Our numbers are the same except for the last digit. I guess the prefix
might be classed as Palo Alto, which seems weird because we don't live
there.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 11/4/2021 9:20 AM, Trey Scarborough wrote:
Is your wifes phone number one that would originate in Palo Alto. I
have seen this before some taxes are based on the NPA-NXX block I used
to have 2 phonelines one was in a different area code Dallas and
Lubock. Even though the billing address was the same I paid different
taxes based on where the phone number originated from. When I switched
providers and ported the numbers the issue went away.
On 11/2/21 3:13 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
Here's a curious one. My wife & I have cell service through Verizon.
It's a simple plan with unlimited text, unlimited talk, and more data
than we can use. We pay a fee for the service, and we pay a "fixed
amount" for each phone. So far, so good.
However, for some reason that I've never explored until this week, my
wife's "fixed amount" is 28 cents more than mine. It's always been
that way (25+ years now), and I always wondered, but never investigated.
Yesterday I finally investigated. Turns out, the extra 28 cents is in
the part labeled "fees and government charges". Looking into that a
little more finds a fee called "Palo Alto City UUT" in the amount of,
you guessed it, 28 cents.
Now, if I lived in the city of Palo Alto, I might consider that
normal. However, we don't live in the city of Palo Alto.
In fact, we don't even live in the same county as Palo Alto. While
Palo Alto is relatively close, it IS in the next county. Is this even
legal? How can a city in the next county charge my wife's phone (and
not mine) a utility tax?
Have any of you looked in your Verizon bill lately?
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
