Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Optimum Online
| So Verizon is dropping FUSF ... but then adding supplier charge in it's place?
Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.
Just got this in the inbox.
Dear Valued Verizon Online Customer,
Effective August 14, 2006, Verizon Online will stop charging the FUSF
(Federal Universal Service Fund) recovery fee. We will stop being
assessed the fee by our DSL network suppliers. Therefore, we will no longer
be recovering this fee from our customers. The impact of the FUSF fee is
as follows: for customers of Verizon Online with service up to 768Kbps,
the fee eliminated is $1.25 a month; for customers of Verizon Online
with service up to 1.5 Mbps or 3Mbps, the fee eliminated is $2.83 a month
(based on current FUSF surcharge amounts). On your bill that includes
charges for August 14, 2006 you will see either a partial FUSF Recovery
Fee or no FUSF line item at all, depending on your bill cycle.
Starting August 26, 2006, Verizon Online will begin charging a Supplier
Surcharge for all new DSL customers, existing customers with a DSL
monthly or bundle package, and existing DSL annual plan customers at the
time their current annual plan expires. This surcharge is not a
government imposed fee or a tax; however, it is intended to help offset costs
we incur from our network supplier in providing Verizon Online DSL
service. The Supplier Surcharge will initially be set at $1.20 a month for
Verizon Online DSL customers with service up to 768Kbps and $2.70 per
month for customers with DSL service at higher speeds.
On balance your total bill will remain about the same as it has been or
slightly lower.
For more information, see the Announcement in the Help section of
Verizon Central, located at »central.verizon.net
We regret the need to add this Supplier Surcharge, but we thank you for
choosing high speed Verizon Online DSL. We appreciate and value your
business.
Sincerely,
Verizon Online
Broadband Customer Care Team |
|
| Strange, I always thought Verizon was the supplier.
Only positive thing is that as it appears we will never get fios here I just renewed an annual contract last week. Will be interesting to see if I am $2.83 better off for the next 11 months. |
|
| Guess the whopping $32 in savings through next year would be phenomenal, I just renewed myself last month.
Love the service, I just dislike these tack-ons. |
|
|
|
jumpcut
join:2004-11-09
Los Angeles, CA | reply to viafax999
Um, I think you'd get the discount only if you pay for a year in advance. If you pay monthly, you'll still pay the new monthly fee. |
|
JohnAPremium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA | said by jumpcut:Um, I think you'd get the discount only if you pay for a year in advance. If you pay monthly, you'll still pay the new monthly fee. No one pays Verizon a year in advance. Do you? |
|
JohnAPremium
join:2003-09-16
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to viafax999
said by viafax999:Only positive thing is that as it appears we will never get fios here As I understand it part of Westford is done. Get your town to grant a TV franchise, and watch how fast they get to the rest of it. Then you won't have this FUSF problem. |
|
 flarnNo Logic Left
join:2001-02-10
North Richland Hills, TX | reply to Network Guy
So we are really saving $0.13 a month, right?
I looked around a little bit, but I wasn't able to find anything telling me what this surcharge is paying for and why it is only being charged now that the Federal fee is gone.
Although, I don't know what FUSF is paying for. I have no doubt it is/was a dubious as the Federal Excise Tax on cell phones paying for the Spanish-American War.
--
anti-logic |
|
| Bastards. What are we paying every month if not for service, now they want to "recover costs" ?
Amazing that the new charge is few pennies less than the previous tax, and supposedly, the tax went to Federal, and now Verizon takes the money for themself?
Bastards X Bastards  |
|
4 edits | exactly..they are pricks. They got rid of a idiotic tax and now is charging us for getting rid of it under the guise name "supplier surcharge".
It is so obvious what they did..it couldnt be more nauseating blatant. What i read in the news about that idiotic tax was 99 percent of the telcos were not reporting that tax for decades and putting into their own pockets.
This "surcharge" is how they dont lose that "extra" income |
|
 Subaru1-3-2-4Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT | reply to Network Guy
you got that Email too this morning? |
|
| said by Subaru:you got that Email too this morning? i got mine yesterday |
|
flarnNo Logic Left
join:2001-02-10
North Richland Hills, TX | reply to Network Guy
The link they provide has slightly different info than the email:
said by verizon central :
Addition of Supplier Surcharge
Effective August 26, 2006, Verizon Online will begin charging a Supplier Surcharge for all new DSL customers, existing customers with a DSL monthly or bundle package, and existing DSL annual plan customers at the time their current annual plan expires. The surcharge is not a government imposed fee or a tax; however, it is intended to offset costs we incur from our network supplier in providing Verizon Online DSL service. The underlying supplier surcharge helps Verizon to recover the cost of a local telephone line in situations where Verizon does not simultaneously provide both local voice and Internet services. The Supplier Surcharge will initially be set at $1.20/month for Verizon Online's up to 768Kbps service customers and $2.70/month for customers provisioned at higher DSL speeds.
It sounds like a fee for us to pay when someone uses an ISP that is renting Verizon's equipment, such as Earthlink. But I thought you still needed a phone line in that case.
As mentioned before the FUSF wasn't going to the IRS anymore and the IRS said the tax was no longer needed. So Verizon is merely keeping the same money coming to them that has been for a few years now. The FUSF tax was meant to be charged by all telcos as a common fund for the advancement and development of telecommunications.
--
anti-logic |
|
 Rob AJets AFC ChampionshipPremium
join:2005-01-17
Pompton Plains, NJ | reply to Network Guy
Woot for saving 13 cents a month. |
|
| reply to Network Guy
Government taking away a tax, and Verizon price gouging. Verizon has got to know, this is perceived as lame.
The money is really insignificant to me, it's the odd principle of how it's being done.
--
"I'm right. I'm always right, but sometimes I'm a little more right then I usually am" -- MaddKarma[dot]com |
|
| reply to flarn
This "cost recovery", do I understand it correctly that instead of getting it from specific external ISPs using Verizon's lines, they collect it from ALL verizon subscribers?
Is there a problem that external ISPs don't pay for the access and thye have bigger and better lawyers than Joe and Jane? |
|
flarnNo Logic Left
join:2001-02-10
North Richland Hills, TX | reply to Network Guy
Anon19, you are right; they should be collecting from the others. From what I have read it sounds like us VOL users are paying for non-VOL users.
--
anti-logic |
|
pstauff
join:2005-04-27
Gaithersburg, MD | reply to Network Guy
This is becoming the standard practice in business these days. It's disguising a price increase with a surcharge or fee. It really sucks that Verizon has to gouge us like this. |
|
 Jodokast96R.I.P Bassman442Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | As I read it, it is for where Verizon provides a physical line and DSL, but isn't the local voice provider. For instance, for when you have Dry Loop (those users already pay $5/month extra, so bullshit) or you use a different company for voice (who pays Verizon to use the line, so more bullshit). |
|
| reply to flarn
I have Verizon provides all my phone services, ie local/regional/LD and I have Verizon DSL, and I am not using any VoIP, maybe I give them a call and ask the surcharge be removed. And we all have a laugh
I hardly ever read regular mail from Verizon, and only by chance caught the email. I am sure most people will not see change in the bills, and will not be aware what've just happened.
Most people have better things to do with their time. Now if the surcharge were $20/mo, we all scream at them.
The trick here is that we are talking $2.70/mo and actually $0.13 less than previous months. This is a candidate Hall of Shame for one of the dirtiest corporate theft. |
|
OnTheNetPremium
join:2004-04-13
Broadview Heights, OH | reply to Network Guy
An AP article quotes this spokesman about their "new fee"; "Bobby Henson, a Verizon spokeswoman, cited "new costs that we've developed over the past year as we've been developing and delivering this standalone DSL service. That service doesn't have the benefit of the revenue that was coming in from voice."
What stand alone service? I have yet to see any of the Bell's other than Qwest, offer DSL as a stand alone service, aka "naked DSL". |
|
