dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13855
share rss forum feed


only me
Premium,VIP
join:2002-09-26
Texas

SBC DSL and the FUSF

As the topic starts to come up more.. It was suggested I let you guys know where the FUSF fee stands in relation to your account.. I dont normally post here but this will apply to all accounts.. assuming the percentage rates are the same for each region.. please note I do not have access to the PacBell region info so the numbers may be different but same concept.. The charges are as follows:

Basic up to 384 $1.84
Standard + 384-1.5 $1.84
Expert Plus 1.5-3 $2.48
Deluxe (grandfathered) $2.95
Symmetric 384-416 $4.47
Expert Plus 1.5-6 $5.83

If you have made changes to your DSL account as of February 1st whether it be to upgrade.. downgrade or rerate.. the FUSF will apply..

Also for those of you who have upgraded to the new Expert Plus Package for $44.99 you can expect to see the $5.83 charge.. Why you might ask? Well even though the plan is being advertised at 1.5-3 your line is provisioned at 1.5-6.. that is what ASI has your speed set at so thats what you'll be charged.. that means even if your only getting 3.2 down your still provisioned with the 6.0 speed but your line cannot handle the extra speed so you have been set at a lower rate..

heres an explanation as to what the FUSF is:

What is the Federal Universal Service Fee (FUSF)?

The Universal Service Fund charge is a surcharge collected from telecommunications carriers such as Verizon or SBC to support the federal Universal Service Fund. The Fund ensures that schools, libraries, rural hospitals, and other individuals have access to affordable telecommunications service. All communications providers must contribute to the fund based on revenue incurred during the previous year. Most carriers recover their Universal Service Fund charges from their customers in some form. The fee passed through to you depends on the fee assessed to SBC and is along with the services you have ordered. For additional information about this charge, contact the FCC at www.FCC.gov or call them at 1-888-225-5322

One other thing.. The FCC determines the rate in which you will be charged.. each quarter they post what the new rate will be.. SBC has committed to the above listed rates for this year.. if the rate of percentage increases within the year the rate increase will not be passed onto our customers.. however if the rate decreases within the year we will pass along the discounts..

Only Me

somnium

join:2003-01-22
San Diego, CA
Since I did a rerate in early January does this mean I'm exempt from this fee?


gdm
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-15
Mchenry, IL
kudos:3

1 edit
Yes you should be exempt since the FUSF didn't begin till 2/1.

succotash
Premium
join:2002-12-14
Monterey Park, CA
reply to only me
I note that different providers seem to handle this differently. DSL Extreme, according to its Web site, adds $2.21 to its prices for the FUSF fee, regardless of service level, whereas SBC has a fee structure dependent on service tier. So if you get the 1.5-6.0Mbps/384-608kbps promo from DSL Extreme, you pay an extra $2.21 for the FUSF, but if you get the equivalent service from SBC Yahoo, you pay $5.83.


bba71
The One

join:2002-11-20
Pleasanton, CA
reply to only me
the sales reps that call you up and try to sell you dsl service should really be informed of this. when i had a girl from sbc call me up, i specifically asked about this additional fee, she assured me there were no other fees other than $44.99 a month...


gdm
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-15
Mchenry, IL
kudos:3
Agreed! The problem is this is so knew that it's still filtering down to those people.:(


Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
reply to only me
Isn't the FUSF illegal in the sense of the acts passed during the Clinton administration? I believed this "taxing the internet" idea came up back during dial-up, where an act was passed making tax on the internet illegal.

Did this get repealed, or something?


gdm
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-15
Mchenry, IL
kudos:3
This isn't tax on the internet. You are referring to buying some thing off the internet.

The FUSF has always been around it's just most ISP's have never passed on to there customers or included in the monthly price.


DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
reply to Thaler
said by Thaler:
Isn't the FUSF illegal in the sense of the acts passed during the Clinton administration? I believed this "taxing the internet" idea came up back during dial-up, where an act was passed making tax on the internet illegal.

Did this get repealed, or something?

First it is not a tax. It is a fund charged by FCC to the Carriers (ILEC/CLEC) and Carriers pass it down to ISP and ISP pass it down to the consumer. There is not a requirement to pass to the consumer but for providers it is a convenient way to recover (actually make some money on it as well)

The money is not actually passed to federal goverment. The Telco keeps it in a fund which provides free service to underserved communities and to people that cannot afford basic service (so they say) and to shools and libraries.

The collection of funds varies from Telco to telco. It is based on some perfectage of their revenue or something though they can perfectly collect more.

There is very little oversight by FCC on how the funds are used. It has been claimed that while Telcos blame federal government for it they make good money from the funds collected.

wanderance

join:2002-07-09
USA
reply to only me
Thanks for that good explanation of what it is, and how much we will be charged. I have no problem paying this, as long as it goes to good use.


d_l
Barsoom
Premium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
kudos:7
reply to DrTCP
said by DrTCP:
First it is not a tax.
A cow flop by any other name smells just the same.

Any money involuntarily collected from one group by the government or its agents and redistributed to another select group for their exclusive benefit is a tax whether it is called a fee, a service charge, an assessment, a duty, an impost, a levy, or an investment. No semantic quibbling, euphemism, or defining what is is here will make it any different.


DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
said by d_l:
A cow flop by any other name smells just the same.
You are probably right. To us, it is the same. However, a tax is created by the congress. So, this is an administrative fee. Also, the money collected does not go back to the treasury. It stays with telco in a fund to provide services. So, technically government is not collecting it. I wish it was a tax so there could be better oversight over the use of those funds. It is a private fund as it is within the telco.


lakino
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Campbell, CA
said by DrTCP:
said by d_l:
A cow flop by any other name smells just the same.
You are probably right. To us, it is the same. However, a tax is created by the congress. So, this is an administrative fee. Also, the money collected does not go back to the treasury. It stays with telco in a fund to provide services. So, technically government is not collecting it. I wish it was a tax so there could be better oversight over the use of those funds. It is a private fund as it is within the telco.

And what is annoying me is that they are NOT required to pass the cost of this fee to the customers. Sonnet.net--a very small DSL provider I'll concede--does not seem to assess any such fee. Their version of the Expert Plus plan is a simple $44.95 period. No other fees.

That's the way it should be. I'm happy with my current SBC plan, but I do not like the way they are assessing this FUSF fee. It should be included in the advertised fee for monthly access.
--

Why do people like .sig files so much? Baffling to me...


tymfdc

join:2003-06-19
San Leandro, CA
I agree.

I remember AT&T has this connectivity charge. Every LD carrier is different. They said the same thing. It is required by federal laws. Eventually, I just dropped AT&T as LD carrier. Now I don't even carry a LD carrier.

jxsi

join:2003-12-04
Tempe, AZ
reply to only me
"All communications providers must contribute to the fund based on revenue incurred during the previous year."

I always love it how companies pass on certain types of taxes that they are supposed to pay based on their revenues onto consumers.

succotash
Premium
join:2002-12-14
Monterey Park, CA
reply to lakino
said by lakino:
And what is annoying me is that they are NOT required to pass the cost of this fee to the customers. Sonnet.net--a very small DSL provider I'll concede--does not seem to assess any such fee. Their version of the Expert Plus plan is a simple $44.95 period. No other fees.

You must be thinking of Sonic.net. They ain't *that* small. Around 33,000 customers. Somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 of them on DSL (that's a guess, based on knowing that the capacity of their Santa Rosa Redback SMS is 5,000 and that they're putting new DSL customers on their San Francisco SMS).

You're right that they don't assess any additional fees to their DSL prices. But that may change soon. This came up in the Sonic newsgroups, and Dane said they were discussing what to do about this, because SBC-ASI started passing the FUSF fee on to them a few months ago.

thebboss

join:2004-02-20
Modesto, CA
come on guys and gals... its 6 bucks, cheer up. We got a kick ass ISP. It would have been easy for SBC not mention the fee to us and have our service fee 50.82 (Expert Plus) and I am sure 99% of us would still have opted for the upgrade...

after all 'only me' said "Most carriers recover their Universal Service Fund charges from their customers in some form."

Just take a look at the Comcast forum to see how bad it really is out there.

tonydi
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-11
San Jose, CA
reply to DrTCP
said by DrTCP:
First it is not a tax. It is a fund charged by FCC to the Carriers (ILEC/CLEC) and Carriers pass it down to ISP and ISP pass it down to the consumer. There is not a requirement to pass to the consumer but for providers it is a convenient way to recover (actually make some money on it as well)

The money is not actually passed to federal goverment. The Telco keeps it in a fund which provides free service to underserved communities and to people that cannot afford basic service (so they say) and to shools and libraries.

The collection of funds varies from Telco to telco. It is based on some perfectage of their revenue or something though they can perfectly collect more.

There is very little oversight by FCC on how the funds are used. It has been claimed that while Telcos blame federal government for it they make good money from the funds collected.
I'd like to see some references for where you're getting this information. From looking at the FCC site it appears to me that the telcos may not collect more than they contribute to the fund.
»www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/un···ice.html

In addition, the telcos do not retain the funds collected, they are turned over to an entity that the FCC set up for this purpose, the Universal Service Administrative Company. »www.fcc.gov/eb/usfc/

Look, I don't like paying it any more than the next guy, but it seems to me like many people are blaming SBC for this fee. Some people seem to forget that SBC has been eating the fee since it had to begin paying into the fund in 1996. So economic times are tough and they finally decided they could no longer do that. Ok, I can understand that. I suppose they could have buried the fee in the prices of the service but from a competitive standpoint that isn't a good idea.

For those that are really unhappy with this fee, stop whining about SBC and start lobbying your congresscritters to change the law!


tymfdc

join:2003-06-19
San Leandro, CA

1 edit
I rather they bury the fee in the price. At least we don't end up paying 10 to 20% more.

thebboss

join:2004-02-20
Modesto, CA
reply to tonydi
Its on SBC's services page...all the way down, first *

»www01.sbc.com/DSL_new/content/1,,90,00.html?


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
reply to only me
quote:
come on guys and gals... its 6 bucks, cheer up
I think very few would complain about paying $49.95 for these awesome Expert Plus speeds. It's still a rockin' stellar value, even with the FUSF charge. However, we just don't like hidden fees, especially ones that are a whopping 13% of the advertised price.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network

tonydi
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-11
San Jose, CA
reply to tymfdc
said by tymfdc:
I rather they bury the fee in the price. At least we don't end up paying 10 to 20% more.

Say huh? I'm saying they're charging $29.95 and the fee is $1.84, but they could have just charged $31.79 by burying the fee in the price of the service. You pay the same amount either way!

tonydi
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-11
San Jose, CA
reply to thebboss
said by thebboss:
Its on SBC's services page...all the way down, first *

»www01.sbc.com/DSL_new/content/1,,90,00.html?

I see what you're referring to but I don't get your point. Sorry.

thebboss

join:2004-02-20
Modesto, CA
reply to djrobx
said by djrobx:
quote:
come on guys and gals... its 6 bucks, cheer up
I think very few would complain about paying $49.95 for these awesome Expert Plus speeds. It's still a rockin' stellar value, even with the FUSF charge. However, we just don't like hidden fees, especially ones that are a whopping 13% of the advertised price.

I dont agree that 13% is a whopping percentage of anything, especially when u put it into context. And how do u figure its a hidden fee if we are here discussing it?

thebboss

join:2004-02-20
Modesto, CA
reply to tonydi
said by tonydi:

I'd like to see some references for where you're getting this information.
my bad tonydi....

I thought you were wondering where this fee was stated.


tymfdc

join:2003-06-19
San Leandro, CA
reply to tonydi
I wouldn't call this consumer friendly marketing strategy.

amazing1

join:2004-02-23
San Francisco, CA
reply to gdm
Regarding the 2/1 start date for FUSF, is that for the DSL Order date or Activation Date? I ordered DSL on 1/30, and my activation date was 2/7. Am I gonna pay the FUSF fee? I still didn't get my first bill with DSL service charges.


en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
reply to tymfdc
I definately wouldn't call this consumer friendly...
Especially if the following is true:

It is unclear to us how customers on faster speeds should be required by SBC to "contribute" more to USF than the slow speed customers, when the back-end USF cost is fixed per circuit.

This would state that since I have one line into my house, I pay one price, regardless of DSL speed. I would obviously pay more for say a physical T1, as it is physically considered to be multiple lines.


DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
reply to thebboss
said by thebboss:
It would have been easy for SBC not mention the fee to us and have our service fee 50.82 (Expert Plus) and I am sure 99% of us would still have opted for the upgrade...
It should really be called $50.82 plan. It is actually tricking the user to believe it costs less. I do not see why it should be a seperate item. Do they have a seperate item for the electricity they have to pay?


DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
reply to amazing1
said by amazing1:
Regarding the 2/1 start date for FUSF, is that for the DSL Order date or Activation Date? I ordered DSL on 1/30, and my activation date was 2/7. Am I gonna pay the FUSF fee? I still didn't get my first bill with DSL service charges.

My understanding is: You will pay a FUSF in any case. Older lower one or newer higher one. But, I do not have SBC so it might not be accurate.