As you know, T-Mobile, like many other wireless carriers, charges its
customers a regulatory cost recovery fee. T-Mobile's Regulatory
Programs Fee (RPF) is not a tax but is a fee we collect and retain to
help us recover the costs associated with funding and complying with a
variety of government mandates, programs, and obligations, such as
enhanced 911 programs, number portability, and governmental
requirements concerning the construction and operation of our network.
These programs and the costs of compliance vary over time, as do the
costs that T-Mobile includes in the RPF. Starting with bills after
August 15, 2011, the RPF is increasing from $1.41 to $1.61 per line per
bill cycle.
================================================== ===================
$0.20/month won't break anyone but times the number of subscribers it
adds up.
In article <Xns9F226EB4BF947xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E says...
>
> Got this today, as I understand it, the regulatory fee is a fee that
> carriers charge "because we can!"
The description is pretty clear. They pass the costs of certain things
like providing e911 service, and providing number portability, on to the
customer. e911 and number portability are both government-mandated
services, and both cost the carriers money.
> In article <Xns9F226EB4BF947xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E
> says...
>>
>> Got this today, as I understand it, the regulatory fee is a fee
>> that carriers charge "because we can!"
>
> The description is pretty clear. They pass the costs of certain
> things like providing e911 service, and providing number
> portability, on to the customer. e911 and number portability are
> both government-mandated services, and both cost the carriers
> money.
"XS11E" <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Exactly, "we charge this because we can!"
Well, other businesses are also burdened by various regulatory fees, yet
you don't see them separated out in customer invoices. Such fees are
simply built into the price structure, as is cost of labor, material and
overhead. What the phone companies are doing is something unique but may
be spreading. For instance I've noticed that my car service provider is
listing a separate charge for hazardous waste disposal fee. I wonder
what's next? Cap & trade fee?
In article <Xns9F22729BF57BBxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E says...
>
> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9F226EB4BF947xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E
> > says...
> >>
> >> Got this today, as I understand it, the regulatory fee is a fee
> >> that carriers charge "because we can!"
> >
> > The description is pretty clear. They pass the costs of certain
> > things like providing e911 service, and providing number
> > portability, on to the customer. e911 and number portability are
> > both government-mandated services, and both cost the carriers
> > money.
>
> Exactly, "we charge this because we can!"
You seem to be a little unclear on the use of that phrase. To me
"because we can" has always meant "we don't have any real justification
for what we're doing." Which, IMHO, is not the case here.
Any business that has even a tiny smidge of a clue is going to charge
enough for its product or service to be able to stay in business and
make a profit. Whether or not they break out stuff like regulatory fees
is entirely up to them.
> In article <Xns9F22729BF57BBxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E
> says...
>>
>> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <Xns9F226EB4BF947xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> Got this today, as I understand it, the regulatory fee is a
>> >> fee that carriers charge "because we can!"
>> >
>> > The description is pretty clear. They pass the costs of certain
>> > things like providing e911 service, and providing number
>> > portability, on to the customer. e911 and number portability
>> > are both government-mandated services, and both cost the
>> > carriers money.
>>
>> Exactly, "we charge this because we can!"
>
> You seem to be a little unclear on the use of that phrase. To me
> "because we can" has always meant "we don't have any real
> justification for what we're doing."
I'm VERY clear on the use of that phrase as you seem to be as well.
It's a catch-all, they throw in legitimate costs plus whatever they can
get away with as do all businesses.
"Cameo" mentioned waste disposal fees among others, I used to charge
customers a "Shop Supplies fee" as did others, it wasn't based on cost,
it was based on what others were charging, in other words, whatever we
could get away with, exactly same as the carriers "regulatory fee". In
my case it was probably lower than was justified but it's what we could
charge w/o customers rebelling.
Wanna bet T-Mo's raising the fee is going to go along with VZW, AT&T
and Sprint raising their fees if they haven't already done so?
In article <Xns9F22859C8E5E4xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E says...
> "Cameo" mentioned waste disposal fees among others, I used to charge
> customers a "Shop Supplies fee" as did others, it wasn't based on cost,
> it was based on what others were charging, in other words, whatever we
> could get away with, exactly same as the carriers "regulatory fee". In
> my case it was probably lower than was justified but it's what we could
> charge w/o customers rebelling.
Ok, I see your point. However, I still maintain that there are plenty of
companies that cover such fees and just don't break them out as
individual line items on customer invoices.
>
> Wanna bet T-Mo's raising the fee is going to go along with VZW, AT&T
> and Sprint raising their fees if they haven't already done so?
> In article <Xns9F22859C8E5E4xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1>, XS11E
> says...
>
>
>> "Cameo" mentioned waste disposal fees among others, I used to
>> charge customers a "Shop Supplies fee" as did others, it wasn't
>> based on cost, it was based on what others were charging, in
>> other words, whatever we could get away with, exactly same as the
>> carriers "regulatory fee". In my case it was probably lower than
>> was justified but it's what we could charge w/o customers
>> rebelling.
>
> Ok, I see your point. However, I still maintain that there are
> plenty of companies that cover such fees and just don't break them
> out as individual line items on customer invoices.
Agreed, breaking them out separately allows them to say that this plan
costs $xx.xx/mo when in fact, it doesn't but they need to advertise
$xx.xx/mo to compete.
We get so inured to add-on costs we don't think much of them until we
get a reminder such as T-Mo's email. My plan is $54.99/month, I pay
$61.42/mo by the time the state/feds/fees are added. That's better
than my land line where taxes, etc. are more than 40% of the bill!
BTW, years ago I was "enjoying" time in Rochester, Minnesota. I
shopped at Target and bought something for $12.00. When I checked out,
I was told, "That'll be $12,00." I had to ask the price again, same
answer. I'd NEVER been in a state with no sales tax before, I'd never
heard of anything costing exactly what the tag said it cost!
Of course it didn't last, Minnesota added sales tax about a year later.
On 7/14/11 8:36 PM, XS11E wrote:
> Agreed, breaking them out separately allows them to say that this plan
> costs $xx.xx/mo when in fact, it doesn't but they need to advertise
> $xx.xx/mo to compete.
>
> We get so inured to add-on costs we don't think much of them until we
> get a reminder such as T-Mo's email. My plan is $54.99/month, I pay
> $61.42/mo by the time the state/feds/fees are added. That's better
> than my land line where taxes, etc. are more than 40% of the bill!
>
I haven't been able to entirely avoid mystery costs, but I'm getting there.
I pay the following exactly as quoted on the web site, nothing
additional, nada.
I do have a dreaded AT&T bare minimum copper line and crap is added to
net out at about $17.xx/mo. One of those where the number seems to float
around. I only have it because of a burglar alarm and haven't shopped
alternatives.
"XS11E" <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9F22D1B82F6E4xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
> Agreed, breaking them out separately allows them to say that this plan
> costs $xx.xx/mo when in fact, it doesn't but they need to advertise
> $xx.xx/mo to compete.
>
> We get so inured to add-on costs we don't think much of them until we
> get a reminder such as T-Mo's email. My plan is $54.99/month, I pay
> $61.42/mo by the time the state/feds/fees are added. That's better
> than my land line where taxes, etc. are more than 40% of the bill!
Perhaps it would not be such a bad idea if all prices itemized the
added government cost. That way maybe the people would realize that at
the end of the day the enduser/customers pay all the cost even the ones
the politicians burden the businesses with. Because businesses don't
really pay taxes; they just pass it along to the customers. But
politicians like it because that way we blame the businesses, not them.
> BTW, years ago I was "enjoying" time in Rochester, Minnesota. I
> shopped at Target and bought something for $12.00. When I checked
> out,
> I was told, "That'll be $12,00." I had to ask the price again, same
> answer. I'd NEVER been in a state with no sales tax before, I'd never
> heard of anything costing exactly what the tag said it cost!
>
> Of course it didn't last, Minnesota added sales tax about a year
> later.
Oh well, maybe you should move to Oregon then. Last time I checked
they still were sales tax free state. But that may have changed, too.
Politicians never quit trying to get a new tax.
Per Cameo:
>
> Perhaps it would not be such a bad idea if all prices itemized the
>added government cost. That way maybe the people would realize that at
>the end of the day the enduser/customers pay all the cost even the ones
>the politicians burden the businesses with. Because businesses don't
>really pay taxes; they just pass it along to the customers. But
>politicians like it because that way we blame the businesses, not them.
+1 - but with the stipulation that representations of the product
have to include the total, bottom-line cost with all fees, taxes,
and add-ons included.
Otherwise, it undermines one of the pillars of a free market: an
informed consumer. If somebody doesn't really know how much the
bill will be, they cannot make a rational choice among competing
products/vendors.
--
PeteCresswell
> I do have a dreaded AT&T bare minimum copper line and crap is
> added to net out at about $17.xx/mo. One of those where the number
> seems to float around. I only have it because of a burglar alarm
> and haven't shopped alternatives.
There really isn't an alternative. I keep a landline for the fax
machine although my situation has changed enough so that I might do w/o
a fax....
> - but with the stipulation that representations of the product
> have to include the total, bottom-line cost with all fees, taxes,
> and add-ons included.
Sure, tell a car dealer you want only an "out the door" price, see how
far you get with that. <G>
At 15 Jul 2011 06:33:50 -0700 XS11E wrote:
> Travis James <travis.james@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I do have a dreaded AT&T bare minimum copper line and crap is
> > added to net out at about $17.xx/mo. One of those where the number
> > seems to float around. I only have it because of a burglar alarm
> > and haven't shopped alternatives.
>
> There really isn't an alternative. I keep a landline for the fax
> machine although my situation has changed enough so that I might do w/o
> a fax....
There are burgler alarms with cell phone interfaces, and a ton of email-
to-fax services as well as VoIP services compatible with fax machines.
Whether the cost savings are worth the headaches and/or upfront costs
depends.
At 15 Jul 2011 06:36:14 -0700 XS11E wrote:
> "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote:
>
> > - but with the stipulation that representations of the product
> > have to include the total, bottom-line cost with all fees, taxes,
> > and add-ons included.
>
> Sure, tell a car dealer you want only an "out the door" price, see how
> far you get with that. <G>
I've done it, but it isn't easy. You have to be willing to walk away,
which its easier for me than my wife, who falls into the "transfer of
ownership" trap much easier than I (probably because I'm not really much
of a car buff to begin with- they're just utility tools to me.)
I negotiated a price on a minivan over the phone with an out of town
dealer who promised the price was "out the door." As I'm signing the
papers, I see a $250 dealer prep and paperwork fee added on, so I tell
them to take it off. "We can't" they say, "everyone pays that."
"We obviously have different definitions of 'bottom-line price'," I said,
thanked them for their time, got up from the chair and headed for the door.
They wouldn't remove the fee (which was pre-printed on their form, and
was actually one of their many excuses as to why they couldn't knock it
off!) but they eventually knocked another $250 off the price of the car
to negate it.
On 7/15/2011 7:53 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 15 Jul 2011 06:33:50 -0700 XS11E wrote:
>> Travis James<travis.james@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I do have a dreaded AT&T bare minimum copper line and crap is
>>> added to net out at about $17.xx/mo. One of those where the number
>>> seems to float around. I only have it because of a burglar alarm
>>> and haven't shopped alternatives.
>>
>> There really isn't an alternative. I keep a landline for the fax
>> machine although my situation has changed enough so that I might do w/o
>> a fax....
>
> There are burgler alarms with cell phone interfaces, and a ton of email-
> to-fax services as well as VoIP services compatible with fax machines.
> Whether the cost savings are worth the headaches and/or upfront costs
> depends.
>
Correct. And my alarm company offers the GSM link, just it's higher
priced to be the same as my monthly + landline.
In article <20g0279f1dca3lk7i01lp2i2880l7osluf@4ax.com>, (PeteCresswell)
says...
> +1 - but with the stipulation that representations of the product
> have to include the total, bottom-line cost with all fees, taxes,
> and add-ons included.
>
> Otherwise, it undermines one of the pillars of a free market: an
> informed consumer. If somebody doesn't really know how much the
> bill will be, they cannot make a rational choice among competing
> products/vendors.
MetroPCS advertises their flat-rate prepaid cell service as $40/month
including taxes and regulatory fees. One of my all-time favorite local
billboard ads was the MetroPCS billboard that said "Not $40-ish...
$40."
"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote:
> +1 - but with the stipulation that representations of the product
> have to include the total, bottom-line cost with all fees, taxes,
> and add-ons included.
Agreed, but businesses resist it.
> Otherwise, it undermines one of the pillars of a free market: an
> informed consumer. If somebody doesn't really know how much the
> bill will be, they cannot make a rational choice among competing
> products/vendors.
Unfortunately they seldom disclose all the costs before you sign the
papers. Just as the other guys here indicated.
I was with Cingular / ATT for 15 yrs ($80-100 a month)... fed up with silly fees etc..went with a Metro PCS $40 a month advertised at best buy (actually $50). rec'd 6!! yes 6!! bum phones, more than HALF MY CALLS WERE DROPPED IN MIDTOWN / DOWNTOWN ATLANTA and the WORST customer service I've ever experienced ANYWHERE. Did a little research and checked out VIRGIN MOBILE...Same LG Optimus phone that I had 4 times with Metro and never worked well works like a charm with VIRGIN. Not a dropped call yet (knock on wood) and great web access. By the way...$25 a month...unlimited texts and data!! 300 calling minutes -- but that's more than anyone should talk on a cell phone anyway. TAXES ARE $3+.
Move to Oregon!! one of the 5 most highly taxed states and enjoy... it's cold and wet.
In message <Xns9F23432DBF811xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1> someone claiming to
be XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> typed:
>"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote:
>
>> - but with the stipulation that representations of the product
>> have to include the total, bottom-line cost with all fees, taxes,
>> and add-ons included.
>
>Sure, tell a car dealer you want only an "out the door" price, see how
>far you get with that. <G>
If they're incapable of calculating the final price, you should find
another dealer anyway. If they're capable, then just deal with the
final price and ignore their breakdown completely.
The complexity only comes in when the price of the extras vary from base
choice to base choice. If you know they'll add on $250 + 5% of the
total, you can fairly compare based on the sticker/negotiated price.
However, if the add-ons ($250 above) aren't a fixed number or a fixed
percentage, and they can't predict it in advance, they're probably not
competent to enter into a contract anyway, so you should move on.
The same thing applies to the cellphone world: Don't look at the sticker
price, look at the total price. If a dealer can't explain their
add-ons, find another dealer. If the company can't, find another
company.
In message <ivpm6q$r9b$2@dont-email.me> someone claiming to be Todd
Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> typed:
>I negotiated a price on a minivan over the phone with an out of town
>dealer who promised the price was "out the door." As I'm signing the
>papers, I see a $250 dealer prep and paperwork fee added on, so I tell
>them to take it off. "We can't" they say, "everyone pays that."
"Well then sell that car to everyone..."
>"We obviously have different definitions of 'bottom-line price'," I said,
>thanked them for their time, got up from the chair and headed for the door.
> They wouldn't remove the fee (which was pre-printed on their form, and
>was actually one of their many excuses as to why they couldn't knock it
>off!) but they eventually knocked another $250 off the price of the car
>to negate it.
Same difference. I got one of my internet providers to do the same
after I threatened to leave suggesting their new "add-on" was in
violation of our existing contract. They couldn't waive it, but they
could drop the base price by the same amount.
At the end of the day, who cares how they get to the total? As long as
they get to the right total, it's good. If not, there are other
choices.
On 7/15/2011 6:33 AM, XS11E wrote:
> Travis James<travis.james@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I do have a dreaded AT&T bare minimum copper line and crap is
>> added to net out at about $17.xx/mo. One of those where the number
>> seems to float around. I only have it because of a burglar alarm
>> and haven't shopped alternatives.
>
> There really isn't an alternative. I keep a landline for the fax
> machine although my situation has changed enough so that I might do w/o
> a fax....
My landline provider (sonic.net) now offers electronic sending and
receiving of FAXes at no extra charge and they give you a second phone
number to use for it. You have to convert outgoing pages to a PDF.
There is freeware available to merge multiple PDF files into one, so a
multipage FAXing is no problem.
If I have a form to fill out I scan it to a JPG, open it in Paint, fill
out the fields, and print it to a PDF using PDF Creator.
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4e283c8e$0$2146$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> My landline provider (sonic.net) now offers electronic sending and
> receiving of FAXes at no extra charge and they give you a second phone
> number to use for it. You have to convert outgoing pages to a PDF.
>
> There is freeware available to merge multiple PDF files into one, so a
> multipage FAXing is no problem.
>
> If I have a form to fill out I scan it to a JPG, open it in Paint,
> fill out the fields, and print it to a PDF using PDF Creator.
>> There really isn't an alternative. I keep a landline for the fax
>> machine although my situation has changed enough so that I might
>> do w/o a fax....
>
> My landline provider (sonic.net) now offers electronic sending and
> receiving of FAXes at no extra charge and they give you a second
> phone number to use for it.
I used to need to receive faxes when I was away, I didn't want any 3rd
party having access to them.
I probably could live w/o a fax machine now but I have it, it's paid
for and I'm not giving up my landline even if I didn't need the fax
machine. I can live very nicely w/o the cell phone (although I'd
really miss playing Angry Birds in silent mode when people think I'm
listening to them!) but not w/o the landline.
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:28:52 -0400, Cameo <cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "XS11E" <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Exactly, "we charge this because we can!"
>
> Well, other businesses are also burdened by various regulatory fees, yet
> you don't see them separated out in customer invoices. Such fees are
> simply built into the price structure, as is cost of labor, material and
> overhead. What the phone companies are doing is something unique but may
> be spreading. For instance I've noticed that my car service provider is
> listing a separate charge for hazardous waste disposal fee. I wonder
> what's next? Cap & trade fee?
Ever rent a car? Or stay in a motel? Or maybe you just never read all the
detail spelled out in the calculation of the bottom line of your bill:
such items as
Regulatory fee? 
Linear Mode
