Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

Search Topic:
uniqs
8
share rss forum feed


lakino
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Campbell, CA
reply to DrTCP

Re: SBC DSL and the FUSF

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.

succotash
Premium
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.

thebboss

join:2004-02-20
Modesto, CA
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.


DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
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?

tonydi
Premium,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.


DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,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.

tonydi
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-11
San Jose, CA
said by DrTCP:
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.
You keep saying this and apparently you missed where I asked you for a reference. I gave you references that refute what you're claiming....yet you keep claiming it. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true, show us some proof.


scavio
Premium
join:2001-07-14
Melmac
said by tonydi:
said by DrTCP:
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.
You keep saying this and apparently you missed where I asked you for a reference. I gave you references that refute what you're claiming....yet you keep claiming it. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true, show us some proof.

I'm guessing that is because he is wrong and chooses to ignore your question. We dump all this money into the federal USF, and last year three states, Mississippi, Alabama, and West Virginia, got 85% of the money (Mississippi got well over half of it!). A total of eight states got money, and this year it goes all the way up to ten.

The whole FUSF stinks, and they are out to increase it as much as possible. The closed door debates never include those who actually have to pay the taxes (yes, it is a tax) and I feel like we have no say in it.