dslreports logo
Verizon, AT&T Gunning For USF Funds?
The goal: 'billions in corporate welfare...'

In his latest newsletter industry watcher Dave Burstein says that Verizon and AT&T are quietly making a push to "raid" the USF, a fund you pay into monthly via bill fees, which goes to wiring rural areas with phone and limited data service. "They are burying the request in fine print and obscure phrases, using some of the usual fronts, and hoping to get billions in corporate welfare." Traditionally smaller telcos have done well thanks to the USF -- too well really, thanks to broken FCC oversight and corruption within the USF's e-Rate system.

One economist recently estimated taxpayers were paying $13,345 per telephone line per year (see his pdf report) for federally subsidized rural phone service, with rural providers gobbling up most of that. The hands-off FCC is unwilling to reform the program, and politicians like Ted Stevens want to see the plan expanded. Free taxpayer money that nobody effectively tracks the spending of? AT&T and Verizon wonder why rural telcos are having all the fun. Verizon is also gunning for RUS funds.

Burstein also doles out some DOCSIS 3.0 info, and has both sweet and sour words for Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg.
view:
topics flat nest 

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

1 edit

en102

Member

have their cake and eat it too

AT&T and Verizon just want to have their cake and eat it too. USF/FUSF is a slush fund that should be stopped or at least made accountable. We all know that will never happen.
Telco's have lobbied in and sued in some cases when they were not able to deploy their upgrades... do we really think AT&T and Verizon _need_ USF funding - they have enough.
jafo1972
join:2004-04-15
Chicago, IL

jafo1972

Member

Re: have their cake and eat it too

Funds provided by the USF are being audited. I know for sure. I don't know why people think the FCC is not tracking those funds.

sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ

sporkme

MVM

Re: have their cake and eat it too

said by jafo1972:

Funds provided by the USF are being audited. I know for sure. I don't know why people think the FCC is not tracking those funds.
It is public money, so please, point us all to where we can get these figures from the FCC.

Old_Grouch
Don't just sit there silly DO something
Premium Member
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN

Old_Grouch

Premium Member

Re: have their cake and eat it too

said by sporkme:

It is public money, so please, point us all to where we can get these figures from the FCC.
Actually, the FCC doesn't manage the money or issue the reports on how it is spent.

If you really want to know, visit Universal Service Administrative Company's Web Site. They are the group charged with keeping track of how much is spent by state by category (High Cost, Rural Health Care, Low Income and Schools/Libraries )

The web site includes the make-up of their board of directors as well as the names of the leadership team.

They provide a Whistleblower Hotline to report failures if you know anyone who wants to go on record instead of just whining.

And their reports dating back to 1998 are available for anyone you know who wants to dismount from a soapbox and do a bit of reading.

If you don't want to do any digging, the annual reports from 1999 through 2005 are Here. The annual report for 2006 should be filed with both Congress and the FCC by the end of March.

I won't say whether I think USF is right or wrong, but I certainly don't think it is being managed in secret.
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude to jafo1972

Member

to jafo1972
said by jafo1972:

Funds provided by the USF are being audited. I know for sure. I don't know why people think the FCC is not tracking those funds.
if I remember correctly, the funds have been audited before, horrible problems were found and nothing was done.

people don't think the FCC is tracking these funds because there are mountains of evidence of waste, fraud and abuse and the FCC never does anything that makes any difference (if they are doing anything at all).

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: have their cake and eat it too

The GAO completed the audit, the FCC said they'd look into it, and nothing has changed.

John T
@northgrum.com

John T to en102

Anon

to en102
From what I can tell from this, AT&T and Verizon are trying to stop or decrease the slush fund. Much of the "slush fund" consists of termination fees that AT&T and Verizon pay to the small telcos each time a call is terminated in the rural areas. By regulation, the small telcos get a much higher per minute fee.

The big guys seem to be arguing that the payments that they make to the rural telcos should be decreased and brought closer in line to the standard fees. So, yeah, they are arguing that it should be stopped. Unsurprisingly, really-- a lot of the USF funds consist of taking money from Verizon and AT&T and giving it to the rural telcos. Of course, Verizon and AT&T pass much of the fees on to their own customers.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

4 edits

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: have their cake and eat it too

quote:
From what I can tell from this, AT&T and Verizon are trying to stop or decrease the slush fund.
You repeat this six times in these comments, but it's just not accurate. They want a bigger share of the "slush fund" pie, and could care less about seeing the system managed properly or the payouts reduced. Again, unless you'd like to try and sell me on the idea that a telco lobbyist and PR man like Tauke is really interested in philathropy and not pleasing investors....

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: have their cake and eat it too

I agree - what company would say no to free money.

manfmmd
Premium Member
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX

1 edit

manfmmd

Premium Member

I would rather...

have AT&T or Verizon building out the backbone/rural areas than the Federal Government.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: I would rather...

you are right! that damn gub'mint! can't do nutin' right! just look at Iraq!

manfmmd
Premium Member
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX

manfmmd

Premium Member

Re: I would rather...

The famous variation of Goodwin's law. Federal Government=Bush=Iraq=Bad.

How about having an original thought once in awhile?

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: I would rather...

right, that coming someone spouting right wing fatty limbaugh's talking points?

i will never understand how the right equates corporate welfare (that is, giving corporations money---taxes paid by the people to the u.s. government) as both a good thing and consistent with their less government, less taxes, and free market mentality. the hypocrisy is astounding.

manfmmd
Premium Member
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX

manfmmd

Premium Member

Re: I would rather...

So you would rather have the Federal Government handle it squander the money away, than have private companies build and deploy, while being heavily scrutinized, the rural areas and backbone infrastructure?

I'll take private enterprise any day.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: I would rather...

why do you think private enterprise is better? seriously. private enterprise is just as bad if not worse. just look at Verizon and the broken promises of fiber connections to the entire state of Pennsylvania. they received billions of dollars in tax breaks based on their promise to deliver fiber connections to all. they failed. but they still got billions. you don't call that squandering money of epic proportions?

manfmmd
Premium Member
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX

manfmmd

Premium Member

Re: I would rather...

re-read my post, I do believe that I said "while being heavily scrutinized".

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: I would rather...

private enterprise is just as bad if not worse.

Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium Member
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL

Michieru2

Premium Member

Re: I would rather...

Any form of system whether it be free or locked in as communism shall fail miserably because its never controlled and eventually abuse happens and slush occurs within the system causing it to crash.

Private organizations should never be in any form or way in part of the government other than some regulations they must follow.

If you think your idea of having a public enterprise run everything that it shall be this wonderful Utopia that solves world hunger you are deeply mistaken and if you seek perfection you will really fall down that rabbit hole.
Michieru2

Michieru2

Premium Member

Re: I would rather...

P.S The root cause is human greed and thats something thats in all of us no matter how loyal or american we are.

The problem is us, its those who abuse the system that cause the trend and eventually everyone else follows the train.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: I would rather...

absolute power corrupts... absolutely.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo to Michieru2

Member

to Michieru2
said by Michieru2:

If you think your idea of having a public enterprise run everything that it shall be this wonderful Utopia that solves world hunger you are deeply mistaken and if you seek perfection you will really fall down that rabbit hole.
whose idea? i never said i want the government to run everything. i did say that it is ridiculous that there are people that demonize the government and laud free enterprise and private companies as there are plenty of examples of private enterprise being both greedy and inefficient. Verizon is one example. Enron another. How about Halliburton overcharging? TOo many examples to list...

Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium Member
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL

Michieru2

Premium Member

Re: I would rather...

Guess what they all have in common? Or is that already common sense by now?

Large corporations with too much control with then leave a nice crater of destruction once they are done and cleaned out.
While everyone was affected by the radiation of that blast one way or the other.

Supporter or not greed does not discriminate.

But there are also too many examples of government with too much control. Or better said the church was government back in the day. But thats another story.

Farley3
Holyshnikes
join:2002-01-23
Croswell, MI

Farley3 to morbo

Member

to morbo
said by morbo:

private enterprise is just as bad if not worse.
I have to disagree, the govement spends 800 bucks on a toliet seat, I work for a telco company and i can tell you i run home for a number 2, no way im squating there even with the the fancy sheet protectors..

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

Re: I would rather...

said by Farley3:

said by morbo:

private enterprise is just as bad if not worse.
I have to disagree, the govement spends 800 bucks on a toliet seat, I work for a telco company and i can tell you i run home for a number 2, no way im squating there even with the the fancy sheet protectors..
you have it wrong--- private enterprise CHARGES the government $800 for a toilet seat. the lack of oversight built into the system is what allow those kinds of acts to exist. in that case, it is the greed of private enterprise.

Farley3
Holyshnikes
join:2002-01-23
Croswell, MI

Farley3

Member

Re: I would rather...

Hmm Morbo maybe, but i honestly take alot of pride in my bathroom so ive been to Lowes and Home Depot looking at all the hotseats and ive never seen a Seat there for 800 bucks...

Now Patio furniture is a different story... ugh!

Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium Member
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL

Michieru2 to morbo

Premium Member

to morbo
It's called contractors inflating prices.

That abuse has been around for centuries. I know how they do it as well because contractors love to do the same for all of us who got screwed over by the hurricane and then milk people incredible prices for jobs that should be twice as less.

Contractors ask the suppliers to increase the amount of the actual good on the receipt and the contractors in general overspend not for sake of being short but because they can earn supplies off their clients.

A bag of cement will go for around 2.00USD? For a contractor that bag of cement will now cost you 5.00USD.

Many tried to pull that trick on me but I usually screw them over as I tell them "I shall buy the supplies" and as always it ends up costing me much less and simply have them work for the specific job. On top of that I watch them work just to piss them off because some love to not follow building codes yet they state "we shall make it by code".

I know what proper building code is as well because I was taught that when I worked in construction. So if they want to pull a fast one by saying "Thats how it goes, your trying to tell me?" bull.

Now, since government is not one person, they simply say ok give me the total cost, and I will pay.
Expand your moderator at work
Laura Unger
Premium Member
join:2007-02-28
Montclair, NJ

Laura Unger to manfmmd

Premium Member

to manfmmd

Re: I would rather...

I would too but don't you think there needs to be some kind of public policy to protect consumers (make sure people are getting the speed they are promised) and provide some sort of incentive so they have to build out to less profitable areas (rural communities, etc.)? Fiber to the home is the fastest but it is also the most expensive to build. Check out »www.speedmatters.org.

manfmmd
Premium Member
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX

manfmmd

Premium Member

Re: I would rather...

Consumer protection is built in with the concept of a free and open market. While I don't completely disagree with the phrase "up to xxxx kbps", I don't blame them for using that as they cannot guarantee that the line conditions will support that speed. You can have a 15000' line that will support 1.5 Mbps and a 8000' line that won't... Customers, I hope, should be happy with "up to..." speeds, otherwise there would be too many speed tiers to support.

What I absolutely find offensive is the use of the term "unlimited", when to some companies it obviously isn't.

sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ

sporkme

MVM

Corporate Welfare!

That's the kind of welfare we can all get behind, comrades! It will trickle down into our waiting mouths from the teat (or...) of ATT & VZ.

tenpin784
I Went To The Dark Side?
join:2001-03-30
Brierfield, AL

tenpin784

Member

Wheres the bindle?

yea you bum, thanks for thinking of us New England folk.
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude

Member

'billions in corporate welfare...'

that's all that needs to be said

the absolutely, positively worst thing that could happen with this money is to give it to the incumbents. The only thing worse I can think of is if they just burned the money.

...70-90 percent of USF goes directly to investors, not "universal service."

•••

willmw
join:2002-02-09
Thomson, GA

willmw

Member

From the trenches...

I work for a small school district and we have gotten some of these USF moneys over the past several years. I can tell you from working next to the person here that does all of the application paperwork, etc. that is has gotten progressively harder over the years to get any of this money as they have gotten increasingly picky about the details of the applications.

TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ

TScheisskopf

Member

Wha? Who? Where?

C'mon, guys? Where are all the usual suspects? Why aren't they taking this opportunity to defend Verizon and AT&T? Where are all the posts about deregulation and Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand of The Marketplace"? I mean, people have been predicting this for months, if not years and have only gotten taken to task for their labors.

If not now, when, guys? Let's hear a little "Ugh. Deregulation bad. Corporate welfare good." here.

All this intellectual inconsistency is really, really unsettling. You're letting the side down.

And remember: Some of you surely get paid by the word.

John T
@northgrum.com

John T

Anon

Re: Wha? Who? Where?

The USF is stupid. It's corporate and consumer welfare. It's fairly dumb no matter who gets it and should be abolished. Actually, I see more people who like to seize any reason to bash Verizon and AT&T, without particular consistency themselves. I do support Verizon and AT&T on other issues, because I am in favor of deregulation and against corporate welfare, no matter what the guise. And guess what? Plenty of companies argue for corporate welfare for themselves, and regulation when it helps themselves, and deregulation and eliminating corporate welfare for others when it helps themselves. People who boil it down to "Company X is evil/good" are fooling themselves. All companies are after profits and after edges. Deregulation, including reducing the USF, is one way to reduce gaming the system.

I imagine that part of the reason that AT&T is clamoring for "reform" of this is because of the recent issue with termination fees paid to tiny rural telcos in Iowa, who then rerouted phone calls over VoIP networks internationally, making a profit from the regulated prices that AT&T had to pay them.

You know, those blatantly taking advantage of regulation free international call Iowa scams. The call termination fee subsidy for rural telcos and customers is bearable when there are only a few calls to those remote locations, as in normal usage. The free international call companies took advantage of the regulation, and made it way too expensive. So I see the AT&T point there in wanting to change the regulatory structure.

OTOH, I think that AT&T's lawsuit claiming that those calls "aren't really terminated" is a really dangerous and bad argument that could cripple legitimate VoIP uses. There is perfectly legitimate arbitrage out there that can benefit consumers. In order to preserve the transformational power of VoIP, the correct thing is to reform these termination fees and reduce or eliminate the USF.

I will say that I believe that the study said up to $13,365/year for the worst cases, and the original post is on average.
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

xsiddalx

Member

Re: Wha? Who? Where?

Apologies for top posting in advance..

ATT is hardly immune from playing that game themselves.

If I recall correctly, there was a case where ATT was routing all of their calling card calls to a central location and calling those calls "information services" because they were forcing customers to listen to some sort of ad (maybe in the last two years?).

In either case, whatever the iowa company thing is and the att thing was, neither have anything to do with usf. It's quite a complex issue actually and customers like my grandparent's really don't care...what's the bill look like?

Pass-through USF fees are an interesting venture into market based pricing. When USF goes away, do you believe the pass-through fees won't become a component of the price?
The only reason pass-through fees are acceptable is due to lack of competition or overall pricing of DSL, for example, that is less than the alternatives (cable).

As I said, it's too complicated for a few lines, but you sound like a telco person with T or VZ. Too bad you weren't hanging around with the ISPs back in the late 90's when they were complaining about the special access and line cost fees from T and VZ. Most notably...we have little left of an ISP market as customers, highest cost of business was the telco before the telcos were even interested in internet access as a business.
said by John T :

The USF is stupid. It's corporate and consumer welfare. It's fairly dumb no matter who gets it and should be abolished. Actually, I see more people who like to seize any reason to bash Verizon and AT&T, without particular consistency themselves. I do support Verizon and AT&T on other issues, because I am in favor of deregulation and against corporate welfare, no matter what the guise. And guess what? Plenty of companies argue for corporate welfare for themselves, and regulation when it helps themselves, and deregulation and eliminating corporate welfare for others when it helps themselves. People who boil it down to "Company X is evil/good" are fooling themselves. All companies are after profits and after edges. Deregulation, including reducing the USF, is one way to reduce gaming the system.

I imagine that part of the reason that AT&T is clamoring for "reform" of this is because of the recent issue with termination fees paid to tiny rural telcos in Iowa, who then rerouted phone calls over VoIP networks internationally, making a profit from the regulated prices that AT&T had to pay them.

You know, those blatantly taking advantage of regulation free international call Iowa scams. The call termination fee subsidy for rural telcos and customers is bearable when there are only a few calls to those remote locations, as in normal usage. The free international call companies took advantage of the regulation, and made it way too expensive. So I see the AT&T point there in wanting to change the regulatory structure.

OTOH, I think that AT&T's lawsuit claiming that those calls "aren't really terminated" is a really dangerous and bad argument that could cripple legitimate VoIP uses. There is perfectly legitimate arbitrage out there that can benefit consumers. In order to preserve the transformational power of VoIP, the correct thing is to reform these termination fees and reduce or eliminate the USF.

I will say that I believe that the study said up to $13,365/year for the worst cases, and the original post is on average.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Burstein says but gives no proof

This was his whole post on the subject:
Quietly, Verizon and AT&T are making a big push to raid the Universal Service Fund, which is designed to help small rural carriers, not immensely profitable giants. They are burying the request in fine print and obscure phrases, using some of the usual fronts, and hoping to get billions in corporate welfare.
Where's the beef? He has stated an opinion but shows no proof to back it up.

••••••••••••

John T
@northgrum.com

John T

Anon

Intercarrier compensation is a real issue

The newsletter talks about the "raid" in the terms of intercarrier compensation; i.e., the termination fees paid to the local carrier on the end that completes the call. Generally what happens is that rural telcos get paid much more per minute to terminate calls in their areas. This is designed to subsidize rural phone service, and does, but of course unavoidably also lines the rural phone companies pockets. (The guy who writes the newsletter is a bit deluded if he thinks that there's a really good way to reform it. Subsidies to rural service will inevitably have an incidence that gives both subsidies to the rural consumers as well as to the rural providers, and there's little he can do about it.)

It appears from his claim that AT&T and Verizon are clamoring for a decrease in the per minute rate that they're required to pay these rural telcos. I'm sure that they view it as a "reform" of the USF-- in fact, it sounds like exactly the sort of thing that the original post is asking for, if you think that the smaller telcos have done "too well really." However, (understandable) skepticism about Verizon and AT&T seems to be clouding one's judgment. I'd like more details, but if they're pushing for more uniform termination fees, then that's exactly the type of intercarrier compensation reform that we should get behind.

For example, AT&T and Verizon are required by regulation to pay these rural telcos a higher fixed termination charge. In Iowa, for example, AT&T and Verizon have to pay up to 13 cents per minute for any call to these locations. Think about what your long distance plan costs, and you can realize that AT&T and Verizon actually lose money on these calls, thanks to regulation. It's still worth it for them to have nationwide long distance, though.

Still, the call volume to these rural areas is limited, so it's generally been acceptable, and AT&T and Verizon have simply passed the costs on to everyone else. However, recently certain rural telcos in Iowa worked out a neat little plan. People in the US who wanted to make an international call would call a number served by the rural telcos. Then, the rural telco would switch the call over a fiber VoIP to the international destination. The wholesale international costs over VoIP would actually be less than the 13 cents/minute termination fee paid to the telco by AT&T or Verizon, and so the telco would actually make a profit on each international call, and the consumer could call for free.

AT&T started suing because their bill for these "free" calls started soaring. »gigaom.com/2007/02/07/at ··· million/

However, in the process of trying to shut these down, they made an argument which is incredibly dangerous for VoIP and for consumers. They claimed that the termination fee was not owed because the call was not actually terminated in Iowa. That's a really bad argument for consumers, because it would prevent legitimate VoIP and phone arbitrage. I really don't want AT&T to win on that precedent.

Yet, at the same time, those free calling plans were taking advantage of the regulation in an unintended way. I can't imagine any way to really fix it without reducing the subsidy to rural telcos. I'd much prefer that option to the lawsuits trying to prevent legitimate arbitrage.

So, at first glance, trying to reform intercarrier compensation is not a bad thing to me. It would actually reduce the regulation and corporate welfare of rural telcos, and be a lot better than AT&T's lawsuits. Of course, from one perspective, less corporate welfare payments from the big guys to the rural telcos translates to corporate welfare for AT&T and Verizon.
John T

John T

Anon

"Raid" == reform as BBR wants, as far as I can tell

The newsletter claims that Verizon and AT&T want to reduce the size of the USF and reduce the payments that they make to subsidize rural telcos. Isn't that what you want?

They want to reduce the size of the USF by "billions of dollars." Of course, in Dave's mind billions of dollars of less corporate welfare paid to the rural telcos by Verizon and AT&T somehow means corporate welfare for Verizon and AT&T.

TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ

TScheisskopf

Member

Re: "Raid" == reform as BBR wants, as far as I can tell

No, Johnny, I think you got it wrong, just like you get it wrong on the ultimate effects of deregulation on the populace and the standard of living:

The USF is fine, if it goes towards deploying modern 20th century, much less 21st century telecommunications services to the rural populations. Used like that, it makes sense. But to hand it over to two companies with large valuations and hefty bottom lines, to prop up stock prices while they go head-to-head with little local telcos? Nah. That sucks.

If they want to serve those areas so bad, they should get on offa that goodfoot and do it. Maybe buy a few of those small telcos, spread some of that cash around. But government subsidies? Sorry. I am real tired of seeing the biggest companies in the US getting financial fellatio from our taxes and "user fees".

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Verizon at&t evil.

You people are so transparent in your pro leach attitude. You people are one of the reasons America has fallen from 1st to 16th in communication.

Verizon and AT&T are not gunning and raiding; Verizon and at&t are building. They are building not leaching and bitching. Get out of the way and get a real job.

TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ

TScheisskopf

Member

Re: Verizon at&t evil.

And on top of their ever-rising rates, they should get what amounts to the proceeds from a tax to subsidize them? As big as they are?

Jobs are scarce, that much is well-known. Incredulity must be scarcer.

Oh, there is a name for a society where government taxes its citizens and gives the money to its biggest corporations. Go research.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

Re: Verizon at&t evil.

said by TScheisskopf:

And on top of their ever-rising rates, they should get what amounts to the proceeds from a tax to subsidize them? As big as they are?

You live in NJ you pay into the slush fund and get zero back. Just don't think the leaches are giving you honest information. The leaches only have one thing one their mind, sucking the blood from ILEC.

Ma Bell is dead and yet the people bitch.
Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308

Eric Martin

Member

Get rid of it!!

Get rid of the USF.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un ··· _service

Another legacy tax we will NEVER get rid of.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup

Premium Member

The Sabine women didn't know how good they had it.

quote:
On the other hand, Seidenberg's a bum for the 60 percent broadband coverage in Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire, one of the lowest rates in the developed world. Verizon in those states can best be described as similar to the early Roman treatment of the Sabine women.
Well now Verizon is selling the bitches to a real barbarian. When oh when will the Teletruths step up to the plate and save US?
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

nickel and dimed

if EVER there were a case for going VOIP... nows the time!!!
it looks like NYers are getting hit for at least $.50 in the USF wallet!
April 2007+
Wonderful Verizon at work!