Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Time to move back to cable -- Verizon to add DS L fees
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:16:12 -0400
Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:54:26 -0400 From: "Paul E. Robichaux" <paul () robichaux net>Subject: Re: [IP] more on Time to move back to cable -- Verizon to add DS L fees
To: dave () farber net This is not necessarily true. There was a story in yesterday's Wall StreetJournal ( <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 () farber net> > Reply-To: <dave () farber net> > Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:13:13 -0400 > To: <ip () v2 listbox com> > Subject: [IP] more on Time to move back to cable -- Verizon to add DS L fees > > > From: wflinn <wflinn () BramCap com> > > 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 () robichaux net > 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 interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Time to move back to cable -- Verizon to add DS L fees Dave Farber (Apr 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- more on Time to move back to cable -- Verizon to add DS L fees Dave Farber (Apr 14)