Why my phone bill is $60.93?!

lilboy716 · May 19, 2004

companies pass on the taxes which is not included in their advertised prices so their packages might sound like a better deal

i have a family plan w/SBC wireless, 2 lines. it suppose to be 39.99+ 9.99 /month. the bills usually goes to around $58-62 each month add up the taxes. 2-3 SMS charges, but that should stay within $1. i did not go over the min limit, or had any ROAMing charges. the rest of the bill is packed with taxes. about $10 worth

these telecom companies need to include those "pass on" fed taxes when they advertise their phone plans.

Quote from mytwocents:

Alright, I've been paying my phone bill as an automatic thing for a while now...and for some reason, I was inspired to actually look at the charges tonight and I'm a bit confused.... I have 2 lines (1 fax, 1 reg) which comes as a package thing for $38.95

So I'm a bit bewildered why my bill is $60.93...which DOES NOT include any long distance (I use a seperate billing for that which has nothing to do with Qwest). Now of all the 'extra' charges the biggest one is the FEDERAL ACCESS CHARGE which is $13.09.
Um, WTF?
I went to the FCC website and according to them that is a charge which has been around since the 1984 when AT&T...yada yada yada...and there is a CAP of how much can be charged. Well I can't find that CAP amount...anyone know where I can see such a number?

And here are the 9 extra charges:

Federal Excise Tax
State Tax
City Tax
County Tax
Federal Universal Service Fund
Arizona Universal Service Fund
Telecom Services Excise Tax
911 Excise Tax and of course the
Federal Access Charge

Um....ok.....so maybe I just haven't been paying attention, which appears to be the case, but am I the only one that thinks Qwest is raping me here?
If I am, then I guess I'm just venting....so thanks

aphexcoil · May 19, 2004

Quote from mytwocents:

Ummmmmmm......DUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHH But I realized that any further attempt to get to the bottom of this (she already had put me on hold twice and called her 'supervisor') with her was pointless so I called Cox, and got someone just as clueless but this time after I was told they too charge the MAX, I said to the guy that really then, that should be included in the price of the basic phone line seeing as how it is charged to everyone, the same amount.... and he says to me, 'well Ma'am, Cox could just charge the $18.00 for the phone line but we feel it is better and more helpful for our customers if we break down the cost so that you know where the money is going' and I said, 'well you can't even tell me that! You're telling me that the line itself is $12 (approx) and the cost to have it is $6.50...' Anyway, I informed him that at least I knew both the local phone companies in my area were equally clueless and have a nice day.

This is sooooooooooo going on my things that suck page.....

It gets worse. I remember when my best friend was on a military assignment in Washington, and had to use his Sprint phone for this and that. Well, he got the bill and it was $1,000 -- had he been two plans higher, it would have been just under $200. Well, naturally Sprint said, "tough shit" and he had to pay the entire amount.

What Sprint, along with other cell phone companies do, when you go over your minutes is analogous to getting bent over and raped. Paying 50 cents per minute for going above your plan is asinine. They do this because they can.

If you ever put yourself in the position of being on the receiving end of the mercy of the phone company, you will find out very quickly they have no mercy.

If you're a day late on your bill, they'll shut off your phone without any qualms. Meanwhile, I have to put up with shit service on major highways that Sprint supposedly covers.

It is all bullshit.

ArchAngel · May 19, 2004

Quote from lilboy716:
these telecom companies need to include those "pass on" fed taxes when they advertise their phone plans.

They don't for the same reason Walmart and other retailers don't advertise their pricing inclusive of sales tax.

ArchAngel · May 19, 2004

Quote from aphexcoil:
What Sprint, along with other cell phone companies do, when you go over your minutes is analogous to getting bent over and raped. Paying 50 cents per minute for going above your plan is asinine. They do this because they can.

No different than Hertz/Avis/etc. charging you for 5 days instead of 4 because you picked up the car at 10am on Monday and brought it back at 1pm on Friday.

Or the car rental company charging you $6/gallon because you didn't fill the tank up before you brought the car back (even though it was also a few gallons below full when you picked it up).

Or a credit card company jumping up someone's interest rate from 10% to 29% because they were a day late on a payment.

Or an airline/cruise line/etc. selling non-refundable, non-transferrable tickets that are both non-refundable and worthless if you don't make the trip.

Lots of onerous crap out there - not just the phone companies.

aphexcoil · May 19, 2004

Quote from ArchAngel:

No different than Hertz/Avis/etc. charging you for 5 days instead of 4 because you picked up the car at 10am on Monday and brought it back at 1pm on Friday.

Or the car rental company charging you $6/gallon because you didn't fill the tank up before you brought the car back (even though it was also a few gallons below full when you picked it up).

Or a credit card company jumping up someone's interest rate from 10% to 29% because they were a day late on a payment.

Or an airline/cruise line/etc. selling non-refundable, non-transferrable tickets that are both non-refundable and worthless if you don't make the trip.

Lots of onerous crap out there - not just the phone companies.

Unfortunately, all of these things are something the consumer should know ahead of time. I know I'm in the wrong for the credit card, phone bill and rental car, but I still like to bitch about it.

AAAintheBeltway · May 19, 2004

Quote from Error 404:

Sounds like an AAA or Maverick statement..."majority of Americans LIKE paying these taxes"

Majority? Name two people who like paying any kind of taxes. Especially these insidious taxes that nickle and dime you while you and the "majority" of people have your backs turned. LOL

AAA, you have been infecting guys like ShoeshineBoy? I am impressed. But really AAA, you should fess up that you use poetic license. Like Maverick saying all Democrats "HATE" rich people.

These are young and impressionable minds you are messing with. It is a dangerous game you play

Peace, my friend,
RS

I think shoeshineboy's point is that local taxpayers are deluded into thinking a tax they can pass off on others is not really a tax. The corrupt pols use that argument all the time to get these stadium handouts passed. "We'll tax rental cars and hotels, that way no one from here has to pay for the three hundred million dollar handout we're giving the team owner."

No one ever seems to ask," Well, if it's that easy to tax these people from out of town, why don't we tax the crap out of them and use the money to cut our own taxes? And let Mr. Billionaire Team Owner build his own damn stadium."

You know they call one of those phone taxes the "Gore tax", after the guy who invented the internet.

Error 404 · May 19, 2004

3-A s, You are the very best!!!

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The corrupt pols use that argument all the time to get these stadium handouts passed. .....

let Mr. Billionaire Team Owner build his own damn stadium."

You know they call one of those phone taxes the "Gore tax", after the guy who invented the internet.

I know you are trying to make a point here AAA. Possibly even something with a somewhat right leaning political slant. Maybe this is why I am confused by your post, since that would be pretty out of character for you. Can't put my finger on it exactly. But there is something in the air here.

Truth is, I can't be expected to figure it out on my own. Your all around knowledge is just better than mine. For example, I don't know who invented the internet. Was it the same guy that had a stadium built for him with taxpayer's money in Arlington Texas so his baseball team could become worth a ton?

I will read up on it. I hate to bother you asking about little details I should know. But you have to understand AAA, there just are not that many guys with your grasp of current and historical events.

And there is NO ONE I know of at all that can be so objective and politically neutral the way you are. So completely detached and even-handed.

Peace,

RS

Error 404 · May 19, 2004

Quote from Error 404:

I will read up on it. I hate to bother you asking about little details I should know.

Peace,
RS

Oh my....look what I came up with!!! I am SHOCKED!!!!

"Usually parked in a front-row seat by the dugout, with his feet up and a bag of peanuts perched in his lap, Bush put a congenial face on a crooked deal, at the heart of which lay a complicated land play.

When they bought the team, the Rangers were playing in an old minor-league stadium. It didnât have the fancy sky boxes and other amenities that helped make other franchises much more profitable. As a result, the team couldnât compete with other big-city teams for good players. But the new owners werenât willing to finance the construction of a new ballpark . They decided to hit up taxpayers for the money."

"Texas taxpayers handed the privately owned Rangers more than $200 million in public subsidies. Taxpayers didnât get a return from the stadiumâs surging new revenues, either. The profits went almost exclusively to the teamâs already wealthy owners."

http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/bush-sec5.html

Peace,

RS

AAAintheBeltway · May 19, 2004

Quote from Error 404:

Oh my....look what I came up with!!! I am SHOCKED!!!!

"Usually parked in a front-row seat by the dugout, with his feet up and a bag of peanuts perched in his lap, Bush put a congenial face on a crooked deal, at the heart of which lay a complicated land play.

When they bought the team, the Rangers were playing in an old minor-league stadium. It didnât have the fancy sky boxes and other amenities that helped make other franchises much more profitable. As a result, the team couldnât compete with other big-city teams for good players. But the new owners werenât willing to finance the construction of a new ballpark . They decided to hit up taxpayers for the money."

"Texas taxpayers handed the privately owned Rangers more than $200 million in public subsidies. Taxpayers didnât get a return from the stadiumâs surging new revenues, either. The profits went almost exclusively to the teamâs already wealthy owners."

http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/bush-sec5.html

Peace,
RS

I wonder if Lady Bird Johnson's TV station broadcasts their games? Darn lucky of old LBJ to land that station.

ArchAngel · May 19, 2004

Quote from Error 404:
Oh my....look what I came up with!!! I am SHOCKED!!!!

"Usually parked in a front-row seat by the dugout, with his feet up and a bag of peanuts perched in his lap, Bush put a congenial face on a crooked deal, at the heart of which lay a complicated land play....

Another Bush mole hill with delusions of mountainhood.

But's got nothing to do with him. It's the same kind of bullshit deal at taxpayer expense done for the Chicago White Sox and Bears and lots of other teams.

Checkout other locations - lots of sports teams get cut special deals like that using taxpayer bucks ultimately that benefits the team owners and players and return little or nothing back to the taxpayers