 MurdocPremium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI | Expand USF?? You mean charge more for USF? |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| said by Murdoc:You mean charge more for USF?
Most likely, all these grand plans have to be paid for somehow. |
|
|
|
MurdocPremium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI | Glad i am on voip.  |
|
| said by Murdoc:Glad i am on voip. They'll probably levy an "amazon tax" on that too. |
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | reply to Murdoc
said by Murdoc:Glad i am on voip. Being on VOIP won't save you - it'll just make the damage a little less. Right now the USF rate is about 11% - if they raise it your rate will rise too whether your VOIP provider bills you for it or passes it along in their price.
We for example "eat" USF and just include it in our bottom-line rates. If the USF rises significantly - we won't be able to do that any longer, and will have to either raise our rates or charge it separately. Either way the consumer gets screwed if rates rise.
Don't be surprised if it rises more than you expect. For example if you pay $7/month for your service, after some financial magic - USF only accounts to around 20-30 cents out of that. The stupidest idea I've seen so far offered by the FCC is charging $1 per phone number regardless of how much the plan/number actually costs. That means that a number that cost $1 yesterday will cost $2 today. a plan that costs $7 yesterday iwll cost $8 today.
The USF is bad for consumers. We need to get rid of it. I recommend contacting your Congress reps and letting them know exactly what you think about the USF - and plans to raise it. It's pretty sad that the government even thinks about raising taxes when the country is in such poor financial state.
--
Nitzan Kon, CEO
Future Nine Corporation
--
Compare VoIP Provider Rates |
|
| reply to Murdoc
said by Murdoc:You mean charge more for USF? If by overhaul he means moving money to other uses and auditing use, that is one thing.
My fear is that by overhaul he means double the tax bite and spend the extra on broadband. What we don't need is yet one more stinking tax increase from some unaccountable bureaucratic agency.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
neftv
join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA Reviews:
 ·SIP Global Phone
·QuantumVoice
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to nitzan
said by nitzan:said by Murdoc:Glad i am on voip. The USF is bad for consumers. We need to get rid of it. I recommend contacting your Congress reps and letting them know exactly what you think about the USF - and plans to raise it. It's pretty sad that the government even thinks about raising taxes when the country is in such poor financial state. That is just what I did this afternoon to see what he has to say about it.  |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to nitzan
said by nitzan:The USF is ? for consumers. We need to get rid of it. I recommend contacting your Congress reps and letting them know exactly what you think about the USF - and plans to raise it. It's pretty sad that the government even thinks about raising taxes when the country is in such poor financial state. It may be bad for existing consumers (maybe cheaper to offer education/opportunity to rural users than pay for years of support/food stamps/ prisons/etc.)
The program DOES need SEVERE supervision, pay ment ONLY for installed lines (telco/fiber/cable) at "reasonable rates" ,higher than the high density ' burbs' (real costs) not subsidised forever.
AND yes TALK to (phone/ write/ email/ text/ etc.) ALL your reps regularly, THEY work for YOU....unless you allow OTHERS to speak in your place. |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to Murdoc
said by Murdoc:Glad i am on voip. remember when $24.99 vonage was $24.99 out the door?
its only a matter of time before the universal slush fund fee comes to voip/cable.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:maybe cheaper to offer education/opportunity to rural users than pay for years of support/food stamps/ prisons/etc. Not having fiber in their school does not equal not having an education. While I'm all for education - it should be subsidized by local citizens and NOT the entire country. I don't understand the whole robin-hood like mentality behind USF - basically collect taxes from the entire country to subsidize a very small portion of the population that CHOOSES to live in areas where it is harder to offer communication services.
If you choose to live on a farm where the next farm is three miles away then sorry - but I don't think our tax dollars should be wasted to fund your broadband service.
And it gets worse- not only is the premise behind the USF already questionable - various companies have found creative ways to enhance their slice of the pie without actually providing any extra services or incurring any extra costs to do so. In essence a lot of companies look at the USF as just another form of revenue/profit. There is pretty much zero supervision of where funds go, and it's more than likely that a huge portion of the funds collected are not used for the purpose they were intended for. |
|
