[VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing
Faisal Imtiaz
faisal at snappytelecom.net
Sat Dec 5 14:38:39 EST 2015
At the expense of sounding anal .... I have to point out a couple of minor corrections...
> In the end they admitted that their consideration of the minimum fee as
> telecom vs non-telecom was a choice based on lack of guidance from the
> FCC, and on the advice of their telecom lawyers, decided to "play it safe"
> and consider the minimum fee as telecom and pay the USF on that revenue,
> rather than not and then find out after an audit that the FCC really
> thought they should have paid.
>
While the overall statement is accurate, the detail reasoning is not quite accurate.
While the FCC many not have a very black and white clear stance on the issue of minimum fee
being telecom revenue or not... The Local States have set precedence in clearly stating that
ETL fees (including minimum billing, setup fees etc) are telecom revenue.
That is the reason why the Telecom Attorney advised as such.
> Plus, since it is a passthrough for them, there is no undue burden on them
> to do so.
>
No, you are gravely mistaken on this.... USF is a TAX on the service provider, and the service provider can choose to recover it from their customers as a fee. It is not a passthruough.. but it is a an opportunity to get more revenue,(while blaming the Feds for it !)
While many can argue this is in-direct taxation and against the constitution, but I don't believe it has ever been challenged in the Highest Court.
> While I disagree with their choice, the fact that they posit that it was a
> choice due to ambiguity, not a clear misunderstanding of the FCC rules,
> I'm taking a deep breath and letting it go.
>
So nice to see the common business trend of.... we are going to screw you because we can, and if you question it, we can very easily blame it on the Gov...... See we are not the bad guys !
When it comes to tax collection, fees recovery, it is the prevailing attitude among carriers, better to railroad the customers and make overbilling mistakes than to do the right thing.... because it is more profitable than doing the right thing..
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Beckman" <beckman at angryox.com>
> To: "NSP Strategist" <peter at 4isps.com>
> Cc: "voiceops at voiceops.org" <voiceops at voiceops.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 3:24:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Peter Rad. wrote:
>
>> USF is 16% -- you are all worked up over how much money?
>> Emails to the list, frustration, looking up the law references -- you
>> probably blew more time on this issue than what the actually fee was.
>
> Yeah, probably.
>
>> I understand it is the "principle" of the thing, but it was probably billed
>> by USOC or billing item -- and that billing item always gets billed USF - and
>> they use that USOC billing code for their 499, so they have no real process
>> to not bill you USF since they will be remitting USF based on that USOC.
>
> In the end they admitted that their consideration of the minimum fee as
> telecom vs non-telecom was a choice based on lack of guidance from the
> FCC, and on the advice of their telecom lawyers, decided to "play it safe"
> and consider the minimum fee as telecom and pay the USF on that revenue,
> rather than not and then find out after an audit that the FCC really
> thought they should have paid.
>
> Plus, since it is a passthrough for them, there is no undue burden on them
> to do so.
>
> While I disagree with their choice, the fact that they posit that it was a
> choice due to ambiguity, not a clear misunderstanding of the FCC rules,
> I'm taking a deep breath and letting it go.
>
> Because you're right Peter -- I have blown more time on this issue than
> was worth my energy or time/value.
>
> But damn, I hate it when I think the wrong thing was done and I can't get
> no satisfaction. :-)
>
> Beckman
>
>> On 12/3/2015 12:33 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with you, and I'd ask the carrier to remove that. It sounds like
>>>> you haven't asked yet. The whole thing is highly negotiable anyway, since
>>>> it wasn't an actual cost to them. You might even get them to drop it or
>>>> severely reduce the overage based on future business.
>>>
>>> I've asked -- this email is verbatim what I sent to them. Their response:
>>>
>>> "We consider the minimum commitment to make up for services that were not
>>> utilized during the usage period. Therefore all taxes and regulatory fees
>>> associated with the service/product will also apply to the minimum
>>> commitment fee on your invoice."
>>>
>>> But that isn't how the FCC requirements read.
>>>
>>> The frustrating part -- engaging a lawyer is likely more expensive than
>>> simply giving up. And leaving the carrier hurts my business. And this is
>>> only a one-time issue, not an ongoing billing dispute.
>>>
>>> I'm quite confident that the USF shouldn't be billed on this non-telecom
>>> fee, and I can get a lawyer involved and they'll capitulate, but it will
>>> likely create bad blood plus I'll lose money on the process.
>>>
>>> I really really dispise companies not taking ownership of issues and just
>>> blinding standing ground. It makes me wish there were more telecom
>>> companies that highly regarded customer service like Zappos.
>>>
>>> Beckman
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Peter Beckman Internet Guy
>>> beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> VoiceOps mailing list
>>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> VoiceOps mailing list
>>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Peter Beckman Internet Guy
> beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
More information about the VoiceOps
mailing list