m>
> To: "NSP Strategist" <pe...@4isps.com>
> Cc: "voiceops@voiceops.org" <voiceops@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:
>
>>
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
Hmm. While the point may be arguable, but they are not wrong in doing so.
There are different ways to look at this, your point of view is that they
billed you a minimum commit fee.
I bet you anything, that their point of view is that you committed to buying a
certain base level of service,
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
If I read this right, I think Peter's offering to pay any invalid USF fees.
Such holiday generosity!
:-)
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 14:30 , Peter Rad. wrote:
>
> USF is 16% -- you are all worked up over how much money?
> Emails to the list, frustration, looking up the law
Just offering a perspective that the fee was probably less than the time
spent.
You can make more money; you cannot make more time.
On 12/3/2015 2:57 PM, Mark R Lindsey wrote:
If I read this right, I think Peter's offering to pay any invalid USF fees.
Such holiday generosity!
:-)
On Dec
IANAL but that's how I read it too. USF is to be levied on interstate services
(of which voip is automatically because internet) and a contract shortfall is
neither federal in jurisdiction nor a telecommunications service.
> On Dec 2, 2015, at 19:23, Peter Beckman wrote: