NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| I CALL BS
I've never seen that fee on my parents/grandparents phone bills nor is it on my phone bill.
Just another money grabbing attempt. If there's any local fee's it's called city tax.
--
Mac Chatter
»www.macchatter.net |
|
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
 ·Charter Pipeline
| I don't think a company has a right to pass on every cost of doing business to a customer because there are some costs that a customer doesn't incur on the business that they should be responsible for.
Businesses are supposed to have expenses, yes, but if they have more expenses than they have income from customers, either they need to get more customers for more income, or they need to cut expenses. Customers shouldn't have to pay for corporate mismanagement or abuse or flat out stupid decisions made by management that didn't pan out. Or corporate fleecing.
--
"No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them." (R&D Supervisor, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing /3M Corp.) |
|
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Why not? Customers are a flock to profit from. A company has every right to pass whatever charges it wants to the customer.
--
kustomerservice.net |
|
hescominsoon
join:2003-02-18
Brunswick, MD
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to DHRacer
said by DHRacer  :I don't think a company has a right to pass on every cost of doing business to a customer because there are some costs that a customer doesn't incur on the business that they should be responsible for. Businesses are supposed to have expenses, yes, but if they have more expenses than they have income from customers, either they need to get more customers for more income, or they need to cut expenses. Customers shouldn't have to pay for corporate mismanagement or abuse or flat out stupid decisions made by management that didn't pan out. Or corporate fleecing. try running your own company before spouting off like this. |
|
mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Mishawaka, IN
·Comcast
| reply to DHRacer
First rule when attempting to understand business: all expenses get passed to the customer in one way or another, otherwise there is no profit. If your expense/customer is greater than your income/customer, you will never make a profit no matter how many additional customers you get and it may not always be possible to cut expenses in the ways necessary to make a profit.
If you don't like "stupid decisions" or "corporate mismanagement" then the way you tell a company is by not doing business with them. Also, if you're paying too much and there is a competitor that can offer the same service for less, opt for the competitor. Capitalism: try it. |
|
stunod2002
join:2003-11-07
Carol Stream, IL
| reply to hescominsoon
said by hescominsoon :said by DHRacer :I don't think a company has a right to pass on every cost of doing business to a customer because there are some costs that a customer doesn't incur on the business that they should be responsible for. Businesses are supposed to have expenses, yes, but if they have more expenses than they have income from customers, either they need to get more customers for more income, or they need to cut expenses. Customers shouldn't have to pay for corporate mismanagement or abuse or flat out stupid decisions made by management that didn't pan out. Or corporate fleecing. try running your own company before spouting off like this. I don't disagree with him in this.. It's not necessarily the best approach but when you are basically a monopoly and have very little fear of loosing your customers to competitors you can get away with it..
Now if burger king decided to charge a fee for cooking your burgers (a charge that they have been absorbing for decades) they would have every right to do so but because we have mc donalds they wouldn't get away with it.. |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Hollywood, FL
clubs:
| reply to hescominsoon
Yeah, most businesses do pass along the "cost of doing business". However, it is normally included in the cost of the product. So you are saying that they should charge $23.95 for their phone line and then add in the electric charge, worker's salary fee, trah fee, landscape fee, etc, etc...
I think it is more of the way they are tacking on fees on top of the normal cost of the plan. So in essence, they are lying to the consumer about the true cost of their service.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
Seven1
join:2002-07-24
Lexington, KY
·Insight Communicat..
| reply to mlundin
As if AT&T practices capitalism. More like fascism.
Telcos generally have no competition. Hard to do business with another company when there isn't another company to do business with. And before you even bother spitting out some lame answer like "use VoIP," as you obviously are a reader here you know what kinds of problems the VoIP providers are running into (with the telcos I might add). |
|
bjbrock
join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK
| reply to DHRacer
When you are a (near) monopoly as AT&T you can do what you want. They have no real competition to keep them honest. Fact is, AT&T could never survive in a truly competitive market.
Because of their abuse of the system it's time that the telco's were nationalized. Even the government could run them better than they are being run... and I hate government intervention in business. But then telco's are not really a business but a sanctioned entity that needs the FCC to cover their backs or they would go under. |
|
quatrix
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL | reply to stunod2002
What monopoly? Alternatives to an AT&T landline include multiple cell providers, VoIP, and others. |
|
emptywig
Huh? What?
Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX
edit:
January 10th, @12:30PM
| reply to DHRacer
ALL of my expenses are passed on to my customers through my pricing. When I price a job, its going to pay for everything that is required to complete that job, plus my profit. All of that is included in the price I set. There is no business, anywhere, that does not pass the cost of its expenses through to its customers.
The difference in the case of these "fees" is that the companies are cynically itemizing them instead of simply raising the price of phone service itself.
wig |
|
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to mlundin
Choice: Where the F*ck is it?
And no, the choice is not whether to go without, or cozy up to the only available option.
Capitalism works when there are OPTIONS AND COMPETITION. When there are no options (for example utilities) or competition (for example companies that agree to non-compete by refraining from offering the same service in another's area to therefore screw the customers for max profit), capitalism doesn't work.
In this case, you cannot choose your wireline provider like you can your wireless provider, so there is no competition and then you have the basis for this article: the ability of a company to basically nickel and dime the customer to death because they can. This allows the company to absorb every bad decision from the customer, and now the risk is not a risk but a "Stupidity Fee".
Some way to run a business.
--
"No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them." (R&D Supervisor, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing /3M Corp.) |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to hescominsoon
said by hescominsoon :try running your own company before spouting off like this. How stupid are you? Here are the salient points:
AT&T has a monopoly on telephone service in most areas it does business in. Historically, AT&T helped write the tariff structure for telephone service, which cost of service INCLUDES the ROW fees it pays to governmental authorities. They base their charge for basic service on the minimum requirements necessary to provide service and guarantee a return on their shareholders investments. They provide additional "extra" services, like Caller ID, Call Forwarding, etc. at package prices that return ENORMOUS profit on top of the profits they make on basic service. They should be PROHIBITED from unilaterally charging more than the tariff rates for service because all costs of service are accounted for therein, including a reasonable ROI.
There is NO WAY they can justify breaking out ROW fees as an additional line item expense to pass along to customers who are already paying for these costs in the basic fees and tariff rates for telephone services.
If you ran your own, unprotected, non-monopoly business with the same malfeasant, grifting attitude that AT&T does their well-protected featherbedding money machine, you would be out of business due to competitors taking advantage of your customers dissatisfaction at the screwing you were giving them. Of course, AT&T doesn't have to worry too much about competitive pressure, but when they do, they usually just try wringing a few more dollars out of their customers by just this type of bogus, double-dipping bullshit.
I don't give a damn if you support your telephone monopoly with unwavering, non-thinking bullheadedness, but don't pretend that AT&T has an ethical leg to stand on with these thuggish rip-offs. |
|
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to emptywig
Yeah but when you (company, not you individual) made a mistake in the course of providing a service for the customer, did you have to absorb the cost of correcting the mistake (from your profit margin) or do you pass that on to the customer (to protect your profit margin), which then has to pay twice (or basically fund your incompetence, or your employee "training")?
That's the difference. You run a tight ship, make sure your employees are competent and well trained, and they therefore make few mistakes. Any employees that do are re-trained, disciplined (at your cost), etc so that they don't require you to have to set mistakes right, which takes more time and money than doing it right the first time.
These companies hire incompetent dolts, make mistakes left and right, have no idea what policy is, are poorly trained, etc. The company decides to line item fee you to death because they can't be bothered to hire competent employees or train them to be competent and therefore the customer suffers TWICE (or more) to get a service done right. They lose time to allow the company to come back and get the job done again, have to take time off to troubleshoot, etc. That loses the customer money because they can't do their job, and then the other company is "cost recovering through fees" the customer pays for.
I agree that a customer should pay for a competent company's cost of providing services, but not because the company can't be bothered to provide good service because the customer has no other choice as a form of punishment for being incompetent.
--
"No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them." (R&D Supervisor, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing /3M Corp.) |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to emptywig
said by emptywig :ALL of my expenses are passed on to my customers through my pricing. When I price a job, its going to pay for everything that is required to complete that job, plus my profit. All of that is included in the price I set. There is no business, anywhere, that does not pass the cost of its expenses through to its customers. The difference in the case of these "fees" is that the companies are cynically itemizing them instead of simply raising the price of phone service itself. wig More like you setting a price including the entirety of costs, and a reasonable profit, as you have said you do, agreeing to a contract to provide the service at that price, then foisting a boat-load of change-orders for spurious fees upon your customer to account for the necessity of obeying management/shareholder demands for increased revenue you may be otherwise prohibited from reaping under the contract rate structure you yourself have set. |
|
mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Mishawaka, IN
·Comcast
| reply to Seven1
AT&T is in business to make money for their shareholders, not to altrustically give away services. It isn't in AT&T's best interest to do anything but try to make the most profit that they can - it's just business. Furthermore, no one ever guaranteed you the right to phone service at any level, much less the level that AT&T provides. If you don't like your options (i.e. VoIP, mobile, etc.) and aren't willing to drop AT&T in favor of them, then it sounds like AT&T isn't offering you too bad a deal. There are ALWAYS options, including dropping the service. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist. |
|
mlundin
join:2001-03-27
Mishawaka, IN
·Comcast
| reply to DHRacer
See my above reply to seven00.
"Some way to run a business."
They're making money, and that's the goal. You could always get in on the action by buying some stock. One thing that isn't going to help you or hurt them: your bitching about it, because you're still paying the bill. |
|
matrix3D
join:2006-09-27
Deep River, CT
edit:
January 10th, @01:36PM
| reply to Chuckles
Yes, and customers also have the right to tell the company to shove it and take their business elsewhere. Unless, of course, that company is the only choice for service in that area. Hm... |
|
bobjohnson
Premium
join:2007-02-03
Titusville, FL
edit:
January 10th, @03:17PM
| reply to Seven1
wrong post  |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
edit:
January 10th, @03:25PM
| reply to mlundin
NO AT&T is in the business of providing service to their customers, and then the money that they make goes to the secondary shareholders. If AT&T was in the business of just making money for their shareholders, then we might as well skip the middle man and just give away our hard earned money to people who trade imaginary commodities (stocks) all day and call it a real job. This is not a jab at stockholders, but a jab at the day traders who aren't there to make investments, but are just there to parasite off of small fluctuations in the quarter to quarter market.
Oh and for the record, AT&T is only in its market position because of the government, so anyone who says that AT&T is the only one providing service because they were the only ones to step up and capitalize is completely mistaken. Cellular is a good competitor though. |
|
