 ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | reply to only me
Re: SBC DSL and the FUSF Isn't the FUSF illegal in the sense of the acts passed during the Clinton administration? I believed this "taxing the internet" idea came up back during dial-up, where an act was passed making tax on the internet illegal.
Did this get repealed, or something? |
|
 gdmPremium,MVM
join:2001-06-15
Mchenry, IL
kudos:3 | This isn't tax on the internet. You are referring to buying some thing off the internet.
The FUSF has always been around it's just most ISP's have never passed on to there customers or included in the monthly price. |
|
|
|
 DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | reply to Thaler
said by Thaler:
Isn't the FUSF illegal in the sense of the acts passed during the Clinton administration? I believed this "taxing the internet" idea came up back during dial-up, where an act was passed making tax on the internet illegal.
Did this get repealed, or something?
First it is not a tax. It is a fund charged by FCC to the Carriers (ILEC/CLEC) and Carriers pass it down to ISP and ISP pass it down to the consumer. There is not a requirement to pass to the consumer but for providers it is a convenient way to recover (actually make some money on it as well)
The money is not actually passed to federal goverment. The Telco keeps it in a fund which provides free service to underserved communities and to people that cannot afford basic service (so they say) and to shools and libraries.
The collection of funds varies from Telco to telco. It is based on some perfectage of their revenue or something though they can perfectly collect more.
There is very little oversight by FCC on how the funds are used. It has been claimed that while Telcos blame federal government for it they make good money from the funds collected. |
|
 d_lBarsoomPremium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
kudos:7 | said by DrTCP:
First it is not a tax.
A cow flop by any other name smells just the same.
Any money involuntarily collected from one group by the government or its agents and redistributed to another select group for their exclusive benefit is a tax whether it is called a fee, a service charge, an assessment, a duty, an impost, a levy, or an investment. No semantic quibbling, euphemism, or defining what is is here will make it any different. |
|
DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | said by d_l:
A cow flop by any other name smells just the same.
You are probably right. To us, it is the same. However, a tax is created by the congress. So, this is an administrative fee. Also, the money collected does not go back to the treasury. It stays with telco in a fund to provide services. So, technically government is not collecting it. I wish it was a tax so there could be better oversight over the use of those funds. It is a private fund as it is within the telco. |
|
 lakinoPremium
join:2003-04-03
Campbell, CA | said by DrTCP:
said by d_l:
A cow flop by any other name smells just the same.
You are probably right. To us, it is the same. However, a tax is created by the congress. So, this is an administrative fee. Also, the money collected does not go back to the treasury. It stays with telco in a fund to provide services. So, technically government is not collecting it. I wish it was a tax so there could be better oversight over the use of those funds. It is a private fund as it is within the telco.
And what is annoying me is that they are NOT required to pass the cost of this fee to the customers. Sonnet.net--a very small DSL provider I'll concede--does not seem to assess any such fee. Their version of the Expert Plus plan is a simple $44.95 period. No other fees.
That's the way it should be. I'm happy with my current SBC plan, but I do not like the way they are assessing this FUSF fee. It should be included in the advertised fee for monthly access.
--
Why do people like .sig files so much? Baffling to me... |
|
 tymfdc
join:2003-06-19
San Leandro, CA | I agree.
I remember AT&T has this connectivity charge. Every LD carrier is different. They said the same thing. It is required by federal laws. Eventually, I just dropped AT&T as LD carrier. Now I don't even carry a LD carrier. |
|
succotashPremium
join:2002-12-14
Monterey Park, CA | reply to lakino
said by lakino:
And what is annoying me is that they are NOT required to pass the cost of this fee to the customers. Sonnet.net--a very small DSL provider I'll concede--does not seem to assess any such fee. Their version of the Expert Plus plan is a simple $44.95 period. No other fees.
You must be thinking of Sonic.net. They ain't *that* small. Around 33,000 customers. Somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 of them on DSL (that's a guess, based on knowing that the capacity of their Santa Rosa Redback SMS is 5,000 and that they're putting new DSL customers on their San Francisco SMS).
You're right that they don't assess any additional fees to their DSL prices. But that may change soon. This came up in the Sonic newsgroups, and Dane said they were discussing what to do about this, because SBC-ASI started passing the FUSF fee on to them a few months ago. |
|
| come on guys and gals... its 6 bucks, cheer up. We got a kick ass ISP. It would have been easy for SBC not mention the fee to us and have our service fee 50.82 (Expert Plus) and I am sure 99% of us would still have opted for the upgrade...
after all 'only me' said "Most carriers recover their Universal Service Fund charges from their customers in some form."
Just take a look at the Comcast forum to see how bad it really is out there. |
|
tonydiPremium,MVM
join:2001-05-11
San Jose, CA | reply to DrTCP
said by DrTCP:
First it is not a tax. It is a fund charged by FCC to the Carriers (ILEC/CLEC) and Carriers pass it down to ISP and ISP pass it down to the consumer. There is not a requirement to pass to the consumer but for providers it is a convenient way to recover (actually make some money on it as well)
The money is not actually passed to federal goverment. The Telco keeps it in a fund which provides free service to underserved communities and to people that cannot afford basic service (so they say) and to shools and libraries.
The collection of funds varies from Telco to telco. It is based on some perfectage of their revenue or something though they can perfectly collect more.
There is very little oversight by FCC on how the funds are used. It has been claimed that while Telcos blame federal government for it they make good money from the funds collected.
I'd like to see some references for where you're getting this information. From looking at the FCC site it appears to me that the telcos may not collect more than they contribute to the fund.
»www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/un···ice.html
In addition, the telcos do not retain the funds collected, they are turned over to an entity that the FCC set up for this purpose, the Universal Service Administrative Company. »www.fcc.gov/eb/usfc/
Look, I don't like paying it any more than the next guy, but it seems to me like many people are blaming SBC for this fee. Some people seem to forget that SBC has been eating the fee since it had to begin paying into the fund in 1996. So economic times are tough and they finally decided they could no longer do that. Ok, I can understand that. I suppose they could have buried the fee in the prices of the service but from a competitive standpoint that isn't a good idea.
For those that are really unhappy with this fee, stop whining about SBC and start lobbying your congresscritters to change the law! |
|
tymfdc
join:2003-06-19
San Leandro, CA
1 edit | I rather they bury the fee in the price. At least we don't end up paying 10 to 20% more. |
|
| reply to tonydi
Its on SBC's services page...all the way down, first *
»www01.sbc.com/DSL_new/content/1,,90,00.html? |
|
tonydiPremium,MVM
join:2001-05-11
San Jose, CA | reply to tymfdc
said by tymfdc:
I rather they bury the fee in the price. At least we don't end up paying 10 to 20% more.
Say huh? I'm saying they're charging $29.95 and the fee is $1.84, but they could have just charged $31.79 by burying the fee in the price of the service. You pay the same amount either way! |
|
tonydiPremium,MVM
join:2001-05-11
San Jose, CA | reply to thebboss
said by thebboss:
Its on SBC's services page...all the way down, first *
»www01.sbc.com/DSL_new/content/1,,90,00.html?
I see what you're referring to but I don't get your point. Sorry.  |
|
| reply to tonydi
said by tonydi:
I'd like to see some references for where you're getting this information.
my bad tonydi....
I thought you were wondering where this fee was stated. |
|
tymfdc
join:2003-06-19
San Leandro, CA | reply to tonydi
I wouldn't call this consumer friendly marketing strategy. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | I definately wouldn't call this consumer friendly...
Especially if the following is true:
It is unclear to us how customers on faster speeds should be required by SBC to "contribute" more to USF than the slow speed customers, when the back-end USF cost is fixed per circuit.
This would state that since I have one line into my house, I pay one price, regardless of DSL speed. I would obviously pay more for say a physical T1, as it is physically considered to be multiple lines. |
|
DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | reply to thebboss
said by thebboss:
It would have been easy for SBC not mention the fee to us and have our service fee 50.82 (Expert Plus) and I am sure 99% of us would still have opted for the upgrade...
It should really be called $50.82 plan. It is actually tricking the user to believe it costs less. I do not see why it should be a seperate item. Do they have a seperate item for the electricity they have to pay? |
|
tonydiPremium,MVM
join:2001-05-11
San Jose, CA | said by DrTCP:
It should really be called $50.82 plan. It is actually tricking the user to believe it costs less. I do not see why it should be a seperate item. Do they have a seperate item for the electricity they have to pay?
I'm guessing that it's a separate fee to make it easier to break out the actual amount charged. The telcos have to fill out forms detailing the fees collected. Look at your phone bill, your cell bill or your power bill, all sorts of fees and taxes are itemized. Since all of those things get paid to various govt depts, it's gotta be easier to keep track that way. |
|
DrTCPYours trulyPremium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX | said by tonydi:
Since all of those things get paid to various govt depts, it's gotta be easier to keep track that way.
But FUSF is not paid to government. It stays with the Telco to provide the services sactioned by the government. They can easily do the accounting internally. User does not need to know. This is added seperately as a way of jacking up the price. Many Telco actually collecting more than they need to collect. |
|
