'm feeling the same thing is true from my interactions with them. (I've also called sales, since I'm a consultant and advise my customers on ISP/broadband services). Very frustrating: it's not just the money, it's the feeling we're being taken for idiot sheep.<br><br>UPDATE: I got a telephone call on Friday from someone in the Speakeasy executive/management area. From the message it was clear to him that I'd filed an FCC complaint and that he wanted to talk. Unfortunately, I wasn't home; he didn't leave a phone number; and he hasn't called back since.<br><br>You know, I hate spammers, but it wouldn't be hard for some of us who know how to "harvest" a list of speakeasy email addresses and send a "concerned citizen" letter about the situation to a few thousand of our brethren. I probably won't do that, but it'd be interesting to contemplate the groundswell that one might be able to generate...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16850802</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:34:18 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16850470</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/420133"><b>TheOtherPete</b></A> : Speakeasy seems to think that as long as our total monthly bill stays the same (or decreases slightly), the fact that the gov't fee has been eliminated (and partially made up for with this bogus increase in compliance fee) is irrelevent.<br><br>They keep harping on the fact that the overall fee is lower (1%) completely ignoring the fact that it should be much lower then that because of the FUSF elimination.<br><br>I also get the sense that the SE reps are being told to keep repeating the same tired mantra and tell us nothing else.  <br><br>Disappointing really.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16850470</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 11:45:39 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16850182</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1106467"><b>artisticcheese</b></A> : Below is exactly what I'm questioning, since TOS specifically refers to taxes as exempt from price increase and SE fee is not a tax then pricing increase is in fact violation of TOS. Any lawyers amongst SE customers?<br><br><BLOCKQUOTE><br>2006-09-05 19:56:03<br>Speakeasy is removing/has removed the 3.75% Federal Regulatory Fee and increasing the combined Regulatory Compliance Fee from 3.2% to 5.95%, but the combined total will go from 6.95% to 5.95% (i.e., will be reduced by 1%). The fees were combined to simplify the bill. Also, to save you a few amount of money in taxes.<br><br>In the event that Speakeasy's pricing increases, your monthly recurring charge will remain at the price set during order placement or special billing agreement for 12 months following your Activation Date, but this excludes applicable state and federal taxes, as stated in the ToS(speakeasy.net/tos). So, the changes are not in violation of the ToS.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Mark<br></BLOCKQUOTE>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16850182</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 10:54:46 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16849873</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/314372"><b>KoolMoe</b></A> : Largely to keep this thread up, but also to share, here is my ticket history on this subject.<br><div class="bquote">2006-09-05 19:22:44<br>Hello,<br>While generally satisfied with your service, I do have a question about the extra fees added to my bill - especially in light of recent news where Bell South and Verizon have abandoned such fees...<br><br>From March 2005 through February 2006, the 'Regulatory Compliance Fee' added to my bill was $3.00.<br><br>In April 2006, that same fee was raised to $3.18.<br><br>In May 2006, that fee was raised to $3.39.<br><br>When the FCC removed the FUSF fee from DSL providers, I expected that 'Federal Regulatory Fee' to disappear and my 'Regulatory Compliance Fee' to remain, essentially the same (despite it having gone up two months in a row).<br><br>However, since June 2006, my bill now states the 'Regulatory Compliance Fee' has increased to $5.70.<br><br>Why? I appreciate the removal of the 'Federal Regulatory Fee' (FUSF) but am unclear as to why the other 'regulatory' fee has, once again, increased - especially by over 40%.<br><br>Not only is this increased fee not at all justified, but is it not also a violation of my Terms of Service? As I understood, SpeakEasy is not permitted to raise my monthly fees under an existing contract. Am I incorrect?<br>Thank you for your time,<br>KM<br>---<br><br>2006-09-05 19:56:03<br>Speakeasy is removing/has removed the 3.75% Federal Regulatory Fee and increasing the combined Regulatory Compliance Fee from 3.2% to 5.95%, but the combined total will go from 6.95% to 5.95% (i.e., will be reduced by 1%). The fees were combined to simplify the bill. Also, to save you a few amount of money in taxes.<br><br>In the event that Speakeasy's pricing increases, your monthly recurring charge will remain at the price set during order placement or special billing agreement for 12 months following your Activation Date, but this excludes applicable state and federal taxes, as stated in the ToS(speakeasy.net/tos). So, the changes are not in violation of the ToS.<br><br>I hope this information is helpful to you. I will be placing this ticket into a pending customer response state. It will close automatically in 48 hours if you don&#146;t have any additional questions.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Mark<br>---<br><br>2006-09-05 20:12:28<br>I appreciate the quick reply. I also appreciate that SE has removed the Federal Fee (as intended by the FCC). However, I am disturbed by the constant increase in the Regulatory Fee. Again,<br>Increased from $3.00 to $3.18 in April, 2006<br>Increased from $3.18 to $3.39 in May, 2006<br>Then dramatically increased (over 40%) to $5.70 in June.<br><br>It's kind of a sham to not increase the base price but increase a 'fee' which has no disclosed fix to a specific cost.<br><br>I don't see how a net increase in the amount of money I'm paying saves me any money...(!?)<br><br>Why did the Regulatory Fee jump from 3.2% to 5.95%? That's rather dramatic.<br>Thanks,<br>KM<br>---<br><br>2006-09-05 20:50:09<br>The fees, Regulatory Compliance Fee and Federal Regulatory Fee, combined before the change in regulation(3.39+3.97) amounted to 7.36. Now that the fee was simplified to just the Regulatory Compliance Fee it went down to 6.30--that's where the savings is.<br><br>All of that 5.95% is being used to cover extensive increases in cost directly associated with regulatory compliance.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Mark<br>---<br><br>2006-09-05 22:02:53<br>Understood. However, in the overall fee increase you are combining both previous fees. Since one was completely dropped, that's not really a valid comparison.<br><br>In other words, plainly, despite one fee being dropped, your current charges have not been halved. Surely, moving fees from one name to another is a type of accounting trickery SE should be above.<br><br>Needless to say, 'regulatory compliance' doesn't actually say a whole lot. What other (non-Federal?) fees specifically are to blame for this burden?<br><br>I'm disappointed in the obtuse nature of these explanations.<br>Thanks,<br>KM<br>---<br><br>2006-09-06 01:05:21<br>The information I had given you is what's available to me. If you have any further questions, concerns, or feedback regarding this matter, please email exec@speakeasy.net.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Mark J<br>---<br><br>2006-09-06 06:47:54<br>Mark,<br>I appreciate your time and replies, despite the overall progress made addressing the question. I shall take this up at the email address you supplied.<br>Regards,<br>KM<br></DIV>At which point, this morning, I emailed the above referenced 'exec' account with a link to and summary of this ticket - just adding my voice to the crowd.<br>KM<br><SMALL>--<br>Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16849873</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 10:00:33 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: I filed an FCC complaint today - easy to do!</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16849450</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/420133"><b>TheOtherPete</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  speakeasy2k <A HREF="/useremail/u/1389124"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>I filed a complaint with the FCC today regarding this. It's really easy to do online and from what they say, they make it sound like it will actually be read by someone who cares.<br><br>Here's the URL:<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cib/fcc475.cfm" >svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cib/fcc475.cfm</A> </DIV> Thanks for the link, I just filed a complaint as well.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16849450</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 07:59:09 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16848907</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/681212"><b>jcricket</b></A> : I'm with you on registering a complaint, although at this point they're clearly not worried about any hit to their reputation from any of their smaller customers (i.e. us).<br><br>Their lack of transparency and greed on this latest issue, coupled with their general disdain for improving the consumer-DSL experience (ADSL2+? higher speeds at reasonable prices? etc.) mean that I'm out of here when my contract is up.<br><br>There's no difference between Speakeasy and Qwest or Verizon or whomever for DSL subscribers, unless you're a hardcore gamer. And even then the difference is clearly shrinking. Outside of interleave (on Qwest) I can't imagine why anyone would stick with Speakeasy.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16848907</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2006 01:50:44 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16846829</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/638667"><b>waka</b></A> : Here is the latest reply and my response:<br><br>-----------------------<br>Speakeasy-<br>2006-09-05 15:34:02<br>The FUSF is actually a fee that the government charged in order to provide telecom services to nonprofits and other similar organizations.<br><br>Our regulatory fees are fees that we charge in order to maintain our services in light of government taxes, regulations, etc that are essentially applicable to every broadband connection.<br><br>Your overall charges have been reduced by 1%. Since the regulatory compliance fee has not been raised significantly since late 2004, this is not as significant an increase as it may seem.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Charles Ervin<br>Business Support Representative - Online Support<br>(800) 556-5829<br><br>ME:<br>2006-09-05 16:29:47<br>Please note: I understand my bill has gone down, as it SHOULD since SE is no longer passing along the FUSF fee.<br><br>My concern is the before and after Regulatory Compliance Fee. Currently my invoice shows only TWO items:<br><br>Item #1: Federal Compliance Fee<br>Item #2: Speakeasy's Regulatory Compliance Fee.<br><br>So if Item #1 is eliminated, why is Item #2 going up? WHAT HAS BEEN ADDED TO MAKE ITEM #2 ON MY BILL GO FROM $1.92 TO $3.57? This is a $1.65 INCREASE in this fee. As such, I want a detailed before and after Itemized list of what goes into this "Fee". A list that provides such detail would help me understand my charges as I am the one paying for them.<br><br>Thank you<br>---------------------------------------------<br><br>I guess SE just doesn't get where we are coming from.  They keep saying "your overall charges have been reduced by 1%" when in fact SE's Regulatory Compliance Fee has gone UP despite the fact that the FUSF fee has gone away.  I encourage all Speakeasy customers (many of you have been loyal customers for several years) to file a complaint.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16846829</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:36:16 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16846513</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/744104"><b>plutarch</b></A> : I'm waiting for the same thing. The person at SE I was speaking with via the service ticket says he can't speak for the company and to contact the executive offices. I asked in the ticket for him to forward the thread for an official response. I fully expect to be blown off. I'm not under contract, so the next step is an FCC complaint and a new broadband provider. Any recommendations?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16846513</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:46:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16844059</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/638667"><b>waka</b></A> : I would have to agree.  Being a SE customer for over 4+ years, this is pretty disappointing.  It's not even about the money, its the principle of the matter.  I don't like being told I'm getting a deal, like they are doing me a favor (i.e., SE - "We are reducing your monthly bill by 1%"), when in reality SE is making an additional buck or two off of us.  To me it's just plain dishonest.<br><br>I'm also still waiting to hear from SE on what exactly goes into their Regulatory Compliance Fee and why it has jumped higher and no word yet.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16844059</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:00:15 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16842826</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/459309"><b>Bondman</b></A> : Speakeasy continues to be silent.  This is a far cry from the days when Kat worked for them.....<br>Call a spade a spade.  Stop playing games with gov "fees"!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16842826</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2006 06:59:56 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16833686</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/906493"><b>knightmb</b></A> : I feel that Speakeasy should just own up and say "hey, we aren't paying the government this anymore, we want to keep it for ourselves but not as much as before"  Hey, I can go along with that, they are a business after all, but I think the sneaky part is what is annoying the hell out of all of us. I don't want to see Speakeasy go down the tubes because then that *only* leaves me Bellsouth or Comcast which neither of them I like at the moment.  They all want to make money, but at least Speakeasy was the lesser of the 3 evils and I can't complain about their rock solid DSL connections.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16833686</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 03 Sep 2006 15:08:52 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16829276</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  speakeasy2k <A HREF="/useremail/u/1389124"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br>Note that I've been with Speakeasy longer than probably any of you - my DSL line was installed in 3/2000. That's over six years.</DIV>Heh... Got you beat by a couple years. I got SpeakEasy installed in 1998 in the apartment I had before I moved into my current house.<br><br><div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  speakeasy2k <A HREF="/useremail/u/1389124"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br>If a guy like me is willing to jump ship over this, and Speakeasy doesn't sit up and take notice - then, well, I don't think anything is going to get through to them. </DIV>Exactly.<br><br>The funny part is, I worked for a company that decided to get rid of their loyal customers to go after a higher-margin segment. The only reason that company still exists is that they were bought by one company that was later bought by Verizon. Ironically, the customers they got rid of were always low-cost to support and always just paid their bills.<br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16829276</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2006 17:37:55 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16828726</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1110570"><b>King P</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  gjgfjfgj <A HREF="/useremail/u/1347491"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br><div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  jcricket <A HREF="/useremail/u/681212"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>   :</SMALL><br><br>I think the problem is that Speakeasy's not interested in growing its consumer DSL business anymore. Their marketing quite clearly indicates a shift to small business, VOIP services, etc.</DIV>Bingo.<br> </DIV>I was told as much by their marketing department over a year ago. They were not going to focus on residential users, as more money was to be made with Business services, and that Residential was no longer a focus point for their services.<br><SMALL>--<br>Forget 'em, Support the Indies.<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.ind-music.com" >www.ind-music.com</A></SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16828726</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:35:23 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16828554</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1347491"><b>gjgfjfgj</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  jcricket <A HREF="/useremail/u/681212"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</SMALL><BR><BR>I think the problem is that Speakeasy's not interested in growing its consumer DSL business anymore. Their marketing quite clearly indicates a shift to small business, VOIP services, etc.</DIV>Bingo.<div class="borderless"><TABLE WIDTH=95% align=center border=0 CELLPADDING=4"><TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#000000 nwrap COLSPAN=3 WIDTH=100%><A HREF="/speak/slideshow/16828554?c=1058086&ret=L2ZvcnVtL3IxNjY1ODA0Ny54bWw%3D"><IMG TITLE="9464 bytes" BORDER=0 WIDTH=408 HEIGHT=264 SRC="/r0/download/1058086~8462d807d83e3f1811ebb85142119486/spk3.gif"></A><br>A T1 ad after every speed test</TD></TR><TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#000000 nwrap COLSPAN=2 WIDTH=66%><A HREF="/speak/slideshow/16828554?c=1058087&ret=L2ZvcnVtL3IxNjY1ODA0Ny54bWw%3D"><IMG TITLE="6440 bytes" BORDER=0 WIDTH=262 HEIGHT=115 SRC="/r0/download/1058087~e118bee8d29c3eed26b464e583ea8cba/spk2.gif"></A><br>Prominently displayed on front page</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#000000 nowrap width=1%>&nbsp;</TD></TR><TR><TD ALIGN=CENTER VALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#000000 nwrap COLSPAN=2 WIDTH=66%><A HREF="/speak/slideshow/16828554?c=1058088&ret=L2ZvcnVtL3IxNjY1ODA0Ny54bWw%3D"><IMG TITLE="6540 bytes" BORDER=0 WIDTH=270 HEIGHT=119 SRC="/r0/download/1058088~0a46ec496e15cb0b26d65bdf4c55e5e7/spk1.gif"></A><br>Prominently displayed on front page</TD><TD ALIGN=CENTER BGCOLOR=#000000 nowrap width=1%>&nbsp;</TD></TABLE></div>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16828554</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:04:31 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16827921</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/214274"><b>russotto</b></A> : My bill is about $80 + $5 in fees plus $3 in actual taxes.  It wouldn't bother me a bit if it was $85 + $3 in taxes.  I'm not leaving Speakeasy over it, but it remains an irritant.<br><br>For people still in their 12-month contracts, it is pretty sleazy (and IMO (IANAL) a violation of the contract; doesn't matter that they don't _call_ them broadband service fees, they really are) for them to have the fees raised.  For the rest of us, it's a price increase (or decrease; unlike my Comcast bill, my Speakeasy bill has gone both ways) and there's nothing wrong with that stated as such.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16827921</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:57:32 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>I filed an FCC complaint today - easy to do!</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16826107</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1389124"><b>speakeasy2k</b></A> : I filed a complaint with the FCC today regarding this. It's really easy to do online and from what they say, they make it sound like it will actually be read by someone who cares.<br><br>Here's the URL:<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cib/fcc475.cfm" >svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cib/fcc475.cfm</A><br><br>...or you can just email to them (although I think the above form is better because you know what they want and need):<br><br>   ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16826107</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:54:26 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16825209</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/744104"><b>plutarch</b></A> : Exactly -- if they'd just say the fee is $X per month rather than pretending the fee is $(X-x) then adding back the $x in questionable "regulatory" fees and phoney taxes, there'd be no issue. I've been with SE for over three years, but this is annoying enough that I'm looking hard at their competitors' service.<br><br>Ultimately, it will take enough people getting fed up with these practices plus a politician wanting to make a populist name to create a "Truth in Telecommunications Billing Act" or some such. Of course, protections for the telcos against network neutrality would probably get attached as a rider.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16825209</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:08:46 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16825098</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/314372"><b>KoolMoe</b></A> : <B>Shenanigans!</B><br>I agree.<br>Looking over my bill today as I paid it, I really don't have a problem with the amount of money I'm paying - assuming my connection remains stable.<br><br>How many other DSL or cable providers offer free dial-up service? I don't use it often but I appreciate the availability. I used it more frequently during travels before most all places offered free wifi...but still nice to have if my DSL goes down and I must get online for whatever reason.<br><br>So, again, not too upset with the premium price I pay overall. My two complaints are 1) sneaky fees (just not cool, especially for a 'geek-friendly' ISP) and 2) the inability for SE to do anything about degraded lines.<br>KM<br><SMALL>--<br>Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16825098</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:49:01 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16824998</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/744104"><b>plutarch</b></A> : I opened a ticket asking about this as well, and have gotten similar doubletalk. (I've asked for permission to post their replies as an official response, and will if they agree.)<br><br>Bottom line is this: SE rolled the FUSF from the "federal compliance fee" into a "regulatory compliance fee." When the FUSF requirement went away, they jacked up the "regulatory compliance fee" and eliminated the "federal compliance fee"--almost penny for penny except for a small (1%) bone. So this was a net fee increase of a couple of dollars when you take into account that they don't contribute to the FUSF.<br><br>If I don't get a straight answer, I am going to go ahead and file an FCC complaint, citing the Verizon example. They at least shouldn't be able to get away with shenanigans like this unchallenged.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16824998</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:26:36 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16823049</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/334976"><b>Fragmaster</b></A> : I could see that being true if Speakeasy was charging $50 a month for service but they are not. At the rates   Speakeasy charges they are most certainly making a profit on residential DSL. I am into my sixth year with Speakeasy and many of the posters here are long time Speakeasy subscribers, it doesn't make sense to cast aside the customers you are making money on. <br><br>My bill has gone up since the current change in pricing, not down 1% like they claim. <br><br>Bill before change: <br><br>*Federal Regulatory Fees   4.72 <br>*Federal Regulatory Fees   -0.38 <br>*Tax Reimbursement (g): Statutory Gross Receipts Tax - State   0.88 <br>*Regulatory Compliance Fee   4.03 <br>*Regulatory Compliance Fee   -0.32 <br>Subtotal 124.88 <br><br>Bill after change:<br><br>*Federal Regulatory Fees   0.00 <br>*Federal Regulatory Fees   0.00 <br>Compliance Fee   0.10 <br>*Tax Reimbursement (g): Statutory Gross Receipts Tax - State   0.88 <br>*Regulatory Compliance Fee   -0.60 <br>*Regulatory Compliance Fee   7.49 <br>Subtotal 125.43 ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16823049</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:51:38 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16822881</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/267904"><b>drmorley</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  jcricket <A HREF="/useremail/u/681212"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>I think the problem is that Speakeasy's not interested in growing its consumer DSL business anymore. Their marketing quite clearly indicates a shift to small business, VOIP services, etc. I can't blame them, as Cable and ILECs are in a apparently in a better position to offer low-cost, no-frills high-speed internet access to consumers.<br><br>But rather than forcibly jettison their long-time customers (probably all of us), they'll just slowly get rid of any reasons why we would stay, and they won't do anything to keep us should we try to leave. Their silence on this BS fee issue and lack of presence in these forums are classic examples of that.<br><br> </DIV>This is exactly what is happening.  MegaPath did the same thing about four years ago and they're probably better off financially as a result.  It sucks for us as residential users, but without the change in direction they're probably facing certain doom....Hell even with the change it's going to be tough for them to compete.  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16822881</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:22:05 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16822865</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/906493"><b>knightmb</b></A> : Not to start any flames here, I use the Speakeasy Business DSL package so I went looking through old invoices to see what had changed. Basically the Regulatory Fee has remained constant (has not gone up or down), but from what I read everyone else is having changing numbers.  Is this only affecting non-business customers? Basically my Regulatory Fee has remained constant all of this year. Anyone else here using the Business DSL package from Speakeasy?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16822865</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:19:30 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16822526</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/638667"><b>waka</b></A> : Thought some of you would like to see my current ticket asking for clarification on this subject:<br><br>--------------------------------------------------<br>Me:<br>2006-09-01 10:25:10  &#9;   &#9; <br>I have two questions that I would liked answered in as much detail as possible:<br><br>1) I would like an explanation of what exactly each of the above fee's are and why I am being charged for them. I understand the Federal Compliance Fee has now been combined into the Regulatory Fee, but I want an explanation as to what each fee was prior to the change.<br><br>2) I want to know why my Regulatory Fee has jumped from $1.92 to $3.57 especially in the light of recent FCC changes towards many CLECs NOT having to pay into the USF fund.<br><br>--------------------<br>Speakeasy (italics added by me)<br>2006-09-01 10:58:34<br>As per our glossary, the Regulatory Compliance Fee "covers Speakeasy's cost for complying with government regulations, tax changes, and processing. This fee is not a tax or charge required by the government."<br><br>The Federal Compliance Fee <I>was</I> the literal FUSF fee, which has been <I>eliminated</I>. However, we have consolidated all regulatory fees into 1 monthly charge. We did reduce the total amount that you must pay in fees by about 1% of your total DSL charges, but the remaining amount is necessary for us to comply with the above mentioned costs.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Charles Ervin<br>Business Support Representative - Online Support<br>(800) 556-5829<br>My Hours Mon-Fri 5am-1:30pm PDT<br>www.speakeasy.net<br>---------------------<br>Me:<br>2006-09-01 11:23:28<br>From your own statement, the Federal Compliance Fee <I>IS</I> the FUSF fee and nothing else. So if the Federal Compliance Fee has been eliminated, then why has my Regulatory fees gone up from 1.92 to 3.57? <br>What is now being added to the regulatory fee to make it higher? An itemized detailed explanation of what exactly goes into the Regulatory fees would be appreciated.<br><br>---------------------------------<br><br>Keep in mind that the invoice <B>only</B> shows two fees:<br>1) Federal Compliance Fee (was $2.25 for me)<br>2) Regulatory Compliance Fee (was $1.92 and now 3.57)<br><br>Logic states that if fee #1 is eliminated then fee #2 should not be higher!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16822526</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:28:38 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16822443</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1389124"><b>speakeasy2k</b></A> : This is a pure-and-simple, sleazy, back-door land grab for higher profits. As I wrote to speakeasy-ceo, "what's next? Are you going to pass through the cost of sales tax on the employee's pizzas and say it's a "regulatory fee" that the customers need to pay for?".<br><br>I'm checking with Qwest this AM about their DSL service options...any other (non-cable) providers in the Seattle (UW) area I should be looking at?<br><br>Note that I've been with Speakeasy longer than probably any of you - my DSL line was installed in 3/2000. That's over six years. If a guy like me is willing to jump ship over this, and Speakeasy doesn't sit up and take notice - then, well, I don't think anything is going to get through to them.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16822443</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:15:29 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16822398</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/681212"><b>jcricket</b></A> : I think the problem is that Speakeasy's not interested in growing its consumer DSL business anymore. Their marketing quite clearly indicates a shift to small business, VOIP services, etc. I can't blame them, as Cable and ILECs are in a apparently in a better position to offer low-cost, no-frills high-speed internet access to consumers.<br><br>But rather than forcibly jettison their long-time customers (probably all of us), they'll just slowly get rid of any reasons why we would stay, and they won't do anything to keep us should we try to leave. Their silence on this BS fee issue and lack of presence in these forums are classic examples of that.<br><br>As much as getting DSL service from some faceless monopoly scares me, I can't ignore the greater than $150/year savings and higher speeds forever. My guess is that when Qwest offers me their premier service for $25-ish/month (the price of their current 1.5 offering) I'll be out of here. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16822398</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:06:23 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16820242</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/298513"><b>grobinette</b></A> :  Lawrencem <A HREF="/useremail/u/1072392"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> Last seen: 2006-08-31 19:42:22<br>He's around lurking, but that's about it.<br> <br><SMALL>--<br><A HREF="/forum/disco">Team Discovery</A></SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16820242</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 06:21:24 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16819389</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : But, ultimately, it comes down to, are you getting value?<br><br>Just out of interest, I checked Adam's "goodbye" post. He'd posted the DSLR name of his forum successor. Guess what? The named replacement hasn't posted anything in the last 90 days. So, it's not just that they're staying quiet on this thread, it's that they've abandoned this forum. Seems to me, some of the value left when Adam left and noone took up the slack.<br><br>SpeakEasy (or whoever) can charge all they want for a product, so long as they provide value. Unfortunately, the value has been evaporating, of late. The bogus fees are just another example of it.<br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16819389</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:04:23 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16819036</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/138891"><b>claudeo</b></A> : Let's not confuse the issues. I'm not happy about SE billing practices, but I'm happy about my SE service. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16819036</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:07:24 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16818266</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  bhan261 <A HREF="/useremail/u/312284"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br>And, of course, SE will point the finger at Verizon and say "there's nothing we can do about it".  But they gladly cash your check each month and live off a decaying reputation for superior customer service.<br><br>I, for one, am getting near my limit for enduring the crap SE tries to get away with lately.  <br> </DIV>So, how many of us found DSLR because we were looking for recommendations for a new service provider? How many of us are going to be using it for that again?<br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16818266</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:14:39 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16818242</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/312284"><b>bhan261</b></A> : And, of course, SE will point the finger at Verizon and say "there's nothing we can do about it".  But they gladly cash your check each month and live off a decaying reputation for superior customer service.<br><br>I, for one, am getting near my limit for enduring the crap SE tries to get away with lately.  ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16818242</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:10:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16817202</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/314372"><b>KoolMoe</b></A> : Yeah, definitely an ILEC issue. I got it fixed in the past with a shared line with the Fax excuse. But now with OneLink, I've screwed myself (apparently) because - even though SE is certainly paying VZ rent for that line - apparently VZ does not actually provide any guarantee of the condition of that line (!). So as the line quality degrades, so does my service, and while really VZ's fault, so does my satisfaction with SE.<br>KM<br><SMALL>--<br>Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16817202</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:12:27 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16816122</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1347491"><b>gjgfjfgj</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  CylonRed <A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>But his problem is not an SE issue - it is a ILEC issue</DIV>I know it is and so was mine. The thing is, Cox went out of their way to make the cable lines work well. Qwest, well, Qwest didn't really do anything and never has.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16816122</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:07:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16816069</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/380736"><b>scooby</b></A> : Seems most Covad resellers have fallen on hard times. Last I looked Covad did not make money on residential DSL due to the prices being so low. I'm betting your prediction is not too far off.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16816069</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:56:54 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16816064</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  gjgfjfgj <A HREF="/useremail/u/1347491"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br><div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  KoolMoe <A HREF="/useremail/u/314372"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</SMALL><br><br>if my line's not up, those are useless.</DIV>Bingo! The one thing I can say I love about my new cable connection is that it is always up and running. It gets a little slow at night, but not any slower than what I had with Speakeasy.<br> </DIV>But his problem is not an SE issue - it is a ILEC issue unless it is an inside wiring issue but if it happens when it rains - 99.99999999% of the time it is an ouside - before the nid issue and that rests solely on the ILEC to fix...<br><SMALL>--<br>Brian<BR><br>"Some people are like Slinkies...<br>Not really good for anything......<br>But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs."</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16816064</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:56:42 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16815920</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : Yup. SpeakEasy used to be fairly quick. Now... well, they've as much as admitted that the DC PoP is obersubscribed. They've also done a bunch of consolidation of their private network (ensuring that the remaining PoPs are also oversubscribed). It's just not good. It all makes me wonder if I'll soon be getting a letter, one day, similar to friends that use to use <A HREF="http://news.com.com/2100-1033-255086.html">North Pointe</A>.<br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16815920</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:28:52 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16815881</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1347491"><b>gjgfjfgj</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  KoolMoe <A HREF="/useremail/u/314372"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>if my line's not up, those are useless.</DIV>Bingo! The one thing I can say I love about my new cable connection is that it is always up and running. It gets a little slow at night, but not any slower than what I had with Speakeasy.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16815881</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:23:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16814489</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/314372"><b>KoolMoe</b></A> : I agree. I'm becoming disillusioned as well. Same kinda thing all around. I have a contract with SE until sometime around March, I think, and I'll happily stick with them until it's up.<br><br>At that point, if FIOS is here and SE isn't reselling it, buh-bye. The lack of responses in this forum and especially this topic are turning me a little sour.<br><br>Plus, it's damn aggravating to not be able to have line issues addressed. My OneLink was pretty solid for the first few months but, like so many others, it's degrading. I loose sync every time it rains - which could really suck for this week! It's frustrating not to have any recourse.<br><br>Now that I've moved most all services to a hosting provider, I really don't *need* static IPs anymore. I like the TOS and features of my SE account...but if my line's not up, those are useless. I'm almost ashamed to say it, but maybe time to explore cable options myself.<br>KM<br><SMALL>--<br>Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16814489</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:06:58 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16813960</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  djpiazza <A HREF="/useremail/u/348366"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br>Did I miss something, When did Adam leave?<br><br>**UPDATE**<br><br>Never mind, I just did a search and saw Adam left. What a shame. Ok than,<br><br>Lawrence how about a comment from you. Are you monitoring these boards or not?<br> </DIV>First Kat, then Adam. It seems no one's taken their place. So, what <I>is</I> speakeasy doing, any more. This forum used to be something you could point to to say "SpeakEasy goes that extra mile." Doesn't seem like we can say that, any more, does it? <br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16813960</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:28:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16812411</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/267904"><b>drmorley</b></A> : After nearly five years with Speakeasy I canceled my service this past June and went with SBC.  My biggest beef with Speakeasy all those years was the bogus "taxes" they insisted were necessary.  <br><br>My wife still uses Speakeasy at her office and I'm going to inquire about getting these taxes removed.  If they won't then I'll take our business elsewhere.  It's that easy.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16812411</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:34:47 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16812182</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/138891"><b>claudeo</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  King P <A HREF="/useremail/u/1110570"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>Claudeo,<br>Mike isn't running Speakeasy anymore. Bruce Chatterley is, but the email is still the same. </DIV>Right you are. I'm just a little slow sometimes...  :p]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16812182</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:03:40 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16811987</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/348366"><b>djpiazza</b></A> : Did I miss something, When did Adam leave?<br><br>**UPDATE**<br><br>Never mind, I just did a search and saw Adam left. What a shame. Ok than,<br><br>Lawrence how about a comment from you. Are you monitoring these boards or not?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16811987</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:29:35 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16811967</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/348366"><b>djpiazza</b></A> : Add another voice to the growing list. I am a long time customer and really feel shafted on this one. If you want to raise your monthly fee, than raise it. But hiding a price increase in a restructured "Regulatory compliance fee" is outrageous. You have the nerve to say in your e-mail that you our saving us money by dropping our fees by 1%. That is an outright lie. The government eliminated a tax, lowering my bill and you added a new fee, than bundled with other fees to hide it. That's called an increase, not a savings. Yes, my bill may be slightly lower, but it is no thanks to Speakeasy. <br><br>Drop this fee like the rest. <br><br>Adam? Any comment on this?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16811967</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:28:03 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16811850</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/334976"><b>Fragmaster</b></A> : I have been with Speakeasy for over 5 years and I am looking at other providers now. My bill has actually gone up since these new "fees" were added to my bill. I have yet to see a speakeasy rep post here since Adam left. If this is the way they are going to do business its time to end our relationship.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16811850</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:13:01 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810748</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : Wonder whatever happened to SpeakEasy reps monitoring this forum? They've been oddly silent on this. So, we're getting dicked with bogus fees AND SpeakEasy is no longer providing assistance through these forums? Sounds like it's time to start looking. I'm month-to-month now, any way. I was going to wait for FIOS and hope that SE would resell, but now, I think I may as well look at one of Cox's SOHO offerings. More bandwidth than I have with SE and about the same price.<br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810748</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:28:38 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810149</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/681212"><b>jcricket</b></A> : I sent an email to the CEO, for whatever it's worth. I agree, this is a bogus fee, along with many of the other "compliance recovery" and "tax recovery" fees. I understand that Speakeasy incurs many costs, some related to compliance with local and state government regulations. But unless those dollars are 100% passed directly on to another entity, they shouldn't be listed separately as line items.<br><br>Just another hidden rate increase is definitely right.<br><br>There's probably about $5 on every bill that's basically Speakeasy not being able to justify increasing the actual cost of their service so finding a sneaky way to do it but make it look like the government is at fault. ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810149</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:54:52 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810144</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1106467"><b>artisticcheese</b></A> : Verizon had FCC inquiry coming in and FCC does not care about Speakeasy so there is no big guy outthere pressuring them to do so except for their own customers. This is just another reason for me to switch to FIOS at the end of my contract.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810144</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:54:16 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810101</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : I just called Speakeasy about this and they couldn't give me a straight answer, the gentleman passed my info onto accounting. I shoulded him the DSLreports article. They are supposed to be getting back to me about this fee & if they will be dropping it. I would suggest that everyone call in an inquire about it. If Verizon is dropping the fee, so should Speakeasy!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16810101</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:45:45 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809591</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1110570"><b>King P</b></A> : Claudeo,<br><br>Mike isn't running Speakeasy anymore. Bruce Chatterley is, but the email is still the same.<br><SMALL>--<br>Forget 'em, Support the Indies.<br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.ind-music.com" >www.ind-music.com</A></SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809591</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:23:36 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809434</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1332182"><b>xerxes3642</b></A> : cable has done the same thing with franchise fees.  They are a cost of using government rights-of-way, however, they are put on a seperate line-item and not figured into the advertised price.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809434</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:56:09 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809330</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/420133"><b>TheOtherPete</b></A> : Bellsouth and Verizon have announced they are dropping this bogus fee hike - time for Speakeasy to follow their lead!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809330</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:38:35 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809219</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/589555"><b>wcweaver</b></A> : Bottom line is if the government drops a fee, a provider should drop their monthly charge by the same amount.  If they don't, then they are putting money that went into the government's pocket  and putting it in their own pocket.<br><br>And also, their administrative costs should actually drop becaue this is one less item they have to keep track of and pay to the government.<br><br>It is  a hidden rate increase no matter how they hide it and it borders on theft because they are trying to disguise the rate increase as something else that is bogus. <br><br>If they want a rate increase then be upfront about it and call it a rate increase.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16809219</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:23:19 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16804681</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/138891"><b>claudeo</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  jcricket <A HREF="/useremail/u/681212"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>For the life of me I can't understand what's happened to Speakeasy. I'm not saying they've always been a perfect corporate citizen, but this really takes the cake. </DIV>How about giving the man a piece of your mind:<br>Mike Apgar<br>CEO, SPEAKEASY.net<br>email) speakeasy-ceo at speakeasy.net]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16804681</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:17:30 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16802940</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1106467"><b>artisticcheese</b></A> : They probably would not get a kick in the a** like Verizon and BellSouth did (&raquo;<A HREF="/shownews/77695">FCC Chief 'Furious' Over New DSL Fees</A>)]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16802940</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:57:58 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16802322</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/681212"><b>jcricket</b></A> : For the life of me I can't understand what's happened to Speakeasy. I'm not saying they've always been a perfect corporate citizen, but this really takes the cake.<br><br><B>Adding bogus fees</B> at the point when a fee they merely "passed on" to the government goes away is nothing but screwing over their customers. Sure, Speakeasy's within its rights to charge each customer more, but doing so in an <B>underhanded way</B> that make it appear a tax or government fee is involves is something I expect from Qwest or Verizon (i.e. a near-monopoloy)<br><br>One of the prime selling points of dealing with a third-party, non-monopoly company is that they know you can switch to other providers, so they won't do things like this. Now I'm starting to wonder why we all just don't just switch to Qwest. What's the difference anymore?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16802322</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:34:04 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16780644</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1137037"><b>houstontarge</b></A> : Seems like we not the only ones upset with these backdoor tactics...<br>&raquo;<A HREF="/shownews/77618">Bell South Backs Out Bogus Fee</A>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16780644</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:25:38 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772143</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : Read the last sentence of the paragraph.....  RCF will not be included in the "broadband service charges" thereby making the RCF excuded from the guarantee.<br><br>Look - if it is illegal then start a classaction lawsuit against the entire industry - I am sure a ton of lawyers would jump at the chance if there was anything illegal about it - my guess is no lawyers think it is illegal or illegal enough to even bother.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772143</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:43:38 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772129</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/420133"><b>TheOtherPete</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  CylonRed <A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>They covered that in their TOS:<br><br><I>Pricing Guarantee:<br>In the event that Speakeasy's pricing increases, your monthly recurring charge will remain at the price set during order placement or special billing agreement for 12 months following your Activation Date. Additionally, if your account is invoiced quarterly, semi-annually or annually, you will receive your set monthly recurring charge until the end of the current payment period. This does not include new orders under the same name and/or location or new orders associated with a service relocation, nor orders for service changes that may be required if the desired service is not available due to technical or other reasons. Price changes for different packages at the same speeds, technologies, and throughput level are not included; one-time charges, applicable state and federal taxes, and promotional pricing are excluded. This guarantee only applies to the recurring broadband service charges. </I> </DIV>I'm not sure what the above quote proves except that Speakeasy is not allowed to raise my rates during the 12-months which they are effectively doing with this increased "Regulatory Compliance Fee"<br><br>I agree that they are allowed to pass through any additional state and federal taxes that they incur but as far as I can tell this "Regulatory Compliance Fee" increase is not based on any state or federal tax increase - it is nothing less then a backdoor price increase to boost their own profits.   ]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772129</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:41:11 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772113</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  TheOtherPete <A HREF="/useremail/u/420133"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br><div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  CylonRed <A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</SMALL><br><br>same for taxes/fees at airports for airplane tickets - fees are added or increased with no notice or opportunity to pay it or not. </DIV>I buy my airline tickets ahead of time online - all fees and taxes are listed before I confirm that they can charge my credit card for whatever the total amount is.<br><br>I have never shown up at the airport with paid tickets and been asked to pay additional fees or taxes.<br><br>Apparently I live in a different world then you (or at least use different airlines & airports).<br> </DIV>That is up to you - if you want to fly any where you have to agree (by buying the ticket) to ANY and ALL fees and ANY and ALL increases to those fees - it is not really a choice if that is the only way you need to get somewhere.  They simply increase the fees and never have to disclose it anywhere and never ask you first BEFORE they put the fee on - they just tack it on...<br><br>Again - companies can change fees and prices anytime they want - they can even give you a small portion for the same price anytime they want - with the consumer having no vote on it before it happens.  That to me is REAL explicit approval - asking for consumer approval before buying and offering the same product without the increased prices/fees...<br><SMALL>--<br>Brian<BR><br>"Some people are like Slinkies...<br>Not really good for anything......<br>But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs."</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772113</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:38:15 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772095</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  TheOtherPete <A HREF="/useremail/u/420133"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br><div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  CylonRed <A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</SMALL><br><br>Please list any and all companies that only increase fees after YOUR explicit approval????  I know the answer for me is a grand total of..... none...<br><br>Again - vote with the pocket book - that is the only way tyo get any business attention and tell them exactly why you choose to leave their services. </DIV>Really?  I can think of several but that's irrelevent to this discussion.<br><br>Since I have a 12-month contract with Speakeasy I don't expect them to change their price during that period nor can I just walk away during the 12-month period without incurring a huge early-termination fee, which should answer your second point.   Rest assured I will be voting with my feet when the 12 months is over.<br> </DIV>They covered that in their TOS:<br><br>"<I>Pricing Guarantee:<br>In the event that Speakeasy's pricing increases, your monthly recurring charge will remain at the price set during order placement or special billing agreement for 12 months following your Activation Date. Additionally, if your account is invoiced quarterly, semi-annually or annually, you will receive your set monthly recurring charge until the end of the current payment period. This does not include new orders under the same name and/or location or new orders associated with a service relocation, nor orders for service changes that may be required if the desired service is not available due to technical or other reasons. Price changes for different packages at the same speeds, technologies, and throughput level are not included; one-time charges, applicable state and federal taxes, and promotional pricing are excluded. This guarantee only applies to the recurring broadband service charges. </I>"<br><SMALL>--<br>Brian<BR><br>"Some people are like Slinkies...<br>Not really good for anything......<br>But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs."</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772095</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:35:05 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772090</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/420133"><b>TheOtherPete</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  CylonRed <A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>same for taxes/fees at airports for airplane tickets - fees are added or increased with no notice or opportunity to pay it or not. </DIV>I buy my airline tickets ahead of time online - all fees and taxes are listed before I confirm that they can charge my credit card for whatever the total amount is.<br><br>I have never shown up at the airport with paid tickets and been asked to pay additional fees or taxes.<br><br>Apparently I live in a different world then you (or at least use different airlines & airports).]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772090</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:33:25 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772083</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  CylonRed <A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br>Many - either none have ever increased a fee or they have never notified me and made sure I agree to them...  <br><br>My garbage folks added ina fee for gas - I had no opportunity to explicitly agree to the fee - they just notified us they were charging for it - same for taxes/fees at airports for airplane tickets - fees are added or increased with no notice or opportunity to pay it or not.<br> </DIV>If your credit card company changes interest rates, yearly fees, etc., they send you a new cardholder agreement. You're given the choice of closing the account or accepting the new fee/rate structure. If you don't close the account, it's implicit agreement to the new fee/rate structure.<br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772083</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:32:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772056</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/420133"><b>TheOtherPete</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  CylonRed <A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>Please list any and all companies that only increase fees after YOUR explicit approval????  I know the answer for me is a grand total of..... none...<br><br>Again - vote with the pocket book - that is the only way tyo get any business attention and tell them exactly why you choose to leave their services. </DIV>Really?  I can think of several but that's irrelevent to this discussion.<br><br>Since I have a 12-month contract with Speakeasy I don't expect them to change their price during that period nor can I just walk away during the 12-month period without incurring a huge early-termination fee, which should answer your second point.   Rest assured I will be voting with my feet when the 12 months is over.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772056</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:26:59 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772014</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : Many - either none have ever increased a fee or they have never notified me and made sure I agree to them...  <br><br>My garbage folks added ina fee for gas - I had no opportunity to explicitly agree to the fee - they just notified us they were charging for it - same for taxes/fees at airports for airplane tickets - fees are added or increased with no notice or opportunity to pay it or not.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16772014</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:21:41 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771992</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/698757"><b>nixen</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  CylonRed <A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br><div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  TheOtherPete <A HREF="/useremail/u/420133"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br><div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  valderost <A HREF="/useremail/u/945634"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</SMALL><br><br>The "regulatory compliance fee" isn't a tax.  If you want to think of it as a true fee, then by that logic, Speakeasy could arbitrarily up that fee to $10/mo and you would be contractually bound to pay it.  That doesn't sound quite right though, does it?<br><br>My Verizon bill has taxes and fees on it, but they are accompanied by a clear statement that these amounts are mandated by the government.  <br><br>In fact, during a protracted email discussion with Lawrence McBride on this very topic during winter/spring 2004-05, he asked me about taxes and fees on my telco bill, and I scanned and emailed it to him, along with a request that Speakeasy make a similar claim.  What I got back from him was this: complete and utter silence.  Of course Speakeasy can't make that claim, because to do so would be fraud.  <br><br>Lawrence, I reiterate my request: can you please state definitively that the taxes and fees that Speakeasy charges are mandated by government, just like my telco does?  And if this isn't the case, and Speakeasy will terminate my service for non-payment of these "fees" which set at Speakeasy's sole discretion, please explain how these "fees" are not part of the pricetag of the service itself? </DIV>The only bogus fee I agreed to when I signed up was the fee that was in-place at that time.  If they want to increase that fee then they need my explicit approval IMO.<br> </DIV>Please list any and all companies that only increase fees after YOUR explicit approval????  I know the answer for me is a grand total of..... none...</DIV>Don't have any credit cards, eh?<br><br>-tom<br><SMALL>--<br>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771992</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:19:02 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771933</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  TheOtherPete <A HREF="/useremail/u/420133"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><br><br><div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  valderost <A HREF="/useremail/u/945634"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>  :</SMALL><br><br>The "regulatory compliance fee" isn't a tax.  If you want to think of it as a true fee, then by that logic, Speakeasy could arbitrarily up that fee to $10/mo and you would be contractually bound to pay it.  That doesn't sound quite right though, does it?<br><br>My Verizon bill has taxes and fees on it, but they are accompanied by a clear statement that these amounts are mandated by the government.  <br><br>In fact, during a protracted email discussion with Lawrence McBride on this very topic during winter/spring 2004-05, he asked me about taxes and fees on my telco bill, and I scanned and emailed it to him, along with a request that Speakeasy make a similar claim.  What I got back from him was this: complete and utter silence.  Of course Speakeasy can't make that claim, because to do so would be fraud.  <br><br>Lawrence, I reiterate my request: can you please state definitively that the taxes and fees that Speakeasy charges are mandated by government, just like my telco does?  And if this isn't the case, and Speakeasy will terminate my service for non-payment of these "fees" which set at Speakeasy's sole discretion, please explain how these "fees" are not part of the pricetag of the service itself? </DIV>The only bogus fee I agreed to when I signed up was the fee that was in-place at that time.  If they want to increase that fee then they need my explicit approval IMO.<br> </DIV>Please list any and all companies that only increase fees after YOUR explicit approval????  I know the answer for me is a grand total of..... none...<br><br>Again - vote with the pocket book - that is the only way tyo get any business attention and tell them exactly why you choose to leave their services.<br><SMALL>--<br>Brian<BR><br>"Some people are like Slinkies...<br>Not really good for anything......<br>But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs."</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771933</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:10:55 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771606</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/420133"><b>TheOtherPete</b></A> : Put in a service ticket and Speakeasy responded that the increase in the "Regulatory Compliance Fee" is attributed to increased gov't fees that they are simply passing through to their customer and is not an arbitrary increase.<br><br>This contradicts what Verizon is saying about their increase on the same line item for DSL.<br><br>Does anyone buy this?<br><br><div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by Me :</SMALL><BR><BR>I see that the Regulatory Compliance Fee on my invoice has risen from $1.47 to $2.73.<br><br>It is my understanding that this is not a gov't assessed fee but it just an add-on that Speakeasy has arbitrarily decided to collect in order to compensate for removing the Federal Regulatory Fees which were actual gov't fees that have been eliminiated (FUSF).<br><br>On what basis is Speakeasy allowed to arbitrarily assess additional monthly fees without confirming with me that I agree to them?</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>quote:</SMALL><HR>It is not an arbitrary amount. There are over 4500 government agencies that assess taxes and fees. As these are assessed to us, we pass them on. This fee sometimes goes up and sometimes goes down. We receive quarterly adjustments from all agencies and adjust this rate accordingly. This fee is covered as well in out Terms of Service found at www.speakeasy.net/tos which you agree to by using our service.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br><br><div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by Me :</SMALL><BR><BR>Let me be clear - you are saying that the $2.73 Regulatory Compliance Fee is composed only of mandated government fees that Speakeasy is simply passing it through in its entirety to government agencies and Speakeasy is not keeping any portion for itself?</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>quote:</SMALL><HR>There is a flat administrative add on that does not change quarterly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br><div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by Me :</SMALL><BR><BR>So you are saying that the difference between what I used to pay ($1.47) and what I pay now ($2.73) is due solely to increases in government fees attributed specifically to my line which you are simply passing through?</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>quote:</SMALL><HR>Yes, that is exactly what I am telling you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771606</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:15:18 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771276</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/420133"><b>TheOtherPete</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  valderost <A HREF="/useremail/u/945634"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>The "regulatory compliance fee" isn't a tax.  If you want to think of it as a true fee, then by that logic, Speakeasy could arbitrarily up that fee to $10/mo and you would be contractually bound to pay it.  That doesn't sound quite right though, does it?<br><br>My Verizon bill has taxes and fees on it, but they are accompanied by a clear statement that these amounts are mandated by the government.  <br><br>In fact, during a protracted email discussion with Lawrence McBride on this very topic during winter/spring 2004-05, he asked me about taxes and fees on my telco bill, and I scanned and emailed it to him, along with a request that Speakeasy make a similar claim.  What I got back from him was this: complete and utter silence.  Of course Speakeasy can't make that claim, because to do so would be fraud.  <br><br>Lawrence, I reiterate my request: can you please state definitively that the taxes and fees that Speakeasy charges are mandated by government, just like my telco does?  And if this isn't the case, and Speakeasy will terminate my service for non-payment of these "fees" which set at Speakeasy's sole discretion, please explain how these "fees" are not part of the pricetag of the service itself? </DIV> I agree completely and would like to hear Speakeasy's official position on this issue.<br><br>As you said, since the fees are arbitrary, what is stopping Speakeasy from charging any amount they want and forcing customers to pay it (or face huge early-termination charges)?<br><br>The Speakeasy website has verbage about applicable taxes and fees but I think a common sense interpretation of that means gov't mandated taxes and fees.  <br><br>The only bogus fee I agreed to when I signed up was the fee that was in-place at that time.  If they want to increase that fee then they need my explicit approval IMO.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771276</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:23:36 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16712179</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/314372"><b>KoolMoe</b></A> : I agree these fees are, at least generally, BS.<br>It's nice to get a 10% loyalty discount. It's lame that the 10% I save is pretty much negated by additional fees.<br><br>I completely agree that additional fees on top of stated prices are lame. The fault, however, lies everywhere. I still remember the anger and disappointment as a kid when I went to 7-11 by myself with a nickel to buy a piece of Bazooka and I was asked for 6 cents. WHAT? I've been bushwacked! What is this 'tax' thing you speak of?!<br><br>If there are additional fees that increase the ultimate price, then include those damn fees in the price you're quoting me...<br><br>And it continues on through life. <br>So who wants to initiate the legal proceedings? Not It!<br>KM<br><SMALL>--<br>Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16712179</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:21:42 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16702173</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/945634"><b>valderost</b></A> : <div class="bquote"><SMALL>said by  CylonRed <A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A> :</SMALL><BR><BR>It is dishonest if they state that the price they have is the end price with no other fees/taxes - they don't do that.  They have always stated that taxes and fees are not included.  <br></DIV>The "regulatory compliance fee" isn't a tax.  If you want to think of it as a true fee, then by that logic, Speakeasy could arbitrarily up that fee to $10/mo and you would be contractually bound to pay it.  That doesn't sound quite right though, does it?<br><br>My Verizon bill has taxes and fees on it, but they are accompanied by a clear statement that these amounts are mandated by the government.  <br><br>In fact, during a protracted email discussion with Lawrence McBride on this very topic during winter/spring 2004-05, he asked me about taxes and fees on my telco bill, and I scanned and emailed it to him, along with a request that Speakeasy make a similar claim.  What I got back from him was this: complete and utter silence.  Of course Speakeasy can't make that claim, because to do so would be fraud.  <br><br>Lawrence, I reiterate my request: can you please state definitively that the taxes and fees that Speakeasy charges are mandated by government, just like my telco does?  And if this isn't the case, and Speakeasy will terminate my service for non-payment of these "fees" which set at Speakeasy's sole discretion, please explain how these "fees" are not part of the pricetag of the service itself?]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16702173</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2006 01:09:36 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16660435</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1347491"><b>gjgfjfgj</b></A> : For what it's worth, my bill went down by $0.50 or 1%.<br><br>Old Fees: $3.42 - That's about 7%, which is what I pay for sales tax on almost everything else I buy anyway.<br><br>New Fees: $2.92 - That's about 6%, which is less than I pay for sales tax on almost everything else I buy.<br><br>For comparison purposes:<br><br>Landline Phone Fees: 50%, which should be illegal Qwest.<br>Mobile Phone Fees: 15%, which is way too high Sprint.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16660435</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:16:15 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16660139</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : i can't say it any other way, so:<br><br>why the frick are you still with covad?!?!?!? some subscribers can be so STUPID AND LAZY, it's UNREAL!<br>switch the hell out, before its too late and they keep price gouging you!!! unless your only alternative is the satellite in the sky, get on the cancelation dept's ass, pronto!<br>but, knowing covad, they'll have recently hired the fired aol retention reps to fill this role!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16660139</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:35:14 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16659874</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : Hmmm - no.  Why?  Well - it is not like they "jacked up" the other fee - the regulatory fee drop was about 20 cents and rasing another fee to the same amount (20 cents) is not something I would call jacking up the price.  To me - jacking up the price is taking a fee from $1 to $3...  Not to mention I have yet to see the other fee increased as of yet.<br><br>Personally - I would bet you would be suprised by hiw little they are getting "rich" off of the other fee.  They are in business to make money - they have to afford the build out for DSL2 among other things.  Most people don't really know or understand how business works and just jump to conclusions that the additional fee is just there to make "them" (whomever "they" are) richer.<br><br>Again - as I always say to those that complain about the fees and any changes....  Don't like them - then get another ISP and tell SE the reason...<br><br>I find the example I posted to be far more dishonest...<br><SMALL>--<br>Brian<BR><br>"Some people are like Slinkies...<br>Not really good for anything......<br>But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs."</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16659874</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:57:15 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16659725</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/1106467"><b>artisticcheese</b></A> : Don't you find it's dishonest to tell people how they are dropping Federal Regulatory Fee making cozy feeling that ISP doing something for you which will cost you less to have the service, just to find out that behind your back they at the same time jacked up other fees so at the end you are still paying the same fee and probably they are getting richer becouse they are not remitting those compliance fees to government while regulatory fee they were.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16659725</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:36:29 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16659597</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170109"><b>CylonRed</b></A> : It is dishonest if they state that the price they have is the end price with no other fees/taxes - they don't do that.  They have always stated that taxes and fees are not included.  <br><br>What I find more dishonest is telling users that they will pay $x dollars and that is the  price on the bill - then they don't break out the fees.  They basically hide the fact they pay the same fees that SE puts on their bills - but Se puts then on in the open...<br><SMALL>--<br>Brian<BR><br>"Some people are like Slinkies...<br>Not really good for anything......<br>But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs."</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16659597</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:15:08 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16659259</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/138891"><b>claudeo</b></A> : Those regulatory fees are just part of the cost of doing business, but they are tacked on as a separate item to allow them to advertise a lower price. *Every* business incurs costs in following government regulations. Unfortunately Speakeasy is only following the lead of many other companies and especially mobile phone companies, airlines, etc. that lowball the price but then add those bogus charges and charge another price. It's just gravy for the bottom line. Basically it is also dishonest.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16659259</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:19:57 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16658886</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/214274"><b>russotto</b></A> : Regulatory compliance fee = random extra charge tacked on by Speakeasy, supposedly representing their cost for complying with various regulations.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16658886</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2006 10:16:11 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16658313</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/298513"><b>grobinette</b></A> : They did the same here. <br><br>I find it irritating that in their sample bills they show all the applicable taxes from Seattle<br>but they just can't seem to break down exactly what that Regulatory Compliance Fee is for on my invoices. <br><br>In their sample bill, there is no regulatory compliance fee.<br><SMALL>--<br><A HREF="/forum/disco">Team Discovery</A></SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16658313</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2006 06:40:40 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16658047</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/328188"><b>bjcatlin</b></A> : Just finished looking at my invoices from Speakeasy.  It looks like they have removed the Federal Regulatory Fee, but then they increased the Regulatory Compliance Fee for both my DSL and VoIP accounts.<br><br>The interesting thing is that the Regulatory Compliance Fees went up almost the same amount as what the Federal Regulatory Fee was, so my net savings is a whopping $0.35!<br><br>Am I crazy in thinking that when a regulatory fee goes away, shouldn't it cost less to comply with the regulations that went away?<br><br>Old:<br>Federal regulatory fee: $6.00<br>DSL Reg. Compliance fee: $5.12<br>VoIP Reg. Compliance fee: $4.95<br><br>New:<br>Federal regulatory fee: $0.00 ($6.00 decrease)<br>DSL Reg. Compliance fee: $9.52 ($4.40 increase)<br>VoIP Reg. Compliance fee: $6.20 ($1.25 increase)<br><br>Total: $0.35 decrease<br><br>Something smells fishy around here...]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16658047</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2006 03:07:41 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
