10-10-987: Ignore the fine print at the bottom!

But you still don’t get it, do you?

They didn’t add the “hidden fee.” The government did, and there’s nothing that you or the phone company can do about it. While the term might be “Federal Universal Service Fee,” it would be more accurate it is was called the “Federal Universal Service Tax.” Would that make it clearer where the money is going?

When you buy a CD, and the price on the label says $16.98, and you have to add 95c (or whatever) at the counter for sales tax, do you comlpain that the music store is being dishonest?

Alereon

You pay the Federal Universal Service fee no matter which LD company you use - if you use LD it’s this charge is on your bill, always - you’re already paying it.

I see you’re still not getting the point. They are emphasizing in the commercial that there are no additional fees. The fact remains that there exists an additional fee, the source of which is irrelevent. This is not a sales tax, which is naturally expected by consumers. This is an ADDITIONAL FEE, which a reasonable consumer would, given the what-you-see-is-what-you-pay guarantee, think is included in the stated price.

Now, this obviously isn’t fraudulent, since the true nature of all additional fees are disclosed in fine print, and since the guarantee, though strongly implied, isn’t explicitly made. The commercial is, however, deliberately misleading.

mhendo, I specifically noted that there’s an exception for sales taxes. Sales taxes are common knowledge, whereas “Federal Universal Service Fund” taxes are not.

There’s no “shifting”, the burden is already on the phone companies to tell you that there are additional fees/taxes. The fact that they make ads where they make an implication that you’re paying only the pre-taxed rate doesn’t lead me to believe that they’re acting in good faith.

Boy, Alereon, Congress got you hook line and sinker, didn’t they? They institute a tax, yet call it a fee, in an attempt to hide it’s true nature, and you lap it right up. Your rant would have validity only if the prevailing method of quoting prices was to include tax. Since it is not, and 10-10-987 is doing the exact same thing the bookstore or the gas station does ( Charge the government required tax on their prices ), your bitch is baseless.

That’s true; my bad. The FUSF is only known by anyone who has ever had a telephone bill.

IIRC 10 10 987 and 10 10 321 and one other popular one is the same company, MCI or worldconn or whatever they are calling themselves now. Their MO is to get you hooked using one of their 10 10 numbers then jack up the price, hopefully you will continue using the one your used to.

I used 10-10-987 on a hour long call about 4-5 months ago, I knew it was going to be a long call, so I figured what the hey, it’s better then the 9 cents /min I currently have. I have yet to receive the bill, which I estimate at under $3

Weirddave: I appreciate the effort you must have exerted to miss the point so thoroughly, but I am fully aware of the true nature of the Universal Service Fee. However, this fee is not a sales tax, thus invalidating your point. Furthermore, non-sales taxes are, by standard practice, factored into the quoted price of a product. Now, fucking the consumer by NOT including all manner of random fees is also the standard practice for 10-10 numbers, but in this case they made an effort to imply that their price included all fees, thus my rant.

Not at all, happy to keep you company.

Name one.

Cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, to name a few.

But phone charges aren’t like that. Fees for 911 service, Federal Excise Tax, Subscriber Line Charge, Local Number Portability Charge, State Tax, Local Municipal Tax, Subscriber Line Charges, Telecommunications Relay Services Charge, and yes, the Universal Service Fund — none of these is a part of the rate, and all companies list these as separate line items on bills.

Incidentally, since the USF can change without notice and can be completely unpredictable, including it as part of the rate would be quite impossible.

Yeah, the only bummer about those numbers is that if you get an answering machine, or the person has to run out the door in a hurry, you end up paying a lot for a 30 second call.

If i’m not sure whether or not the person will be home, i use 101-6868. It’s 8c a minute in the US, and 12c to Australia (where my family is). That way, if i get an answering machine, it only costs me 8c or 12c. And if the person is home and ready for a chat, i can hang up and use one of the other numbers.

Libertarian: I would say that there’s a fundamental difference between local phone service and those per-use 10-10 numbers.

Excuse me, you’re right. I was unclear. Please name another service ( as opposed to product ) where this (non-sales taxes are, by standard practice, factored into the quoted price ) is the case.

The large print giveth, the small print taketh away.

Of course you would. You have to. The alternative would be admitting your mistake. What a fucking nightmare that would be!

Libertarian: Mistake? Hah. I have made one proposition here, simply that 10-10-987 are asshats for implying that what-you-see-is-what-you-pay when such is not the case. Whether or not they should include all additional fees (“taxes”) and have a single, quoted rate is peripheral, and rather unimportant. My main point has been demonstrated to a reasonable degree, you are free to agree or disagree with it as you wish.

All you’ve demonstrated is that you don’t know the difference between a rate and an auxiliary charge.

The rate is .39 per call and .03 per minute.

“Rates do not include Federal Universal Service Fee” is a statment of fact.

We use 10-10-636 on our state to state calls. It is a flat $0.05 per minute. No connect fees, no extra taxes, no monthly fees, or anything else. The in-state long distance calls are a few cents more per minute.

Do I really have to have a PhD in math to make a fucking phone call?

As far as the government surcharge is concerned, a tax is the best form of defense, right?

  • PW