Sinclair42
join:2004-10-23
Florence, SC
| reply to Network Guy
Re: [Lingo] is going to charge Excise and Reg Tax
Yawn..I new there would be a poster such as this.The only fools i know are the ones that follow the crowds that don't care about whether an issue is ethical or not........
Everyone has their right to express their opinion whether it shows their ignorance or intelligence... |
|
Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York | Ehhmmm.. I realize this is an ethical issue. Wanna get into ethics? I suggest you read through that bill of mine again.
If you don't feel that I'm outright getting robbed, perhaps you're the ignorant one. |
|
caseydoug
join:2001-08-14
Seattle, WA
| reply to Sinclair42
said by Sinclair42  :You maybe could do some checking to see if they have a leg to stand on when you get back to your office. I'll try to look later today, but unless people are really prepared to walk over this, it's not going to be much of a threat just to tell Lingo we don't believe its reason for a rate hike. What would make a difference is if people called and canceled. |
|
Sinclair42
join:2004-10-23
Florence, SC | Correct Doug!! |
|
Sinclair42
join:2004-10-23
Florence, SC
| reply to Network Guy
I am not interested in looking at your bill first of all, but to come into this forum and insinuate and flame posters by calling us all "fools" shows your maturity level is less than my 6 year old.What kind of response did you think you would get by calling people "fools". a big welcome to the forum party? |
|
Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York
 ·PHONE POWER
·Broadvox Direct
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| No, I said you folks are fools, or foolish if you can understand my point better, for complaining about a $1.50 tax when your local telcos more than likely double, if not triple that, for their benefit, not because Uncle Sam makes them.
Bvox explained the reasoning behind the $1.50 should they ever become regulated and hence begin collecting it, and it makes perfect sense why they would.
Do you work at Lingo or are involved in their legal dealings to know why they chose to go down that route? No, and I'm pretty sure everyone else paying Lingo for VoIP doesn't know either.
I'm not defending Lingo, in fact I don't like the fact that they did that, and if I were a customer of theirs I'd likely complain, if not ditch them as well for that. But at this point you are all speculating, and unless you can all get an official word from the CFO or COO, you'll never know for sure other than believing your purported assertions. |
|
laserjobs
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Las Vegas, NV
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to Sinclair42
I am ready to run right over to Broadvox or preferably Sunrocket. We are trying to keep regulation out of VOIP and the VOIP companies really want FCC regulation for some reason by acting like a regular Telco with their taxes and fees. I just don't get it.
P.S. Why bother posting a POTS phone bill,it has nothing to do with VOIP
--
Email Lingo about the misrepresented rate hike: customercare@lingo.com primuscare@primustel.com nhazard@primustel.com psingh@primustel.com |
|
Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York | quote:
P.S. Why bother posting a POTS phone bill,it has nothing to do with VOIP
It does have something to do with VoIP, the same tax(es), except a lot less than the telco. |
|
robbob90210
@attbi.co
| Down4U said
"Bvox explained the reasoning behind the $1.50 should they ever become regulated and hence begin collecting it, and it makes perfect sense why they would."
Ummm, The only sense I can see in collecting this charge is for there bottom line. Really, perfect sense would be if they become regulated they should start to collect it, at that point.
Its like saying in my business Im going to charge my customers another 3% from today, just in case a Govt depart introduce another charge. Its bulls..t.
I really dont care about the extra charge, What I care about is misleading information why they are introducing it. I also dont understand why I have to pay $1.50 for my international numbers as well.
Look at the big picture here. If all VoIP companies introduce 1 or 2 fee's at a time. It wont be long until were back at the POTS system level of charges. Especially when they all charge the 'Federal Excise Tax', its not hard for legislation to be introduced, (Its not going to hurt the industry, because its already implemented), the Govt take this charge then the VoIP are looking at another one to keep their profits at the same level.
Robert. |
|
Sinclair42
join:2004-10-23
Florence, SC | I agree and 1143 hits or people are very interested in this issue tells me that there is trouble in the VoIP world......... |
|
lobster11
join:2004-01-19
Brunswick, ME | "Regulatory Recovery" fees can include all sorts of costs, like property taxes in some cases. All companies that operate in the communications area operate in a regulatory environment so this fee is essentially a price increase. |
|
laserjobs
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Las Vegas, NV | VOIP is supposed to be free of "a regulatory environment" but the VOIP companies are well on their way to creating regulation. |
|
caseydoug
join:2001-08-14
Seattle, WA
| reply to robbob90210
said by robbob90210:
Ummm, The only sense I can see in collecting this charge is for there bottom line. Really, perfect sense would be if they become regulated they should start to collect it, at that point. Seeing this charge is a bit like having the winning bid on EBay and then getting an invoice that adds surcharges for a state sales tax that you know the seller does not intend to remit to your state, and for the seller's business license, which the seller has always had and which is simply his cost of doing business. It's not that these extra charges make the service unaffordable, but their justification is inherently misleading.
I think you should assume that, as this industry shakes out, providers will charge whatever the market will bear. Subscribers will switch to whichever providers offer the services they want at the lowest price.
There are hassles in switching, however. Porting your telephone number is one. Dealing with the termination fee is another. I don't believe Lingo would be entitled to charge a termination fee to someone who cancels on account of Lingo's unilateral price increase. One could also simply keep the adapter and use it for another provider (most adapters can be unlocked with a little effort).
I plan to wait a bit before deciding what to do. I want to see whether Lingo has a response to the many customer complaints. |
|
vonsen
Just Because
Premium
join:2005-01-06
| said by caseydoug : said by robbob90210:
Ummm, The only sense I can see in collecting this charge is for there bottom line. Really, perfect sense would be if they become regulated they should start to collect it, at that point. Seeing this charge is a bit like having the winning bid on EBay and then getting an invoice that adds surcharges for a state sales tax that you know the seller does not intend to remit Well put. Lingo is just padding their bottom line, IMO. They are not obligated to collect any taxes now and it is exceptionally unlikely that any future taxes imposed would be retroactive. Ergo, they are gratutiously taking more money out of your wallet, just because they believe that they can get away with it. And the "regulatory recovery fee" at 7.5% per phone number (so, 15% for many of us) is a more blatant money grab. No telco is obligated to collect this. It is a slush fund charged at lingo's discretion. I phoned and emailed to voice my displeasure. And I am willing to dump lingo if they don't back down. Anyone who feels the same should stongly consider calling or email lingo ASAP to object. They will only back down if there are a lot of complaints and/or cancellations.
Neil Hazard, COO: nhazard@primustel.com
Paul Singh, CEO: psingh@primustel.com
Executive offices (Maclean, VA): (703) 902-2800
|
|
vonsen
Just Because
Premium
join:2005-01-06
| reply to Robbob90210
A complaint template
Here is a complaint template for anyone who is outraged by Lingo's intention to surcharge us an average 18%.
Feel free to change it in any way to voice your opinion. It is important that we actually complain. If lingo doesn't hear a lot of complaints, they will just go ahead with these outrageous surcharges. If you have the time, a totally original letter is even better, but the template can still be effective. The time when your opinion can change this is now!
The best addresses to complain to are:
To: "Paul Singh, CEO" <psingh@primustel.com>
CC: "Neil Hazard, COO" <nhazard@primustel.com>
"Thomas Kloster, CFO" <tkloster@primustel.com>
"John DePodesta, Exec. V.P." <jdepodesta@primustel.com>
"Tracy Book, V.P." <tbook@primustel.com> |
|
Gericurlswrl
join:2003-05-02
Franklin, OH
| reply to Network Guy
Re: [Lingo] is going to charge Excise and Reg Tax
said by Network Guy :I said you folks are fools, or foolish if you can understand my point better, for complaining about a $1.50 tax when your local telcos more than likely double, if not triple that The excessive taxation of POTS service is exactly why most of us left it for VoIP in the first place. We are outraged at these new fees because
1. The 3% federal excise tax they are collecting is most likely illegal. The IRS administers the collection of the excise tax, and they have never ordered VoIP operators to collect such taxes. Period.
2. The $1.50 regulatory charge is pure profit, plain and simple. They don't want to raise the $19.95/mo rate just for the mere fact that they want to continue to be one of the cheapest VoIP operators out there. If they said their rates were now $21.45 versus a competitors that was only $19.95, I'd most likely pick the cheaper price, and so would most others.
Please don't compare the heavily regulated and taxed POTS service that you have to VoIP. You are smart enough to know the difference and the reason VoIP is becoming so popular. |
|
eperos
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Brooklyn, NY | How many Voip customers are out there? There is gotta be something else we can do than complain to the companies involved. If indeed they are not supposed to be collecting these taxes, then we should be writing letters to law enforcement. |
|
vonsen
Just Because
Premium
join:2005-01-06
| said by eperos :How many Voip customers are out there? If indeed they are not supposed to be collecting these taxes, then we should be writing letters to law enforcement. I think that they can wiggle out because the fine print in their terms + conditions say that they might collect anticipated taxes. They were probably planning on doing this all along. So definitely unreasonable, unethical and dishonestly portrayed. But probably not illegal. In fact the only reason that they are collecting a 3% tax before they have to, might be to obscure the 15% "regulatory recovery fee". Sounds like another tax, right? But it isn't! This is 100% profit to lingo & no one requires them to impose it. But by implying that they have to collect the 3% tax (plausible, but not true), they hope that the 15% RRF slides in under the radar.
It might not be illegal, but don't let that stop you from complaining. If enough people complain they will back off. If they do proceed with imposing the 18% surcharge, I will drop lingo like a hot potato. |
|
tj008
join:2004-06-24
Cincinnati, OH
1 edit | reply to Robbob90210
My...I never thought this discussion would go 4 pages! We all have something to say, for sure.
What worries me is the greater picture of voip.
The many voip providers discussed in this forum that charge taxes and fees are now ACTING like a legacy telecom - telephone company. This is very scary. Remember the old adage....fake it until you make it. It seems like it's coming true in this case.
To me, using the internet for purchasing products and services has always been a type of rogue activity. The internet has been a free zone. But it seems like this freedom is slowly being eroded. It is truly sad.
The entrepreneurs - the cavaliers - the rogues are now becoming like the very people they didnt want to become. Why have the googles, the yahoos, etc. grown up and taken their toys home?
|
|
Gericurlswrl
join:2003-05-02
Franklin, OH
| reply to vonsen
said by vonsen : It might not be illegal, but don't let that stop you from complaining. Curious, but how is collecting taxes on something that is not taxable legal?
At my business, we can't charge a fictitious tax on our products, or we would surely be investiated by state authorities. |
|
