|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > T-Mobile cellular service > October 2005 > My first T-Mo bill
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
My first T-Mo bill
|
|
| R. P. 2005-08-20, 11:48 pm |
| Whoa! Was I in a surprise? They not only charged a one-time $35 fee
nobody told me about beforehand, but all the taxes and miscellanous
charges amounted to over half the Basic Plan's cost.
The $35 setup fee virtually wipes out the mail-in rebate I should get
from them soon. One would expect such mail-in rebates as an incentive to
sign up with them and the last thing one would expect then to be charged
an activation fee for joining. I feel like having been conned. Does
every company do this?
Rudy
| |
| BruceR 2005-08-20, 11:48 pm |
| Pretty much. Don't blame them for taxes, they just collect them and they
vary by state and even city. NY and FL have really high cell taxes.
From:R. P.
r_pol12gar@hotmail.com
> Whoa! Was I in a surprise? They not only charged a one-time $35 fee
> nobody told me about beforehand, but all the taxes and miscellanous
> charges amounted to over half the Basic Plan's cost.
>
> The $35 setup fee virtually wipes out the mail-in rebate I should get
> from them soon. One would expect such mail-in rebates as an incentive
> to sign up with them and the last thing one would expect then to be
> charged an activation fee for joining. I feel like having been
> conned. Does every company do this?
>
> Rudy
| |
| Joseph 2005-08-21, 2:48 am |
| On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:39:19 -0700, "R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>The $35 setup fee virtually wipes out the mail-in rebate I should get
>from them soon. One would expect such mail-in rebates as an incentive to
>sign up with them and the last thing one would expect then to be charged
>an activation fee for joining. I feel like having been conned. Does
>every company do this?
Every cell phone company charges an activation charge unless you get
some special deal where they waive it. They should have let you know
though that there's an activation charge. It's likely in the contract
details.
- -
| |
|
| "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Every cell phone company charges an activation charge unless you get
> some special deal where they waive it. They should have let you know
> though that there's an activation charge. It's likely in the contract
> details.
Maybe in the fine print somewhere but who reads it? It's jus odd to have
an activation fee when they make it look like I am doing them a favor by
signing up.
Rudy
| |
|
| Recently signed up with T-Mobile.
The contract was only two pages and there was no fine print.
And I read it before signing.
Take responsibility for your own actions or lack of.
Found this on internet today.
It applies.
"Let's see if I understand the state of personal
responsibility in the America of the 1990s.
If a woman burns her thighs on the hot coffee she was
holding in her lap while driving, she blames the restaurant.
If your teen-age son kills himself, you blame the rock
'n' roll musician he liked.
If you smoke three packs a day for 40 years and die of
lung cancer your family blames the tobacco company.
If your daughter gets pregnant by the football captain
you blame the school for poor sex education.
If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving
home drunk, you blame the bartender.
If your cousin gets AIDS because the needle he used to
shoot heroin was dirty, you blame the government for
not providing clean ones.
If your grandchildren are brats without manners, you
blame television.
And, if your friend is shot by a deranged madman, you
blame the gun manufacturer.
God bless America, land of the free, home of the
blame.
"R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2rydneCf1udRopX
eRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe in the fine print somewhere but who reads it? It's jus odd to have
> an activation fee when they make it look like I am doing them a favor by
> signing up.
>
> Rudy
| |
| Charlie Hoffpauir 2005-08-21, 5:48 pm |
| On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 01:48:15 -0700, "R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Maybe in the fine print somewhere but who reads it? It's jus odd to have
>an activation fee when they make it look like I am doing them a favor by
>signing up.
>
>Rudy
I'm wondering... maybe if you simply called them and told them what
yo've said here, they would consider waiving it? If they really did
mislead you into thinking there was no activation fee, then that might
be the way to amend for it.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-21, 5:48 pm |
| R. P. wrote:
> Whoa! Was I in a surprise? They not only charged a one-time $35 fee
> nobody told me about beforehand, but all the taxes and miscellanous
> charges amounted to over half the Basic Plan's cost.
>
> The $35 setup fee virtually wipes out the mail-in rebate I should get
> from them soon. One would expect such mail-in rebates as an incentive to
> sign up with them and the last thing one would expect then to be charged
> an activation fee for joining. I feel like having been conned. Does
> every company do this?
We bought through Wirefly and were made aware of the $35. It's an activation
fee. Most carriers do charge activation fees.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-21, 5:48 pm |
| R. P. wrote:
> Maybe in the fine print somewhere but who reads it? It's jus odd to have
> an activation fee when they make it look like I am doing them a favor by
> signing up.
People who don't read the legally binding agreements they enter into have
little right to complain about surprises caused by not reading those agreements.
So yes, you should have read "the fine print."
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-21, 5:48 pm |
| Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
> I'm wondering... maybe if you simply called them and told them what
> yo've said here, they would consider waiving it? If they really did
> mislead you into thinking there was no activation fee, then that might
> be the way to amend for it.
He didn't read the terms of the service agreement. He said so himself.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Ben Skversky 2005-08-21, 5:48 pm |
| I'm expecting my first bill in a few days. When I signed up I was told about
the activation fee ($35) per line. I have four lines & I got them to waive
the $140 fee because I was paying Verizon $175 ETF. After one month I am
very happy with T-Mobile. I got four free Samsung camera phones & we are
very pleased with them too.
"R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2rydneCf1udRopX
eRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe in the fine print somewhere but who reads it? It's jus odd to have
> an activation fee when they make it look like I am doing them a favor by
> signing up.
>
> Rudy
| |
| Ben Skversky 2005-08-21, 5:48 pm |
| Great reply. F.W.
"F. W." <worthless51@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gG%Ne.714$Ck2.229@trndny04...
> Recently signed up with T-Mobile.
> The contract was only two pages and there was no fine print.
> And I read it before signing.
> Take responsibility for your own actions or lack of.
> Found this on internet today.
> It applies.
>
> "Let's see if I understand the state of personal
> responsibility in the America of the 1990s.
>
> If a woman burns her thighs on the hot coffee she was
> holding in her lap while driving, she blames the restaurant.
>
> If your teen-age son kills himself, you blame the rock
> 'n' roll musician he liked.
>
> If you smoke three packs a day for 40 years and die of
> lung cancer your family blames the tobacco company.
>
> If your daughter gets pregnant by the football captain
> you blame the school for poor sex education.
>
> If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving
> home drunk, you blame the bartender.
>
> If your cousin gets AIDS because the needle he used to
> shoot heroin was dirty, you blame the government for
> not providing clean ones.
>
> If your grandchildren are brats without manners, you
> blame television.
>
> And, if your friend is shot by a deranged madman, you
> blame the gun manufacturer.
>
> God bless America, land of the free, home of the
> blame.
>
>
> "R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2rydneCf1udRopX
eRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>
>
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-21, 5:48 pm |
| Ben Skversky wrote:
> I'm expecting my first bill in a few days. When I signed up I was told about
> the activation fee ($35) per line. I have four lines & I got them to waive
> the $140 fee because I was paying Verizon $175 ETF. After one month I am
> very happy with T-Mobile. I got four free Samsung camera phones & we are
> very pleased with them too.
Four separate lines? We were only charged $35 once on our share plan, for
the entire account, or so I've been told (we haven't gotten our first bill yet).
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Ben Skversky 2005-08-21, 5:48 pm |
| They told me $35 each line, Steve. I bought off of the internet directly
through T-mobile. And they did waive the fee.
"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:deamd1$n52$1@ra
tbert.glorb.com...
> Ben Skversky wrote:
>
> Four separate lines? We were only charged $35 once on our share plan, for
> the entire account, or so I've been told (we haven't gotten our first bill
> yet).
>
> --
> Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
> Company website: http://JustThe.net/
> Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
> E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| F. W. 2005-08-21, 11:48 pm |
| The activation fee is $35 per line.
Two lines equals $70.
It will be on your bill and is explained in the contract.
Just to remind you of what you said in a previous post:
"People who don't read the legally binding agreements they enter
into have
little right to complain about surprises caused by not reading those
agreements.
So yes, you should have read "the fine print."
Storm
"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:deamd1$n52$1@ra
tbert.glorb.com...
> Ben Skversky wrote:
>
> Four separate lines? We were only charged $35 once on our share plan, for
> the entire account, or so I've been told (we haven't gotten our first bill
> yet).
>
> --
> Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
> Company website: http://JustThe.net/
> Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
> E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Andy Ball 2005-08-21, 11:48 pm |
|
SS> Most carriers do charge activation fees.
Because they can. :-/
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-21, 11:48 pm |
| F. W. wrote:
> The activation fee is $35 per line.
> Two lines equals $70.
> It will be on your bill and is explained in the contract.
Actually, I may have misunderstood - my wife says it's per line too. So does
the T-Mo website. I thought I read it was per account. My fault...
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| R. P. 2005-08-21, 11:48 pm |
| "F. W." <worthless51@verizon.net> wrote:
> Recently signed up with T-Mobile.
> The contract was only two pages and there was no fine print.
> And I read it before signing.
> Take responsibility for your own actions or lack of.
> Found this on internet today.
> It applies.
>
> God bless America, land of the free, home of the
> blame.
Oh the last thing we needed here is this jingoistic BS. T-Mobile is a
German owned company and I doubt it cares much about that kind of flag
waving except when it enhances its bottom line.
R. P.
| |
| R. P. 2005-08-22, 11:48 pm |
| "Andy Ball" <null@not.valid> wrote:
> SS> Most carriers do charge activation fees.
>
> Because they can. :-/
I know you meant it in tongue-in-cheek but I find the whole concept
pretty odd that a business charges me an extra fee for deciding to do
business with them. If anything, it should be the other way around but
that's where your point becomes more than just a sarcastic joke: yes, we
let them get away with it, so they do it.
Rudy
| |
| R. P. 2005-08-22, 11:48 pm |
| "Charlie Hoffpauir" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> I'm wondering... maybe if you simply called them and told them what
> yo've said here, they would consider waiving it? If they really did
> mislead you into thinking there was no activation fee, then that might
> be the way to amend for it.
> Charlie Hoffpauir
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
That might not help because I bought the phone and plan through
Fry's Electronics and it might be the fault of the Fry's salesman not
mentioning the activation fee when I was asking about all the costs. I
wasn't claiming that the activation fee was not in the service contract.
It's there but that paper was given to me with a bunch of other forms at
the end when I already agreed on the deal and did not feel to spend
another half an hour reading all that stuff. In other words it was a
situation similar to the one we encounter when installing some new
software and then we have to click the Accept button on a license
screen. How many of us spend the time to read all that mumbo-jumbo?
However, I must admit that the T-Mobile contract is actually much
simpler than most of those software licenses, it's just that they don't
show it to you at the beginning of negotiation. But be as it may, it's
not something over which I would make a big fuss or cancel my contract.
It was just a surprise, given the big competition of cell phone
companies for new customers. In situations like that, most businesses
do what Comcast does: take an initial loss (reduced Internet cable
access subscription rate) to woo new customers and wave activation fees.
That's all.
R. P.
| |
| John Richards 2005-08-22, 11:48 pm |
| R. P. wrote:
> "Andy Ball" <null@not.valid> wrote:
>
> I know you meant it in tongue-in-cheek but I find the whole concept
> pretty odd that a business charges me an extra fee for deciding to do
> business with them. If anything, it should be the other way around but
> that's where your point becomes more than just a sarcastic joke: yes, we
> let them get away with it, so they do it.
>
> Rudy
OTOH, the initial account setup process is rather labor intensive
(thus expensive) for the provider. Why should't they be allowed to
recover their costs up front? The landline telephone companies do the
same thing, so the precedent has been set.
--
John Richards
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-22, 11:48 pm |
| R. P. wrote:
> "F. W." <worthless51@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh the last thing we needed here is this jingoistic BS. T-Mobile is a
> German owned company and I doubt it cares much about that kind of flag
> waving except when it enhances its bottom line.
WTF does that have to do with what FW said? FW was making the point that it
was an American doing the blaming.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-22, 11:48 pm |
| R. P. wrote:
> I know you meant it in tongue-in-cheek but I find the whole concept
> pretty odd that a business charges me an extra fee for deciding to do
> business with them. If anything, it should be the other way around but
> that's where your point becomes more than just a sarcastic joke: yes, we
> let them get away with it, so they do it.
All of which does NOT absolve you of the responsibility to pay attention to
the agreements you're entering into. I personally have little sympathy for you.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-22, 11:48 pm |
| R. P. wrote:
> That might not help because I bought the phone and plan through Fry's
> Electronics and it might be the fault of the Fry's salesman not
> mentioning the activation fee when I was asking about all the costs.
Then perhaps you should talk to Fry's. Have you?
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
|
| "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> All of which does NOT absolve you of the responsibility to pay
> attention to the agreements you're entering into. I personally have
> little sympathy for you.
Who asked for it?
R. P.
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-23, 2:48 am |
| R. P. wrote:
>
> Who asked for it?
You seemed to be. :)
Although, to be fair, after posting this reply, I do have a smidgen of
sympathy for you as apparently you weren't given the whole story by the
sales rep. That's not OK. But you're still supposed to pay attention to what
you're signing.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Sven Golly 2005-08-23, 2:48 am |
| "F. W." <worthless51@verizon.net> wrote in
news:gG%Ne.714$Ck2.229@trndny04:
> "Let's see if I understand the state of personal
> responsibility in the America of the 1990s.
Funny stuff there FW. :-)
--
Sven Golly
Yah sure by gosh by yumpin' yiminy
Trolling as usual
Remove the "_" to reply
| |
| Sven Golly 2005-08-23, 2:48 am |
| "R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com> wrote in news:8c2dnT02vJoqqZT
eRVn-
tA@comcast.com:
> Oh the last thing we needed here is this jingoistic BS
Jingoistic?? Try reverse-jingoistic Mr. "I Don't Read Contracts or Posts
Very Carefully".
--
Sven Golly
Yah sure by gosh by yumpin' yiminy
Trolling as usual
Remove the "_" to reply
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-23, 5:48 am |
| Sven Golly wrote:
> No. Just must cell phone companies. Of course, many brilliant
> negotiators and deal shoppers are able to avoid such fees. You can also
> sign a 2-year contract (suckah) and avoid paying an activation.
....of course, not with T-Mobile, because T-Mobile doesn't do two-year
contracts.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Cyrus Afzali 2005-08-23, 5:48 pm |
| On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:40:23 GMT, "John Richards"
<jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>R. P. wrote:
>
>OTOH, the initial account setup process is rather labor intensive
>(thus expensive) for the provider. Why should't they be allowed to
>recover their costs up front? The landline telephone companies do the
>same thing, so the precedent has been set.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but in theory most every business could
make that claim. You don't see retailers trying to get back the costs
of heating/cooling/lighting a building when you just go in and browse
-- and they don't even have any guarantee that you'll ever give them
any money. That's in contrast to a mobile provider that at least knows
you'll pay them XX dollars for the next 12 months or face an early
termination fee.
Personally, I do think activation charges are a little ridiculous.
Charge me whatever you think it costs to cover the services I consume
and make you a decent profit. I've got no problem with that. In most
other areas of biz, things like activation charges and deposits were
only for people with poor credit. RBOCs, utilities and the like have
never charged them in recent history for the vast majority of their
customers.
| |
| John Richards 2005-08-23, 5:48 pm |
| Cyrus Afzali wrote:
> only for people with poor credit. RBOCs, utilities and the like have
> never charged them in recent history for the vast majority of their
> customers.
I don't know about your RBOC, but Pacific Bell (now SBC) has
always charged me an "installation fee" whenever I set up new
phone service, even if there's no install work to be done.
Incidentally, I have excellent credit.
--
John Richards
| |
| Cyrus Afzali 2005-08-23, 5:48 pm |
| On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:33:29 GMT, "John Richards"
<jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>
>I don't know about your RBOC, but Pacific Bell (now SBC) has
>always charged me an "installation fee" whenever I set up new
>phone service, even if there's no install work to be done.
>Incidentally, I have excellent credit.
I'm sure it varies. MCI didn't charge me any connection fee for their
residential service, nor did Time Warner or Cablevision for VOIP. I've
never heard of utilities doing it for people with good credit.
This is just an instance of where a charge started long ago, became
thought of as a no-win situation as wireless customers grew and people
still tolerate because they think there's no choice. In some cases,
competitors ban together on certain policies to keep everybody's bread
buttered. When the marketplace forces them to change, they will just
like RBOCs didn't start freaking until VoIP became mainstream and
their cash cow's milk started souring.
| |
| BruceR 2005-08-23, 5:48 pm |
| One of the prime purposes of activation fees is to raise the barrier to
switching carriers thereby reducing churn, the bane of all carriers.
From:Cyrus Afzali
pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:33:29 GMT, "John Richards"
> <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> I'm sure it varies. MCI didn't charge me any connection fee for their
> residential service, nor did Time Warner or Cablevision for VOIP. I've
> never heard of utilities doing it for people with good credit.
>
> This is just an instance of where a charge started long ago, became
> thought of as a no-win situation as wireless customers grew and people
> still tolerate because they think there's no choice. In some cases,
> competitors ban together on certain policies to keep everybody's bread
> buttered. When the marketplace forces them to change, they will just
> like RBOCs didn't start freaking until VoIP became mainstream and
> their cash cow's milk started souring.
| |
| Frater Mus 2005-08-23, 11:48 pm |
| On 2005-08-22, <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I know you meant it in tongue-in-cheek but I find the whole concept
> pretty odd that a business charges me an extra fee for deciding to do
> business with them. If anything, it should be the other way around but
> that's where your point becomes more than just a sarcastic joke: yes, we
> let them get away with it, so they do it.
There are real costs associated with setup that are not there in
subsequent months (assuming the customer isn't a support sponge).
--
http://cbsrmt.mousetrap.net/RMTdb/ CBS Radio Mystery Theater database
http://greyhound.mousetrap.net/altus/ Altus, retired racer
John McCain 2008 + http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-23, 11:48 pm |
| Cyrus Afzali wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:33:29 GMT, "John Richards"
> <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I'm sure it varies. MCI didn't charge me any connection fee for their
> residential service, nor did Time Warner or Cablevision for VOIP.
MCI is a CLEC in most areas, competing with the incumbent phone carrier. It
doesn't surprise me that they don't charge install fees.
SBC in Cleveland, as well as Verizon here in Apple Valley, charged us
installation fees on our residential landlines...
> I've
> never heard of utilities doing it for people with good credit.
You're lucky, then. BTW, it's NOT a deposit. It's a charge for setting up
service. A deposit may be requested in addition to the installation fee if
the customer has lousy credit.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Joseph 2005-08-23, 11:48 pm |
| On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:13:43 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
wrote:
>I'm sure it varies. MCI didn't charge me any connection fee for their
>residential service, nor did Time Warner or Cablevision for VOIP. I've
>never heard of utilities doing it for people with good credit.
When you started service you're trying to tell us that Verizon or
Qwest or Bell South or whichever telco you used didn't charge you an
installation fee? Even if they never did a truck roll most companies
when you initiate service whether it's phone or cable will charge you
an installation fee even if all they had to do was go to some keyboard
and tickle the keys for five minutes.
- -
| |
|
| "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:
> One of the prime purposes of activation fees is to raise the barrier
> to switching carriers thereby reducing churn, the bane of all
> carriers.
This sounds very plausible to me. Indeed, once somebody paid that
one-time fee, is less likely to switch on a whim and pay it again to
somebody else.
Rudy
| |
|
| "Cyrus Afzali" <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
> Personally, I do think activation charges are a little ridiculous.
Finally, somebody got my point! I, too, think that activation should be
considered a cost of doing business, but then I also see Bruce's point
about its reason: raising a barrier against switching too easily.
Rudy
| |
|
| "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> Although, to be fair, after posting this reply, I do have a smidgen of
> sympathy for you as apparently you weren't given the whole story by
> the sales rep. That's not OK.
Why thank you, Steve!
> But you're still supposed to pay attention to what you're signing.
Yeap, though I would have signed up anyway if I knew that it was the
standard practice.
Rudy
| |
| Cyrus Afzali 2005-08-25, 5:48 pm |
| On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:08:33 -0700, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:13:43 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
>wrote:
>
>
>When you started service you're trying to tell us that Verizon or
>Qwest or Bell South or whichever telco you used didn't charge you an
>installation fee? Even if they never did a truck roll most companies
>when you initiate service whether it's phone or cable will charge you
>an installation fee even if all they had to do was go to some keyboard
>and tickle the keys for five minutes.
Well, I had an unusual situation in that I was moving into a building
that had been gutted internally and completely renovated with new
walls, etc. So there was no existing wiring -- to get that done, I
paid for it myself.
MCI didn't charge us a connection fee when I converted to them in the
last place we lived and we certainly didn't pay our VOIP provider an
installation fee when we moved to a new home a few months ago.
The cable company did charge an installation fee, however small. I
think it was only $5. All this is overlooking a HUGE fact. A cell
phone company doesn't have to do a truck roll and doesn't send out
someone dedicated to activating my service. A few clicks of a mouse or
keyboard is no big deal and really shouldn't be passed along to the
customer.
Between local and state-imposed taxes and other fees, cell phone
customers are just plain taking too much. Somebody needs to stand up
and say "enough's enough." Companies, tax authorities and everyone
else will do as much as the market lets them get away with.
| |
| Cyrus Afzali 2005-08-25, 5:48 pm |
| On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:34:58 -0700, "R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"Cyrus Afzali" <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>
>Finally, somebody got my point! I, too, think that activation should be
>considered a cost of doing business, but then I also see Bruce's point
>about its reason: raising a barrier against switching too easily.
>
I agree with Bruce's reasoning as well. However, the customer should
fight back against this kind of junk; otherwise, it will just never
end. In a competitive marketplace, a business that wants to grow WILL
respond if enough people do it.
| |
| Joseph 2005-08-25, 5:48 pm |
| On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:24:00 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
wrote:
>The cable company did charge an installation fee, however small. I
>think it was only $5. All this is overlooking a HUGE fact. A cell
>phone company doesn't have to do a truck roll and doesn't send out
>someone dedicated to activating my service. A few clicks of a mouse or
>keyboard is no big deal and really shouldn't be passed along to the
>customer.
Installation of most services has an installation charge whether
there's a lot of work with a "truck roll" or not. It's still charged.
>Between local and state-imposed taxes and other fees, cell phone
>customers are just plain taking too much.
Ever computed the taxes and fees you pay for your wireline phone
service? You'll see that it's as bad or worse than for wireless
service. If you want to make a beef complain to your government
officials who think telecom is a gravy train that they can tap as they
like.
>Somebody needs to stand up
>and say "enough's enough." Companies, tax authorities and everyone
>else will do as much as the market lets them get away with.
OK, I nominate Cyrus. You go first! :)
- -
| |
| Cyrus Afzali 2005-08-25, 5:48 pm |
| On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:12:44 -0700, Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:24:00 -0400, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz>
>wrote:
>
>
>Installation of most services has an installation charge whether
>there's a lot of work with a "truck roll" or not. It's still charged.
Again, this varies widely and can't be said ultimately as a fact. My
wife and I just moved into a new house and paid installation fees for
nothing except for $5 for cable/Internet/phone.
>
>
>Ever computed the taxes and fees you pay for your wireline phone
>service? You'll see that it's as bad or worse than for wireless
>service. If you want to make a beef complain to your government
>officials who think telecom is a gravy train that they can tap as they
>like.
Yes, I have, and it was a lot less. It depends on where you live, but
in NYC and NYS, there's tons of extra taxes lopped on to wireless
bills that don't apply to wireline customers. I also am not nickel and
dimed with VoIP like I was with either Verizon or TM in terms of
taxes.
I agree that it's politicians' fault, but it's also our fault for
sending these same clowns back over and over. At some point, the blame
has to come back to the grassroots level.
>
>
>OK, I nominate Cyrus. You go first! :)
I already have. I told Verizon to go shove it years ago and can
honestly say I have written my politicians about items that interest
me, although not directly about taxes.
| |
| BruceR 2005-08-25, 5:48 pm |
| It's really a matter of "Buyer Beware!" It's important to ask the right
questions and not assume that the commissioned minimum wage flunky at
the kiosk will disclose everything or even know everything. When I
bought my first GSM phone (a v600 from Hong Kong) I went to ATT who was
my TDMA carrier for 5 years. Just to change my _existing_ account from
TDMA to GSM they wanted a $35 activation fee! They wouldn't budge so I
went across the street to TMo. They charged me $25 but it was OK since
they also threw in a free v300 that I sold on ebay for $226.
From:Cyrus Afzali
pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:34:58 -0700, "R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I agree with Bruce's reasoning as well. However, the customer should
> fight back against this kind of junk; otherwise, it will just never
> end. In a competitive marketplace, a business that wants to grow WILL
> respond if enough people do it.
| |
|
| "Cyrus Afzali" <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>
> Yes, I have, and it was a lot less. It depends on where you live, but
> in NYC and NYS, there's tons of extra taxes lopped on to wireless
> bills that don't apply to wireline customers. I also am not nickel and
> dimed with VoIP like I was with either Verizon or TM in terms of
> taxes.
On my bill I see not one, but TWO charges for 911 service: one for the
state, the other for the county. Both are small, but still, I don't
understand why when to my understanding the 911 service was developed
for wired phone system and it's not really available for cell phones.
Then there is a local sales tax and also a city utility user tax,
supposedly both benefiting the city. The regulatory program fee is also
interesting: it's supposed to recover the cost of complying with federal
regulation. Most of these look to me like the cost of doing business,
which other business include in their price without this kind of
detailing. Why don't they also detail how much of my monthly service
charge covers their other costs and how much is pure profit? I mean
they might as well be consistent, no?
Rudy
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-26, 2:48 am |
| R. P. wrote:
> On my bill I see not one, but TWO charges for 911 service: one for the
> state, the other for the county. Both are small, but still, I don't
> understand why when to my understanding the 911 service was developed
> for wired phone system and it's not really available for cell phones.
Not true at all.
Since Enhanced 911 has been around for years, we have come to equate "911"
with "dial the number and the emergency operator instantly has your location..."
E911 is not readily available for cell phones, in most cases, but *regular*
911 service *definitely* is. You can call 911 from a cell phone and get
connected to a 911 call center or PSAP (Public Safety *mumble* Point, I
forget what the A stands for.) It just may not always be the one closest to
you.
But if you dial 911 from a cell phone, you are definitely still talking to
an emergency operator that the state or county is paying to take your call,
same as on a landline.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| BruceR 2005-08-26, 5:48 am |
| A lot of those fees you see are government mandated. The regulatory fee
is usually for a mandatory contribution to the state PUC and/or a fee
that is allowed to cover the costs of collecting and disbursing all the
other government fees and taxes. The purpose of itemizing them is
twofold: 1st, it allows them to show a lower price for a given plan;
2nd, the fees, surcharges and taxes vary by city and county so it would
be impossible to advertise a fixed price locally let alone nationally;
and 3d, if they included all those things in the price then they would
be taxed too meaning an even higher bottom line bill to you.
There is also one more important reason for itemizing the charges: to
show you that the plan is really a good price while the goverments are
the ones gouging you. Hopefully you'll get pissed off enough to kick the
jokers that perpetrate this crap out of office.
Lest you think the cost of collecting all the fees and taxes is
nominal, let me assure you that they are not. I own a small long
distance company that does business in about 40 states. We have to file
HUNDREDS of reports monthly, quarterly and annually to the feds, the
states, the counties, cities, town and even villages in some cases. The
cost of compliance is one of our largest expenses and requires several
full time 60K people to stay current.
To give an example of how ludicrous and out of hand some of these
government fees have become, we just filed a detailed and notarized 60
page report to one state that showed we owed them... 26 cents. It cost
several thousand dollars in employee time to prepare the report to
accompany the check for 26 cents. God forbid we don't send in the 26
cents! If we fail to file timely our license will be suspended and we'll
pay huge fines to be reinstated!
In Kentucky, we pay property tax even though we have no property in
Kentucky. Since there is no property it is assumed that the non-existant
property exists everywhere in the state so the property tax must be
divided up by population base of every village, town and city in
Kentucky. We have to send them each a report itemizing the property we
don't have and computing the minimum tax on and it's allocation along
with a check usually for less than $10.
So, we charge a higher compliance recovery fee in a state like Kentucky
than we do in a state that has a more reasonable and less time consuming
system. It's not fair to charge a guy in Idaho for Kentucky's problem.
Believe me, the carriers would love nothing more than to see all that
stuff disappear. It is NOT a moneymaker for them.
From:R. P.
r_pol12gar@hotmail.com
> "Cyrus Afzali" <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>
> On my bill I see not one, but TWO charges for 911 service: one for the
> state, the other for the county. Both are small, but still, I don't
> understand why when to my understanding the 911 service was developed
> for wired phone system and it's not really available for cell phones.
> Then there is a local sales tax and also a city utility user tax,
> supposedly both benefiting the city. The regulatory program fee is
> also interesting: it's supposed to recover the cost of complying with
> federal regulation. Most of these look to me like the cost of doing
> business, which other business include in their price without this
> kind of detailing. Why don't they also detail how much of my monthly
> service charge covers their other costs and how much is pure profit? I
> mean they might as well be consistent, no?
>
> Rudy
| |
| Joseph 2005-08-26, 5:48 pm |
| On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:21:38 -0700, "R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On my bill I see not one, but TWO charges for 911 service: one for the
>state, the other for the county. Both are small, but still, I don't
>understand why when to my understanding the 911 service was developed
>for wired phone system and it's not really available for cell phones.
It's not available for cell phones? Why is it then that you can dial
911 from your cell phone and report an emergency? You are using the
service and you contribute towards it the same as a wireline
subscriber does. Just because in some communities your service from
your carrier or the PSP in your area doesn't have E911 capability does
not mean you are exempt from paying into the system for its upkeep.
>Then there is a local sales tax and also a city utility user tax,
>supposedly both benefiting the city.
And you have a problem paying into this because you are not in the
city, county or state?
>The regulatory program fee is also
>interesting: it's supposed to recover the cost of complying with federal
>regulation. Most of these look to me like the cost of doing business,
>which other business include in their price without this kind of
>detailing. Why don't they also detail how much of my monthly service
>charge covers their other costs and how much is pure profit? I mean
>they might as well be consistent, no?
I don't know about that. I suppose the company thinks it's more
attractive to say that the monthly rate for service is $39.99 rather
than say that the cost of monthly service is $15.42 plus $.0045 for
gas for the company vehicle and $.00034 to pay the light bill.
- -
| |
|
| "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's not available for cell phones? Why is it then that you can dial
> 911 from your cell phone and report an emergency? You are using the
> service and you contribute towards it the same as a wireline
> subscriber does.
Sure, you can also call the 7-digit number to the local emergency
service or police. The difference is that if you call 911 from a wired
line, the address of your location pops up on the emergency dispatch
operator's screen, which is not the case with mobile phones; they are
not fixed to any given location. Triangulating a caller by the cell
towers is not nearly accurate enough for emergency purposes. You would
need a GPS equipped phone for that.
>
> And you have a problem paying into this because you are not in the
> city, county or state?
Typical Seattleite: never sees a tax he doesn't like.
Rudy
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-27, 2:48 am |
| R. P. wrote:
> "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sure, you can also call the 7-digit number to the local emergency
> service or police. The difference is that if you call 911 from a wired
> line, the address of your location pops up on the emergency dispatch
> operator's screen, which is not the case with mobile phones; they are
> not fixed to any given location. Triangulating a caller by the cell
> towers is not nearly accurate enough for emergency purposes. You would
> need a GPS equipped phone for that.
Rudy, I'm originally from Cleveland, Ohio. Cuyahoga County didn't get their
"9-1-1" system* until 1986 or 1987. I know this for a fact; I was in high
school, it was a big deal, and I did a writeup for the school newspaper when
it launched. Guess what: we didn't have E911 then. If we dialed 911, we
still had to tell the emergency operator where we were.
This doesn't mean we didn't have 911, just that we didn't have enhanced 911.
"911" does not necessarily equate to "Enhanced 911".
You are *still connecting to a 911 emergency operator if you dial 911 from a
cell phone.*
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| BruceR 2005-08-27, 5:48 pm |
| The fact remains that taxes and fees are the doings of governments - not
cell carriers who are tasked with collecting them. Don't blame the
messenger. If you don't like the fees and taxes, vote out the bums who
put them there. The idea that you would actually get what you pay for
from a tax or that the name of a tax actually has anything to do with
what that money will be used for is naïve.
From:R. P.
r_pol12gar@hotmail.com
> "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Sure, you can also call the 7-digit number to the local emergency
> service or police. The difference is that if you call 911 from a wired
> line, the address of your location pops up on the emergency dispatch
> operator's screen, which is not the case with mobile phones; they are
> not fixed to any given location. Triangulating a caller by the cell
> towers is not nearly accurate enough for emergency purposes. You would
> need a GPS equipped phone for that.
>
>
> Typical Seattleite: never sees a tax he doesn't like.
>
> Rudy
| |
| Joseph 2005-08-27, 5:48 pm |
| On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:51:42 -0700, "R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Typical Seattleite: never sees a tax he doesn't like.
Were you born an XXXXXXX or did you work hard to become one? You
don't know jack shit about me so shut the XXXX up.
- -
| |
|
| "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Were you born an XXXXXXX or did you work hard to become one? You
> don't know jack shit about me so shut the XXXX up.
That classless reply is also so typically Seattleite! Thanks for
letting everybody know.
R. P.
| |
|
| "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> Rudy, I'm originally from Cleveland, Ohio. Cuyahoga County didn't get
> their "9-1-1" system* until 1986 or 1987. I know this for a fact; I
> was in high school, it was a big deal, and I did a writeup for the
> school newspaper when it launched. Guess what: we didn't have E911
> then. If we dialed 911, we still had to tell the emergency operator
> where we were.
>
> This doesn't mean we didn't have 911, just that we didn't have
> enhanced 911.
>
> "911" does not necessarily equate to "Enhanced 911".
>
> You are *still connecting to a 911 emergency operator if you dial 911
> from a cell phone.*
I don't disagree with you. I just assumed that when we talk about 911 in
this day of age we were talking about the enhanced version. To me that's
the REAL value of 911 but YMMV.
Rudy
| |
|
| "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:
> The fact remains that taxes and fees are the doings of governments -
> not cell carriers who are tasked with collecting them. Don't blame the
> messenger. If you don't like the fees and taxes, vote out the bums who
> put them there. The idea that you would actually get what you pay for
> from a tax or that the name of a tax actually has anything to do with
> what that money will be used for is naïve.
I agree, but then ALL busiesses collect taxes for the government,
yet few itemize them the way phone companies do. I lean toward the
thinking that the reason is the same as why so many prices are set to
$19.99 or $39.95, etc. instead of $20 or $40, respectively: to make them
appear much lower than they really are. So it's about consumer
psychology. On the other hand it's probably a good thing to show how
much taxes are built into the prices we pay. Some of us just might get
pissed enough by that and throw out the bums, as you suggested. Well,
at least those of us who don't live in blue cities or counties. ;-)
Rudy
| |
| BruceR 2005-08-27, 11:48 pm |
| All companies do itemize those taxes that are based on the cost of the
item and that are levies on the purchaser (as opposed to things like
income, payroll and property taxes which are levied on the business).
It's generally required by law to do so with gasoline being a notable
exception. In most purchase transactions there is only a sales tax to be
itemized. Telecom companies are required to collect federal, state and
even local city taxes that are levied on the consumer and must, by law,
be itemized. In some case, like the Universal Service Fees, the FCC was
trying to get the telecom companies to bury it in the price but the
Telecom companies said "Hell NO!" - they want the consumer to see just
how much the government takes "off the top." Again, it's a variable
amount so can't really be incorporated into a contract price.
One business that's famous for going overboard though are the car
rental companies. Those guys really do add in a bunch "cost of doing
business" items like "cocession recoupment fees" (aka "rent"), "battery
disposal fees," and even auto registration fees! At least the telecom
companies haven't started that yet!
From:R. P.
r_pol12gar@hotmail.com
> "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:
>
> I agree, but then ALL busiesses collect taxes for the government,
> yet few itemize them the way phone companies do. I lean toward the
> thinking that the reason is the same as why so many prices are set to
> $19.99 or $39.95, etc. instead of $20 or $40, respectively: to make
> them appear much lower than they really are. So it's about consumer
> psychology. On the other hand it's probably a good thing to show how
> much taxes are built into the prices we pay. Some of us just might get
> pissed enough by that and throw out the bums, as you suggested. Well,
> at least those of us who don't live in blue cities or counties. ;-)
>
> Rudy
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-27, 11:48 pm |
| Forgot the footnote:
Steve Sobol wrote:
> Rudy, I'm originally from Cleveland, Ohio. Cuyahoga County didn't get
> their "9-1-1" system* until 1986 or 1987.
* I've always called it 911, but the county, when they put up their
billboards advertising the new service, liked to call it 9-1-1. ;)
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-27, 11:48 pm |
| R. P. wrote:
> "Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> That classless reply is also so typically Seattleite! Thanks for
> letting everybody know.
All you've been doing since I started reading your stuff in this group is
ranting, ranting and more ranting. You've made some errors, they've been
pointed out to you, and now you're turning around and launching an ad
hominem against someone else. Quite frankly, I think your little personal
attack against Joseph was more obnoxious than his reply.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-27, 11:48 pm |
| R. P. wrote:
> I don't disagree with you. I just assumed that when we talk about 911 in
> this day of age we were talking about the enhanced version. To me that's
> the REAL value of 911 but YMMV.
Well, of course it is. And I'd be much happier if we had real E911 on our
phones, but it's not likely to happen real soon. At least the cellular
carriers have *some* technology to help locate callers to 911. It's less
than perfect, but it's better than nothing.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Joseph 2005-08-27, 11:48 pm |
| *plonk!* Bye-bye XXXXXXX.
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:05:54 -0700, "R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>That classless reply is also so typically Seattleite! Thanks for
>letting everybody know.
>
>R. P.
- -
| |
| Joseph 2005-08-27, 11:48 pm |
| On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:19:48 -0700, "R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> I agree, but then ALL busiesses collect taxes for the government,
>yet few itemize them the way phone companies do. I lean toward the
>thinking that the reason is the same as why so many prices are set to
>$19.99 or $39.95, etc. instead of $20 or $40, respectively: to make them
>appear much lower than they really are. So it's about consumer
>psychology. On the other hand it's probably a good thing to show how
>much taxes are built into the prices we pay. Some of us just might get
>pissed enough by that and throw out the bums, as you suggested. Well,
>at least those of us who don't live in blue cities or counties. ;-)
It's really no different than Europeans coming to North America and
complaining that they have to pay sales tax (or GST and PST in Canada)
when they get to the register rather than have it "out of sight out of
mind" as a VAT which is always included but which is never collected
separately at the register.
- -
| |
| Joseph 2005-08-27, 11:48 pm |
| On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:07:05 GMT, "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com>
wrote:
>Telecom companies are required to collect federal, state and
>even local city taxes that are levied on the consumer and must, by law,
>be itemized. In some case, like the Universal Service Fees, the FCC was
>trying to get the telecom companies to bury it in the price but the
>Telecom companies said "Hell NO!"
But the real interesting thing is that for fees such as USF the
company can collect fees any way they please and the fees vary between
companies! The guv has not mandated that they collect X amount of
dollars and charge for it in such and such a way.
- -
| |
| Joseph 2005-08-27, 11:48 pm |
| On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:31:09 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:
>Forgot the footnote:
>
>Steve Sobol wrote:
>
>
>* I've always called it 911, but the county, when they put up their
>billboards advertising the new service, liked to call it 9-1-1. ;)
That's so some simpleton won't try to find the 11 on his dial or the
11 on their keypad!
- -
| |
| BruceR 2005-08-27, 11:48 pm |
| Well that's partially true. The USF (aka the Gore Tax) is a fee that
carriers must pay to an independent collection and administration
company for Universal Service. In the case of the USF, which is somewhat
unique, the feds were hoping that the carriers would bury it in their
rates and not treat it as an add-on. Most carriers opted to show it as
an add-on to provide visibility to the consumer as to what the
government was doing. The USF also allows the carriers to charge more
than what they have to pay for USF to cover the costs of collection,
hence the variable rate between carriers. The calculation for USF is
extremely complicated and varies by type of call, origin and
destination. There are also seperate USF fees payable to most states who
have enacted their own methods for feeding at the telecom trough further
adding to the disparity between carriers and individual bills.
Based on call classification two people with identical pre-USF bill
amounts from the same carrier will most likely pay different amounts for
USF. The government created the USF mess because they thought they
could the new tax from consumers but the carriers refused to play ball.
We still pay a 3% Federal Excise Tax on telecom even though it's
original and legislated purpose, to help pay for the Spanish-American
War of over 100 years ago, has been long fulfilled.
From:Joseph
JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:07:05 GMT, "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> But the real interesting thing is that for fees such as USF the
> company can collect fees any way they please and the fees vary between
> companies! The guv has not mandated that they collect X amount of
> dollars and charge for it in such and such a way.
>
> - -
| |
|
| "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> All you've been doing since I started reading your stuff in this group
> is ranting, ranting and more ranting.
Sorry, I had no idea that this was the cheerleading section. I'll watch
it better in the future.
> You've made some errors, they've been pointed out to you, and now
> you're turning around and launching an ad hominem against someone
> else. Quite frankly, I think your little personal attack against
> Joseph was more obnoxious than his reply.
Just what was that ad hominem from me? My tongue-in-cheek comment about
Seattleites liking taxes? I don't recall anything I wrote that I would
not say into his face. On the other hand I can think of a few things
Joseph would not dare to say into my face. Considering your
self-described geek status it makes sense that you sympathize with
Joseph. Seattle is also full with geeks who spend most of their time at
the computer terminal and missing out a lot of face-to-face
socialization that would keep them from hurling insults to others or
risk a punch in their nose.
R. P.
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-08-28, 2:48 am |
| R. P. wrote:
>
> Sorry, I had no idea that this was the cheerleading section. I'll watch
> it better in the future.
It's not that you're ranting, just that you don't always seem interested in
an actual conversation. This is wireless we're talking about. All carriers
suck to a certain extent, and I'd be an idiot if I expected any given
carrier to have nothing but happy customers, especially a nationwide carrier
like T-Mobile USA with millions of customers. *Even* T-Mobile, which is
supposed to have good CS - they won recognition from JD Power this past
year, right? But the likelihood of all of their customers being happy all
the time is... well... zero.
But sometimes I post replies to you, or others post replies to you, and the
answers just never seem good enough for you. I guess that's my only
complaint about you.
> Just what was that ad hominem from me? My tongue-in-cheek comment about
> Seattleites liking taxes?
That was it. If you were just kidding, you didn't do a good job of showing
it. I read it the same way he apparently did.
>I don't recall anything I wrote that I would
> not say into his face.
That's fine. Actually, I respect you for that. People who say things on
Usenet that they would never say in real life are cowards.
>On the other hand I can think of a few things
> Joseph would not dare to say into my face. Considering your
> self-described geek status it makes sense that you sympathize with
> Joseph.
Well, Joseph and I have been posting back and forth for a while. I don't
*always* agree with him. I do find myself agreeing with him often, though.
But I have a hard time figuring out how you know that Joseph wouldn't say in
person what he says here. I assume you two have never met...
>Seattle is also full with geeks who spend most of their time at
> the computer terminal and missing out a lot of face-to-face
> socialization that would keep them from hurling insults to others or
> risk a punch in their nose.
So is Southern California. (I live 65 miles northeast of Los Angeles.)
So are most other major metropolitan areas.
Your point? :)
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Cyrus Afzali 2005-08-29, 5:48 pm |
| On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:21:17 GMT, "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com>
wrote:
>Well that's partially true. The USF (aka the Gore Tax) is a fee that
>carriers must pay to an independent collection and administration
>company for Universal Service.
Not sure why you're blaming Al Gore for the USF. It's been around for
ages. People like me who when living in NYC were paying 10.6 cents for
every local call, paid that money directly into the USF to give rural
America cell phone service.
One of the reasons I have to laugh when rural America slams urbanites.
Along with the slams, I wish they'd write me a check for all the money
I've been soaked for over the years.
You appear to be only referring to the diversion of USF money to fund
school Internet connections. That's one use of it, but it certainly
didn't originate with Al Gore. Please get these things straight.
| |
| BruceR 2005-08-29, 5:48 pm |
| I'm sorry if your politics are offended but I DO have things straight. I
don't make things up. I didn't name it the Gore Tax - the media did.
It's been around since 1998 - not "ages" (although similar taxes have
been). Do a quick search for "gore telecom tax" and you will find
hundreds of hits. Some of them are clearly partisan but this one is from
the Tech Law Journal and is not political:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/telecom/80604.htm
I'm not "blaming" Gore for anything. I said the USF is "aka The Gore
Tax" and, rightly or wrongly - like it or not, that statement is
correct - it IS also known as the Gore Tax.
Here is the pertinent excerpt from the above URL regarding the origin
of the term "Gore Tax:"
"Vice President Al Gore has been frequently touting the Schools and
Libraries program as the Clinton/Gore administration's plan to connect
every classroom in America to the Internet by the year 2000. In these
election campaign style events Gore does not mention the $2.2 Billion
per year "tax" which is ultimately being paid by phone users to fund the
government subsidies which constitute the program. It is these speeches
which have lead others to label the charges on phone users the "Gore
Tax." (Al Gore's office did not return Tech Law Journal's telephone
call requesting comment.)"
For further details see:
http://chronicle.augusta.com/storie..._089-5797.shtml
http://www.ethanallen.org/commentar...mmentary_id=194
From:Cyrus Afzali
pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:21:17 GMT, "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Not sure why you're blaming Al Gore for the USF. It's been around for
> ages. People like me who when living in NYC were paying 10.6 cents for
> every local call, paid that money directly into the USF to give rural
> America cell phone service.
>
> One of the reasons I have to laugh when rural America slams urbanites.
> Along with the slams, I wish they'd write me a check for all the money
> I've been soaked for over the years.
>
> You appear to be only referring to the diversion of USF money to fund
> school Internet connections. That's one use of it, but it certainly
> didn't originate with Al Gore. Please get these things straight.
| |
| Cyrus Afzali 2005-08-29, 11:48 pm |
| On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:46:48 GMT, "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com>
wrote:
>I'm sorry if your politics are offended but I DO have things straight. I
>don't make things up. I didn't name it the Gore Tax - the media did.
>It's been around since 1998 - not "ages" (although similar taxes have
>been). Do a quick search for "gore telecom tax" and you will find
>hundreds of hits. Some of them are clearly partisan but this one is from
>the Tech Law Journal and is not political:
>http://www.techlawjournal.com/telecom/80604.htm
>I'm not "blaming" Gore for anything. I said the USF is "aka The Gore
>Tax" and, rightly or wrongly - like it or not, that statement is
>correct - it IS also known as the Gore Tax.
> Here is the pertinent excerpt from the above URL regarding the origin
>of the term "Gore Tax:"
The media coin phrases for everything -- especially the TV media --
that doesn't mean they're correct. And before you paint me a media
basher, I worked in that field for 10 years, reaching as high as CNN
Financial News. Nevertheless, I think television journalism is an
oxymoron, even though my former employer practically invented it on a
global scale. There's only a handful of decent news media outlets
these days, and even those occasionally get corrupted by the incessant
drive for political correctness.
Media these days have gotten so conditioned, thanks to USA Today, of
dumbing things down for the average Joe Six Pack that it gets beyond
stupid. We have to coin a cute phrase for everything, explain
everything in under 2 minutes (yes, that's true) and end up telling
people nothing.
But both you and the media are making a mistake attributing a tax to a
recent government official when it was actually something that was put
into place ages ago.
>
> "Vice President Al Gore has been frequently touting the Schools and
>Libraries program as the Clinton/Gore administration's plan to connect
>every classroom in America to the Internet by the year 2000. In these
>election campaign style events Gore does not mention the $2.2 Billion
>per year "tax" which is ultimately being paid by phone users to fund the
>government subsidies which constitute the program. It is these speeches
>which have lead others to label the charges on phone users the "Gore
>Tax." (Al Gore's office did not return Tech Law Journal's telephone
>call requesting comment.)"
All the Clinton administration did was use the money which was lining
the general fund and put it to use wiring the nation's schools for
Internet access. I'm not necessarily anti-tax, but I do believe it's a
good idea to mandate a tax that's put in place for something be used
for that same purpose. The USF became like everything else, something
that politicos spread to line the pockets of their buddies.
>
>For further details see:
> http://chronicle.augusta.com/storie..._089-5797.shtml
> http://www.ethanallen.org/commentar...mmentary_id=194
>
>From:Cyrus Afzali
>pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz
>
>
| |
| BruceR 2005-08-29, 11:48 pm |
| My reference to the the tax was neither pro nor con and my
characterization of the USF being also known as "The Gore Tax" was
simply a reference to what it has been labeled. The statement was
accurate in that it is indeed widely known or referred to that way. The
"e-rate" fee, which is what the USF is now, has not been around for ages
(there are state Universal Service taxes that have been though). I know
this first hand because I get the bill for my long distance company. The
FCC levied this fee without legislative mandate in 1998. Indeed, the
"fee" is not even collected by the US Treasury but by a private
contractor hired by the FCC. The penalty for not paying is an FCC fine
and/or loss of certification - the IRS doesn't even care becuse it is
NOT a tax but an FCC "fee." Personally, I don't care either way about
the USF. We mark it up for compliance cost recovery, collect it from our
customers as a line item on the bill and pay it to the private company
that bills us.
From:Cyrus Afzali
pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz
[color=darkred]
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:46:48 GMT, "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> The media coin phrases for everything -- especially the TV media --
> that doesn't mean they're correct. And before you paint me a media
> basher, I worked in that field for 10 years, reaching as high as CNN
> Financial News. Nevertheless, I think television journalism is an
> oxymoron, even though my former employer practically invented it on a
> global scale. There's only a handful of decent news media outlets
> these days, and even those occasionally get corrupted by the incessant
> drive for political correctness.
>
> Media these days have gotten so conditioned, thanks to USA Today, of
> dumbing things down for the average Joe Six Pack that it gets beyond
> stupid. We have to coin a cute phrase for everything, explain
> everything in under 2 minutes (yes, that's true) and end up telling
> people nothing.
>
> But both you and the media are making a mistake attributing a tax to a
> recent government official when it was actually something that was put
> into place ages ago.
>
> All the Clinton administration did was use the money which was lining
> the general fund and put it to use wiring the nation's schools for
> Internet access. I'm not necessarily anti-tax, but I do believe it's a
> good idea to mandate a tax that's put in place for something be used
> for that same purpose. The USF became like everything else, something
> that politicos spread to line the pockets of their buddies.
| |
| John S. 2005-10-04, 11:48 pm |
|
"R. P." <r_pol12gar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jrudnarvfr2KLJr
eRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> The $35 setup fee virtually wipes out the mail-in rebate I should get from
> them soon.
SOON??? What makes you think that rebates come soon. 6 to 15 weeks is more
like it. About the time you forget that it should be coming is when it comes
in.
> One would expect such mail-in rebates as an
> incentive to sign up with them and the last thing one would expect then to
> be charged an activation fee for joining. I feel like having been conned.
> Does every company do this?
Pretty much.
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-10-04, 11:48 pm |
| John S. wrote:
[color=darkred]
We signed up for T-Mo service through Wirefly. We were made aware of the
terms of the rebate (which we haven't received yet, the Wirefly rebate in
question comes to us after six continuous months of service), and that there
was an activation fee.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
|
|
|
|
|