DSL Extreme → Will ExtremeDSL drop FUSF fee?

Now that the FCC has dropped the requirement that DSL providers contribute to the FUSF fee, will we see ExtremeDSL drop collection of this fee?

Check your billing statements. I think if you are using DSLX, the FUSF fee after 8/15/2006 is refunded to your account.

OK, they just posted a new invoice refunding $1.21 from 8/15 thru 9/1 and $1.08 charge for "Supplier Surcharge Recovery" for the same period.. Looks like AT&T is trying to do the same nonsense that Verizon was doing and was slammed by the FCC. See »FCC Chief 'Furious' Over New DSL Fees

(Of course I did mean DSLExtreme not ExtremeDSL in my original post.)

Yeah, I saw that charge on my bill. I was wondering what it is.

ATT is doing nothing of the kind. I'd be screaming if they were. This other charge is either a charge DSLE charges to you or a charge that ATT charges to wholesalers of their service. The direct end users of ATT is NOT being charged any new fees in place of the FUSF.

I suspect it's a fee that DSLE is tacking on OR if it's from ATT, you'll see a credit next month.

ATT, unlike Verizon or BellSouth, NEVER initiated a replacement fee. It was NEVER planned.

Effective August 14th, 2006, the FUSF recovery surcharge line item ($2.21 for SBC clients, $3.11 for Verizon clients and $3.56 for Covad clients) on your bill will be replaced with “Supplier Surcharge Recovery" of $1.93 for all clients. This reduction is based on the recent deregulation of broadband digital subscriber line (DSL) service by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Due to these changes your total monthly statement will be reduced.

What is the Supplier Surcharge?
The Supplier Surcharge is comprised of Federal Universal Service Fund recovery fees that are still charged on core components within the DSLExtreme network as well as a supplier imposed surcharge which is not a tax or government imposed fee. Although the FCC stopped requiring the FUSF contribution on each client’s loop, our ATM aggregation circuits and other transit circuits which carry end-user DSL Internet service do continue to incur an FUSF cost from our carrier. Additionally around the same time the FCC eliminated the per-circuit FUSF, our suppliers increased the per-loop wholesale cost by a similar amount. The net result is a Supplier Surcharge Recovery which is lower than the previous FUSF, of which a portion is going toward our suppliers for the new higher wholesale loop cost, and a portion covers FUSF costs related to ATM aggregation and transit circuits.

Is there anything I need to do?
DSLExtreme has automatically adjusted the monthly billing on your account and provided the appropriate credits where necessary. No action is required by you.

I am not keen on the current situation with other DSL providers (AT&T, Verizon, etc), as it changes daily. However, from what I've read, all of them are dropping the "Supplier Surcharge" fee due to bad press. So they won't charge their "direct" end-users this fee, but they will charge us indirectly through DSLExtreme!? That's just not right.

..."around the same time the FCC eliminated the per-circuit FUSF, our suppliers increased the per-loop wholesale cost by a similar amount."

I thought some of us are "locked-in" to a specific price forever. I don't remember an escape clause in my contract that allows DSLExtreme to pass to me any increase in "per-loop wholesale cost".

Please note I'm not faulting DSLExtreme here. My fingers are pointing at the telco's. They saw the elimination of DSL FUSF as an opportunity to increase profit. It didn't fly with their customers. It shouldn't fly with DSLExtreme.

Rape

George,

Thanks for your informative post. It certainly is too bad that the telcos continue to charge you a fee (no matter what they call it) when they now are no longer charging their customers the fee. It certainly makes your offering less competitive as your prices are the same as the telcos but you are now forced to charge an additional amount to your customers.

I wonder if the FCC is aware of this situation like they were when certain telcos tried to charge their customers replacement fees when the FUSF charge was eliminated.

Unfortunately the FCC has completely deregulated DSL. They would not look into the situation before (trust me we tried) and will definitely not care now. In many ways the FCC IS the problem.

It's called consumer fraud. This is not a DSL Extreme issue, it's a telco issue. Pretty soon a law firm with something like a non-bought-off pair will take on the telcos for these bogus fees and yes they will retire billionaires. IMHO it's a simple open and shut case. It's not at all complicated, a straight out of law school newbie with 3.5 brain cells could pull it off as long as they have the goods to take on a monster. Heck if I thought lawyers were brain dead enough to wait I'd spend the money go to law school and start victim shopping.

So how to pull it off? They (the ISP) advertise $12/month knowing that the real price is closer to $16. That's fraud. If they advertise $12/month then they have to deliver for $12/month plus government fees and taxes. Any investment recovery fees are are pure fraud and they know it. That's RICO and triple damages. It's like you buying a steak for advertised for $8.50/lb and at the check stand the store adding a $5/lb beef recovery fee. It's blatant false advertising... aka fraud.

I can live with the fee. I remember when I paid $49.99 for DSL at 1500 speed, so for $12.95 plus fee, that's cool.

A few questions:
1. How much of the $1.93 fee is for FUSF fee “charged on core components within the DSLExtreme network” and how much is for the “supplier imposed surcharge”?
2. What is stopping your suppliers from increasing this fee? Could we have a package price of $12.95 and supplier fees of $9.95?
3. Since this “is not is not a tax or government imposed fee”, isn’t this just a cost of doing business?

My agreement with DSLX is that my package (6000/612) price would never increase. Since this is not a tax or government imposed fee, this is a price increase to my package, no matter how it is disguised.

I don't think there's anything stopping supplier from increasing this fee!

And you may be right, DSLX may not have the right to pass this on to us because it's not some government impose fee! I'm willing to bet if enough DSLX users take this to court against DSLX, DSLX would lose base on their own contract. DSLX would have to let all current contracts expire first. Basically, what DSLX is doing here is that they are passing the cost of doing business from ATT to us but his cost is not a government impossed fee, and in essense, DSLX is breaking the contract, no?

It's DSLX problem that they need to take care of with AT&T. DSLX can't simply take it out on their customers.

I feel sorry for DSLX though because they're a small fish and they're being kicked around and they can't absorb cost as easily as ATT. But from a contractual point, I think DSLX would lose out if their customers wanted to take them up in a class action.

Personally, I'm not going to let this "recovery fee" make make me jump shipt to ATT. It's just not worth it. Howerver, if the fee were to go up to let's say $10/mo and DSLX passes this on to me, then hell yeah i'm taking someone to small claim court for a contratual bridge.

OK, I pay $16.88/mo. $14.95 plus less than $2 Supplier Surcharge. That's fair. And what's more, I get DSLX support, which totally has ownage over plain jane Verizon service.

Do you realize how good you have it?

Do you?

Come on folks, get real. Dialup is often that expensive. This is DSL for the price of Dialup. I'm happy, I think the price is fair, because it's DSLX instead of VZ I don't have to worry about PPPoE because DHCP is used instead.

Disregard the whining section. DSLX rules.