Untangling Verizon's Doublespeak Explaining How New Fees Replace Old Fees
from the let's-try-that-again dept
Verizon and the other telcos have a long history of misleading doublespeak when they try to explain their actions -- and we have yet another example today. Earlier, we mentioned how Verizon seemed to be taking its pricing cues from The Onion, with their decision to add in a new "supplier surcharge" that almost exactly matches the Universal Service Fund fees that they are no longer required to charge customers as of the end of this month. It's been shown by a few observers recently that the Universal Service Fund basically just goes right into the coffers of the telcos, and does plenty to hold back universal service than to encourage it -- so perhaps it's no surprise that the telcos would simply tack on a new meaningless fee to replace the old one. They have a long history of hiding price increases behind made up fees -- so in this case, they're simply replacing the USF fees with their own made up fee, that has even fewer restrictions (i.e., none, as opposed to very little) on how the fee money is used.However, where the story gets really good is in Verizon's explanation for the new fees. While claiming it's just a shocking coincidence that the fees almost exactly match the amounts of the dearly departed USF fees, a spokesperson claims: "new costs that we've developed over the past year as we've been developing and delivering this standalone DSL service. That service doesn't have the benefit of the revenue that was coming in from voice." It's not at all clear what that means. She says the company "developed" new costs, which makes it sound like it purposely came up with these new costs. At the same time, she references the standalone DSL product, which Verizon has resisted rolling out for some time, even though there's been pretty strong demand. The idea that it should add additional costs to offer DSL without a phone line seems pretty silly -- especially since others have done it for years. What the quote is really saying is that Verizon is still upset that its traditional voice line business is in trouble, but Verizon can't admit it publicly as it would cause investors to beat down the stock. For any normal business, if your basic costs go up, you simply increase the prices you charge. You don't add in some random meaningless and totally unexplained "fee" to cover those costs. Unless, of course, you're trying to pretend you keep lowering prices so that you can claim to lawmakers that there really is competition in a market where there is very little. If that's the case, you need to keep adding in fake fees to raise revenue, while pretending that the "competition" is forcing you to lower prices. And, what better way to sneak in a fee than to replicate nearly the exact dollar amount of the fee the government no longer requires you to collect -- and then just sending it directly to your own coffers?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
thinkspeak
"new costs that we've developed over the past year as we've been developing and delivering this standalone DSL service. That service doesn't have the benefit of the revenue that was coming in from voice."
why wont any of their relations people just say it? "We want more money, without doing any more work or providing a greater level of service while keeping up our fictions of stressful competition"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
verizon added charges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
from my inbox
Effective August 14, 2006, Verizon Online will stop charging the FUSF (Federal Universal Service Fund) recovery fee. We will stop being assessed the fee by our DSL network suppliers. Therefore, we will no longer be recovering this fee from our customers. The impact of the FUSF fee is as follows: for customers of Verizon Online with service up to 768Kbps, the fee eliminated is $1.25 a month; for customers of Verizon Online with service up to 1.5 Mbps or 3Mbps, the fee eliminated is $2.83 a month (based on current FUSF surcharge amounts). On your bill that includes charges for August 14, 2006 you will see either a partial FUSF Recovery Fee or no FUSF line item at all, depending on your bill cycle.
Starting August 26, 2006, Verizon Online will begin charging a Supplier Surcharge for all new DSL customers, existing customers with a DSL monthly or bundle package, and existing DSL annual plan customers at the time their current annual plan expires. This surcharge is not a government imposed fee or a tax; however, it is intended to help offset costs we incur from our network supplier in providing Verizon Online DSL service. The Supplier Surcharge will initially be set at $1.20 a month for Verizon Online DSL customers with service up to 768Kbps and $2.70 per month for customers with DSL service at higher speeds.
On balance your total bill will remain about the same as it has been or slightly lower.
For more information, see the Announcement in the Help section of Verizon Central, located at http://central.verizon.net
We regret the need to add this Supplier Surcharge, but we thank you for choosing high speed Verizon Online DSL. We appreciate and value your business.
Sincerely,
Verizon Online
Broadband Customer Care Team
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from my inbox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It should be illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Timing
Basically, I'm guessing that when they innitially priced their DSL services, they were counting on piggybacking it for free on a physical infrastructure that was already paid for by POTS. As POTS customers have gone to VOIP and/or cell-only, they are still faced with the same maintenance costs for the lines and equipment. They're just shifting some of those costs to DSL users, who now represent a larger total proportion of the physical plant's use. It's just accounting, they were probably considering having to do it anyway. When the federal fee was eliminated, that would obviously be a propitious moment, when we would feel the least pain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Timing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Timing
I don't need, or want, their telephone service. I do need their DSL. To get the DSL I have to buy the POTS. If a $15/month telephone service can cover the cost of their infrastructure then surely a $40/month internet service could just as easily cover that cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Timing
Basically, you're buying in to this bs. It's users like you, who allow things like this without complaint, who get the rest of us screwed. If enough people don't tolerate a company's bogus policy, it will be changed, or the company can go out of business. Or people like you can say 'Oh, they really need the money' or some other asinine rationalization, and we have an unfair market.
I stopped using Verizon because of practices like this, which the company is famous for. I hope, for your sake, they keep tacking on more illegitimate fees, and you finally wake up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's ok - I know NOT to go with Verizon at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummmm... Verizon does offer standalone DSL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummmm... Verizon does offer standalone DSL.
Yes, they're offering it in some places, but very few and only after many, many, many delays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ummmm... Verizon does offer standalone DSL
Given what they're doing though... be wary of their pricing schemes. They're less than our cable company on the price... and the quality of the connection is better... but I have to say that I had to ask the question on taxes and surcharges more than once when I signed up. The business DSL sales folks were great though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Standalone DSL - BAH
$44.00/month for the 1.5mbps service
This is the same company advertising $12.95/month 1.5mbps DSL service all over the net - but you have to 'bundle' it with their local service PLUS half a dozen unwanted 'features' - bundle price works out to $46/month with a 15 month contract.
Unbundled DSL is $2 less than bundled DSL with phone service.
I realize it's legal, but it still felt like borderline extortion.
I happily went with the $30/month 5mbps CABLE internet and paid Skype $38/YEAR for a 'phone number' so people could call me over VOIP.
The Telcos can die a long and well deserved death, I don't care to be ripped off anymore, lied to, extorted or otherwise and I AM NOT signing any more 2 year 'contracts.'
If more people spent 15 minutes a day calling the phone company up and trying to get a better deal, without a contract - they'd change - eventually.
Picture 100,000 phone calls a day to pressure them....
Why don't you call and complain?
If they don't make you happy, there are alternatives now. Use them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Standalone DSL - BAH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double The Profit?
If I'm understanding this correctly, then it sounds like a tax on VOIPs that is given directly to the Telco's.
Please let me know if I'm mistaken.
eb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call and complain
Next time you're in line at the movies, or waiting for your laundry to dry, or whatever, call Verizon and demand to know why they won't just include the surcharge in the base rate. Demand to be told how much you were billed in surcharge last month. Demand to be told how much you will be billed for your surcharge next month. You won't get any satisfactory answers.
They just keep asking, "Is there anything else I can help you with on your account sir?" Just say, "Yes."
Then ask another inane, slowly delivered, unanswerable question. What's your record?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Canceled Verizon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I told them it's not at all about the money and they are welcome to charge as much as they want for their service. Frankly I'd be willing to pay more for the service if they just honestly raised the price. It was the deception I objected to. I refuse to do business with people or companies that don't meet minimum standards of honesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon: The "Microsoft" of telco's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
replacing old phone
sue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: replacing old phone
Was it a Verizon employee who threw it in the hot tub or instructed someone to do it?
That's like hitting something with your car then crying to the car dealer where you bought your car because they won't replace the damaged part(s) of your car for free.
Devlin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: replacing old phone
But if you buy a used phone,say, on eBay, you'll likely pay a lot less and activation over the internet is FREE.
Way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surcharges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MY VERIZON FEES AND SURCHARGES ARE MORE THAN MY CALLS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Explanation of Supplier Surcharge Recovery (SSR) Fee
Thank you for explaining it. DSLEXtreme has once again raised my renewal fee by another TWO DOLLARS for my DSL, even though the "better service" I am paying for sometimes sucks. But, the Supplier Surcharge Recovery (SSR) Fee remains at $2.88 @ month. I need to find someone who does more than respond by "opening a ticket" and does not continue to raise prices annually at no increase in quality of service!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon is still collecting USF's Universal Subscriber Fee's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]