  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Ugh
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
 |  RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | Re: Ugh said by pnh102:Congress could resolve this right away by simply abolishing the USF. Will never happen though.
Abolishing it would be the worse thing they could do - corporations would simply raise their prices and continue to collect USF and pocket it.
Now, I know you're saying "Well, they pocket it now" - true. Which is why the USF needs to be reformed so that it actually is used in a meaningful, and appropriate way.
At the same time, reform needs to be made on how corporations like AT&T and Comcast advertise their services, and then include under the line fees.
Ahh what the hell, nothing is going to change. We're pawns in a game that is created and won by the same people.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Ugh said by Rob:Abolishing it would be the worse thing they could do - corporations would simply raise their prices and continue to collect USF and pocket it. It all depends. If the USF is replaced with another hidden fee (the government already sanctions blatant false advertising by carriers when it comes to pricing) then yes I'd agree, but if it isn't, it would be nice to get a small break on pricing. But there would not be issues with how this slush fund was managed if the fee in its current form did not exist.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | Re: Ugh said by pnh102:it would be nice to get a small break on pricing.
Not gonna happen. | |
|
| | | | | said by pnh102:said by Rob:Abolishing it would be the worse thing they could do - corporations would simply raise their prices and continue to collect USF and pocket it. It all depends. If the USF is replaced with another hidden fee (the government already sanctions blatant false advertising by carriers when it comes to pricing) then yes I'd agree, but if it isn't, it would be nice to get a small break on pricing. But there would not be issues with how this slush fund was managed if the fee in its current form did not exist. As we've seen with the airline ticket taxes, when a tax disappears corporations quickly adjust prices to capture the revenue. The average consumer doesn't notice because they're paying the same amount of money. | |
|
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Ugh said by fifty nine:As we've seen with the airline ticket taxes, when a tax disappears corporations quickly adjust prices to capture the revenue. The average consumer doesn't notice because they're paying the same amount of money. True, but blame the government for that one too... it doesn't help that they've rubber-stamped every single cellular merger that has come down the pike. Perhaps if there were more than 2 real cell phone companies out there, this would not be as big a problem.
I still think that even if the money went directly into the pockets of the providers, it would still be better accounted for than if it went into the USF.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| We shouldn't need the USF. Companies should get monopoly rights to provide service in big blocks that would get rural build-out. I.e. if Verizon wanted NYC, then they have to build out in much of upstate. If they want Boston, then parts of rural New Hampshire will get built out. And built out means the same level of service. Unfortunately, our government doesn't have the backbone to do this. | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Ugh Are you suggesting officially sanctioning, and enforcing, a monopoly? And the costs associated with a monopoly? It will never happen. The original AT&T is gone and I don't see anyone putting that genie back in the bottle. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Ugh Seems to me ATT is pretty close to being whole again right now... | |
|
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Ugh Today's AT&T is not the original AT&T. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Ugh Nope, it's not "AT&T"; it's "at&t" ...see what they did there--I guess lower-case is supposed to be less "threatening" ('cause, you know... Death Star...). | |
|
| | | | | | | | said by openbox9:Today's AT&T is not the original AT&T.
Correct. Today's at&t is SBC. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | There are already monopolies in pretty much every local area. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Ugh That's why I included the terms sanctioned and enforced. | |
|
| | |
| |  heat84Bit Torrent Apologist
join:2004-03-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL | said by Rob:Ahh what the hell, nothing is going to change. We're pawns in a game that is created and won by the same people.
That attitude is why nothing is gonna change.
--
Bit Torrent is my DVR. | |
|
| | down with USF Getting government hands deeper into voip means all voice internet apps will eventually be subject to increased regulation since they are technically equivalent. | |
|
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: down with USF said by jphilbrook :Getting government hands deeper into voip means all voice internet apps will eventually be subject to increased regulation since they are technically equivalent.
And even more importantly, the government can demand all VOIP providers pay USF fees and pass those costs on to customers. It is just another tax grab to fund their redistribution of taxpayer money to their political contributors.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election-blog.xml
| |
|
| |  FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: down with USF sounds like socialism to me. | |
|
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: down with USF said by FBGuy:sounds like socialism to me.
You use this word a lot. I do not think you know what it means.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: down with USF redistribution of the moneys. cept this time it is going up the wealth chain. not sure the consumers get anything out of that. | |
|
| | | |  RR ConductorHappy 40th AmtrakPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | said by pnh102:said by FBGuy:sounds like socialism to me.
You use this word a lot. I do not think you know what it means. I agree, he does not. | |
|
| | |  not
@comcast.net | said by FBGuy:sounds like socialism to me.
Nope, it called capitalism. It's what happens when you don't set an ethical limit on what something should cost and you let large companies get even larger by price gouging the little guy. Sure, everyone likes it when they're on the receiving end of the money, but they don't when they're on the receiving end of the shaft.
The end consumer pays far too much in fees and other BS things that companies should be paying for themselves. The consumer pays a company for a product or service, anything that company has to pay out to bring that service to the people should be paid by that company. Whatever they make after all that happens, should be their profits. That's NOT what's happening now... and it needs to change. This money grabbing BS is what caused the Real Estate market to fall years ago... IT'S NOT GOOD! Of course, no one will ever learn that this portion of capitalism is the bad part about it. You cannot keep charging people more and more for the same crap... you need to find the proper buffer zone and stay at it to maximize both your spending and the incoming capital. Anything else and you're offsetting a lot of customers by losing them due to overpricing your own product and then to keep your bottom line fat, you're just tacking on pricing increases and fees to make up for those lost customers. When will they ever learn?... | |
|
| | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: down with USF USF is set by government, not business. Not sure how this could be capitalism. | |
|
| | | | | RR ConductorHappy 40th AmtrakPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | Re: down with USF said by FBGuy:USF is set by government, not business. Not sure how this could be capitalism.
What would you call giving our tax dollars to companies by the billions who have no need for it, then on top of that allowing said companies to avoid paying any taxes? Yet you seem to think it's so horrible for American's to use THEIR money to help FELLOW AMERICAN'S to prosper and grow, hmm. Promote the General Welfare, it's in the the Preamble to the US Constitution. | |
|
| | | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: down with USF If only that money was used to promote the general welfare. No one knows where it goes. | |
|
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by not :It's what happens when you don't set an ethical limit on what something should cost What "ethics" are involved? Perhaps you meant regulatory limit, which generally goes against the idea of capitalism.said by not :The end consumer pays far too much in fees and other BS things that companies should be paying for themselves. Sigh. How do you propose the costs be paid if not by the customers? Businesses don't have money trees in their backyards.said by not :This money grabbing BS is what caused the Real Estate market to fall years ago. There are several contributing factors involved in the housing bubble/collapse, but yes, many of them involved money.said by not :You cannot keep charging people more and more for the same crap. You can, up to the point that customers stop purchasing your goods/services. | |
|
| | nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | said by Romney2012:And even more importantly, the government can demand all VOIP providers pay USF fees and pass those costs on to customers. They already do. | |
|
| | | and don't forget the warrantless eavesdropping the govt will make sure they can do. | |
|
| | So is this why they want rate hikes? Gotta have that "suing recovery fee huh att....Maybe stop doing what you shouldnt be doing and follow the damn rules for once. | |
|
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
| USF Changes I think it is a good idea that they are including broadband in the USF Funds maybe that will pave the way for either cable companies or phone companies to bring broadband in the outer counties. I also agree with them regulating VOIP if they can regulate PSTN'S they should be able to regulate VOIP. Since it is a Republican Congress I doubt that any propsed changes will hold. | |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | usf [U]niversal
[S]lush
[F]und | |
|
| | err, no Most of the usf has never gone to rural phones.
Shows how good this site is at parroting missinfomation. | |
|
|
|
·