RadioDoc
Put Out The Cat
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | a data service, not a phone service
OK, let's see them adjust their advertising to reflect that their product is not a "phone service'.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
TK Junk Mail
Golf season has returned - hurrah
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
 ·Comcast
| said by RadioDoc  :OK, let's see them adjust their advertising to reflect that their product is not a "phone service'. I am against the USF for any company. But if the ILECs & CLECs have to pay, I see no reason why Vonage shouldn't as well. It is still a telephone call no matter how it is routed. VOIP should get no special exemption.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox HSI
 ·Skype
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by TK Junk Mail :said by RadioDoc :OK, let's see them adjust their advertising to reflect that their product is not a "phone service'. I am against the USF for any company. But if the ILECs & CLECs have to pay, I see no reason why Vonage shouldn't as well. It is still a telephone call no matter how it is routed. VOIP should get no special exemption. I agree. Everybody pays or NO ONE DOES! Get rid of the USF since it amounts to rural Telco extorting people that live in cities and 'burbs. While we are at it, eliminate that stupid FCC Connection Charge too. It is revenue NOT a Tax.
Vonage advertises, including the mail I get, as a telephone service NOT a data service.
Of course, we can always throw Kevin Martin off a cliff without a parachute. Think of the Children!!!
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
| reply to TK Junk Mail
Is it a "phone service" well yeah in the sense that it uses a phone, but that's about it. The USF was originally set up to provide pots in rural areas that would have been money losers to wire and service. Since this fund depends on service in one area to subsidise another it kind of breaks the system if anyone gets a choice in where they get there phone service from. And that is exactly what has happened with VOIP. Vonage paying into a fund to support POTS, which they do not sell, makes little sense. This is a case of the social tinkering with the system that has been set up by the politicians being overcome by the events in advancement of technology. The USF is an obsolete idea that will shortly need an overhaul to move into the current age.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | reply to RadioDoc
How can a data service be a part of the PSTN? |
|
Piggie
Frying Noises in My Brain
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Orange Springs, FL
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
·Windstream
| reply to halfband
said by halfband :... The USF was originally set up to provide pots in rural areas that would have been money losers to wire and service. Since this fund depends on service in one area to subsidise another ... The USF is an obsolete idea that will shortly need an overhaul to move into the current age. So I am a rural POTS customer. Which means to me it's a surtax to support my own rural POTS. If the intention was to subsidize me from an urban area, then it should not be on my phone bill either. Or I wish! :@)
--
| Speedstream 4200 Modem - 3m/384 plan | W98-W2KSP4-XPSP2 - All AMD | Buffalo WHR G54S with Tomato 1.13 | 3 downstream switches feeding 6 total clients (no wireless) | Including the Data port on the side of my neck | |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | reply to TK Junk Mail
Why should a customer have to pay twice. Once for the DSL line and once for Vonage?
Now the cable companies should be forced to pay into the USF, but they won that battle ages ago. |
|
RadioDoc
Put Out The Cat
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | USF does not apply to the broadband connection.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
murdok610
join:2004-09-05
West Chester, PA
| reply to RadioDoc
Re: a data service, not a phone service
said by RadioDoc :USF does not apply to the broadband connection. Yeah, but phone calls can be made via the broadband connection.
Does comcast have to pay this fee as well when they "bundle" their voip services? |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| reply to RadioDoc
They apply to DSL lines for the telephone side. Not many people can get a "DRY" loop.
The laws need to be adjusted to include cable and/or any voip provider who is providing service across a not traditional telephone line.
They also need to ensure the money is being spent to provide service to Rural areas rather than padding corporate profits. |
|
RadioDoc
Put Out The Cat
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | Anyone in ATT land can get a 'dry loop'. The USF on POTS is irrelevant and certainly does not apply to this discussion.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
punker
Premium
join:2004-06-21
Palmdale, CA
clubs:
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
March 23rd, @12:42AM
| reply to supergirl
said by supergirl :said by TK Junk Mail :said by RadioDoc :OK, let's see them adjust their advertising to reflect that their product is not a "phone service'. I am against the USF for any company. But if the ILECs & CLECs have to pay, I see no reason why Vonage shouldn't as well. It is still a telephone call no matter how it is routed. VOIP should get no special exemption. I agree. Everybody pays or NO ONE DOES! Get rid of the USF since it amounts to rural Telco extorting people that live in cities and 'burbs. While we are at it, eliminate that stupid FCC Connection Charge too. It is revenue NOT a Tax. Vonage advertises, including the mail I get, as a telephone service NOT a data service. Of course, we can always throw Kevin Martin off a cliff without a parachute. Think of the Children!!! do you even know what VoIP means = Voice over Internet Protocol (UDP packets) |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Netcong, NJ
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :USF does not apply to the broadband connection. It's a line item on the bill. It's an item Covad and Verizon pass on to wholesale layer-2 customers. And it's around 11%. |
|
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to NOCMan
Better yet eliminate the USF all together, not needed any longer, all subsidizes should be eliminated as well. |
|
Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York
·Verizon Online DSL
·Vonage
·Optimum Online
| reply to halfband
The real issue at hand is a political one. Nobody in the finance department wants to lose a revenue stream, particularly a fruitful one from back when people were bound to LATAs and metered local calls.
Reform will eventually take place to define the liabilities and obligations for all telecom carriers. The roadmap is full of bumps, road blocks and downed bridges. It is a new era in data and telecommunications, someone somewhere will eventually forge a new constitution and I can almost guarantee it will shread to shit the existing Telecom Act of 1996.
For the meanwhile, I'm quite content to stray from paying this greed-ridden city of any more taxes than it currently rapes me out of bi-weekly. |
|
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to halfband
Amen! Raise the prices of broadband to rural areas. It is certainly cheaper to live there in other respects, right?
Finally time for us to realize the old LD is expense, local is cheap model changes....local is expensive, LD is cheap.
I think prices should certainly reflect costs, but I doubt that can exist if we are all paying the same 30 bucks a month. Our Cable friends certainly cross subsidize internally between rural and urban, when they are large enough. I doubt the day will come when pure competition exists and we all get individual prices...
said by halfband :Is it a "phone service" well yeah in the sense that it uses a phone, but that's about it. The USF was originally set up to provide pots in rural areas that would have been money losers to wire and service. Since this fund depends on service in one area to subsidise another it kind of breaks the system if anyone gets a choice in where they get there phone service from. And that is exactly what has happened with VOIP. Vonage paying into a fund to support POTS, which they do not sell, makes little sense. This is a case of the social tinkering with the system that has been set up by the politicians being overcome by the events in advancement of technology. The USF is an obsolete idea that will shortly need an overhaul to move into the current age. |
|
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Piggie
I think the overall idea of the Feds was to increase your rates and reduce the costs of LD (imo). Increasing the surcharge and tacking on the USF expense certainly is a step in the right direction...placing more costs on the infrastructure user and less on the telephone user.
The long term goal is to get all of the customers to pay their own pay...
The hope is that cellular, cable, over the top voip, long distance providers + pots, clecs all provide enough competition (again, IMO).
Voice services certainly seem competitive enough these days.
The trick is getting broadband competitive now, to enable more competition in wireless over the top voice (again, imo). USF won't go away, nor will takes. Anyone want to take a stab on why none of the communications company want to add a pass through for their federal income taxes? 
said by Piggie :said by halfband :... The USF was originally set up to provide pots in rural areas that would have been money losers to wire and service. Since this fund depends on service in one area to subsidise another ... The USF is an obsolete idea that will shortly need an overhaul to move into the current age. So I am a rural POTS customer. Which means to me it's a surtax to support my own rural POTS. If the intention was to subsidize me from an urban area, then it should not be on my phone bill either. Or I wish! :@) |
|
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :USF does not apply to the broadband connection. It sure does.
The broadband connection is a common carrier service and is subject to the FCC universal service fund surcharge in that it is considered an interstate charge to an end user (sorta like a VAT tax).
After considering DSL a deregulated information service, or detariffed information service, depending on a telephone company's regulatory status...USF still applied, on a frozen percentage, if I recall correctly, or a percentage basis.
VOIP...Vonage, CallVantage, etc..was already declared under federal law to be subject to usf contribution rules (hasn't failed a suit yet).
Cable companies voice generally fall under voice/pots or voip, but not broadband, the former subject to USF....since broadband isn't assessable per se...unless it is considered "interstate revenue".
I can reference docs if needed (It will take awhile since I am lazy, but it's all available on the FCC web site). |
|
