MetroPCS Customers Not Paying Their Fair Share?

How Not to Pay Your City Cell Phone Tax

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MetroPCS in the Bay Area has found a way around paying their fair share of cell phone taxes. Actually they have found a way to save San Franciscan's money. Depending on how you look at it. I imagine that MetroPCS would like you to think that it is on your behalf.

When I signed up for my MetroPCS phone I gave them my real name, number address etc. I got locked out of Voicemail and was prompted to give my address. This led me to find out that the address they had on file and the one I gave them were not the same. I went into a corporate store and received a printout which included my recorded address. I went back to the store where I bought my phone and inquired... We have asked more than 4 store managers and one corporate store why the address We gave them was not the address they had on file and we were told the same thing in each store. "San Francisco tax is too expensive"..Save money..good for the customer etc.

These stores offer you a chance to "save money" by eliminating a paper bill being mailed to you. In this way the customer can save as much as $3.50 or more each month by having their bill viewed online. But where do the savings come from? Less Tax of course! But wait I do pay a monthly 911 tax of about 80 cents which needs to be collected by San Francisco so I heard. It is curious that I pay a city tax on a phone that is registered out of the city.

To be fair it's a good price point strategy for MetroPCS since their product (which is primarily targeting those with limited or no credit, terrorists and drug dealers) requires up to 10% tax to be collected in California which prices the product at over $50. By eliminating the higher cell tax Metropcs users in San Francisco and Daly City pay around $49 a month. So, If you choose not to get a paper bill you opt out of paying the SF Tax.
http://metropcs.com/support/faq.php#200


Could it be that MetroPCS said screw you to San Francisco after the city won repeated attempts to force potentially harmful transmission towers to be built under protest in the community. see: Metropcs v city and county of San Francisco.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/924A93785E9B655988256FBD005FBEB6/$file/0316759.pdf?openelement

I'd sure like to know why our external account billing will record an out of town address such as the 89 Linden ave, South San Francisco address some stores use. We have uncovered more than a dozen MetroPCS dealers who send their customer call records to this address. This address is needed by government to verify the Cell Owner relating to tax and other purposes. Have MetroPCS and it's 40 independent dealers in San Francisco and Daly City conspired to defraud or inhibit with the collection of it's cell phone tax? Are they failing to keep accurate customer records which could be helpful in approved police investigations? Is this the tip of a larger pattern and practice? Los Angeles taxes their local customers 10%. In fact there are 160 Cities in California requiring a utility users tax.
http://www.citymayors.com/finance/phone_tax.html

Here is a link to the related City Tax Code 1.703-2 page.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/treasurer_page.asp?id=17806

What also isn't clear is whether printed call records are being sent to addresses outside of the city to comply with the local usage and address verification ordinance. What this means to you the customer is that your personal call records may be accessed and retained by unknown third parties. Which last time I checked is illegal. Not to mention with all the NSA illegal Domestic wiretapping hitting the news. When you sign up for a pre-paid anonymous cell phone in San Francisco chances are that your calls are not anonymous anylonger.


Hello Hello Hello


A little history on MetroPCS
http://www.buyblue.org/node/1503/view/summary

With the courts on its side, MetroPCS Communications has battled back from bankruptcy. The company is developing its phone networks using CDMA (code division multiple access) technology. It operates in the metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Miami, Sacramento, and San Francisco. In 1995 MetroPCS purchased 14 spectrum licenses in an FCC auction but claimed the price was too much. The matter was argued in the courts, and the FCC sought help from the US Supreme Court, which denied it a hearing; in 2001 the deal price was reduced from $1 billion to $166 million. CEO Roger Linquist and CTO Malcolm Lorang founded MetroPCS in 1994.

[b][i]WHile MetroPCS and it's dealers have some splainin to do, $834 Million Dollars says this company will find a way out.[/i][/b]

Does the City have the guts to stand-up and demand a proper review against a former partner to Arthur Anderson, a Private Council to the President, a Barbary Coast Consulting client? Will all 40 Independent dealers like EZ Wireless in San Francisco be held responsible and split the bill? Only Time Will Tell... I wouldn't count on the Chronicle speaking too harshly about one of its bigger advertising clients though. Here's what USA Today has to say after finding out MetroPCS hasn't upgraded it's 911 system in Florida published a week or so ago.
http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readinvestigativearticle.asp?articleid=8251&z=5&p=


MetroPCS is a non-union, low budget-high profit operation. They have sued the city more than once and have cost the city of San Francisco a lot of money. They came to the table offering competitive service, comparative value and considerable tax subsidy. Maybe its time the city replaces their contract. Or Not! What is your opinion?

Can You Hear Me Now?

C. History