 plutarch
join:2002-12-29 Kansas City, MO | reply to speakeasy2k Re: End of Reg Fee = Higher Reg Compliance Fee???
They're just making stuff up, and they obviously don't care for being called on it very much. |
|
 jcricket
join:2002-08-30 Seattle, WA
| Of course they don't like being called on it. Their behavior on this issue is no different than Verizon, Qwest, etc. - AND THAT'S WHAT'S SO DEPRESSING!
I don't think Speakeasy gets it. When there's no difference in how Speakeasy (your independent ISP) and the incumbents treats you, you will leave, because the incumbents will offer simplified billing and better prices.
In fact, in some ways their behavior is worse than the incumbents, because Speakeasy hasn't backed down (mainly because the FCC won't pressure them, as an independent DSL provider). Speakeasy could have "taken the hint" and changed their minds, but instead are trying to "fly under the radar" and hope most customers won't notice.
Unless things change, I'm voting with my feet/money as soon as I'm out of contract. |
|
  Michieru2 zzz zzz zzz Premium join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL
| reply to bjcatlin While this is offtopic to those who no longer want speakeasy and are looking for another provider which provides the same packages you can go here >> »www.cyberonic.com/
I was browsing around looking for alternatives and this is what I can across with, basically for 59.99 you get a 6.0/768 of course mileage may vary and for like 10 or 20 dollars more you can get 4 statics and more emails etc.
As for customer service, well I don't know been reading around that there email servers are crappy but for that price there is not much to be expected right?
I am completely moving away from DSL though, I am just going with Sprint EV-DO Rev A. But just sharing some research. |
|
 plutarch
join:2002-12-29 Kansas City, MO | Thanks, appreciate the suggestion and will check them out! |
|
 Bondman
join:2001-08-24 Livonia, MI
2 edits | reply to Michieru2 Thanks for the info as well. Cyberonic seems to have problems spelling the word Internet in their Terms of Service Document on their website. There is one thing one needs to be aware of with Cyberonic's Terms of service:
"Upon the end of the term or termination of service, User agrees to return the CYBERONIC INTENET COMMUNICATIONS, INC. provided equipment at User's sole expense within 30 days, or will incur $399 equipment charges."
I have a 3 meg download with 768 upload speed with Speakeasy that was set up with the help of Kat. With Cyberonic I could double my download for the same amount of money. With Michigan's "wonderful" economy I don't know if I want a year contract right know but this is an option to consider. The other question is whether Cyberonic has any surprise fees or not. |
|
 artisticcheese
join:2004-11-09 Carrollton, TX | I'm scared of ISPs which also do Web Design as a side business. |
|
 waka
join:2002-06-01 Tacoma, WA
·Speakeasy
| reply to bjcatlin Latest response:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- We do not provide itemized breakdowns of our fees. I do not have specific details, but there are many smaller regulations, both billed to us, and simply regulations that cost money to comply with. We provide this as a separate item so that you see what is really being charged, dollar-wise. We've always had new regulations and we've had to boost this fee in the past, however the last major boost was about 2 years ago. Since then, our costs have increased but until now that has not been reflected in our fees.
Thanks, xxxx xxxxx Business Support Representative - Online Support (800) 556-5829 My Hours Mon-Fri 5am-1:30pm PDT www.speakeasy.net ---------------------------------------------------
Again, a non answer from SE to get details of what goes into the bogus and misleading "Regulatory Compliance Fee". SE should be able to provide customer's a detailed invoice of what goes into their fee's. If there are regulatory fees (State, Federal or whatever) than SE should be able to say with ease, "Yes we are charged this and this Fee from this state or government and we are passing it on to you." But instead SE tells you they can't tell you the exact regulatory fees they are getting charged but to trust them that they exist and you must pay them anyways. So SE can just arbitrarily increase this fee or any other fee at their whim because of this stance they are taking of not disclosing what supposed "regulatory" fees they are getting charged. I'm not sure if this is illegal but it is definately unethical in my opinion.
I'm gonna file another FCC complaint and a complaint with the Consumer Protections division with the State of Washington Attorney General. I might even give a lawyer a call and see if they would be interested in filing a class action lawsuit against SE for bogus Regulatory fees. Anyone else on board?  |
|
 plutarch
join:2002-12-29 Kansas City, MO | 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. |
|
  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 |
|
  nixen Rockin' the Boxen Premium join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| 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 |
|
 Bondman
join:2001-08-24 Livonia, MI
2 edits | 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! |
|
  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 | 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? |
|
 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 bjcatlin One interesting thing is that Lawrencem has been on line checking things out but so far has stayed quiet!
»/useremail/u/1072392 |
|
 gjgfjfgj
join:2006-04-07 Tucson, AZ 1 edit | Quick! Everybody PM him! I just sent him a PM about my »I just got charged! problem. |
|
  Michieru2 zzz zzz zzz Premium join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL | 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. |
|
  CylonRed Premium,MVM join:2000-07-06 Bloom County | Fees are not covered under their TOS price guarantee... My bill has gone down by 1% and I do nto have VOIP. |
|
  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 |
|
  nixen Rockin' the Boxen Premium join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| 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 |
|