Re: a data service, not a phone service in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20208466 en Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:49:46 EDT Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:49:46 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20222783 RadioDoc : Your bill must look different from mine then. No USF on either DSL account.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20222783 Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:36:40 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20220423 xsiddalx :
said by bogey780 See Profile :

How can a data service be a part of the PSTN?
Better yet, how could a data service exist without the PSTN?
(It's a matter of time before the cellular networks
arent't the PSTN, if not de facto already)

Data services could use the PSTN:

dial up internet access
dial up banking
dial up phone sex
dial up directory assistance
dial up gaming
dial up bbs
voice mail (dial up)
add your own...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20220423 Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:55:36 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20220389 xsiddalx :
said by NOCMan See Profile :

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.
AMEN.

The current fund certainly is about funding small telephone companies. Sort of doesn't make sense to subsidize a small (250,000 - random number) telephone company than the subsidy the feds caused by killing off the independent ISP industry (same rationale short of who built infrastructure first).

I'm not so sure the USF doesn't "pad corporate profits" even with the smallest companies..isn't profit profit?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20220389 Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:46:49 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20220335 xsiddalx :
said by murdok610 See Profile :

said by RadioDoc See Profile :

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?
Sure.

Last I checked, there was a price stated if bundled...simpled enough. There are some default percentages the feds apply, but can be avoided with a traffic study if they they think it's too high.

Of course comcast ain't offering a nomadic service :(]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20220335 Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:33:17 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20220310 xsiddalx :
said by RadioDoc See Profile :

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).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20220310 Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:26:38 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20220226 xsiddalx : 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 See Profile :

said by halfband See Profile :

... 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! :@)
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20220226 Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:09:17 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20220167 xsiddalx : 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 See Profile :

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.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20220167 Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:57:44 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20214480 Network Guy : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20214480 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:05:53 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20210704 stevephl : Better yet eliminate the USF all together, not needed any longer, all subsidizes should be eliminated as well.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20210704 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:49:03 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20210514 sporkme :
said by RadioDoc See Profile :

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%.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20210514 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:50:34 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20210469 punker :
said by supergirl See Profile :

said by TK Junk Mail See Profile :

said by RadioDoc See Profile :

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)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20210469 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:35:34 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20209200 RadioDoc : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20209200 Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:44:54 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20209151 NOCMan : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20209151 Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:32:24 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20209066 murdok610 :
said by RadioDoc See Profile :

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20209066 Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:11:46 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20208466 RadioDoc : USF does not apply to the broadband connection.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20208466 Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:05:04 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20208400 NOCMan : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20208400 Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:53:34 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20208356 Piggie :
said by halfband See Profile :

... 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 |]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20208356 Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:40:35 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20208254 bogey780 : How can a data service be a part of the PSTN?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20208254 Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:15:46 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20208168 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.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20208168 Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:55:58 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20208136 supergirl :
said by TK Junk Mail See Profile :

said by RadioDoc See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20208136 Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:49:01 EDT Re: a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20208109 TK Junk Mail :
said by RadioDoc See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20208109 Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:42:34 EDT a data service, not a phone service http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20207843 RadioDoc : OK, let's see them adjust their advertising to reflect that their product is not a "phone service'.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20207843 Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:45:41 EDT