|
Posted by T on November 29, 2007, 1:14 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
joeofseattle@yahoo.com says...
> wrote:
>
> <<Watcha wanna bet that a hefty number of those
> areas have a "911 surcharge" cheerfully being
> paid each month by the customers...??>>
>
> Watcha wanna bet that they don't! You cannot bill someone for services
> that they do not receive. Perhaps they don't have E911 or even regular
> 911. The PUC would not stand for someone to be billed for services
> that are not provided. If 911 or E911 services were being put into
> service or it was started to organize to have the service they might
> assess a fee, but just assessing a fee because you think you can
> doesn't fly.
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
> with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
>
>
In Rhode Island I get dipped about $2 a month to support our E-911
system. Used to be on Vonage I didn't get charged for that but when they
opened Vonage up to E-911 services here we got to pay for it again.
Matter of fact I now pay $8 in taxes in fees on my VoIP connection, but
it's still way cheaper than using Verizon for the same services.
Yes I know, there are those who say I have to pay for the broadband
connection but that connection gets used for more than just telephone
services.
| ![Re: [Telecom] Re: 911 service not universal](/images/header.jpg)
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map