[IP] more on Time to move back to cable -- Verizon to add DS L fees
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:54:26 -0400
From: "Paul E. Robichaux" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Time to move back to cable -- Verizon to add DS L
fees
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
This is not necessarily true. There was a story in yesterday's Wall Street
Journal (
<http://online.wsj.com/search#SB108181234600780813>http://online.wsj.com/search#SB108181234600780813)
that had this
to say (see the third paragraph):
> For wireless carriers, the new fees are a way to keep their average customer
> revenue from declining in a highly competitive industry -- while still
cutting
> per-minute prices on advertised rates. Indeed, carriers include the fees in
> their average customer revenue figures that are closely watched by Wall
> Street. For DSL providers, the fees provide a way for telephone companies to
> appear to be underpricing their cable competitors, while minimizing lost
> revenue.
>
> "It's becoming pretty routine in the industry to pass these costs along
and I
> don't think we're doing anything differently than anyone else," said Richard
> Brudvik Lindner, a T-Mobile USA spokesman.
>
> SBC spokesman Michael Coe says the Universal Service Fund fee has doubled
> since 2000, and the company's cable rivals aren't being required to pay into
> it. "In order to stay competitive in the market place, we felt compelled to
> pass on that fee to the consumer."
>
> But companies acknowledge that not all of the money necessarily goes into
> fund. SBC says it will pay the entire $1.84 a month into the Universal
Service
> Fund.
>
> BellSouth, though, says it aims to pay as much as 85% of its fee to the
fund.
> The company says the remainder serves to recoup the costs BellSouth says it
> incurred as a result of the requirement itself, such as maintaining two
> separate sets of billing, one for retail and one for wholesale.
The Center for Public Integrity released a report today (
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=250&sid=200>http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=250&sid=200)
that
claims that cell carriers collected hundreds of millions of dollars for
number portability costs and have spent only a fraction of it, although
their numbers are somewhat vague.
> From: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:13:13 -0400
> To: <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [IP] more on Time to move back to cable -- Verizon to add DS L fees
>
>
> From: wflinn <wflinn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Dave,
>
> The fees are the RBOCs 'good faith' ESTIMATES of what they project they will
> need to spend in order to satisfy the FCC mandates for sharing lines or as
> in this new case, what they ESTIMATE they will need to spend on their
> networks to comply with number portability. It really is the RBOCs way of
> flouting the FCC mandates and squeezing their customers in response to
> regulation that they despise. It good to be a monopolist or a least behave
> like one!
>
> Bill
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To manage your subscription, go to
>
<http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip>http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at:
<http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/>http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/