 RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | a data service, not a phone service OK, let's see them adjust their advertising to reflect that their product is not a "phone service'.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
 |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: a data service, not a phone service said by RadioDoc:OK, let's see them adjust their advertising to reflect that their product is not a "phone service'. I am against the USF for any company. But if the ILECs & CLECs have to pay, I see no reason why Vonage shouldn't as well. It is still a telephone call no matter how it is routed. VOIP should get no special exemption.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | | | Re: a data service, not a phone service said by ThrowDemsOut:said by RadioDoc:OK, let's see them adjust their advertising to reflect that their product is not a "phone service'. I am against the USF for any company. But if the ILECs & CLECs have to pay, I see no reason why Vonage shouldn't as well. It is still a telephone call no matter how it is routed. VOIP should get no special exemption. I agree. Everybody pays or NO ONE DOES! Get rid of the USF since it amounts to rural Telco extorting people that live in cities and 'burbs. While we are at it, eliminate that stupid FCC Connection Charge too. It is revenue NOT a Tax.
Vonage advertises, including the mail I get, as a telephone service NOT a data service.
Of course, we can always throw Kevin Martin off a cliff without a parachute. Think of the Children!!!
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
| | |  Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
 ·Comcast
 ·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | Re: a data service, not a phone service said by supergirl:said by ThrowDemsOut:said by RadioDoc:OK, let's see them adjust their advertising to reflect that their product is not a "phone service'. I am against the USF for any company. But if the ILECs & CLECs have to pay, I see no reason why Vonage shouldn't as well. It is still a telephone call no matter how it is routed. VOIP should get no special exemption. I agree. Everybody pays or NO ONE DOES! Get rid of the USF since it amounts to rural Telco extorting people that live in cities and 'burbs. While we are at it, eliminate that stupid FCC Connection Charge too. It is revenue NOT a Tax. Vonage advertises, including the mail I get, as a telephone service NOT a data service. Of course, we can always throw Kevin Martin off a cliff without a parachute. Think of the Children!!! do you even know what VoIP means = Voice over Internet Protocol (UDP packets) | |
|
| |  halfbandPremium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
| Is it a "phone service" well yeah in the sense that it uses a phone, but that's about it. The USF was originally set up to provide pots in rural areas that would have been money losers to wire and service. Since this fund depends on service in one area to subsidise another it kind of breaks the system if anyone gets a choice in where they get there phone service from. And that is exactly what has happened with VOIP. Vonage paying into a fund to support POTS, which they do not sell, makes little sense. This is a case of the social tinkering with the system that has been set up by the politicians being overcome by the events in advancement of technology. The USF is an obsolete idea that will shortly need an overhaul to move into the current age.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 | |
|
| | |  PiggieI Actually use WindstreamPremium
join:2005-11-23
Orange Springs, FL | Re: a data service, not a phone service said by halfband:... The USF was originally set up to provide pots in rural areas that would have been money losers to wire and service. Since this fund depends on service in one area to subsidise another ... The USF is an obsolete idea that will shortly need an overhaul to move into the current age. So I am a rural POTS customer. Which means to me it's a surtax to support my own rural POTS. If the intention was to subsidize me from an urban area, then it should not be on my phone bill either. Or I wish! :@)
--
| Speedstream 4200 Modem - 3m/384 plan | W98-W2KSP4-XPSP2 - All AMD | Buffalo WHR G54S with Tomato 1.13 | 3 downstream switches feeding 6 total clients (no wireless) | Including the Data port on the side of my neck | | |
|
| | | | | | Re: a data service, not a phone service I think the overall idea of the Feds was to increase your rates and reduce the costs of LD (imo). Increasing the surcharge and tacking on the USF expense certainly is a step in the right direction...placing more costs on the infrastructure user and less on the telephone user.
The long term goal is to get all of the customers to pay their own pay...
The hope is that cellular, cable, over the top voip, long distance providers + pots, clecs all provide enough competition (again, IMO).
Voice services certainly seem competitive enough these days.
The trick is getting broadband competitive now, to enable more competition in wireless over the top voice (again, imo). USF won't go away, nor will takes. Anyone want to take a stab on why none of the communications company want to add a pass through for their federal income taxes? 
said by Piggie:said by halfband:... The USF was originally set up to provide pots in rural areas that would have been money losers to wire and service. Since this fund depends on service in one area to subsidise another ... The USF is an obsolete idea that will shortly need an overhaul to move into the current age. So I am a rural POTS customer. Which means to me it's a surtax to support my own rural POTS. If the intention was to subsidize me from an urban area, then it should not be on my phone bill either. Or I wish! :@) | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
| The real issue at hand is a political one. Nobody in the finance department wants to lose a revenue stream, particularly a fruitful one from back when people were bound to LATAs and metered local calls.
Reform will eventually take place to define the liabilities and obligations for all telecom carriers. The roadmap is full of bumps, road blocks and downed bridges. It is a new era in data and telecommunications, someone somewhere will eventually forge a new constitution and I can almost guarantee it will shread to shit the existing Telecom Act of 1996.
For the meanwhile, I'm quite content to stray from paying this greed-ridden city of any more taxes than it currently rapes me out of bi-weekly. | |
|
| | | | | Amen! Raise the prices of broadband to rural areas. It is certainly cheaper to live there in other respects, right?
Finally time for us to realize the old LD is expense, local is cheap model changes....local is expensive, LD is cheap.
I think prices should certainly reflect costs, but I doubt that can exist if we are all paying the same 30 bucks a month. Our Cable friends certainly cross subsidize internally between rural and urban, when they are large enough. I doubt the day will come when pure competition exists and we all get individual prices...
said by halfband:Is it a "phone service" well yeah in the sense that it uses a phone, but that's about it. The USF was originally set up to provide pots in rural areas that would have been money losers to wire and service. Since this fund depends on service in one area to subsidise another it kind of breaks the system if anyone gets a choice in where they get there phone service from. And that is exactly what has happened with VOIP. Vonage paying into a fund to support POTS, which they do not sell, makes little sense. This is a case of the social tinkering with the system that has been set up by the politicians being overcome by the events in advancement of technology. The USF is an obsolete idea that will shortly need an overhaul to move into the current age. | |
|
| |  NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Why should a customer have to pay twice. Once for the DSL line and once for Vonage?
Now the cable companies should be forced to pay into the USF, but they won that battle ages ago. | |
|
| | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: a data service, not a phone service USF does not apply to the broadband connection.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | |  Marduk
join:2004-09-05
West Chester, PA | Re: a data service, not a phone service said by RadioDoc:USF does not apply to the broadband connection. Yeah, but phone calls can be made via the broadband connection.
Does comcast have to pay this fee as well when they "bundle" their voip services? | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: a data service, not a phone service said by Marduk:said by RadioDoc:USF does not apply to the broadband connection. Yeah, but phone calls can be made via the broadband connection. Does comcast have to pay this fee as well when they "bundle" their voip services? Sure.
Last I checked, there was a price stated if bundled...simpled enough. There are some default percentages the feds apply, but can be avoided with a traffic study if they they think it's too high.
Of course comcast ain't offering a nomadic service  | |
|
| | | | NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | They apply to DSL lines for the telephone side. Not many people can get a "DRY" loop.
The laws need to be adjusted to include cable and/or any voip provider who is providing service across a not traditional telephone line.
They also need to ensure the money is being spent to provide service to Rural areas rather than padding corporate profits. | |
|
| | | | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: a data service, not a phone service Anyone in ATT land can get a 'dry loop'. The USF on POTS is irrelevant and certainly does not apply to this discussion.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | | stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO | Better yet eliminate the USF all together, not needed any longer, all subsidizes should be eliminated as well. | |
|
| | | | | | | said by NOCMan:They apply to DSL lines for the telephone side. Not many people can get a "DRY" loop. The laws need to be adjusted to include cable and/or any voip provider who is providing service across a not traditional telephone line. They also need to ensure the money is being spent to provide service to Rural areas rather than padding corporate profits. AMEN.
The current fund certainly is about funding small telephone companies. Sort of doesn't make sense to subsidize a small (250,000 - random number) telephone company than the subsidy the feds caused by killing off the independent ISP industry (same rationale short of who built infrastructure first).
I'm not so sure the USF doesn't "pad corporate profits" even with the smallest companies..isn't profit profit? | |
|
| | | |  sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ | said by RadioDoc:USF does not apply to the broadband connection. It's a line item on the bill. It's an item Covad and Verizon pass on to wholesale layer-2 customers. And it's around 11%. | |
|
| | | | | | said by RadioDoc:USF does not apply to the broadband connection. It sure does.
The broadband connection is a common carrier service and is subject to the FCC universal service fund surcharge in that it is considered an interstate charge to an end user (sorta like a VAT tax).
After considering DSL a deregulated information service, or detariffed information service, depending on a telephone company's regulatory status...USF still applied, on a frozen percentage, if I recall correctly, or a percentage basis.
VOIP...Vonage, CallVantage, etc..was already declared under federal law to be subject to usf contribution rules (hasn't failed a suit yet).
Cable companies voice generally fall under voice/pots or voip, but not broadband, the former subject to USF....since broadband isn't assessable per se...unless it is considered "interstate revenue".
I can reference docs if needed (It will take awhile since I am lazy, but it's all available on the FCC web site). | |
|
| | | | | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: a data service, not a phone service Your bill must look different from mine then. No USF on either DSL account.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | How can a data service be a part of the PSTN? | |
|
| | | | Re: a data service, not a phone service said by bogey780:How can a data service be a part of the PSTN? Better yet, how could a data service exist without the PSTN?
(It's a matter of time before the cellular networks
arent't the PSTN, if not de facto already)
Data services could use the PSTN:
dial up internet access
dial up banking
dial up phone sex
dial up directory assistance
dial up gaming
dial up bbs
voice mail (dial up)
add your own... | |
|
| |
| | |
 jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | wow Vonage won something in court. This truly is the day the earth stood still. How can they not be classified as a phone service when they market as one. This must be where i need to see the details because the headlines don't sound rational.
--
Learning how to invest. Sign up to get 3 free trades for you and me each. Personal Message me. Thanks | |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Carrollton, TX | April 1st? It must be April Fools day already - Vonage never wins any lawsuits they are involved in.
On a serious note, I wonder if this ruling will lead to a challenge on FUSF contributions by VOIP providers. | |
|
| | | Re: April 1st? said by DMS1:It must be April Fools day already - Vonage never wins any lawsuits they are involved in. On a serious note, I wonder if this ruling will lead to a challenge on FUSF contributions by VOIP providers. Nah, the FCC already declared VOIP in the federal jurisdiction as an information service. This was a win for the VOIP providers, particularly the incumbent telcos and cablecos.
Better to have 1 place to lobby than the entire country. | |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | I suppose it makes sense... If VoIP is declared a data service, though, all that's needed is for Nebraska or the Federal Government to pass a law saying that they can still charge USF- basically the court is saying that they can't expect to squeak by using existing laws, which is all too common now. | |
|
| | | Re: I suppose it makes sense... I'm just glad they finally won in court....regardless of what is was for..:) | |
|
 The BeerI Love It When A Plan Comes TogetherPremium
join:2001-07-24
Omaha, NE | I got the letter I have a small VOIP service in Omaha, I got the letter from the PSC a couple of weeks ago asking us to pay in.
Glad to have that monkey off our back, now back to my Federal USF payments... | |
|
| | Can something like this work for Uverse and FIOS I mean they are only sending data so franchise laws should not apply ?
Right? | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| | So.... If it is a data service in Nebraska, is should also be a data service in the US and be exempt from the Federal USF also.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. | |
|
| | | Re: So.... said by pende_tim:If it is a data service in Nebraska, is should also be a data service in the US and be exempt from the Federal USF also. Careful what you ask for...
We pass a lot of goofy laws in Illinois you might not be interested in...maybe they should be federal as well? | |
|
| | | said by pende_tim:If it is a data service in Nebraska, is should also be a data service in the US and be exempt from the Federal USF also. True. Nebraska rocks!
Beef should be disallowed because Illinois say so...give it time, we've already killed off Foie Gras in Chicago.
I didn't read the NE order, but did they call it data services or information services? If the former, they will be sued again...the TA96 has been challenged and upheld a number of times. Vonage has already been given the blessing of being under the federal jurisdication.
It sounds like you are a true states rights guy..yet the republicans keep countering states rights...and the states rights folks keep voting them in.
I won't go on... | |
|
 La LunaSurvived AshrafulPremium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
kudos:3
·Vonage
·Optimum Online
| What about.... ...something like Skype? That is a "phone service" too, ie, it allows the user to make phone calls over the "internet". If the only standard is "it's a phone service, Vonage users should have to pay", shouldn't Skype (and all other such services) users have to pay also? | |
|
 PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Making the wrong point Everyone here is stuck debating whether or not Vonage is a phone service, when WHAT they provide isn't really the point. It's HOW they provide it.
The USF is to help pay for the deployment of physical lines to rural areas. Vonage does not own or construct any lines, thus can and will never use the USF. And if they can never use it, why should they have to pay into it?
Saying Vonage should pay into the USF is like saying xBox or PS3 should have to pay into the USF, because they use the lines, too. I can make voice "calls" with Skype, MSN/Win Live, and Yahoo Messenger, too, so should they have to pay into the USF? No, and neither should Vonage.
--
There comes a point in your life when you get tired of fixing everything and wiping everyone's ass. But it’s not giving up. It’s realizing that you don’t need certain people and the bullshit and drama they bring to your life. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | Vonage wins = customers win! (in this case) You guys keep saying "Vonage should pay", "Vonage shouldn't pay". Let me remind you for a minute - Vonage pays nothing into USF. it's the customer that pays into the USF.
As a provider, I am totally against having to pay into the USF not because I will have to pay it - I won't. I am against it because my customers will have to pay it.
USF, E911, and all the other junk fees regulators are trying to force-feed VoIP consumers will eventually drive business overseas if allowed to continue. If a consumer can pay a company in Germany half of what they pay a US-based company for the exact same service, what motivation would they have to stay with the American company?
--
Nitzan Kon, CEO
Future Nine Corporation | |
|
| | | Re: Vonage wins = customers win! (in this case) For that matter, you don't pay gas, electric, fed taxes, fica, sit, unemployment, real estate taxes, employees, etc...they all all drive business...they all suck. pass all the costs on line item....give us a contract of 0 plus fees... lol
To answer your question...
Why should a german entrepreneur not invest in competing with you (even services are exportable if the dollar is cheap enough)?
Why not pass through all your costs as force fed? Pretty sure we'd we'd all like to make money without spending any...
said by nitzan:You guys keep saying "Vonage should pay", "Vonage shouldn't pay". Let me remind you for a minute - Vonage pays nothing into USF. it's the customer that pays into the USF. As a provider, I am totally against having to pay into the USF not because I will have to pay it - I won't. I am against it because my customers will have to pay it. USF, E911, and all the other junk fees regulators are trying to force-feed VoIP consumers will eventually drive business overseas if allowed to continue. If a consumer can pay a company in Germany half of what they pay a US-based company for the exact same service, what motivation would they have to stay with the American company? | |
|
| |  who pays for it!!
 | |
|
| | Its all the same anyway VoiP, DSL, POTS...etc. Its all converted to just bits of data. Voip just goes thru different switches in the same CO on the otherside of the room. But Zipping thru all those wires... its all bits of data anyway. | |
|
| | come to think of it... If its purely a data service, maybe the should be restricted to only calling other vonage customers. They call people with POTS lines. Which means they jump and ride along the current phone system anyway. | |
|
|
|
