For those of you unhappy with your telephone bill,

the following article may say it all!

Does anyone out there actually read his or her phone bill? If so, I'd expect to hear a chorus of "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!"

For example, take my most recent Souther New England Telephone (SNET) bill. The total monthly charge was $22.35, of which $11.53 was for a single residential line (for my computer). The rest of the bill involved costs with the words "tax", "federal", "Surcharge", "Service Fund" or "Number Portability Service Charge" in their descriptions. This is amazing -- apparently over 48% of the charges are for things other than my phone line!

I called SNET, and visited their web site, to get explanations of these charges. Here is some of what I found:

1. Connecticut Sales Tax: There was no specific information on this tax. I assume it is used for the good of the people of the state - things like services for the hearing impaired, Life Line services for the aged, support of the 911 phone system which protects us all, etc. O.K. I can't really complain about any of these things

2. Federal Tax: Again, I found no specific information but it would be reasonable to assume that this tax would be used to cover costs outside the state for items similar to those discussed above - LifeLine, hearing impaired, etc. Again, no problem with this tax.

3. Connecticut E 9-1-1 Surcharge: According to the SNET representative, with whom I spoke, this pays for the 911 service throughout the state. Hmmm, I thought that was in the tax discussed above. Are we being double charged?

4. Connecticut Service Fund: SNET personnel told me this charge paid for things like LifeLine and telecommunications charges for the hearing impaired. Hmmm, I thought that was in the tax discussed above. Are we being triple charged?

5. Universal Service Fund: SNET told me this was a "federal mandate" and paid for universal phone access. ALL persons who have telephones pay this tax. I asked, "If everybody pays it, who benefits?" After a pause, I received a reply, "Well, LifeLine people don't pay it on their bills. So, that means that LifeLine people benefit. But wait! I thought those costs were covered by at least SOME of the taxes and surcharges discussed earlier. What's going on here?

6. Carrier Line Charge: (I loved this one!). SNET said that I was charged this amount because I had SNET All Distance as my long distance carrier. Not wanting long distance service on this line, I asked, "If I don't select a long distance carrier I wouldn't have this charge, right?" The answer was "No, in that event your account is listed as 'undetermined carrier' and a charge was applied BECAUSE you don't have a long distance carrier selected." (This sounds like something I read in Alice in Wonderland). Apparently you cannot elect to not have a long distance capable (i.e. local-only) phone line.

7. Number Portability Service Charge: SNET says this is a charge so I can keep the same phone number if I change phone companies. I said, "If I don't change companies, why should I pay for keeping a number that is already mine?" There was a long pause and no answer. I then asked why costs associated with keeping the same number weren't charged to people who changed companies AND wanted to keep their same number. Again, no answer was forthcoming. Apparently everybody pays for a capability that only some ever use. That is a business model pretty far removed from free enterprise. Carl Marx would have loved it!

I cannot believe that it is impossible for SNET to provide customers with a local-only phone line. With such a line we could eliminate the Carrier Line Charge. SNET can block outgoing calls to 900 numbers or block incoming calls from numbers that use caller ID blocking (provided you pay them more). Come on! Give the customer credit for some brains! If SNET wanted to remove long distance capability (or if they could increase profits by doing so), they would do it.

Let's examine the federally mandated Universal Access Charge. This is supposed to provide telephones to high cost (or is it poor?) areas. Since when did the Telephone Company become an arm of the federal government to collect funding for a social program? Why don't we pay an added tax on our electric bills to fund food stamps? (Oops, better be careful or they might start doing it!).

Unfortunately, we are at the mercy of the telephone companies. We cannot protest these added costs by non-payment or our service will be terminated. I wish there were some way to effectively protest these actions. We should get the government tax collectors out of the utility business (or at least add some common sense to the system). Why should people pay long distance-associated levies when they don't want long distance service on a particular phone line?

Perhaps somebody from SNET (or a hungry lawyer) will come up with a way to redress some of these wrongs. I sure hope so!

Name withheld to protect the writer from phone company retaliation.

Use your browser "back" button to return to the previous page