voiplover
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Portsmouth, NH | reply to Simmer911
Re: [Packet8] New $1.50 Regulatory Fee effective M
You must be the expert having CallVantage and all. 
Just wishing you the best of luck at keeping you income.  |
|
Simmer911
Premium
join:2005-01-12
Chelsea, AL
| reply to jalapen
Just another reason to not use Packet 8. Thier customer service sucks and now they are charging these bogus fees. Get out of Packet8 if you can. They are no good anymore in my opinion.
--
TALKABOUTVOIP.COM VOIP Professional Help |
|
voiplover
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Portsmouth, NH
 ·callwithus
·Axvoice
| reply to chaud
said by chaud  :said by voiplover :I'm looking at several accounts and they all have that charge in there statements.  If it wasn't for the reliability and network friendly DTA we would be long gone. So you are saying if it wasn't good you would be gone?  No. I didn't say that.
Amazing.... I will say that the only real issue we are having is latency. Otherwise, as far as I know everything is functioning to my expectations. Realize that the accounts that I am referring too came with 2 months of free service, no activation or deactivation fees, No commitment, and the price of the dta was rebated.
I don't think it is possible to find that deal at this time. |
|
chaud
Serious Business
join:2004-07-09
Anderson, SC
·Charter VOIP
·Packet8
| reply to voiplover
said by voiplover :I'm looking at several accounts and they all have that charge in there statements. If it wasn't for the reliability and network friendly DTA we would be long gone. So you are saying if it wasn't good you would be gone?
--
TalkAboutVoIP Forums |
|
voiplover
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Portsmouth, NH | reply to topspin
I'm looking at several accounts and they all have that charge in there statements.
If it wasn't for the reliability and network friendly DTA we would be long gone. |
|
topspin
join:2004-10-05
San Jose, CA | reply to chaud
I did not see $1.50 in my June statement, too. I hope they keep it this way. |
|
gbh2o
join:2000-12-18
Greenville, NC
·Future Nine Corpor..
·callwithus
·MyPhoneCompany
·VBUZZER
·Voxee
 ·Embarq
·VOIPo
·STANAPHONE
·Axvoice
·Packet8
| reply to chaud
You're lucky if you can make sense of your monthly bill. Mine changed several times, including retroactively 3 months worth. None of them matched what was being billed or had been billed improperly to my credit card, even through _they_ owed _me_ money! [Of course, they still do, even though I've terminated their service... wonder if I'll ever actually see a refund. Very inventive bookkeeping and billing practices. |
|
chaud
Serious Business
join:2004-07-09
Anderson, SC
·Charter VOIP
·Packet8
| reply to jalapen
I am updating on this, looking at my june bill, I didn't have the fee, but I did in May and July, so it looks like they might have changed their mind, and then changed back.
--
TalkAboutVoIP Forums |
|
cbrain
join:2000-05-21
Silver Spring, MD
·VoicePulse for Bus..
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VoiceStick
·Packet8
| reply to jalapen
Re: [Packet8] New $1.50 Regulatory Fee effective May 1
I spoke with a billing rep early this month and was told I would be billed to the end of the month I cancelled. She would have cancelled my account immediately if I wanted. She even offered that since May had not processed I would not be charged if I canceled on that call. They will not help with forwarding info or a recording. They did offer verbally and by email to port my P8 number. I'm attempting to port it to SunRocket. |
|
dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29 | reply to muttdog
Re: [Packet8] New $1.50 Regulatory Fee effective M
I wouldn't worry to much about it. I don't think they are enforcing the 30 days notice.
Sad part is if they would have just raised the rates a $1.50 I still would be upset but wouldn't cancel. |
|
muttdog
join:2003-11-04
USA | reply to dcurrey
damn, i missed that... Thanks Dcurry |
|
dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29
·ViaTalk
| reply to muttdog
Section 14 of the TOS.
14. TERMINATION. End User agrees to provide 8x8 with thirty (30) days notice of termination. End User shall be responsible for the full monthly service fee for the month during which the notice of termination of service is provided to 8x8 |
|
muttdog
join:2003-11-04
USA | reply to dcurrey
"I can give my 30 days required cancellation notice (Per current TOS) at any time and clear my 1 year contract."
you have to give 30 days notice? where does it say that? |
|
dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29
·ViaTalk
| reply to jalapen
Just cancel. Finish your contract first. No reason to pay extra disconnect fees.
If you get a good percentage of users canceling due to the bogus Regulatory Recovery Fee voip companies may reconsider trying to pull this crap. We had to put up with it with POTS no other options. But for now we can tell the voip to kiss off. This is the only way we can prevent them from pulling this crap. If users don't cancel they become part of the problem.
And yes I am cancelling my Packet8 account. My gizmo arrives today. I can give my 30 days required cancellation notice (Per current TOS) at any time and clear my 1 year contract. |
|
voiplover
Premium
join:2004-05-28
Portsmouth, NH
·callwithus
·Axvoice
| reply to jalapen
Re: [Packet8] New $1.50 Regulatory Fee effective May 1
Well, I just checked my cc and I was charge the $1.50 increase. That's a 7.5% increase in one year and we haven't event gone through the 911 issue yet. I hope that this increase stops the FCC from making all voip users pay for 911 access. I'm up to my one year with them and will be making my decisions soon. Packet8 has been really good for me in the last year and they didn't charge me for all of the 20 some # changes I have made (saved big $'s) and I have always been able to reach CS within a few minutes. They have always been good even if they didn't have the answers that I wanted to hear. If I keep the account than I don't have to worry about disconnect fees but on the other hand FWD can't seem to reach me any more.
Just my thoughts! |
|
SDHank8
join:2005-04-10
Escondido, CA
| reply to jalapen
Re: [Packet8] New $1.50 Regulatory Fee effective M
I'd suggest filing a complaint with the FTC. They're the people who are responsible for truth-in-advertising and ultimately, that's the problem here. They are advertising one price while charging another and that increase is purely discretionary on their part.
I'm going to take a moment to rummage through my various bills and file a few complaints against companies who practice this deceit. |
|
jalapeno
join:2005-04-15
Gainesville, FL | reply to jalapen
We were slashdotted!
»hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl···&tid=218 |
|
only4luca
join:2001-10-25
Brooklyn, NY | reply to WhyADuck
Well, I wish this wasn't just a marketing scheme...wait for them to get more customers, bang! Tax is back...
/l |
|
WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| reply to bbqjohn
said by bbqjohn :This is disheartening but to be expected from all Voip companies eventually. Even if they do not become regulated, the companies will see a way to make more money and will not be able to resist it. I predict, even if I switch, that the next guy will do the same thing. There will be no hiding from it. I don't like it but compared to my $60+ verizon phone bill this small fee is nothing. I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with you that fraudulent advertising of the monthly rate and consumer fraud should become something "expected from all VoIP companies." In plain point of fact, NOT all VoIP companies are taking advantage of this opportunity to gouge their customers. For example, consider this press release from VoicePulse that came out today:
VoicePulse Lowers Startup Costs and Drops Tax
Company lowers first month cost by $50 and drops unwanted tax
JAMESBURG, NJ (April 15, 2005) - VoicePulse Inc. announced today a promotion that reduces the startup costs of their most popular nationwide calling plan, the America Unlimited Special Offer, by $50. The America Unlimited Special Offer allows consumers to make the jump to Voice-over-IP (VoIP) for only $24.99/month for unlimited local & US long distance calling.
“We’ve been able to build and maintain an efficient operation without sacrificing customer satisfaction or service quality,” says Ravi Sakaria, VoicePulse President & CEO. “Combined with our increased scale, this translates into lower costs for VoicePulse and savings for our customers.”
In addition, VoicePulse has stopped charging Federal Excise Tax (FET), saving customers an additional 3% each month. VoicePulse is now the only broadband phone service provider that does not charge any unnecessary taxes or regulatory fees other than common sales tax.
“There is no clarity regarding whether or not the Federal Excise Tax applies to VoIP service, so we have decided to err in favor of the consumer,” says Sakaria.
VoicePulse continues to pay Federal Excise Tax to its underlying telecommunications providers, as those services are still regulated and subject to taxes and tariffs.
VoicePulse has won awards from highly regarded technical journals and trade magazines such as PC Magazine, PC World, and DesignTechnica. VoicePulse also boasts having the top award from Broadband Reports, which is based solely on customer reviews.
ABOUT VOICEPULSE
VoicePulse is a New Jersey based communications company that uses its VoIP network to deliver advanced features and high-quality phone service to residential and small-business consumers. The company leads the industry in delivering innovative features and excellent customer service.
For more information about VoicePulse, please contact:
Rima Vaghasiya
732-339-5100
rima @ voicepulse.com The above press release was seen at »www.primezone.com/newsroom/?d=76351 and you will note that VoicePulse has decided not to charge any taxes or fees other than those that a governmental unit has actually required them to charge (e.g. state sales tax on sales to NJ residents because they are located in New Jersey).
There is no reason that other companies could not take the same approach. And as customers, we don't know what this money is going for. If they say they are collecting a tax then they are supposed to remit it to the taxing authority (though how would we know if they did?), but when they call it a fee then there is no requirement they send it anyplace.
In this case it sounds like the company under discussion is saying, "We're spending too much on lawyers so we'll tack on a fee to help offset their costs." Well the problem is, that is a cost of doing business. You don't advertise one price and then arbitrarily tack on a fee when your costs get too high. And just because your competitor engages in consumer fraud doesn't give you carte blanche to to likewise. Take your complaint about the unfair competition to the appropriate authorities, or file a lawsuit, or go to the press, or do what you need to in order to stop the unfair competition, but don't take the attitude that just because others in the industry are acting like common criminals, that gives you the right to do so also.
All I will say is, I will choose to do business with companies that do not try to gouge their customers, given the choice. One reason I hate the traditional telephone companies so much is because for years their motto seems to have been "screw the customer", and now unfortunately we have some rotten apples in the VoIP industry that are emulating their evil ways. Well, as VoIP customers you don't have to deal with any particular VoIP company - they do not have geographic monopolies like some phone companies - so my choice would be to avoid dealing with companies that play these sorts of deceptive games. It's up to you, choose to deal with an honest company or choose to deal with a dishonest one, but if everybody stays with the dishonest ones then they should not be surprised if five or ten years from now their VoIP bills are as loaded with crap as phone bills are today. And that is all I will say for now. |
|
STEVECH
join:2001-02-25
Mimbres, NM
| reply to SipSource
The notice was embedded in the Packet8 April News email, and yes, "This fee is not a tax or charge required or assessed by any government...", and yes, "The Regulatory Recovery Fee will apply to every phone number assigned, including toll free and virtual numbers...".
What is so amazing is how a totally bogus fee invented by the Bells has now become a standard rip off practice, whether you are a phone company or not. There are many industries that's heavily regulated by government, may be we will see the fee everywhere soon. |
|
