magicJack  and magicJack Plus Support, Reviews, FAQs and Hacks Forum Index

magicJack and magicJack Plus Support, Reviews, FAQs and Hacks


magicJack and magicJack Plus Unofficial Technical Support. Your Magic Jack and Magic Jack Plus phone service information resource
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Battle - MJ+ Contradicting themselves once again!



 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    magicJack and magicJack Plus Support, Reviews, FAQs and Hacks Forum Index -> magicJack Plus Support
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VaHam wrote:
Thanks I had missed that also the 4.8% is still a mystery since they already charge 6% tax to FL customers.


You're welcome. I honestly think it's a combination of Cell14's opinion and mine. It looks like a "junk fee" that they are dumping a lot of stuff into in an attempt to try and recover expenses without having to actually raise their base price.

I'll give a buck, maybe two, to anyone who can come up with the exact calculation of the 4.8%. I don't think it can be done.

My opinion is that they either set it just below 5% so that there wouldn't be too much bitching, or that it was close enough to cover whatever expenses they want to get back, and based on estimated internet sales, that % would do the trick. Just the receipt title of "Regulatory and Compliance Expense" is borderline double-talk.

The only thing I'm left to wonder about is why the heck they are saying it is a required federal fee in the recording. Sounds like an outright lie to me. The last I heard, they don't think they are subject to collecting any federal telcom fees.

Edit: And for some real boring clarification. IF, they weren't collecting the 6% internet sales on Fla residents, it wouldn't have taken much of the 4.8% to recover it. With 50 states, maybe not Alaska, and maybe all 13 Canadian provinces and territories, one would think Florida would make up 1 out of 25 of their sales, at best? 1/25*6%=.24%, which would have been a minor part of the 4.8%. Of course it seems to be a moot point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VaHam
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 851

PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nailgunner wrote:
VaHam wrote:
the 4.8% is still a mystery since they already charge 6% tax to FL customers.


I honestly think it's a combination of Cell14's opinion and mine. It looks like a "junk fee" that they are dumping a lot of stuff into in an attempt to try and recover expenses without having to actually raise their base price.

I'll give a buck, maybe two, to anyone who can come up with the exact calculation of the 4.8%. I don't think it can be done.

My opinion is that they either set it just below 5% so that there wouldn't be too much bitching, or that it was close enough to cover whatever expenses they want to get back, and based on estimated internet sales, that % would do the trick. Just the receipt title of "Regulatory and Compliance Expense" is borderline double-talk.

The only thing I'm left to wonder about is why the heck they are saying it is a required federal fee in the recording. Sounds like an outright lie to me. The last I heard, they don't think they are subject to collecting any federal telcom fees.


Yes that is really what I am curious about. Are they now getting hit with something new from the feds? Maybe it is just their way to recover legal fees from things like Kanawha County.

I still have heard nothing new regarding the 911 issue with Kanawha Coounty vs MJ. Last news was they had agreed to a postponement of the March 2011 hearing; to attempt to reach a settlement. Maybe they did reach a settlement and were more successful in getting it kept quiet than they were with Boing Boing and the slapp suit.

I have mixed emotions about 911 charges anyway. It would be fine if they charged for the expense of the telephone equipment and switching fees etc from the phone company; but municipalities now put everything including the kitchen sink into those fees.

I chaired the committee for my county when 911 was first adopted and the cost from the phone company to provide call steering and a database for each line was about $0.30 I am sure it has gone up but some now charge several dollars/mo because they add the cost of things which should be funded by general revenues.

EDIT: I did some more digging and apparently MJ did in fact reach a settlement with Kanawha County County 911 although they should have reported the settlement long before now since that states within 30 days from the April 2011 date.
- also added link for info re: Boing Boing issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Just the receipt title of "Regulatory and Compliance Expense" is borderline double-talk.

The only thing I'm left to wonder about is why the heck they are saying it is a required federal fee in the recording. Sounds like an outright lie to me. The last I heard, they don't think they are subject to collecting any federal telcom fees.


Those junk fees became an plague. Dan did not invent them, he probably just looked at his cell phone bill an got another great idea. There is a huge difference between government mandated taxes and those junk fees. I am really expecting any time a vendor bringing me an invoice with " costs of compliance with traffic laws" as an additional charge.
Dan walks with his double talk a thin line once again. You cannot pretend collecting taxes for the government while just pocketing extra cash.
FL is pretty drastic in collecting sales' taxes. Every invoice for taxable goods or services must have a sale's tax spelled out( unless the recipient is exempt). You can " compensate" with a cash register discount but you still have to have the sales tax on it.
Even manufacturer's coupons get taxed. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VaHam
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 851

PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First I am not a lawyer so the following is only my personal opinion!

Magicjack IMHO walks a thin line on their status as a non-interconnected voip service. Remember the little box you had to check in order to make out going calls when you signed up. As I understand it they claimed they are not a "Interconnected VOIP service", during the FCC case between them and AT&T; since MJ provides incoming calls and if you elect to opt in then they arrange for YMAX to allow you to make outgoing calls as well. You have no agreement with YMAX it self since your entire agreement is between you and MJ via MJ's TOS.

CNET Perspective: VoIP providers face headaches galore
Quote:
The FCC interprets the concept of "interconnected VoIP" broadly, to include any VoIP service offering that is capable of making or receiving two-way calls over the public telephone network, whether the customer actually does so or not.
Emphasis added.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/VoIP-providers-face-headaches-galore/2010-7352_3-6098120.html#ixzz1UyIjsBat


If they are not classed as a "Interconnected VOIP service" then they are not subject to certain Federal regulations. For instance as I understand it they would not be obligated to provide E911; even though they do.

Probably more importantly, would not be the requirement to participate (pay into) the Universal Service Fund (USF); which supplements rural customers and schools etc.

I wondered if Magicjack's status as a non "Interconnected VOIP Service" has changed and that is where these fees are coming into play or not. I think we are all guessing as to what they actually cover.

If it has not changed then this thin line regarding providing two seperate services (one by MJ the other by YMAX) is the one they would still be walking. I assume there will be some similar opt in option when registering the new Plus devices and they will control the outgoing calls feature thru the new device based on whether you opted in or not. If they don't then I would think that would place them in jeopardy with regard to their status.

More info on the issue - FCC.gov
Quote:
Typically, interconnected VoIP technology works by either placing an adapter between a traditional phone and Internet connection, or by using a special VoIP phone that connects directly to your computer or Internet connection.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even lawyers have hard time to sort this out. I think that a major overhaul of telecom taxation is inevitable. The land lines are disappearing. Cell phones are not a problem, just the opposite- governments make far more money there. But VOIP is a real problem , not just for the federal government.
Here, I used to pay on my land line the state telecom tax, gross receipt surcharge , county tax, E911 surcharge and county ordinance surcharge. With things like MJ, GV etc this is all gone and they started worrying about their retirement benefits.
If Dan really used those 4.8 % to pay for government taxes he would have less of a problem to exactly list and specify them. I believe that this is just one of his numerous shenanigans.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VaHam
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 851

PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cell14 wrote:
Even lawyers have hard time to sort this out. I think that a major overhaul of telecom taxation is inevitable. The land lines are disappearing. Cell phones are not a problem, just the opposite- governments make far more money there. But VOIP is a real problem , not just for the federal government.
Here, I used to pay on my land line the state telecom tax, gross receipt surcharge , county tax, E911 surcharge and county ordinance surcharge. With things like MJ, GV etc this is all gone and they started worrying about their retirement benefits.
If Dan really used those 4.8 % to pay for government taxes he would have less of a problem to exactly list and specify them. I believe that this is just one of his numerous shenanigans.


Yes I am not sure how much longer Dan can get away with non-interconnected assertion. The West Virginia case would have brought the issue before a commission if it were not settled out of court. The county 911 was asserting that MJ was in fact Interconnected and therefore subject to E911 fees. If this were found to be the case then they would have also been subject to other Federal provisions as I understand it.

I am sure there are those here who will strongly disagree but the new MJ+ adds a standalone device allowing two way connection and IMHO certainly fits the FCC definition of Interconnected I showed above which weakens MJ's position.

Google Voice appears to me to be in a better position since you can easily have just one way forwarding to you and they provide no softphone or hardware on your premises to facilitate using their web service features.

That is why I feel the symbiotic relationship between GV and OBi is beneficial to GV as well, and may simply continue. OBi which is in fact a separate entity, unlike the MJ/YMAX connection, provides the hardware/software which allows one to connect a phone to Google service easily but they do not provide any connection to the POTS. Their own OBi network does not connect to the POTS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sabresfan
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 12 Feb 2009
Posts: 673
Location: Buffalo NY

PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think MJ is going to be able to escape the e911 fees anymore. When the Plus is in full swing they are going to be a target for all the municipalities that are short on cash. Other than hardware/price differences what would be the difference between MJ+ and Vonage. They could make the argument imho with the dongle/computer setup but not as a stand alone ata. In the end MJ would be better to just charge the applicable fees for e911 and move on. Ooma even charges monthly fees now. I just don't see how MJ can avoid it anymore once the plus hits stores.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't think MJ is going to be able to escape the e911 fees anymore. When the Plus is in full swing they are going to be a target for all the municipalities that are short on cash.

The thing is that once they are subjected to E11 fees they will be most likely subjected to all other federal, state and local taxes, as VaHam correctly noted
As a matter of fact, the E911 is probably the weakest one. How would you determine which county is eligible to collect it? Based on area code and exchange ? We know that this would not work with MJ where everybody freely chooses and many area codes/exchanges are not available at all.
Based on billing zip code of the credit card? Well, my county will miss out since my p.o.box is across the county line. And what about all the international users ?
A complete overhaul of the whole telecom taxation system is needed, otherwise this will become a real mess.

Quote:
Google Voice appears to me to be in a better position since you can easily have just one way forwarding to you and they provide no softphone or hardware on your premises to facilitate using their web service features.

That is why I feel the symbiotic relationship between GV and OBi is beneficial to GV as well, and may simply continue. OBi which is in fact a separate entity, unlike the MJ/YMAX connection, provides the hardware/software which allows one to connect a phone to Google service easily but they do not provide any connection to the POTS. Their own OBi network does not connect to the POTS.


If they push the taxation GV may have to become a one way service.
I do not think that the taxman would accept the Obi/GV scheme because that would open the door for others who may try to set up similar constructions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VaHam
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 851

PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cell14 wrote:
If they push the taxation GV may have to become a one way service.
I do not think that the taxman would accept the Obi/GV scheme because that would open the door for others who may try to set up similar constructions.


The narrow distinction the FCC makes is the "Interconnected" nature of VOIP services. They seem to recognize that adding POTS capability to other types of online applications as being different than providing traditional phone service to a location.

Notice that the USF fees are assessed on dry loop DSL for instance even though the dry loop provides no phone service it does interconnect one with the Internet. IMHO that is the proper place for that assessment, if there has to be one; "to the last mile" of service whether it is via cable, twisted pair, satellite, cellular or even wide area WiFi; since these all have to do with getting service into a location. So I think the FCC has it right in regards to the USF.

This non sense of a Federal Line Fee, which goes to the company who provides that last mile not the FED and is only called that because the FEDs put a cap on it of $6.50, is just a junk fee. IMHO it is just a part of the company's fee disguised to look like something else. It is only collectible by those providing the "last mile" so it is not something which VOIP services should be involved with anyway.

IMHO the cost of E911 should be paid for from general funds rather than as fees tacked on to telephone service. The fact that someone needs help is not because they have phone service no matter what type; but rather because they have an emergency and seek help from police or emergency services. I well understand that in the beginning communities sought ways to fund 911 service and when their states allowed them to assess 911 fees that solved their funding problems; but they have IMHO included way to many things under this banner now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Notice that the USF fees are assessed on dry loop DSL for instance even though the dry loop provides no phone service it does interconnect one with the Internet

That is interesting because I have dry loop DSL and they never assessed USF,
so I wonder whether the company just eats it, which would be unusual
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VaHam
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 851

PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cell14 wrote:
Quote:
Notice that the USF fees are assessed on dry loop DSL for instance even though the dry loop provides no phone service it does interconnect one with the Internet

That is interesting because I have dry loop DSL and they never assessed USF,
so I wonder whether the company just eats it, which would be unusual


Look in the fine grey print at the bottom of dsl extreme's website regarding USF fees of $2.88 being added. Doesn't show up until you have "pre qualified" your location for DSL service and are shown a price.


Last edited by VaHam on Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:06 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Look in the fine grey print at the bottom of dsl extreme's website regarding USF fees of $2.88 being added

Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    magicJack and magicJack Plus Support, Reviews, FAQs and Hacks Forum Index -> magicJack Plus Support All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB Turbo Extended Edition © 2010, phpBB Group