http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r16770076 en Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:46:04 EDT Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:46:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16773995 xsiddalx : The original article is incorrect....
DSL providers do not pay into the universal service
fund any more than you or I do when we purchase telephone
service. (maybe oversimplicated, but true)

Most of the fees in the telco industry are junk fees (cable
companies aren't exempt with their "franchise fees").

"Regulatory compliance"
"Universal service"
"account maintenance"

Why not add on:
"IRS tax filing fees"
"local gross receipts tax" - varies
"state income taxes" - varies by state
"sales tax differential"
"lobbying fees"

bah...it's all bogus.

"pass through" type fees are not taxes, however, most
of us are too addicted to our internet and are establishing
"what the market will bear". Since we have contracts,
the providers have to pass through as much as possible
via "fees" because that is what we agreed to when we
signed on. We pay the same "12.99" or, whatever rate,
and are locked in with the contingency for them to
add fees.

Until a class action suit is filed, what recourse do
we have other than suck it up until the contract expires
or refuse payment and have credit report issues.

Next we might expect to see our food prices at the grocer
have an "advertising fee" and "fuel surcharge" added...

Welcome to the deregulatory model of communications :)

It is up to the market to hash this out (meaning our
walking with our dollars)

Since you mention the law though, fees are not taxes (check your bill, taxes are applied to those alleged taxes).
A good lawsuit or ousting of some of our sold out politicians might more effective than a class action law suit, but frankly, we won't bother (at least in the US).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16773995 Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:10:23 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771826 broadbander : Fiberguy, the issue here isn't that "fees should be included in the initial estimate." The issue is that the telcos have recently been excepted from a particular fee (which should logically drop the price by said fee), but are continuing to charge for that fee under a different name.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771826 Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:53:39 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771762 cableties : you need a smaller 4pt font... ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771762 Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:41:23 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771734 GlennAllen : Speaking only for myself, I'd like to see only the actual govt. (fed/state/local) taxes and fees separated out from the "total cost" and not the telco's "taxes, fees, and surcharges", which are, in fact, part of their cost of doing business. I'd be somewhat happier with that; at least, I'd tend to not think so much that my telco is just ripping me off for a few extra dollars every month.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771734 Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:36:45 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771644 fiberguy : You do get to know the price. It's called "Total Amount Due" and is on the bottom of your bill.

If they are all doing this, electric, phone, cell, etc., don't you think there is a reason for that?

The government requires, so that people on the other side of the isle bitching that they feel decieved that the taxes aren't broken out, that everything must be broken out.

Now, let's look at the other side of things. Some fees or taxes may be higher or lower or non-existent in your neigboring area from yours. It's impossible to advertise a price as "the price" when your neigbor may have to pay a dollor or two more higher or lower than you.

Besides, the price is exactly what they advetised. If they say your DSL is $14.95, then the DSL is $14.95. They aren't selling you taxes and all the fees.. those are often collected and passed on.

So, in your desire to have thi put up front, how do you propose that they accomplish this task for you?

Seems no one likes the way it's advertised now with out the fees, which is the law, by the way, nor do people like having to deal with disclaimers as they want it "straight forward".. so exactly what would make EVERYONE happy... the reality answer is that not everyone is going to be happy all of the time. You can't please all the people all the time and everyone wants it to be their way. Welcome to dealing with the public.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16771644 Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:21:53 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16770584 Shack : That should be the law, it is a bit of deceptive advertising]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16770584 Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:25:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16770503 phathead296 : Yes. Pretty soon the ads will read:

6.0 Extreme DSL for only $9.95 per month!!!*

*plus regulatory cost recovery fees of $50.97 per month

Just tell me what the price is with all the fees, taxes, and any other charge by any other name. I hate it when I get one price quoted to me and pay an entirely different price when the bill arrives. Cell phones, electric service, and POTS are also terrible at this.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16770503 Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:10:25 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16770076 bmn : This is on top of the existing $2 and something "Regulatory Cost Recovery fee" (or whatever its called) or is this the same fee being rehashed again ?
--
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong."
—Dwight Eisenhower]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16770076 Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:58:13 EDT