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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------