DSL Surcharge Plan Abandoned by Major Carriers 204
thedletterman writes to mention a USAToday article about the proposed surcharges on DSL lines. The FCC stepped in just as major carriers Verizon and BellSouth made moves to add a $1-$3 surcharge to their DSL services; they were coincidentally to add this charge just as the Universal Service Fund fee was being removed from all DSL services. From the article: "Verizon, in a statement, said it was dropping the new fee as a result of feedback from consumers: 'We have listened to our customers, and are eliminating the charge.' Gene Kimmelman of Consumers Union had another explanation: 'They got caught red-handed in a blatant consumer rip-off. Only under the pressure of regulators cracking down on them did they back off from this unwarranted charge.' The FCC last week sent Verizon a 'letter of inquiry,' the first step in a formal investigation."
Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds about right. Who's the terrorist now?
Tom
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't going to be "under the guise of some FCC fee" at all. That would be one step above their backhanded methods to an outright fraud that would have probably gotten someone some jailtime.
Who's the terrorist now?
In what fashion? Please, if you're one of the people who thinks that the term is thrown around way too much now don't start being a hypocrite and thinking it's cute. It's simply not.
I hate to defend Verizon in light of this news article and I think there is a lot of crap that goes on in the name of better telecommunications that is simply hype. Despite all of this, in the face of the cable industry and their "phoney" ad campaign, Verizon is a fairly honorable company compared to their competition. In a system where we have little choices to be made in the case of broadband internet providers Verizon is probably one of the best companies that I know of. Certainly a sight better than Comcast and their incompetence or their outright lies.
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Informative)
Correct. Here's the cut and paste from my notice:
Effective August 14, 2006, Verizon Online will stop charging the FUSF (Federal Universal Ser vice Fund) recovery fee. We will stop being assessed the fee by our DSL network suppliers. Therefore, we will no longer be recovering this fee from our customers. The impact of the FUSF fee is as follows: for customers of Verizon Online with service up to 768Kbps, the fee eliminated is $1.25 a month; for customers of Verizon Online with service up to 1.5 Mbps or 3Mbps, the fee eliminated is $2.83 a month (based on current FUSF surcharge amounts). On your bill that includes charges for August 14, 2006 you will see either a partial FUSF Recovery Fee or no FUSF line item at all, depending on your bill cycle.
Starting August 26, 2006, Verizon Online will begin charging a Supplier Surcharge for all new DSL customers, existing customers with a DSL monthly or bundle package, and existing DSL annual plan customers at the time their current annual plan expires. This surcharge is not a government imposed fee or a tax; however, it is intended to help offset costs we incur from our network supplier in providing Verizon Online DSL service. The Supplier Surcharge will initially be set at $1.20 a month for Verizon Online DSL customers with service up to 768Kbps and $2.70 per month for customers with DSL service at higher speeds.
On balance your total bill will remain about the same as it has been or slightly lower.
It was their hope that the last line was all that anyone would really notice when the bill finally came. "Hey, my bill went down a nickel! Cool!". It was some Verizon exec's way of saying, "hmmmmm... people are willing to pay our prices, and here's a slick little way to add that dropped FUSF fee right into the Profit Margin. No one will be the wiser! We'll call it a 'cost offset'. AND, we'll let them know the 'initial price'. I bet later we can tweak it up a bit at a time, and still keep our advertised rates the same. W00t!"
Glad the pressure got to them.
Don't you guys have Local Loop Unbundling? (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_loop_unbundlin
Mmm, looks like you do, so your DSL services should become more competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to defend Verizon in light of this news article and I think there is a lot of crap that goes on in the name of better telecommunications that is simply hype. Despite all of this, in the face of the cable industry and their "phoney" ad campaign, Verizon is a fairly honorable company compared to their competition. In a system where we have little choices to be made in the case of broadband internet providers Verizon is probably one of the best companies that I know of. Certainly a sight better than Com
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not a Comcast customer, so I can't speak on them.
I was, however, a Cablevision internet ("Optimum Online") and Verizon DSL customer at the same time for about a month, back when Verizon was still running the "Cable is shared and teh slowz!" advertisements (that the FTC later made them stop running). I learned first hand (and demonstrated to anyone I could get over to my apartment) how much faster cable was than DSL -- with out the hassel of putting filters on all the other phone lines, or of PPPoE.
When I finally called to cancle the service, they tried to keep me on by offering everything from faster service (I didn't even realize that faster DSL was an option) to one year of reduced fees. When I finally said "Look, I have cable, and it is faster with large data and has a lot less lag", the VZ rep put the cancelation through with any further protest. Even Verizon's own employees know that they can't compete with cable internet on a serice basis.
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Say what? (Score:4, Informative)
Verizon does not offer "naked DSL" in my area or at least they don't let the consumers know if they do. As a result I have a phone line that I do not need. One month a charge appeared on this line even though the line is not even connected to a phone. I called the "Fraud" hotline listed on the bill. Instead of taking me to a fraud department, it informed me that if I continued that I would be charged a fee. I gave up on that and complained via email. They said they could not remove the charge because it was from a third party company. So much for advocating for their own customers! I called the other company and the charge was removed. I asked Verizon to put a note or flag my account for fraud since I don't use my phone line. Therefore no charges should appear except for the monthly charges and fees that they are raping me for even though I don't use the phone. They refused to do anything and even said that they have no way of flagging for fraud. This is an obvious lie but I think it is because they refuse to train their call representatives.
In my area GTE used to service the phones. When Verizon bought them out is when everything went downhill. My uncle used to work for GTE and when Verizon took over they offered him an early retirement package. A lot of employees took this package. When Verizon was de-briefing these employees, they told them to file for unemployment. So of course my Uncle did. Then Verizon turned around and said that it was illegal for these employees to file and sued them! All of the employees had to give back any money that they had received. This bankrupted more then a few people. My uncle was fiscally responsible so he was fine but it was still an evil backstabbing thing to do!
So no, Verizon is not honorable. They are a poorly managed mess of a company that only looks out for profits at the expense of the consumer. They hold a monopoly and so are regulated yet they still get away with ripping off consumers on a daily basis. Did I mention that I hate Verizon? This DSL fee crap is just one more thing in a long list of reasons why I hate them. I would switch to cable Internet but that company is even more evil if you can believe it.
Re:Say what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, no.
I remmeber AT&T as king dog and I also remeber phone leases and elevated long distance calls.
In the 70s, a phone lease was about $5 a month and a one time purchase of about $70- you never owned the phone you used, kinda like the cable box or satellite receiver is now.
In state long distance for my state started at 12cents a minute past 40 miles from the center of town and went up from there. Out of state calls were $.35 a minute - I still have a phone book from the 70s with the rates published.
Keep in mind that in the mid 70s, movies were $.75 for a matinee and $3.00 for evening rates. I was a kid and paid $1.25 to see Star Wars.
who owns the infracture? (Score:2)
I'm almost beginning to believe that a nationally run telecommunications monopoly may be a better thing after all.
Um, no.
I remmeber AT&T as king dog and I also remeber phone leases and elevated long distance calls.
In the 70s, a phone lease was about $5 a month and a one time purchase of about $70- you never owned the phone you used, kinda like the cable box or satellite receiver is now. In state long distance for my state started at 12cents a minute past 40 miles from the center of town and went
Re: (Score:2)
If the locals can own the infrastructure and keep up to date, then let that be another competitor. Hell, if I can offer a T1 service on a local cheaper t
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Informative)
Ivan Seidenberg, Chairman, CEO: ~ $19,400,000
Lawrence Babbio, Jr. Vice Chairman/President: ~ $8,600,000
Dennis Strigl EVP, Pres/CEO VZ Wireless: ~ $10,100,000
Willam Barr EVP/General Counsel: ~ $15,200,000
Doreen Tobin EVP/CFO: ~ $6,700,000
Source: SEC Def/14-A filing
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/732712/000
Hard to justify those salaries for a company operating at a loss, don't you think?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Proof positive that giant companies will do whatever they want until forced otherwise.
This logic is sadly familiar (Score:5, Insightful)
Year X: This tax is temporary, only for Y years.
Year X+Y: This isn't really a tax increase, because it replaces the tax passed in Year X. Your tax bill isn't going to go up if this passes.
Of course, it's usually a different group saying these two things, so that the lie isn't as blatant.
The regulated monopolies are so in bed with the government that they start to think the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well in a lot of the larger markets there are. And they would have had an even tougher time explaining to the FCC changing different markets different fees.
One has to ask? Is this a win for the new instant communication driven capitolism where the consumer really has a voice and can vote with their wallet due to their size in numbers.
Or is this
Let me be the first to say.. (Score:5, Funny)
Darn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Darn (Score:5, Informative)
Frankly these fees are ridiculous. Everytime I call a utility company for a quote on phone or broadband services, I specifically request they add all their random little fees and made-up taxes in any price they quote me. It usually takes a little bit of scrambling from the salesperson to get me that number, but they've always been able to tell me. I make my decision accordingly.
The best so far: Verizon Fios (fiber, if you're lucky enough to have it available in your area). It was $35/month, no fees, no taxes (not even sales taxes!) charged to my credit card monthly. But I moves to the other side of town about 8 months ago and there no Fios available on my street. I do understand that they started charging taxes and/or fees now. I guess it was good while it lasted.
Re: (Score:2)
Bringing in the Fiber (Score:2, Interesting)
Cost increase OK, "Fees" are not (Score:4, Insightful)
And you know what? That would be totally acceptable.
Raising your rates is one thing -- that's just business. It may cost you customers, but it's all part of the value proposition.
But trying to tack on an unadvertised "fee" that's not really a 'fee' at all, but which somehow you don't advertise as being part of the price of service, that's getting pretty close to misrepresentation in my book.
Even if all the FCC action did was cause Verizon to take their $2.99 fee and move it from a line-item "Compliance Fee" to part of the base cost of DSL service, that would be a Good Thing, because it would make it harder for them to advertise a price for service that wasn't true.
IMO, it's unethical and false advertising for them to advertise a price that doesn't include everything except federally mandated fees which are not kept by the company (e.g. sales tax). If it's not going directly to the government, it's not a 'fee,' and it should be included into their advertised rates. If that makes them less competitive, so be it.
These 'Regulatory Compliance Fees' have got to go; they're misleading to consumers and they make it difficult to make a fair comparison of the costs of service between different companies (i.e. cable and DSL, or cellular and landlines).
Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Text of the original Verizon explanation (Score:5, Informative)
Dear Valued Verizon Online Customer,
Effective August 14, 2006, Verizon Online will stop charging the FUSF (Federal Universal Service Fund) recovery fee. We will stop being assessed the fee by our DSL network suppliers. Therefore, we will no longer be recovering this fee from our customers. The impact of the FUSF fee is as follows: for customers of Verizon Online with service up to 768Kbps, the fee eliminated is $1.25 a month; for customers of Verizon Online with service up to 1.5 Mbps or 3Mbps, the fee eliminated is $2.83 a month (based on current FUSF surcharge amounts). On your bill that includes charges for August 14, 2006 you will see either a partial FUSF Recovery Fee or no FUSF line item at all, depending on your bill cycle.
Starting August 26, 2006, Verizon Online will begin charging a Supplier Surcharge for all new DSL customers, existing customers with a DSL monthly or bundle package, and existing DSL annual plan customers at the time their current annual plan expires. This surcharge is not a government imposed fee or a tax; however, it is intended to help offset costs we incur from our network supplier in providing Verizon Online DSL service. The Supplier Surcharge will initially be set at $1.20 a month for Verizon Online DSL customers with service up to 768Kbps and $2.70 per month for customers with DSL service at higher speeds.
On balance your total bill will remain about the same as it has been or slightly lower.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
And, here's the retraction... (Score:2)
Effective immediately, Verizon Online is dropping its previously announced plans to impose a DSL Supplier Surcharge. We are eliminating this surcharge in response to customer concerns. The supplier surcharge has not been included in customer bills, with the exception of a small number of customers who bill their Verizon Online charges to a credit card or receive a direct invoice from Verizon Online. Some of these customers may have already been billed for one month o
anybody try the Satellite DSL provider HughesNet? (Score:2)
I haven't tried satellite nor will I. For one simple reason, latency. It's alright if all you do is surf and check email but if you chat, game, or use VoIP there is a wait between the ground, satellite, then back down to you as well as the return trip. Now if I were out somewhere hiking I wouldn't mind it but not when I'm at home.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
P.S. Listening to the
Moo (Score:5, Interesting)
We are no longer practising Capitalism. This is more of a MoneyGrabism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, i'm a bit more harsh than that. If there is collusion, just don't buy the product. If it is a necessity, start your own business and charge less. (I think that works at least theoretically, and should be pursued before jumping to regulation.)
When it is a necessesity (water, oxygen, etc.) and limited, there is no recourse (you must buy, and from them) an equal force (a governing body, representing the people as a grou
natural monopolies (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, i'm a bit more harsh than that. If there is collusion, just don't buy the product. If it is a necessity, start your own business and charge less. (I think that works at least theoretically, and should be pursued before jumping to regulation.)
In general I agree but not for landlines, whether copper or fiber. The local governments grant a natural monopoly to the companies that laydown the cable or fiber, I've never heard of someone else being able to laydown cable or fiber alongside what was alr
Re: (Score:2)
Making it limited. And although not water, phone service is considered a necessity. Thus, being a limited necessity, i am for anti-monopolistic intervention.
Re:Moo (Score:5, Interesting)
The experiment is to see how many days it takes for the government and phone company to come out and cut the wires and arrest me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For someone who lives in an apartment, maybe this is something that is feasable.
I should look into this more and talk to my neighbors and landlord.
I'm sure we'd all save a lot of money if we split the internet, cable, and telephone bills.
cable, isp, and phone service (Score:2)
For someone who lives in an apartment, maybe this is something that is feasable.
I should look into this more and talk to my neighbors and landlord.
I'm sure we'd all save a lot of money if we split the internet, cable, and telephone bills.
A small group of people are already doing this in NYC. An engineer and tech from a phone or cable company started a business where they laydown fiber from their co to apartments, homes, and offices. They then offer cable, internet access, and phone service and for
Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
Office parks and MSB are all corperations controlling the buildings that are being wired. As such they are in effect wiring their own property. Also most MSB's actually don't own the PBX, the TelCo just installs one there for convienence. If he were to wire his own house with an Asterisk [asterisk.com] server - no problems, but reselling that service outside his house is likely to get him in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if it was the goverment that discovered it, they'd probably do the arrest thing because you were breaking the law by not paying your taxes on each line you provide.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean ok... the DSL provider just switched around a couple of fees. One no longer being recovered, one new one to line their own pockets.
The difference is minor... probably about what I spend on my morning coffee. However thats one bill, from one service provider. Take my situation... I pay electric, gas, cell phone, cable, a mortgage, collect rent, collect 4/5 of the bill money from my roomates, water bill, house insurance.
Theres alot of room in there for a change to just go unnoticed, because I also work 40 hours, study martial arts, and try to have a social life, including seeing my friends and dating. Never mind spending some time here and there with the family.
Um... believe it or not, I don't have that much time to spend pouring over each and every line item on each and every bill. In fact, if it wasn't for gnucash, I might not have a clue as to what my finances really looked like overall.
So yah, I could easily get extra fees tacked on and not notice. Does that make me stupidly passive? I don't think its that so much as overly active. My time is spread pretty thin sometimes. I think that is true of alot of people.
-Steve
Re: (Score:2)
I was really referring to more spectacular cases, but we need to fight it everywhere, even on the small ones.
We have public media, and it is pretty much their unofficial mandate to report these things. For example, right now on slashdot we hear about it. Now that we all know, we can refuse service, together.
Does that make me stupidly passive?
No. But people who just give in because they don't want to lose anything in a fight end up being passive, and IMH
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm generally libertarain minded, too, but the problem is that it just doesn't work in this day and age. These companies are too big. I got charged for a collect call I never accepted (never even received it) last month. Verizon would do nothing and just passed the buck. The original collect call company is difficult to reach and just stands by their "you accepted the call" story. Complaints to anyone in a regulatory agency or government offices produces nothing.
How am I supposed to fight this? It has not
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Moo (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a bit different in the original case where you have a choice to purchase the service for a published monthly fee, or go without service (from them).
They know a person will only fight for X number of hours per Y dollars of fake charge.
And for sure requires government intervention. It's usually called the police (or FBI, etc.) and they enforce this thing known as laws, which in general prohibit stealing. Something basi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Modern life = too complicated for that (Score:5, Insightful)
educate the people to start participating in the free market
Hmmm, let's see. To run my daily life I deal with...
So what I need to do is drop my life's plans and ambitions (to say nothing of my job) in order to spend years learning about every little detail of each of these businesses or regulatory entities. Even if I do that, I will still have less knowledge about any one of them than any of the thousands of professional staff who have spent their careers learning the details.
Face it. There is no way even the smartest, most willing-to-learn consumer can prevent himself/herself from being at an information disadvantage in modern society. If the consumer actually wants to live a life instead of constantly learning about uninteresting subjects, the information disadvantage will be worse. If we want to take advantage of the possibilities modern technology and finance offer us, we need to protect the consumer -- not because he/she is "lazy" but because it's *impossible* for him/her to learn all the details.
There are now only two alternatives to regulation, as imperfect a tool as it is:
1. large companies and government bureaucracies that are able to screw consumers at will thanks to superior knowledge, or
2. reverting to a world simple enough for everyone to know all the details... uh, no thanks, I like having cars, computers, electricity, and plentiful food.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that it's too hard to fight, so i'll vote someone in to fight for me, and i will get more without giving up anything, it exactly what i call "stupidly passive".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or have a group study it for us, publish their findings, and having the people make informed choices.
This approach sometimes works OK when a well-known magazine helps you decide which $50 DVD player is the best value. But it breaks down quickly when things get more complicated.
First, industry associations often will publish their own materials, and a consumer seeking to educate him/herself may not have any way to tell the difference between a truly independent review and industry publicity. Second, any
Re: (Score:2)
So you are for regulation (mandatory education) just you believe in pulling instead of pushing.
Simple regulation would let market forces fix this (Score:3, Interesting)
Advertised prices would then actually represent what you'd pay (or even less, if for some reason your area had a lower sales tax than the maximum), and businesses wouldn't be able to raise prices without raising prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Simple regulation would let market forces fix t (Score:2)
So nation-wide adverts should be at a distinct disadvantage to local adverts?
If you're advertising in a state with no taxs, your quoted price will be MUCH lower than those advertised across the entire country, and forced to quote the "maximum possible sales tax" (probably 10% higher).
I was with you up until there, though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello? The government already stepped in and created the monopolies that the telcos enjoy. If it weren't for their so-called "natural" monopoly on the cable plant, they would not be able to get away with 94.32% of the bullshit they do today.
Anyone who talks about the local telecommunications markets as if they were anything
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't really CREATE them... that's why it's called a "natural" monopoly. You can't have 500 phone companies getting permission to install telephone poles in your yard, digging up the roads, etc.
The problem isn't that it's a monopoly... The problem is that the government refuses to treat it like the monopoly it is, and regulate it accordingly.
We are no longer practising Capitalism. (Score:2)
No this is the Corporate Aristocracy Thomas Jefferson warned of.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
How can you blame consumers for being stuck with only one or two choices for broadband?
It's a duopoly (at BEST), and should be regulated as such, instead of pretending there's any kind of a free market here.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. There is no free market. Capitalism in a "mature form" was pre-Great Depression, when government regulation was very low. America was the wealthiest country on the planet and had the highest standard of living. The problem at that time, though, was that capitalism in its purest form is extremely responsive to market forces, so when the stock market bottomed out from over-speculation, it literally sent shockwaves through the rest of the
Re: (Score:2)
But the advantages of division of labor scale.
This means
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Before the middle class (19th century) and the women and children restrictive labor laws (late 19th century) women worked just as well as men. If anything, owners were more likely wealthy people, and this included both genders.
The reason we say he, is that unknown (or mixed) animate object are usually refered to as he, and inanimate as she.
Very rapidly you end up with only one pin factory, because its costs are so much lower than any competitor than it c
Happy Happy Verison Land (Score:5, Funny)
I want to live in Verison world, where unless people tell you otherwise, they want to be ripped off.
I just can't comprehend how fucked up corporations are.
blame the government, not us (Score:5, Informative)
These fees are nothing but a vehicle for false advertising and a covert way to increase prices unannounced. Carriers can legally advertise a plan to be $20 per month when in fact it is $26.95. Thus, no carrier can afford to be honest or they will appear to be the most expensive service.
Hello, legislation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple Economics (Score:5, Funny)
I look forward to seeing on my bill:
$5 Gas for installation truck fee
$10 Catered lunch for marketing dept fee
$20 Lack of alternatives in the market fee
$3 Sending you this abusive letter fee
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No one will likely notice or care, but after 90 days, send a quick letter to their accounts payable department letting them know it will be going to collections if it's not paid. Chances are good you'll get a check for whatever amount you're looking for, provided it's not overly large.
Might I suggest a bill for your "Consumer Resources Recovery F
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let's call it the "straight-shooter" law that disallows the misleading publication of prices in consumer advertising. The spirit of the law sho
Listened to their customers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Listening to the customers and dropping the charge (Score:5, Insightful)
How many people here hate getting a phone bill and while you signed up for some great deal such as $29.99/month the real charge with all of the extra hidden fees is more like $39.99? That pisses me off to no end and I wish they would eliminate doing that completely but I know the chances of that ever happening are nil.
Re:Listening to the customers and dropping the cha (Score:2)
Verizon is notorious for this, even in their wireless service. It proves that the arrogance issue starts at the top, given that wireless is in a different Verizon subsidiary. We changed a year from T-Mobile to Verizon. We picked a plan that was advertised at almost exactly the same cost. It had a slightly smaller number of minutes included in the package,
They'd be better off to admit the attempted fleece (Score:3, Insightful)
More on this (Score:4, Interesting)
my last bill (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon enables criminals (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm dropping Verizon land line service in favor of VOIP in a week or so. I got an expensive collect call charged to my bill last month, a call I never accepted, and the date/time stamp showed it supposed ocurred when I was at work (and I live alone). Verizon's response was "Oh, we just poass those charges from the original collect call company." Contacting the other company produced nothing, and a quick online investigation shows that they are the source of many phone line scams.
Fuck you, Verizon. By passing on the charges and doing NOTHING for your customers, you are an enabler, and just as guilty as the other company. Fuck you, fuck the cocksucking MBAs who made you what you are, and kiss my lilly white ass.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I used to work at a phone
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they are losing my $40 a month AND my intention to get DSL. I'll stick with Charter Cable and upgrade to their new VOIP/3 Mbps package. *They* haven't scammed me (yet), and their uptime in my area is about 99.9%.
But you illustrate what I mean. I have to file something with the FCC for a $20 phone charge.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the fee is it is not the carriers fault, but the FCC.
Common carrier status legally has to let large telcos bill for third parties over their network. nothing Verizon can do about it, but hold off on the contested charges until the 30-60 days which they will do. You just have to call and tell them, and they can dispute it for you.
The Tele act of 1996 allowed this to happen, which is good in a lot ways, becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Rather than ranting like a lunatic, don't pay it. Verizon cannot legally drop your phone service if you don't pay that 3rd-party charge. The 3rd party has to come after you to collect, which they won't do if the charge is fraudulent. Also, take 2 minutes and file a complaint with the FCC.
http://www.puco.ohio.gov/PUCO/Consumer/information
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/news/080702fraudwk3.html [fcc.gov]
Phone companies didn't pay their bills!! (Score:3, Funny)
Surcredits (Score:2, Interesting)
I recently dropped my garbage collection company because of surcharges. I've really respect companies that charge me ONE price per month w
Speakeasy's doing the same crap. (Score:3, Interesting)
Help! Help! Regulation! (Score:2, Funny)
Damned Federal Regulators! Just once I'd like to see a Liberitarian Administration in power that would once-and-for-all allow our precious Corporations the Freedom to conduct their business without the constant threat of Federal Regulators stepping in.
Then we'd see an Internet where I could watch Home Shopping Network in High Definition Video without having to worry that all the pipes will get fil
This is nothing new... (Score:5, Informative)
When our school switched over from AT&T to a regional long-distance provider, the rep at the regional company gave me a little insight to AT&T's various "fees." Ever take a look at the "FCC Line Charge"? According to AT&T [att.com] (requires flash, and you'll need to zoom in to read the thing), it is an "FCC-approved flat-rate monthly charge paid by consumers to their Local Telephone Company so that the Local Telephone Company can recover the costs, not recovered in local rates, that are associated with connecting customers to the long distance network." Now don't you love how that works? They can advertise that their phone line only costs $18 a month, then hit you up for another $11 to cover costs that are "not recovered in local rates." And how about the "Carrier Cost Recovery Fee?" [att.com] AT&T just doesn't want to have to pay their own property taxes, so they pass the cost onto consumers. I was told by the rep that AT&T has been known to pass whatever fees it can to the consumer, whatever can be FCC and state approved. Even approved "expansion fees" can be funneled into paying for new office buildings that "house infrastructure."
Trust me, they'll still charge it (Score:4, Interesting)
Because people keep using the telcos for things like this (money speaks louder than words with corperations) very few independant ISPs have the power to do anything about it. Look at it, Earthlink couldn't stop it, Covad couldn't stop it, and I know I sure couldn't have stopped it. If people quit using telcos for their DSL and went to the independant ISP we could actually fight stuff like this on capitol hill.
There's no sense in rehashing all this yet again so....'nough said
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:comcast ha (Score:5, Interesting)
This is one of the things I like about Road Runner.
I was quoted $44.95/month.
My bill is $44.95/month.
See the connection? No fees, no taxes, no charges besides the $44.95/month. The service is pretty good, too.
Now, before someone suggests that I look at my cable bill for the hidden fees, or asks about what I pay for my cable service, I think I should point out that I do not subscribe to cable (I get my TV fix through Dish Network). It is not well known, but you can unbundle Road Runner from TW Cable TV, and I have done so. When you do so, you will pay exactly $44.95/month for the middle-tier Road Runner residential service, and not a cent more.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, in some cases, it may have been that the frauds were on a more localized level. When they did occur, the shameful acts were not discussed as openly. The merger-mania of the '80s broadened the scope of many companies, so issues that were once easier to hide are now more difficult to conc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
John Delorean, cocaine rebate in trunk.
The Kennedys bootleggers
Senator McCarthy
J Edgar Hoover
I could go with lists of politications and business owners over the years who were theives and thugs, are just crazy in general.
Nothing new, just better press, and people are starting to question a bit more.
We sweep less under the rug now.
Puto
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is just plain making fun of the naïvete of libertarians and other free-market idealists.
Re: (Score:2)
This was a troll. It was leaving an inflammatory (to libetarians) comment likely to start a whole thread of pointless quibbling. Yes, usually, but not necessarily, offtopic as well.
Re: (Score:2)