dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
7
tonydi
Premium Member
join:2001-05-11
San Jose, CA

tonydi to lakino

Premium Member

to lakino

Re: SBC DSL and the FUSF

said by lakino:
Actually, I was planning on upgrading to the Expert Plus package, but when I found out the FUSF was an additional 10%+ to the 44.95 monthly fee, I choose not to. It's not the price itself, but the principle behind how they misleading market the price. I currently pay $26.95 and pay no additional FUSF fee.
That's certainly your prerogative but it seems to me like you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. You were willing to pay even more for the service which tells me you really wanted it. Yet because you choose to stand on principle you're mainly punishing yourself.

Marketing probably had some role in how this was handled but one other factor probably makes more sense. Because the FUSF is variable and can change every 3 months, it would be a billing mess to include it in the service price. It's much easier for all concerned to keep the service price the same each month.

As for "hiding" the fee, obviously it's clearly there now. Was there ever a time when the official service plans didn't have the "*" at the very top and have it refer to the FUSF? I ask because since I wasn't going to qualify for any upgrade I never went to look at that page. I agree that it should tell you what the fee is going to be, however.

d_l
Barsoom
MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV

d_l

MVM

Tony, prior to Feb. 1, the speed tier, web pages never mentioned a FUSF charge. Even now the pages do not list the actual dollar amount of the tax so someone signing up on-line wouldn't how much they were until they received their first bill.

Hehehe. You should "get out" more often and check the new offerings.
Dave
backspace2
join:2004-02-04
Oakland, CA

1 edit

backspace2 to tonydi

Member

to tonydi
I had cable HSI before. I decided to switch over mainly because of price. I don't run my own mail server or ftp site and I don't need static ips. If I compare the $51 for DSL and $42 for cable, I probably would take cable.

Sure I am paying for cable TV to get the $42 price. But I am also paying for the phoneline. I can't say I am happy with my landline anyway. The unlimited call is $10 and I pay another $10 for taxes and fees. It is ridiculous and I can't even make long distance call.

question...DSLEx only show a $2.48. Is it the same for all packages and there is a $60 setup fee. Is the lease modem free when you sign up for 1 year with dslex?
tonydi
Premium Member
join:2001-05-11
San Jose, CA

tonydi to d_l

Premium Member

to d_l
said by d_l:
Tony, prior to Feb. 1, the speed tier, web pages never mentioned a FUSF charge. Even now the pages do not list the actual dollar amount of the tax so someone signing up on-line wouldn't how much they were until they received their first bill.

Hehehe. You should "get out" more often and check the new offerings.
I don't want to depress myself. Given that I had no hope of getting DSL, according to the dreaded SBC database, I'm thrilled that I was eventually able to get hooked up at all. No use torturing myself with something I'll never have.

As for pre-Feb 1, the speed tier web pages never mentioned the new tiers either, right? While I know some people jumped the gun a bit and got CSR's to pre-order the new tiers, I'm betting those CSR's didn't have any idea the FUSF thing would go into effect. Heck, it seemed like most didn't even know they could place an order!

I guess my point is that the web page is the official word on what you get at that point in time. Why would SBC put any FUSF info on there before Feb 1 when it didn't apply? The "avg Joe" who signed up for any SBC DSL package on Feb 1 or later, once the new packages were officially available, was at least informed of the fee if they read the web page (well, I presume that, which is why I asked if there was a point after Feb 1 when the fee wasn't posted). It wasn't hidden at all, although like most of the other fees that adorn our phone bills the amounts are not revealed.

Anyone call in and place an order after Feb 1? I wonder if the EPC CSR's tell you about the fee?

lakino
Premium Member
join:2003-04-03
Campbell, CA

lakino to tonydi

Premium Member

to tonydi
said by tonydi:
said by lakino:
Actually, I was planning on upgrading to the Expert Plus package, but when I found out the FUSF was an additional 10%+ to the 44.95 monthly fee, I choose not to. It's not the price itself, but the principle behind how they misleading market the price. I currently pay $26.95 and pay no additional FUSF fee.
That's certainly your prerogative but it seems to me like you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. You were willing to pay even more for the service which tells me you really wanted it. Yet because you choose to stand on principle you're mainly punishing yourself.

Marketing probably had some role in how this was handled but one other factor probably makes more sense. Because the FUSF is variable and can change every 3 months, it would be a billing mess to include it in the service price. It's much easier for all concerned to keep the service price the same each month.

As for "hiding" the fee, obviously it's clearly there now. Was there ever a time when the official service plans didn't have the "*" at the very top and have it refer to the FUSF? I ask because since I wasn't going to qualify for any upgrade I never went to look at that page. I agree that it should tell you what the fee is going to be, however.

Tony, of course you have to go on principles over this issue. The only reason you're somewhat ok with this is because of the actual amount of $5.83. What if the FUSF fee was an additional $50.83/month, would you be ok with this then? So your monthly charge would be $44.95 + $50.83 FUSF, making the total $95 and change. Would you be ok with it then? I highly doubt it.

So you're only ok with it because of the actual amount being a small one. I am not ok with this type of practice in principle. It doesn't matter what the amount, the price should have been included in the monthly fee.
said by tonydi
As for "hiding" the fee, obviously it's clearly there now.
With all due respect Tony, you clearly are not informed enough about this subject matter to be posting all these definitive statements. As you admitted to d_l, you've not looked into this matter because you're not upgrading and couldn't due to being too far away from the CO/RT. Where do you come off saying it's "clearly there now"? It's no where near being "clearly" there. If you go the order online route, NO WHERE on their order entry website does it state what the FUSF fee will be. It does say there will be a FUSF fee charged, but does NOT tell you how much the fee will be. Again, I re-iterate my above argument that what if the FUSF fee was an additional $50.83 charge per month? Would you be a little upset when you got your first bill then? This fee should have been included in the price of the advertised monthly fee.

Tony, you certainly have the prerogative to condone this practice, but I don't believe you have a good logical argument to support this practice--expect to say that because it's a small amount, it's ok that SBC does this. Your logic would fall apart if it was a much bigger dollar amount.

As for me punishing myself on principles, anyone who stands up for something on principles will inevitably have to sacrifice something. It goes with the territory of standing up for something you believe in. I don't believe this type of billing practice is OK and I choose not to support it by not upgrading to the new plan.
tonydi
Premium Member
join:2001-05-11
San Jose, CA

tonydi

Premium Member

said by lakino:
The only reason you're somewhat ok with this is because of the actual amount of $5.83. What if the FUSF fee was an additional $50.83/month, would you be ok with this then? So your monthly charge would be $44.95 + $50.83 FUSF, making the total $95 and change. Would you be ok with it then? I highly doubt it.
I dare you to quote where I said I was "ok" with the fee, whatever the price. In fact, if you look at my first post in this thread I said I didn't like it any more than the next guy! What I have tried to do throughout this thread is to set the record straight and counter some of the emotional rhetoric.
said by lakino:
It doesn't matter what the amount, the price should have been included in the monthly fee.
So you're saying that you'd be ok with a bill for that $95 since it included the $50.83 FUSF instead of the $44.95+$5.83?

Would you be ok with a bill for $44.95 and a separate line item for $.05 for the FUSF?

This whole "it should be included IN the price of the service" argument baffles me. I truly don't see why it matters how it shows up on your bill. I don't see you and others up in arms because the FUSF fee for your phone service is not included in your phone line charge. What about the 911 Emergency Fee, the fee for the CA Relay Service and Communications Devices Fund, the number portability charge, the Universal Lifeline Telephone Service Surcharge, the State regulatory fee and the CA High Cost Fund Surcharge (both A and B)? These are all line items on your phone bill, but nobody seems to care that they are listed separately and not included in the amount listed for your phone line charge! Are the prices of those fees listed on the order page for new phone service?
said by lakino:
With all due respect Tony, you clearly are not informed enough about this subject matter to be posting all these definitive statements.
On the contrary, I've taken quite a bit of time to research this whole subject and I believe I am very well informed on it. If you think I have posted anything that isn't factual, please point it out and give me a reference to the true facts.
said by lakino:
As you admitted to d_l, you've not looked into this matter because you're not upgrading and couldn't due to being too far away from the CO/RT.
Actually, I said that to you first. I didn't look at the rate page every day and I asked you if there was ever a time when there wasn't the "*" to reference the FUSF footnote. Many people are claiming this information wasn't posted there. I still haven't seen anyone come back to say that this footnote was added after Feb 1st so I have to presume it's been there since the new rates went up on Feb 1.
said by lakino:
Where do you come off saying it's "clearly there now"? It's no where near being "clearly" there. If you go the order online route, NO WHERE on their order entry website does it state what the FUSF fee will be. It does say there will be a FUSF fee charged, but does NOT tell you how much the fee will be.
And I stand by that statement. You seem to read only what you want to read. Read the two sentences after the part you quoted. See where I said what was "clearly there" was the reference to the fee, the "*" pointing to the FUSF footnote? I even acknowledged that while they told us that there was a fee, no amount is listed.