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
[email protected] http://www.angryox.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
[email protected]
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
[email protected] http://www.angryox.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
