vonsen
Just Because
Premium
join:2005-01-06
|  [Broadvox Direct] Jeff - What has happened to Bvox support?
Jeff,
What is going on with support at Broadvox? I know that you are not the support department, but I am not referring to any specific ticket. Support used to be snappy and professional. In recent months though it has somehow become the norm to let tickets age for 3 - 4 weeks before dealing with them. Problems that have been fixed the same day in the past, now require four phone calls and as many added comments in the portal and remain unresolved. I was hesitant to post this, but after seeing a consistent pattern on half a dozen varied tickets over several months and hearing the same things from other bvox customers, I have to ask.
Broadvox has always provided a reliable dial tone for me. And if you can resist the temptation of slapping 'regulatory recovery fees" and such nonsense on us like your misguided competitors (lingo, at&t) have, you are not in any real danager of losing me as a customer. But it is disappointing to see the service standards slip so much. |
|
Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York
 ·PHONE POWER
·Broadvox Direct
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| I have no complaints about Bvox as of yet, though I've only had the DTA for a week now.
My only gripes is not knowing why I can't freakin do faxes from either a traditional fax machine or modem to another fax machine or modem. It just won't do it.
 |
|
jgwilliams
Premium,VIP
join:2003-09-16
Chesterland, OH
clubs:
| reply to vonsen
The short answer is, I don't know. Being that I do not work with that group, or even the same part of the building I could not say. I can only advise that if you feel that your account is not receiving the attention that it should that you request to speak with a supervisor. I do know that there has been a lot of growth and that we are hiring people as quick as we can find them, in several departments. I can only assume that this has something to do with it.
Regarding fees, they are probably coming. I have seen notices from 911 PSAP facilities that they want counts of lines in markets that we are turning up 911 service in, we have to pay them 1.50 in most markets, some markets more or less by .25 per line; these charges will be passed on.
Additionally I have heard talk from our accounting office and Independent CPA firm that we may need to charge the 3% Fed tax. This is still being researched however Uncle Sam is asking for it.
--
Jeffery Williams
CIO
Broadvox, Llc
|
|
neftv
join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA
·Broadvox Direct
| said by jgwilliams  :Additionally I have heard talk from our accounting office and Independent CPA firm that we may need to charge the 3% Fed tax. This is still being researched however Uncle Sam is asking for it. Tell Uncle Sam to leave Broadvox alone. Lawyers are good at that. |
|
jgwilliams
Premium,VIP
join:2003-09-16
Chesterland, OH
clubs:
| We have Lawyers. At the end of the day Uncle Sam will get his way. If we do not legally have to collect and remit then we will not. If that is the case I would suspect that laws will change IMHO.
The thing with the government, and the IRS in particular, is that they name the game and there is little you can do about it. There is also a point where they make it not worth the fight. I really don't know where things sit at the moment so I guess we will all wait and see. I would imagine that other providers are collecting the fee for a reason!
--
Jeffery Williams
CIO
Broadvox, Llc
|
|
vonsen
Just Because
Premium
join:2005-01-06
| reply to vonsen
Re: [Broadvox Direct] Jeff - What has happened to
I think that we recognize that provider's have to collect tax if the government actually levies it. We may not like it, but we realize that it is largely out of the providers hands at that point.
The objections expressed recently are twofold.
1. There are a lot of upset people on this forum, upset that an anticipated tax is being collected by your competitors. The FCC, et al are considering taxes. But despite indications from governments that they would like to receive taxes on voip (and everything else), such a tax does not yet have legislative sanction. And it should not be collected until it does. Your lawyers should be able to tell the difference.
2. And this is by far the big one, at least for me. A "regulatory recovery fee" or the same thing under any other name is not a tax of any sort that is remitted to the government. Some of your competitors have imposed 15% price increase, hidden as a RRF. This is worded and placed so as to dupe a lot of people into thinking that it is an unavoidable gov't tax of some kind. It is so much easier to advertise $19.95, rather than $23. And hope that no one realizes that another $3 is hidden in the fine print. This is the epitome of "sleazy".
Should broadvox really feel it is necessary to increase their pricing for whatever reason, I hope they will be a lot more honest than your competitors have been. Think twice about any increases and if you do proceed, at least be straight with your customers and put the increase into your plan rate, not hidden as a surcharge. |
|
jgwilliams
Premium,VIP
join:2003-09-16
Chesterland, OH
clubs:
| First of all we are always straight with our customers.
I might add that the other companies are not being sleazy. When you goto the store and something says 10.00 and you get to the register and you have to give the clerk 11.03 is that sleazy?
There is a 1.50 regulatory fee for 911 service. There are two issues here. The first issue is that your carrier can not afford to eat that cost. Secondly it is not legal to 'hide' the cost of this fee or other recovery fees and or taxes in your monthly charge. Like sales tax they MUST be itemized.
Our prices have been aggressively positioned, in part to account for what we see coming in the way of fees, such as 911. The net result is that we are participating, at the least with our customers, if not fully offsetting the fees applied.
Here is a sample (I have removed identification of the municipality) of a form that we must fill out quarterly. There are additional pages to this form as we must provide for a 14 point PSAP interconnection and trunking test as well. This must be done with each PSAP that we connect with.
COUNTY OF XXXXXXXX, PENNSYLVANIA
9-1-1 SURCHARGE REVENUE SUBMISSION FORM
All service providers are required to provide the following information upon submission to the County of 9-1-1 surcharge revenues collected from the service provider’s customers.
Service Provider Name:
Contact Person:
Address:
Phone:
Date this form is being filled out:
Time period covered by this submission:
Access Line Count :
x $1.50 @ line :
9-1-1 surcharge
revenue collected :
accrued interest :
plus
past due amounts
less
0.05%
service provider
surcharge
administrative fee :
TOTAL amount submitted :
--
Jeffery Williams
CIO
Broadvox, Llc
|
|
bmark
join:2004-06-14
Pleasanton, CA
| I understand the point of charging for the 911 service and I will gladly pay the fee. Do you have any idea when 911 service will be offered? Also the federal excise tax doesn't make much sense unless the govt just want to make money off everyone. VOIP will not survive if it's taxed like traditional copper lines. Michael Powell needs to step up and make very clear that there is no state or federal taxation allowed like high speed broadband service which is not taxed all at! |
|
vonsen
Just Because
Premium
join:2005-01-06
| said by bmark :I understand the point of charging for the 911 service and I will gladly pay the fee. I don't understand and don't want to pay such a fee. I signed up for voip knowing that there was no 911 and don't want to be charged for it if and when it is tacked on. The need to call 911 is rare and if it ever arose I could always use a cell phone. Any 911 call made on my network would be routed to POTS anyway. |
|
jgwilliams
Premium,VIP
join:2003-09-16
Chesterland, OH
clubs:
| reply to bmark
I don't want to see a bunch of taxes for VoIP either. I believe that we will see the 3% Fed tax. If you think about it the government does need cash to run. Now I am not defending how they spend money, lets not even go there! My point is only that the government gets a little piece (sometimes a big piece) of everything. To that end you can expect something but I don't see it being anything at all like regular POTS.
When will we have 911? We are close. I know I have said that before. The termination partner that we have has had delays and from what I understand we should not be far off. From a provisioning standpoint I can tell you that we are ready, that and software design / business rules, etc. Is what I work with. The call termination and call flow is facilities side. Unlike other things that can be released in a 'usable state' that may have a little something off here or there that can be incrementally addressed 911 is NOT one of those items. Our goal; not to have some of the issues that other companies have had with 911. You would be amazed at how unorganized, illogical, non-standardized, and cumbersome this 911 stuff is. calls, connectivity, process, etc. Are not handled the same way from market to market; as an example! IMHO the entire 911 system needs to be rebuilt. The architecture of this from a data / process flow standpoint was built very close minded and without vision as to where communications might go. Keep in mind that cellular phones were around during many of these implementations and they were not even considered. The short of it is that we (service providers in general I am sure) find new challenges around every corner. Just when you think you are done, guess what? Well you get the point.
--
Jeffery Williams
CIO
Broadvox, Llc
|
|
voiplover
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Portsmouth, NH |  JDWilliams, Thank you for the insight. What you have said makes a lot of cents. |
|
bmark
join:2004-06-14
Pleasanton, CA | reply to vonsen
Re: [Broadvox Direct] Jeff - What has happened to Bvox support?
Thanks Jeff! We appreciate your support and concern on this forum. It's great that you respond to our posts even though it's not your job or responsiblity. |
|
hansolo
join:2004-11-01
Canada | reply to jgwilliams
I wonder if Canadians using BVX will be charged the fees - if they are physically located in Canada... |
|
vonsen
Just Because
Premium
join:2005-01-06
| Re: [Broadvox Direct] Jeff - What has happened to
said by hansolo :I wonder if Canadians using BVX will be charged the fees - if they are physically located in Canada... That would make a lot of sense. Base the charge on the primary physical location (not billing or provider POP), as the call should go to the nearest physical 911 PAP. My gut feeling though tells me that providers will take the easy way out and just make it a blanket charge to everyone. |
|
nsumner
join:2001-12-13
Israel
| reply to vonsen
Re: [Broadvox Direct] Jeff - What has happened to Bvox support?
I must admit I like the P8 system. E-911 is now avaliable on some lines. If you want it you pay a monthly fee. I have a Toronot# in Israel. I see absolutely no reason in the world why I should pay for 911 service on that line. Indeed 911 service on that line would be dangerous if it were forced. Because someone who doesn't know my phone system could accidently pick up my american line and dial 911 (actually in Israel we don't have 911 so it isn't likely to happen). If you dialed 911 and actually got an operator all that would happen is a waste of critical time both here (if there were an emergency), and tying up a 911 line in Toronto.
I really hope I don't get taxed for a 911 service I CAN'T USE! Looking at the form Jeff posted of course nothing is clear. They ask for the # of lines. What does a virtual number count as? Do lines really only include those people with 911 access or all people with lines in that county? Probably something Jeff is asking the lawyers as well. |
|
jgwilliams
Premium,VIP
join:2003-09-16
Chesterland, OH
clubs:
| reply to hansolo
I would have no way of knowing that one. Again I would like to point out that I am only conveying what I have heard, understand things to be, or feel is a possibility; based upon the above. I am not an accountant or a tax lawyer. I would 'think' that Canadians would be subject to Canadian tax. Overall I would think that taxation would be based on service address.
--
Jeffery Williams
CIO
Broadvox, Llc
|
|
jgwilliams
Premium,VIP
join:2003-09-16
Chesterland, OH
clubs: | reply to vonsen
Re: [Broadvox Direct] Jeff - What has happened to
Vonson,
I don't think that this will be up to the providers, it will be up to the taxing authority.
--
Jeffery Williams
CIO
Broadvox, Llc
|
|
jgwilliams
Premium,VIP
join:2003-09-16
Chesterland, OH
clubs:
| reply to nsumner
Re: [Broadvox Direct] Jeff - What has happened to Bvox support?
I would agree with your thought process here. The forms that we are sent by PSAP'S today are the same forms they use for LEC's, and herein is the problem.
One question I have for them is well do you want a count of lines that are from a rate center that you service, or for people that have a service address in your market that will reach you when dialing 911? You would be amazed, they don't know the answer to that question.
Like this example you also have people living in areas that we will not be servicing with 911, at least from day one. What do we do with those people? Are they treating this fee like a USF; even people that do not use it pay for it? If that is the case I REALLY don't agree with the fee. I believe that any fees charged need to be substantiated. The government relies on communications revenue for all kinds of things today. I don't know that their income would go down dramatically with VoIP as the reduced price will equal more lines. Providing that they receive their 3% (from the numbers that I have assembled) they should be just fine. In addition they open themselves to an international market for a tax basis.
The local government however, this is the tricky part. Local governments in many areas are already having financial problems. They too receive a great deal of money from telecommunications. These people will kick and scream, and I can understand why - you would too if someone were taking your job. So the question is not 'should' the government tax telecommunications it is why should they. If they can answer the question with an answer that people can understand then fine. I believe that the FED can. The short answer as to why is as follows:
The federal government is entitled to a small portion of all transactions as they provide protection and structure for our country. This statement can mean all kinds of things but I will keep it simple as this post was going to be about 2 lines  . The other thing is that someone needs to pay for running the FCC, which should be this industry. The FCC will bring standards which makes sure everything works well together (believe me when I tell you that phone companies will NOT play nice with each other - unless forced to). They will make sure that the elderly and people in remote areas get fair access and that people with medical needs are taken care of with respect to accessibility. Now if you do not fall into one of these categories then you are probably thinking that they can take care of themselves, or it is their families responsibility. If you know someone that would really be affected by not being able to reach out then you can empathises with what I am saying.
The point is that some structure needs to exist for telecommunications as it is a very important part of our daily lives and safety. Like it or not the traditional POTS service has been reliable and steadfast for over 100 years. It has been this way with communications from one carrier to the next for all this time because the orchestra has a pretty darn good conductor.
When I look at the U.S. government, and all of the public services that they manage I disagree with the way much of / most of it is handled, to one degree or another. While the FCC is not exempt from these feelings I must say that of all of the sectors that I have any familiarity with I believe that they are the best run, best intentioned. If anything as a person working in the field I believe that they are way to consumer focused and really back companies into a corner where it is hard to turn a profit. The FCC has constructed an environment that makes it almost impossible to innovate in that space. I believe that they see that now with VoIP and they really do want to keep it an open playing field. At the same time they feel the need to wrap their arms around the technology and industry to be sure that people are safe, and I do NOT disagree with this at all.
If you consider the global reach of VoIP, and the climate throughout the world today with respect to terrorism and the like; it is pretty scary. We need the government more than ever now as they have the eyes, ears, and expertise to provide some level or protection. Disassociating this body from the broad communications medium of the nations phone service, in particular a service like VoIP, would be a big mistake.
Closing: Let the government have their couple points, and let the PSAP's get paid for saving lives. VoIP carriers entered the market at very low prices and saved everyone LOTS of money all the while adding features and flexibility. Now they have reduced their price dramatically, making phone service nearly free! You can call all over the country and people with phone bills around 100.00 per month, and talking to grandma and watching the clock can now talk forever for the cost of a couple lunches. That said, don't be greedy, stop crying about the small stuff! If these fees are added in the service is still going to be around 25.00 or less, you can still call across the country for no additional charge; and you and your family will be safe!
--
Jeffery Williams
CIO
Broadvox, Llc
|
|
artisticcheese
join:2004-11-09
Carrollton, TX
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VoiceStick
| Why we end up discussing why government (or any government entity) shall collect taxes. I personally think it has nothing to do with an issue at hand. I think people most corncerned about that VOIP providers jump on that wagon volunterily when government does not force them to do so. And this experiences are based not on legal knowledge but on facts that other VOIP providers do not charge those taxes.
So as soon as BVX direct will raise those rates or fees I personally would want to know exact explanation with some links which will show me why I have to pay those while I don't have to pay those with SunRocket for example. Bearing in mind that box BVX and Sunrocket based in US and my phone is in US and I have to be either subject to same taxes or BVX or Sunrocket did something spooky (Sunrocket avoids mandatory government taxes or BVX voluntarily imposed those when not required).
G |
|
jgwilliams
Premium,VIP
join:2003-09-16
Chesterland, OH
clubs:
| I am not going to speculate on why some do charge and some do not. It could be as easy as they have not yet been approached. With regards to accountability, I don't know if anyone is going to do that kind of reporting, then again I don't know that they would not; this would be up to the company and their legal team.
I do know that the 3% tax is something that has been brought up and I know that the 911 fee is present. The 911 fee is required. The federal tax is up in the air at this time. I would suspect that the Federal tax is a matter of how you read and understand the law. If the government sees it as it must be paid and a service provider does not then they can argue the point. If the government wins that argument then the service provider would need to pay that amount retroactive. My guess is that service providers will not fight real hard with the taxing authority as this is an expensive and often times not a battle that can be won. The fees for the service are simply not high enough to provide the margins for us to become your advocate in matters such as this. When you look at the economics how much would you expect us (us being service providers in general) to spend in staying off a tax that does not affect us? What do we stand to gain? If the tax is not opposed then it will not be for everyone, not just the provider that fights the battle. That said there is no positioning benefit. At the present time I am not aware of the tax being a requirement. At the same time I am not a legal or taxing authority so I really don't know what the liability is.
--
Jeffery Williams
CIO
Broadvox, Llc
|
|
