site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Uniqs:
4484
Share Topic
Posting?
Post a:
Post a:
Links: ·ALL ·Review Your VoIP Provider ·VoIP Providers ·VoIP FAQ ·Porting Rules ·What Codec?
page: 1 · 2
AuthorAll Replies


RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Steamboat Springs, CO

Federal USF increasing to 15.3 %

this impacts all carriers and customers in some way ... your bill might not have this itemized amount, but the carrier is responsible for paying into the fund. see: »www.fcc.gov/omd/contribution-factor.html

nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2

Ridiculous.


nonymous
Premium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ

said by nitzan:

Ridiculous.
Just jealous you are not getting a chunk of it.

garys_2k
Premium
join:2004-05-07
Farmington, MI
Reviews:
·callwithus
·Callcentric

Actually, I think he has to pay into it.

This must be some sort of "stimulus" that we all get to contribute to, just the thing needed during economically challenging times. Extract more money from the real world in order to make it more prosperous. Kind of like destroying a village in order to save it.


pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·ooma
·Future Nine Corp..

reply to RockyBB

said by RockyBB:

this impacts all carriers and customers in some way ... your bill might not have this itemized amount, but the carrier is responsible for paying into the fund. see: »www.fcc.gov/omd/contribution-factor.html
Is this 15% of the total bill? How does this compare to historic charges?

It could be me, but 15% seems very high.

At least until Ooma goes belly up, I'm protected.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

dcm

join:2008-09-12
Pennsylvania

said by pandora:

Is this 15% of the total bill? How does this compare to historic charges?

It could be me, but 15% seems very high.
Contribution Factor: Telecommunications companies must pay a percentage of their interstate end-user revenues to the Universal Service Fund.


usa2k
Blessed
Premium,MVM
join:2003-01-26
Redford, MI
kudos:3
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·VOIPo

reply to pandora

said by pandora:

Is this 15% of the total bill? How does this compare to historic charges?
Not sure but ... thinking ...
I think it is levied on the actual connection charges?
Not necessarily what the customer sees?
It will be interesting to see what impact it really has.
--

Jim, VoIP 12/2002, VOIPo 2/2007
FAH-Tool~Pets~Join Artist-247

VOIPoTim
VOIPo.com
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-06
Newport Beach, CA
kudos:2

said by usa2k:

said by pandora:

Is this 15% of the total bill? How does this compare to historic charges?
Not sure but ... thinking ...
I think it is levied on the actual connection charges?
Not necessarily what the customer sees?
It will be interesting to see what impact it really has.
The simple version is that it's on revenue from interstate (state to state) and international charges only...not intrastate (in state).

The FCC has a "safe harbor" policy which basically says if you consider 64.9% of charges to be subject to it, they won't question the actual traffic to see what's interstate vs intrastate.

So most providers use this and collect 64.9% of the actual USF rate against all revenue.

How providers break up a flat rate service varies (what they allocate for calling costs vs features, etc) varies some as well.

pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·ooma
·Future Nine Corp..

said by VOIPoTim:

The simple version is that it's on revenue from interstate (state to state) and international charges only...not intrastate (in state).

The FCC has a "safe harbor" policy which basically says if you consider 64.9% of charges to be subject to it, they won't question the actual traffic to see what's interstate vs intrastate.

So most providers use this and collect 64.9% of the actual USF rate against all revenue.

How providers break up a flat rate service varies (what they allocate for calling costs vs features, etc) varies some as well.
This brings back the age old question, how the heck does it apply to Ooma? They don't charge for use.

How does a tax or fee model that assumes a monthly or annual bill apply to a one time fee for a device?
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

VOIPoTim
VOIPo.com
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-06
Newport Beach, CA
kudos:2

said by pandora:

said by VOIPoTim:

The simple version is that it's on revenue from interstate (state to state) and international charges only...not intrastate (in state).

The FCC has a "safe harbor" policy which basically says if you consider 64.9% of charges to be subject to it, they won't question the actual traffic to see what's interstate vs intrastate.

So most providers use this and collect 64.9% of the actual USF rate against all revenue.

How providers break up a flat rate service varies (what they allocate for calling costs vs features, etc) varies some as well.
This brings back the age old question, how the heck does it apply to Ooma? They don't charge for use.

How does a tax or fee model that assumes a monthly or annual bill apply to a one time fee for a device?
Everyone handles it differently. I imagine they allocate a portion of it as the "service" cost and base it on that.

PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5

1 edit

reply to RockyBB
When I was a student many years ago at SUNY StonyBrook, students who lived on campus but who did not purchase the meal plan, were charged a "cooking fee" of (IIRC) $ 50.00 a semester.

I suspect that the reasons were to push people towards the meal plan, and maybe to help pay for the electricity our hot plates were using. (This was pre-microwave).

But the reason the University gave was that the money would be used to buy stoves for the dorms for future students (!!!)

That's similar to what the Federal USF is about.....


neftv

join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA
Reviews:
·SIP Global Phone
·QuantumVoice

reply to RockyBB
The whole mentality stinks with USF and companies.
Excerpted from FCC.gov..
"Some consumers may notice a “Universal Service” line item on their telephone bills. This line item appears when a company chooses to recover its USF contributions directly from its customers by billing them this charge. The FCC does not require this charge to be passed on to customers. Each company makes a business decision about whether and how to assess charges to recover its Universal Service costs. These charges usually appear as a percentage of the consumer’s phone bill. Companies that choose to collect Universal Service fees from their customers cannot collect an amount that exceeds their contribution to the USF. They also cannot collect any fees from a Lifeline program participant"

If this is suppose to be a between the companies and the USF why is the consumer involved at all. Why should it be a business decision to rape customers The FCC does not require this charge to be passed on to customers. What part of the bold sentence is not understood!

In this tax and spend society, braindead customers and greedy management hords in companies this is only getting worse. I think this all goes back to the income tax being passed one Christmas Eve when no-one was paying attention. Once that pandora's box opened everything else was easy for the government to get into our pockets regardless if we want it or not. USA was once just fine for a long time before the Income Tax was passed.
Today only a handful of people care the rest would be willing to just give and give because government knows whats best for their brainwashed pea sized brain.


OmagicQ
Posting in a thread near you

join:2003-10-23
Bakersfield, CA
kudos:1

The FCC does not require this charge to be passed on to customers, but the accounting/finances dept. of most companies does.



hok

join:2002-02-27

reply to neftv

said by neftv:

The FCC does not require this charge to be passed on to customers.
This is one of reasons I prefer to deal with VSPs such as swiftvox.com or VoIP.ms or any business offers all inclusive prices unless itemized break-down is required by law.


hok

join:2002-02-27

2 edits

reply to OmagicQ

said by OmagicQ:

..., but the accounting/finances dept. of most companies does.
It is more likely the marketing department than accounting department as USF is a cost of goods/service sold just like excise tax under common acceptable accounting principle.

neftv

join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA
Reviews:
·SIP Global Phone
·QuantumVoice

reply to OmagicQ
I sure hope that these companies are not writing these fees off for tax purposes as a donation to charity because we the consumers are paying for it and the companies would be reaping the kickback.

To make an equal analogy. Let's say I am being forced to donate $1000 to the Red Cross because the government wants me too (they doing it with USF) in the same frame of mind of the accounting/finances dept or Marketing dept do I go turn this around collect a Red Cross fee from every family member and close relative? How well do you think that is going to fly?


neftv

join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA
Reviews:
·SIP Global Phone
·QuantumVoice

reply to hok
I been trying to work a way around USF with my Cell phone. If I got a data only service would I still be paying this USF fee?
So far my Fios internet only connection does not have this and my present VOIP provider seems to have it embeded in the monthly total price that I wanted to keep.



hok

join:2002-02-27

1 edit

reply to neftv

said by neftv:

I sure hope that these companies are not writing these fees off for tax purposes as a donation to charity because we the consumers are paying for it and the companies would be reaping the kickback.
Since USF is part of cost of goods/service sold just like excise tax, it sure can be written off for tax purpose. The tax consequence is the same whether you write it off as donation to charity or as cost of service sold. However, writing off as donation to charity will likely cause audit as the percentage will be too high to gross profit.

OmagicQ
Posting in a thread near you

join:2003-10-23
Bakersfield, CA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Bright House
·voip.ms
·callwithus

said by hok:

Since USF is part of cost of doing business,
How can it be a cost of doing business when the customers are paying it? There may be a cost in collecting, accounting and paying it (writing the check, authorizing the debit etc) but the customer is the one bearing the cost of it.


hok

join:2002-02-27

1 edit

If you have ever filled an income tax schedule out for business, you would know this, for example, there are different taxes levied on motor fuel by different level of governments, together with freight cost should be added together as cost of goods sold.

On the other hand, business related license fees from all government agencies as well as cost in collecting taxes and fees, bookkeeping, accounting and payable are consider expense.

Cost of good/service sold and/or cost of doing business can always be written off for tax purpose. It has nothing to do with whether customer pays or not. Any payment received whether it is from customer or otherwise is consider gross receipt and subject to reporting.


Tuesday, 21-May 12:22:35 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 13.5 years online © 1999-2013 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics