telecom >> Nine Phone Firms Back Revamped Fees

by Jack Decker » Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:11:03 GMT

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2004-08-16-phone-fees_x.htm

By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY

Long-distance bills likely would fall and local phone rates rise under
a sweeping industry-backed proposal to federal regulators to overhaul
the fees phone companies pay each other to connect calls.

The plan, unveiled by a group of nine leading local and long-distance
companies after more than a year of talks, would likely mean lower
bills for chatty long-distance callers but higher tabs for those who
make fewer long-distance calls.

The proposal's prospects are uncertain because it must be approved by
the Federal Communications Commission. Three of the four regional Bell
companies, Verizon Communications, BellSouth and Qwest
Communications, did not sign on and that could prompt the FCC to
make changes. Also, states may challenge it in court because it
eliminates in-state fees under their control.

Still, the fourth Bell, SBC Communications, and all three big
long-distance companies, AT&T, MCI and Sprint, were among
those endorsing the plan. Participants expect it at least to form the
basis of FCC action.

[.....] local phone companies are losing access-fee revenue as
long-distance calling shifts to wireless and Internet-based phone
services, which pay low or no connection fees.

Full story at:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2004-08-16-phone-fees_x.htm

How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home:
http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html

If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/


Similar Threads

1. For a Fee, Some Blogs Boost Firms / Concerns Raised on Disclosure

2. Mayyland Tax Court Upholds Cell Phone Fees

3. Verizon and Sprint to Cut Fee For Cell Phone Service

4. Calif judge: cell phone "termination fees" illegal [Telecom]

5. Calif judge: cell phone "termination fees" illegal [Telecom]

>From the Moderator:

> Let's lift the level of debate a notch or two: the question is not,
> IMNSHO, whether a cellular customer signed a contract, but whether
> governments should allow powerfull corporations to demand such
> contracts during a time when a former luxury quickly became an
> everyday necessity of professional life.

Or to put it another way:  Is a competitive offering for similar 
cellular service but without early cancellation charges also available 
-- perhaps at an appropriately (i.e., slightly) higher price -- from 
this vendor, or any other?

6. Calif judge: cell phone "termination fees" illegal [Telecom]

7. [telecom] Calif judge: cell phone "termination fees" illegal [Telecom]

At 09:43 PM 8/3/2008, Gene S. Berkowitz < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:

>> Can you provide a specific example of a carrier that will provide a
>> reasonable monthly rate without a contract if I use my own phone?
>
>Verizon will sell you a 1-year contract, at the end of which you become 
>a month-to-month customer.  

But will your monthly rate be any lower than it would be if they were
amortizing the cost of their providing you with a phone?

For example, I like the European version of the LG "Shine" KE970 which
can be bought through legitimate channels for about $300.  But I don't
think my monthly bill from AT&T Wireless would be a penny less than it
would be if I took their discounted version of the "Shine" CU720.

The other side of this issue is, of course, the exclusive deals that
the major wireless carriers cut with the handset manufacturers.  The
most discussed of these, of course, it Apple's iPhone deal with ATT.
Even if you buy your way out of your ATT contract so that you "own"
your iPhone, you cannot legitimately "unlock" it fromt the ATT network
to use on a competitor's GSM network.

As Carl Howe of the Yankee Group noted: "Locked phones are only a
piece of the US wireless carrier marketing, but they are the part of
the brand experience that consumers can feel and touch. The wired
phone world of the Bell System changed completely when the FCC allowed
consumers to buy and connect their own handsets. The same will happen
with wireless, but only if the carriers embrace, not resist, unlocking
their customers from their service."

Carl Howe fails to note that the result of the upheaval in wireline
service resulted in a race to the bottom in the pricing of long
distance and of local wireline service.  It's clear that the wireless
carriers have learned from this experience and want to avoid their own
bloodbath of competing solely on price.

Regards,
Will


8. [telecom] Calif judge: cell phone "termination fees" illegal [Telecom]