The free ride is over. FCC says so.

Post #273,013

11/12/06 11:41:32 AM

The FCC recently mandated that VoIP providers, including Vonage, are required to contribute to the Federal Universal Service Fund (USF). Vonage is committed to complying with this mandate from the FCC. Accordingly, a 5.31% Federal Universal Service Fee will be added to your bill. Vonage does not profit nor benefit in any way from this contribution to the USF. This charge is passed directly to the United States government.

The goals of Universal Service, as mandated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, are to promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates; increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation and advance the availability of such services to all consumers.

Um, no. The goal is to soak every household of another 5+% of their phone bill as taxes. This is how Al Gore invents the internet.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #273,027

by imric

11/12/06 1:41:29 PM

Ah. So Al Gore is doing this?

Or is it the Democrat-run FCC? Oh, right, Chairman Martin is a [link|http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/martin/|Republican], and the majority of commisoners are [link|http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/commish-list.html|Republican]. Must be OK though, this isn't called a 'tax'.

Wanna re-think that comment?

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #273,028

by bepatient

11/12/06 1:55:27 PM

The "fund" was created in 1996.

So no, I don't want to rethink it.

Vonage was skating the edge the entire time...and I expected that the charge would soon come. Now it has.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #273,030

by imric

11/12/06 2:37:23 PM

So it was GORE that decided to apply this to Vonage! I SEE.

So much for reducing regulation of the Internet.

It was probably Clinton's fault they did this now.

The Republicans that made this decision were CHANNELING Gore!

Like it or not, the DECISION to do this was made by Repos; they never had to apply this fee to VOIP. And had they not, companies like Verizon (who is providing VOIP services) would not have had to apply the fee to customers taking advantage of VOIP.

Wrong, Bill. Repos did this - not Dems. ANd NOT Gore. Not this time.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #273,034

by bepatient

11/12/06 3:10:14 PM

Will you just stop it.

I mentioned Gore inventing the internet because the "universal service tax" they established and applied to phone bills was done the and done specifically (so they say) to improve connectivity. Heard much about Int2 since then?

I full well know who is in the white house now and I don't expect that this group or any other would pass up a chance to dig in my pocket.

Point is...Vonage is now a phone company. FCC finally says so. We've both known they were since we signed up.

YOU EXPECETED VOIP TO AVOID THIS???

Never pegged you as that gullible.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #273,038

by imric

11/12/06 3:53:28 PM

Just wanted you to admit

that Gore did not do this. That Republicans did. Not that Gore is exactly a hero to me.

Gullible?

Ha. What you SAID was "This is how Al Gore invents the internet". Gore did NOT do this. I am NOT that gullible.

In fact, Gore wanted a moratorium on taxes on Internet services (though he was PRO sales tax being imposed on sales over the 'Net) - he wanted to fund service to schools with the fee. Remember? When the telcos wanted to charge ISPs by the bit? When they would deliberately sabotage any kind of high speed access or charge HORRIBLE fees for it? The telcos did not WANT the Internet to exist as it does today, and they were trying like hell to prevent it from happening.

All this will do is make 'pure' VOIP systems that much more attractive, POTS that much LESS attractive. The imposition of this 'fee' (tax, lets be honest) makes the concept of universal digital access that much more important - something that the tel-locos are fighting to this day. But then, our country is really backwards in that respect.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #273,040

by Simon_Jester

11/12/06 4:07:07 PM

It's a bit like J. Carter limiting the speed limit to 55

Post #273,085

by a6l6e6x

11/12/06 9:37:51 PM

It's really simple, Bill.

The cable companies have spent [link|http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/COST%20OF%20CABLE.PDF|$100 million] to lobby Congress.

And then the [link|http://freepress.net/news/16768|telcos]:

Since the start of 2003 the telcos\ufffd political action committees and employees have made a combined $27 million in political contributions and sunk another $146 million into lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Obviously, "net-neutrality" is next.

You only get to pay for it!

Alex

When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis

Post #273,087

by bepatient

11/12/06 9:52:07 PM

Yep

we get to pay on both sides. rates go up to afford more lobbying, charges go up to afford more congresscritter salary (as if the "earmark" on those funds actually means something)

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #273,101

by boxley

11/12/06 11:02:32 PM

no net neutrality please, cost too much

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep

Post #273,134

by a6l6e6x

11/13/06 9:42:44 AM

Flip that around. We're paying too much for what we get now.

I've been paying $45 or more per month for Road Runner (Time Warner here) for ten years now. Do the math. Glass is cheap.

If they want to short-circuit some of the web to speed up their own "content" let them invest in their own long-distance fiber. Let them also charge extra those folks that want that content. I'm not interested in that content. Access to the infrastructure is one thing and paying for content is another. One should only pay for bandwidth. Does it make sense to you that phoning some people in your calling area should cost you more than calling others?

I'm just not interested in having a slow IWeThey because a cable company or telco isn't getting some extra payment.

Alex

When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis

Post #273,183

by boxley

11/13/06 5:48:46 PM

you are wrong on a few points

you are paying for more than glass, you are paying for every person who calls in because their mail disappeared (spouse popped it at home) storm damage(katrina) and all the hardware, cable and folks who how to keep it running. We agree with you, you pay for bandwidth, google pays for their bandwidth and somehow we all get service.
Net Neutrality means that when you make a 911 call from your vonage phone because you had an accident at home and your neighbor is downloading the latest porn it means that QOS is not allowed so you have to contend for the same bandwidth, that will make the net a lot less usefull.
thanx,
bill

Post #273,187

by tuberculosis

11/13/06 6:03:34 PM

8/21/07 12:45:57 PM

You've fallen victim to propaganda

I've seen Werner Vogels's presentation at gnomedex and talked it over a bit with him at mixers.

Net Neutrality means that the only parameters providers can plug into their rate structure is bandwidth and class of network traffic. You can certainly do QoS stuff giving VOIP higher priority than HTTP if you want to.

You may not charge me more per http packet because you think I live in a rich neighborhood. You may not impose additional costs on me because I set up a website that can take credit card payments and you think I'm making too much money. The network providers have indicated that they want to do exactly this. Who can pay? Big sites. This cements the status quo and stifles innovation.

The providers want to extract a vig from larger web sites, because they think they can get additional revenues. Users who don't pay the vig will see their traffic degraded.

Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 12:45:57 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #273,193

by boxley

11/13/06 7:07:14 PM

hardly

The cable co's have no intention of charging more for bandwidth in rich neighborhoods. The only way you can differentiate bandwidth is by QOS. I do not care where the traffic is going, only how much it costs to get there. Cable folks are not telcos, different business model.
[link|http://www.computerwire.com/industries/research/?pid=6E32BC92-F996-4846-B637-49F55B5DD078&type=CW%20News|http://www.computerw...78&type=CW%20News]

Cox spent $15bn in private capital creating our new digital interactive network and will continue to invest in the network so long as there is an incentive to do so,\ufffd said David Edleman, spokesperson of Atlanta-based cable broadband operator Cox Communications Inc, in an email.

\ufffdIt\ufffds not in anyone\ufffds best interest to stifle further innovation and investment -- and government regulation of an industry typically does,\ufffd he said.

What\ufffds more, \ufffdCox does not and will not block or slow access to any legal site on the web. Quite simply, it is not in our interest to do so,\ufffd Edleman said.

the last sentence sez it all, customer service or they go elsewhere.
thanx,

bill

Post #273,210

by tuberculosis

11/13/06 10:20:04 PM

8/21/07 12:46:24 PM

Uh huh, go where?

>customer service or they go elsewhere.

Where are they gonna go? Do you have a choice of providers? I don't. I can get comcast, or qwest.

Plenty of others can only get one or the other. Not much choice.

AT&T Chairman Edward E. Whitacre Jr. complained that Internet content providers were getting a free ride: "They don't have any fiber out there. They don't have any wires. . . . They use my lines for free -- and that's bull," he said. "For a Google or a Yahoo or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!''

An executive with BellSouth was quoted saying that the company would consider charging Apple five or 10 cents extra each time a customer downloaded a song using iTunes.

No, we're not going to charge differently based on ability to pay. Of course not.

Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 12:46:24 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #273,215

by boxley

11/13/06 10:31:12 PM

you wanna live on an island deal with YOUR choices

we live or die with ours and our choice is customer service.
thanx,
bill

Post #273,217

by tuberculosis

11/13/06 10:35:43 PM

8/21/07 12:46:32 PM

Its no better on the mainland

And how is charging me an extra nickel for iTunes downloads "customer service"?

Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 12:46:32 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #273,220

by boxley

11/13/06 10:52:12 PM

obviously you are not my customer

I dont work for a telco, I would rather upsell you on product offerings, every house I pass I have an opportunity to upsell my services. To do that successfully I must offer incentives. The best incentive is the perceived willingness to do whatever it takes to keep you satisfied. Other business models dont work for me. Malaise and willingness to nickel and dime someone to death is why bell south has no services in my home. That model is a complacent one. I have seen it lead to the demise of small telco's and expect the larger ones to follow suit. Someone with big pockets and drive will own the ATT/BellSouth behemouth. The only true telco that gets it appears to be verizon but they are very slow to change, they might not be agile enough.
thanx,
bill

Post #273,249

by tuberculosis

11/14/06 4:04:14 AM

8/21/07 12:47:16 PM

cableco ~= telco

same thing really.

New trick is for Comcast to filter non-Comcast VOIP. Net neutrailty will prevent that.

Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 12:47:16 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #273,254

by boxley

11/14/06 7:45:01 AM

we will have to agree

you dont know much about networking or what my company does for a living.
thanx,
bill

Post #273,259

by tuberculosis

11/14/06 10:58:10 AM

8/21/07 12:47:42 PM

yeah, I only worked cable and telcos for the whole 90s

Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 12:47:42 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #273,221

by a6l6e6x

11/13/06 10:58:10 PM

The point of mentioning glass is that...

bandwidth ought to be relatively cheap. The other stuff you mention are just the costs of doing business. The only calls I make to Time Warner are to tell them their freakin cable (which is buried) is out! For that reason it's not likely I'll be buying their phone service. But, it has improved over the years.

If I'm having trouble with VoIP, it's because the cable company has too many houses being served by the local hub.

Alex

When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis

Post #273,188

by tuberculosis

11/13/06 6:06:34 PM

8/21/07 12:45:59 PM

Telcos received rate increases in the 90's

to build the information superhighway.

They pocketed the cash and sat on their asses.

We got shafted. I worked in telco in Denver for the entire 90's.

I have no sympathy for the telcos and their sucky management practices. The owe us bigtime.

Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 12:45:59 PM EDT

Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!