Dear Editor:
Most of us who look at the monthly phone bills believe that the only taxes that are included are those which are separately shown: 1) federal tax, 3 percent; 2) state tax, 6 percent. Because these are shown as separate entries on our billings we are easily convinced that these are the only taxes included.
Of course, we also pay taxes called by other names: 1) FCC subscriber line charge; 2) local number portability surcharge and 3) federal universal service fund surcharge. Although the word “tax” is not used, since we did not request these services the charges are, de facto, taxes.
There is a more insidious “tax” which is hidden in the rates charged by phone companies.
Included in our monthly long-distance phone bill is a charge ranging from 6.9 percent to 9.9 percent for the subsidization of low-income users who cannot, presumably, afford the going rates. Much like rent control in apartment buildings which boosts the real estate tax bills of unsuspecting homeowners by shifting the burden, the subsidization secretly boasts the phone bills of unsuspecting subscribers like myself.
It is one thing to have the government push these social programs; it is another to hide this fact from the ultimate payer, the subscriber.
I propose that monthly phone billings include a statement similar to the following: Charge for long-distance service include 6.9 percent (or the actual amount) to subsidize low-income users. This charge is mandated by the FCC. It is only fair that the subscriber be fully informed.
Frank X. Landrigan