Re: [VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing

[Faisal Imtiaz]

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: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Peter Beckman" <beck...@angryox.com>
> 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:
> 
>> 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
>&

Re: [VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing

[Peter Beckman]

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
beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
---___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing

[Faisal Imtiaz]

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, irrespective of usage..
(Think of it in a manner similar to how one would sell to a end user un-limited 
service.. e.g. it is $20 for the month, if you use it or not is not our 
concern).

In the depth of regulatory details and clarifications, taxing authorities look 
at contract termination fees (or fees associated with meeting contract 
requirements) as being part of the revenues for  providing that service. It is 
also common accounting practice to treat it as such.

Regards.

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: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Peter Beckman" 
> To: "voiceops@voiceops.org" 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 9:23:39 PM
> Subject: [VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing

> Hey Folks --
> 
> I've got a carrier to which I've made a minimum commitment. I didn't get
> around to getting my spend up to the commit, and when my contract renewed,
> they billed me a minimum commit fee. Understandable, and I'm fine paying
> it. I didn't get anything for it -- zero telecom-related services.
> 
> However, they also charged the USF percentage on the minimum fee.
> 
> The Language from the FCC leads me to believe that this carrier's
> assessment of the USF on minimum billing is incorrect and illegal, as that
> fee is not interstate nor international end-user revenues. For specific
> detail, FCC Form 499-Q item 115 clearly states that the USF is to be
> taxed on:
> 
> "Telecommunications provided to other universal service contributors for
> resale as telecommunications or as interconnected VoIP"
> 
> The minimum fee is not telecommunications.
> 
> Additionally Form 499-A for Line 418 states:
> 
> "Line 418. — Other revenues that should not be reported in the contribution
> bases; Non-interconnected VoIP Revenues. Line 418 should include all
> non-telecommunications service revenues on the filer’s books, as well as
> some revenues that are derived from telecommunications-related functions,
> but that should not be included in the universal service or other fund
> contribution bases. For example, information services offering a capability
> for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving,
> utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications are not
> included in the universal service or other fund contribution bases."
> 
> Anyone else experience this? Or have any background? I do not believe the
> carrier should charge me nor pay the FCC the USF on non-telecom fees.
> 
> Any Telecom lawyers out there?
> 
> Beckman
> ---
> Peter Beckman  Internet Guy
> beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
> ---
> ___
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps@voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing

[Peter Beckman]

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

beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
---


___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops


___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@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
beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
---___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing

[Mark R Lindsey]

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 references -- you 
> probably blew more time on this issue than what the actually fee was. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 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 
>> 

___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing

[Peter Rad.]

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 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 references -- you probably 
blew more time on this issue than what the actually fee was.

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.

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






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] USF and Minimum Billing

[Paul Timmins]

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:
> 
> Hey Folks --
> 
> I've got a carrier to which I've made a minimum commitment. I didn't get
> around to getting my spend up to the commit, and when my contract renewed,
> they billed me a minimum commit fee. Understandable, and I'm fine paying
> it. I didn't get anything for it -- zero telecom-related services.
> 
> However, they also charged the USF percentage on the minimum fee.
> 
> The Language from the FCC leads me to believe that this carrier's
> assessment of the USF on minimum billing is incorrect and illegal, as that
> fee is not interstate nor international end-user revenues. For specific
> detail, FCC Form 499-Q item 115 clearly states that the USF is to be
> taxed on:
> 
> "Telecommunications provided to other universal service contributors for
> resale as telecommunications or as interconnected VoIP"
> 
> The minimum fee is not telecommunications.
> 
> Additionally Form 499-A for Line 418 states:
> 
> "Line 418. — Other revenues that should not be reported in the contribution
> bases; Non-interconnected VoIP Revenues. Line 418 should include all
> non-telecommunications service revenues on the filer’s books, as well as
> some revenues that are derived from telecommunications-related functions,
> but that should not be included in the universal service or other fund
> contribution bases. For example, information services offering a capability
> for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving,
> utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications are not
> included in the universal service or other fund contribution bases."
> 
> Anyone else experience this? Or have any background? I do not believe the
> carrier should charge me nor pay the FCC the USF on non-telecom fees.
> 
> Any Telecom lawyers out there?
> 
> Beckman
> ---
> Peter Beckman  Internet Guy
> beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
> ---___
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps@voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops