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 beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <beckman at angryox.com> 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 beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
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: Support at Snappytelecom.net ----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Beckman" <beckman at angryox.com> To: "voiceops at voiceops.org" <voiceops at 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 beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
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. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Peter Beckman <beckman at angryox.com> 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 beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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. <peter at 4isps.com> 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
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. <peter at 4isps.com> 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
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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Support at Snappytelecom.net ----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Beckman" <beckman at angryox.com> To: "NSP Strategist" <peter at 4isps.com> Cc: "voiceops at voiceops.org" <voiceops at 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 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/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
participants (6)
-
beckman＠angryox.com -
caalvarez＠gmail.com -
faisal＠snappytelecom.net -
lindsey＠e-c-group.com -
paul＠timmins.net -
peter＠4isps.com