Young Adults To Be Hurt By Federal USF Phone Tax Changes

You can find all the latest computer hardware press releases in here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33941
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:

Young Adults To Be Hurt By Federal USF Phone Tax Changes

Post by Apoptosis »

YOUNG ADULTS TO BE ZAPPED UNDER CONTROVERSIAL FEDERAL USF PHONE TAX CHANGES

Keep USF Fair Coalition Cautions Connection-Loaded Young Consumers of Big Tax Hikes Under Numbers-Based Approach for Universal Service Fund
WASHINGTON, D.C.///June 27, 2006///If you are over the age of 45, you have a home phone and possibly a cell phone. But if you are under the age of 25, you may very well have four, five or even more connections: a home phone, one or more cell phones, an IM or Blackberry-style device, a broadband data connection and maybe even a separate line for online video gaming and/or a digital video recorder (DVR). That is why the Keep Universal Service Fund (USF) Fair Coalition is warning today that younger adults are among those who would fare the worst under a controversial plan now under discussion in Washington, D.C., to shift the Universal Service Fund tax on phone bills.

Under the proposed change, the USF tax would shift from the current percentage of actual long-distance calls to a flat, monthly tax of $1-$2 on all connections including non-voice data lines regardless of whether the connections are used for any long-distance calls. To show the potential cost to young adults of changing the USF funding formula, the Keep USF Fair Coalition is launching http://www.phonetaxcalculator.com, which allows young adults to estimate their current USF tax burden and how much it would go up under the widely criticized per-connection approach.

Visitors to http://www.phonetaxcalculator.com are urged to send a letter to the Members of Congress to oppose any unfair shifting of the burden of funding USF onto the backs of younger adults.

Linda Sherry, director of national priorities of Consumer Action and co-chair of the Keep USF Fair Coalition, said: It makes no sense whatsoever to take a federal fee that is supposed to help more people use telecommunications services and then pay for it by penalizing the young generation of consumers who have really taken up the call to make the most of voice and data services. Funding USF based on those who make the most long-distance calls is what we do today and it makes good policy sense.

Just how big a bite would the USF changes amount to for younger consumers?

Consider the hypothetical case of a 25-year-old married couple with (a) average monthly cell bills on two cell phones totaling $65, (b) 20 minutes a month of long-distance minutes on their home phone line, (c) and two other connections -- a broadband data line for Web/email access and a separate phone line dedicated to a home entertainment center for PPV movie purchases, DVR database updates and online gaming.

For this couple, USF taxes (assuming a $1.50-per-connection tax) would nearly triple from $32.15 a year to $90 per year an increase of $57.85 almost an extra month of cell phone charges for the couple in question!

This is the second warning of interest to young people about possible USF tax changes that has been issued to date by the Keep USF Fair Coalition. On May 11, 2006, the Keep USF Fair Coalition released a major report showing that America's 4,325 colleges, universities and other post-secondary institutions will be socked with a net annual increase in federal Universal Service Fund (USF) phone taxes of $480 million if the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) moves ahead with a plan to switch the USF to a flat fee of $1.50 per phone number, Web-access line and other connection.

The Coalition's Flunking Numbers study detailed how the average college and university in the United States would see its USF phone bill soar from $8,971 per year to $82,999, an average increase of 892 percent. With some schools seeing even more staggering USF tax hikes of 1,000-3,000 percent, colleges and universities would be forced to respond with tuition hikes, the endangerment of student and faculty on-campus safety, cuts in planned technology/telecommunications investments, and the reduced availability or outright elimination of college dorm phones.

ABOUT THE KEEP USF FAIR COALITION

The Keep USF Fair Coalition (http://www.keepusffair.org) is committed to keeping the Universal Service Fund collection method fair, and opposing proposals to move to a regressive, per-line flat fee. Now counting more than 115,000 members in its ranks, The Keep USF Fair Coalition was formed in April 2004. Current members include Alliance for Public Technology, Alliance For Retired Americans, American Association Of People With Disabilities, American Corn Growers Association, American Council of the Blind, Black Leadership Forum, Consumer Action, Deafness Research Foundation, Gray Panthers, Latino Issues Forum, League Of United Latin American Citizens, Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition, National Association Of The Deaf, National Grange, National Hispanic Council on Aging, National Native American Chamber of Commerce, The Seniors Coalition, Virginia Citizen's Consumer Council and World Institute On Disability. The NAACP is a supporter of the Keep USF Fair Coalition, and is among the many national organizations that have filed comments with the FCC in support of a non-regressive USF collection method.
T-Shirt
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 3:27 pm
Location: Snohomish, WA USA

Post by T-Shirt »

While I'm not very sympathtic to the example shown
"Consider the hypothetical case of a 25-year-old married couple with (a) average monthly cell bills on two cell phones totaling $65, (b) 20 minutes a month of long-distance minutes on their home phone line, (c) and two other connections -- a broadband data line for Web/email access and a separate phone line dedicated to a home entertainment center for PPV movie purchases, DVR database updates and online gaming.

For this couple, USF taxes (assuming a $1.50-per-connection tax) would nearly triple from $32.15 a year to $90 per year an increase of $57.85 almost an extra month of cell phone charges for the couple in question!
(if they can afford 2 cell phones, a landline, broadband, PPV etc. they can probably afford the taxes, otherwise cut something out like the rest of us do to make ends meet)
But I am concerned about a} shifting the cost from businesses/heavy phone users to consumers even those who use minimal service.
AND
b} where all this revenue will actually go, the current USF is so mismanaged as to be fraudulent, less than is collected makes it to the fund, and much of what is ditributed is spent on improvements not covered/intended to be covered by the fund.

Perhaps it is time for congress to rethink the purpose and effect of the fund, and rework the collection and distribution of the moneies generated.
User avatar
Apoptosis
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 33941
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Apoptosis »

T-Shirt wrote: Perhaps it is time for congress to rethink the purpose and effect of the fund, and rework the collection and distribution of the moneies generated.
Well said.
User avatar
KnightRid
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4295
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:21 am
Location: Dallastown, PA

Post by KnightRid »

Who actually has a seperate line for their dvr/ppv movies ordering? Thats just plain dumb..lol

I agree it needs to be re-worked, but I also agree that the more lines you have/use the more you should be paying.

Mike

Why do you need more than 1 cell phone for personal use? HELLLLOOO - if you have money to burn, let me send you my address so you can donate it to the Mike's computer fund :p
Remember, I am opinionated and nothing I say or do reflects on anyone or anything else but me :finga:
User avatar
Illuminati
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2378
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:48 am
Location: Wright City, Missouri, USA
Contact:

Post by Illuminati »

I fit T-Shirts quote perfectly. My wife and I each have a cell phone and as long as we don't go over our minutes, we pay right at $65 / month. While I'm not worried about being able to afford a few more dollars a month, I am worried about what the millions of dollars generated from these few extra dollars a month will be used for.

BTW, KnightRid, I inadvertly have a separate line that is used just for my Satelite DVR (and an occasional fax). I live in a new subdivision that does not have cable internet. So I am forced to go with DSL. The only telephone company that offers DSL to my house forces us to pay for a telephone line that we don't need. However, since we have it, we have our fax machine, DVR, and one phone hooked up to it with an answering machine because anyone who looks up our number in a phone book, will find this number that we didn't want.

For home phone, we use Vonage VoIP which works great and includes long distance for $15/month. But it has been a known problem that a Vonage VoIP line has problems with sending faxes or connecting to a DVR.

So, at my location, in order to get TV, Internet and phone, I have to pay for a satelite, land line, and DSL, when all I need is one cable. (Depending on the cable provider, having one cable may not necessarily be cheaper).
Justin West
Server Admin & Forum Moderator
Follow me on Twitter | Find us on Facebook
User avatar
KnightRid
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4295
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:21 am
Location: Dallastown, PA

Post by KnightRid »

[quote="Illuminati"]

BTW, KnightRid, I inadvertly have a separate line that is used just for my Satelite DVR (and an occasional fax). I live in a new subdivision that does not have cable internet. So I am forced to go with DSL. The only telephone company that offers DSL to my house forces us to pay for a telephone line that we don't need. However, since we have it, we have our fax machine, DVR, and one phone hooked up to it with an answering machine because anyone who looks up our number in a phone book, will find this number that we didn't want.

[quote]

Oh I forgot people are using their cell phones as home lines now...argh..Our quality is TERRIBLE at our house, and have NO option to do that. Sorry for the assumption!!!! I did not even think about it. You would need that line then because of your DSL and your dvr - your dvr should work without it, but it would charge extra for the dual receivers adn you would have to call the 800# or use the internet to order PPV.

Mike

Damn, and I thought I never made a mistke :p..lol...their goes my deity claims :evil: LOL
Remember, I am opinionated and nothing I say or do reflects on anyone or anything else but me :finga:
Post Reply