  CylonRed Premium,MVM join:2000-07-06 Bloom County | reply to bjcatlin Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???
And in 2 states Verizon is also going to be charging a new Recovery Fee... So - they did not do away with it totally... |
|
 plutarch
join:2002-12-29 Kansas City, MO | reply to artisticcheese Doesn't look as if the complaint's going to make much difference, since the FCC didn't so much as acknowledge it. And it's possible that the input will cause it to be addressed. |
|
 artisticcheese
join:2004-11-09 Carrollton, TX | reply to plutarch You will abandon FCC complaint becouse company was interested in your opinion but did nothing to address it? |
|
 plutarch
join:2002-12-29 Kansas City, MO
| reply to KoolMoe To Speakeasy's credit, someone from there did call and hear the concerns regarding the change in fees. While I still think the practices could be better, I do appreciate the time spent addressing my concern regarding them. I will abandon the FCC complaint filed should the FCC actually respond. |
|
  KoolMoe Aw Man Premium join:2001-02-14 Annapolis, MD clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| reply to nixen I hear you and don't like the addition of fees on top of the stated cost myself, but it also doesn't bother me that much (conditioning? jaded? I dunno...). What bothered me the most about this latest round was their spin. I agree with your that adding fees on top of stated costs is not cool, but it's an uncoolness I can live with (and afford, as it's only like $5). What I can't stand is deliberate 'misleading' statements and spin. So I'm understanding your point, no doubt, it's just not the one I was annoyed with  KM -- Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
  CylonRed Premium,MVM join:2000-07-06 Bloom County
| reply to Michieru2 I have read thru ALL of my posts in this thread - always referred it to them as the same thing - did not ever change... I plainly stated more than once that the price guarantee is for the cost of the BroandBand service - but not for other fees and even included the line from their own TOS... |
|
  Michieru2 zzz zzz zzz Premium join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL | reply to CylonRed First you say this is not a fee and now you are saying it is a fee? Would you people make up your freaking mind already? |
|
  nixen Rockin' the Boxen Premium join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| reply to KoolMoe said by KoolMoe :I understand DSL is a short-term technology. I understand a company trying to ensure its survival by expanding services (from DSL to VOIP, in this case). I understand if they need to take from one pot to help pay for the other. Again, I don't really like it, but it's not enough for me to cancel service - yet. Again, it's less what they're doing than how they're doing it. Every company uses one line of business to subsidize expansion into another. How else can they afford it. However, they normally have to raise their prices, directly, to do so. Only in the telco sector can I cite examples of them "holding the (advertised) price" but being allowed to raise "recovery fees" to do their expansion.
-tom -- "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis |
|
  KoolMoe Aw Man Premium join:2001-02-14 Annapolis, MD clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| reply to bjcatlin I don't think it's all the horrible to subsidize one service by tacking on fees to another service. I don't like it, but it doesn't offend me. How much of our cable bills are subsidizing thir VOIP service? I dunno... Every company has expenses and they can cover them however they like. Of course, the more open, honest, and direct - the better!
I understand DSL is a short-term technology. I understand a company trying to ensure its survival by expanding services (from DSL to VOIP, in this case). I understand if they need to take from one pot to help pay for the other. Again, I don't really like it, but it's not enough for me to cancel service - yet.
My biggest complaint was simply their lack of directness and silly, obtuse justifications. Just be straight-up with me and it's generally cool. KM -- Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
  CylonRed Premium,MVM join:2000-07-06 Bloom County | reply to Michieru2 Fees are not covered under their TOS price guarantee... My bill has gone down by 1% and I do nto have VOIP. |
|
  Michieru2 zzz zzz zzz Premium join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL | reply to gjgfjfgj The only problem I still see and has not been addressed is why non VOIP customers are being charged this fee. Also just want to make sure if any new customers are not or are getting this tax. Because then that would be a violation of there own TOS. |
|
 gjgfjfgj
join:2006-04-07 Tucson, AZ 1 edit | reply to Bondman Quick! Everybody PM him! I just sent him a PM about my »I just got charged! problem. |
|
 Bondman
join:2001-08-24 Livonia, MI | reply to bjcatlin One interesting thing is that Lawrencem has been on line checking things out but so far has stayed quiet!
»/useremail/u/1072392 |
|
 claudeo
join:2000-02-23 Redmond, WA | reply to bjcatlin If anything, the extra fees on top of Speakeasy VoIP are proportionally even higher: Home VoIP Unlimited 1st TN Package * VoIP Monthly Service Charge 27.95 * Regulatory Compliance Fee 6.20 That's a whopping 22%. |
|
 Bondman
join:2001-08-24 Livonia, MI | reply to CylonRed I did find out as per the following link the Cyberonic does not charge any recovery fees:
»What fees are charged on top of published rate? |
|
  CylonRed Premium,MVM join:2000-07-06 Bloom County | reply to bjcatlin For everyone looking to leave - I believe I read that Sonic and DSLExtreme are also collecting fees the way SE is as well.... |
|
 Bondman
join:2001-08-24 Livonia, MI
2 edits | reply to nixen I completely agree that we who do not have or use VoIP should not have to pay into expenses to support Speakeasy's move into VoIP! This is under the pretext of collecting a black hole listed as "recovery fees". If you have to raise your rates do it for the cost center having the increased expenses - VoIP! |
|
  nixen Rockin' the Boxen Premium join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| reply to KoolMoe said by KoolMoe : quote: ...while the FCC eliminated the FUSF fee for DSL, at the same time, they instituted a new requirement that we begin paying into the FUSF fund for VoIP. So you see, this is a dynamic environment. In addition, the FCC has instituted numerous regulatory requirements related to E911, CALEA, and general reporting. These new requirements, especially E911, were rapidly implemented by the FCC, giving industry little time to plan or design automated compliance systems. While large monopolies can easily absorb these additional costs until such systems are in place, smaller competitive voice and data providers like Speakeasy cannot.
A lot of mentions of VOIP-related fees. It appears that they're soaking us in order to subsidize their foray into VOIP but doing it through "recovery fees". They should not be allowed to do this. They shoul have to raise the base subscription cost, not bogus fees that aren't shown in their advertised rates.
-tom -- "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis |
|
  KoolMoe Aw Man Premium join:2001-02-14 Annapolis, MD clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| reply to bjcatlin This cleared things up for me a bit, or was at least a fairly believable reply... Overall I appreciate it; I just hope I'm not being handed a line of BS.
My inquiry: quote: Dear 'exec', After a roundabout discussion with one of SE's support staff, who was at least polite, I've been referred to this email address to post my concerns about the Regulatory Compliance Fee on my monthly invoice.
The ticket thread is here: {----}
Overall, I am not satisfied with the official explanation; essentially, "The fees, Regulatory Compliance Fee and Federal Regulatory Fee, combined before the change in regulation (3.39+3.97) amounted to 7.36. Now that the fee was simplified to just the Regulatory Compliance Fee it went down to 6.30--that's where the savings is.
All of that 5.95% is being used to cover extensive increases in cost directly associated with regulatory compliance."
This explanation is not satisfactory considering, "...despite one fee being dropped, your current charges have not been halved. Surely, moving fees from one name to another is a type of accounting trickery SE should be above.
Needless to say, 'regulatory compliance' doesn't actually say a whole lot. What other (non-Federal?) fees specifically are to blame for this burden?"
As also mentioned in the referenced ticket thread, Verizon and Bell South have recently abandoned these fees, pointing even more to the invalidity. I would hope SE could do the same. Regards,
I quote select portions of Mr. McBride's reply:
quote: ...when the government stopped requiring FUSF on broadband connectivity, we were able to pass on some of that savings to customers, but not all.
quote: ...while the FCC eliminated the FUSF fee for DSL, at the same time, they instituted a new requirement that we begin paying into the FUSF fund for VoIP. So you see, this is a dynamic environment. In addition, the FCC has instituted numerous regulatory requirements related to E911, CALEA, and general reporting. These new requirements, especially E911, were rapidly implemented by the FCC, giving industry little time to plan or design automated compliance systems. While large monopolies can easily absorb these additional costs until such systems are in place, smaller competitive voice and data providers like Speakeasy cannot.
quote: I sincerely hope this adequately addresses your concerns. It is certainly a dynamic environment: the internet. It is even more interesting when the government begins looking for ways to harvest additional revenue from it.
I like SpeakEasy. Maybe it's because I pay over $100/month for internet service that I feel I *must* like SpeakEasy! Their connections and network are fairly solid, tech support is still generally a pleasant, non-outsourced experience, and the liberal TOS makes it pretty much worth it.
Plus, I just like supporting the 'little guy'. If I have to pay more for a better, non-monopoly product, I will do so as I can afford.
And if the owners and workers makes some money in the process, God Bless America.
SE could have, IMO, avoided much of this controversy if they had just explained the various regulatory issues in the first place - instead of spinning the 'It saves you money!' line.
As long as their reasons are true.
I appreciate Lawrence's reply and will continue to stick with SpeakEasy - as least until FIOS is here... KM -- Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential |
|
 plutarch
join:2002-12-29 Kansas City, MO | reply to waka More handwaving and allusions to non-existent "regulations." Fat chance of it happening, but it should be illegal to line item "regulatory" or "government" fees that aren't 100% passed through to a government agency. |
|