Sometimes The Onion is scarily prescient. Just yesterday I was browsing through the site on a whim and got a chuckle out of this story, titled “Verizon Introduces New Charge-You-At-Whim Plan”. Then, while browsing through the local news, I came across WTOP’s story about a new surcharge that Verizon is about to introduce. The stories even carry the same date. Like I said: scarily prescient.
But enough Onion-admiration; let’s move on to the Verizon-bashing. The new fee affects DSL customers and will range from $1 to $3 per month, depending on your subscription plan. That much is irritating, but relatively humdrum. What’s truly infuriating is the “coincidence” that correlates with the rate hike: the federal government is in the process of phasing out mandatory contributions to the Universal Service Fund by DSL customers, which previously cost customers — you guessed it — between $1 and $3 per month.
The USF was created to help ensure the availability of telecom services in rural areas that might not otherwise be served by the unregulated market. The government has decided that DSL is no longer subject to the fee (and, more recently, that VoIP service is). Cynics might suggest that the former USF money is now going straight into Verizon coffers rather than toward rural infrastructure. However, WTOP quotes a Verizon rep as saying that the new charge “is not related at all to USF”. Color us skeptical.
If the rate hike truly is a coincidence, it’s unfortunate, and a clearer explanation of why it’s being introduced is warranted. If it isn’t a coincidence, it’s a shame to see Verizon treat their customers with such apparent contempt. For all of its DSL service’s speed limitations, Verizon has at least been on the side of the angels with respect to arbitrary bandwidth caps and fighting for customer privacy (although their behavior on the municipal Wi-Fi issue has admittedly been deplorable). Respect for customers is the single, meager advantage that DSL offers over cable these days. Verizon would be well-served not to lose sight of that fact.
