rmdir
join:2003-03-13
Chicago, IL | reply to bassthumpa
Re: Hmmm...
"There is no impact on the bottom line of the bill."
Did they hire ex Enron accountants to make this evaluation of the financial impact of dropping the fee? |
|
h4x0r3d
Premium
join:2003-04-13
Oxford, MS | haha |
|
bassthumpa
Premium
join:2000-12-26
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | reply to rmdir
I guess VZ's attitude is that the total on the bill will be the same as before the USF fee was eliminated. Instead of going to the .gov, they want it for their own pockets.
Some with both companies had to know that they'd catch hell for even trying this.
--
My Yahoo! 360° Page |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| said by bassthumpa  :I guess VZ's attitude is that the total on the bill will be the same as before the USF fee was eliminated. Instead of going to the .gov, they want it for their own pockets. Actually it did go to them already. The FUSF money goes to the incumbent who then uses it to offset to cost of providing service (hah gag).
I get a kick out of how it will take BellSouth (BS!) six weeks to implement the "unfee" removal. Something tells me they never had any plans to remove the collection of the FUSF fee and simply renamed it in their billing software.
I suspect Verizon will "see the light" in a few days. They just haven't admitted it yet...
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
mike1965
Geek4rent
join:2002-09-23
Marion, IL
| reply to bassthumpa
even Verizon states in the announcement that
"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"
so people who have land line service should pay for those who have naked DSL?...I think now pass it on to users of naled DSL and realize they are making enough already from those of us who have both 
--
Free computer help »geek4rent.us |
|
robie88
join:2003-04-19
New York, NY
| said by mike1965 :so people who have land line service should pay for those who have naked DSL?...I think now pass it on to users of naled DSL and realize they are making enough already from those of us who have both Well, the problem with that is if Verizon does what you want, then they become priced out of the market for their naked DSL by the cable internet providers. Part of the purpose of offering the naked DSL was to give people who have cable internet a reason to switch to Verizon.
Ultimately, the worst possible response is getting one DSL subscriber to be blaming another DSL subscriber for the "increase", though I'm sure your way of thinking would please Verizon to no end.
This isssue is clearly Verizon's fault. They have no business in adopting a 'you're going to pay what you're going to pay' position, regardless of costs, taxes, or whatever. The gov't came up here with a "giveback" to consumers, and Verizon is saying, 'not so fast, we'll take that for ourselves'. It would be my guess that they're not going to wind up getting away with it. In fact, if you call Verizon and tell them you're cancelling your one year agreement with them due to their change in terms, I think they will withdraw their increase quickly.
--
The best things in life are free...(after rebate and free shipping!) |
|
