• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      Seriously, if you couldn’t even be bothered to write it down then it couldn’t have been something worth being billed for

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    72 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Five lobby groups representing cable companies, fiber and DSL providers, and mobile operators have repeatedly urged the Federal Communications Commission to eliminate the requirement before new broadband labeling rules take effect.

    The filing was submitted by NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, which represents Comcast, Charter, Cox, and other cable companies.

    The trade groups met on Wednesday with the legal advisors to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and Commissioner Brendan Carr, according to the filing.

    The FCC rules aren’t in force yet because they are subject to a federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under the US Paperwork Reduction Act.

    The five trade groups complain that this would require ISPs “to display the pass-through of fees imposed by federal, state, or local government agencies on the consumer broadband label.”

    ISPs could instead include all costs in their advertised rates to give potential customers a clearer idea of how much they would have to pay each month.


    I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 years ago

      Why would it be easier for the consumer to get one line item “ALL FEES” on their bill, instead of a more granular, itemized bill that explains the reasons I’m paying for something?

      It isn’t easier. It’s just more obfuscating.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        Because then they don’t have to come up with technobabble to disguise what the fees are, can you imagine if they actually listed “yatcht fee” the peasents would revolt.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        “The labels must be displayed to consumers at the point of sale and include monthly price, additional charges, speeds, data caps, additional charges for data, and other information.”

        Its talking about point of sale not bills

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 years ago

          Alrighty, why would I prefer everything be condensed at the point of sale instead of spelled out for me?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            The point of it is that they have to show the max cost, not say it cost $59 then once you’ve signed up start charging $74 because of undisclosed ‘hidden’ costs. We don’t deal with that bullshit in Australia, my ISP tells me it’ll cost $99 a month for my chosen speed and unlimited data, thats what I pay no extra charges unless i select a package that gives me extra.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              I imagine that would take a very, very specific law here in America. Corporations screwing over customers is our new national pastime. But honestly as long as I saw the total bill with no change from what was advertised to me that would be fine too.

  • McBinary
    link
    fedilink
    812 years ago

    How about we just scrap the ISP instead and start over with a company that can list what they are charging for? This isn’t hard. Either it’s a legitimate fee or it’s not. I have a feeling they just don’t want to disclose that they have been ripping people off for a few extra bucks every bill for the last decade.

    • Flying SquidOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      202 years ago

      That’s what it is. They don’t want people to know what extra fees they’re tacking on. Of course they can list what they’re charging for. Is their accounting so bad they don’t know who they’re charging for what? I seriously doubt it. This is as easy as a spreadsheet output.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        62 years ago

        If they’re so unsure what they’re charging people, perhaps it might be worth looking into their reported earnings and tax paid.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      46
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      That’s exactly what this is. They obviously have software that calculates the fees, so claiming they can’t tell us why is bullshit when they clearly know why already.

      • Billiam
        link
        fedilink
        English
        202 years ago

        They don’t want customers to know how much of the fees are “non-mandatory,” i.e. what is imposed by the ISP but not required by law.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    212 years ago

    I have to itemize every invoice, for ever customer. Sometimes 100+ items long, and it’s rarely the same, customer to customer. I’m pretty sure they can figure out how to do it too.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    242 years ago

    I just wish they’d crack down on introductory pricing and the whole “threaten cancellation to get a discount” model. Of all the other services I can think of they’re the only ones (I’m including cable TV since ISPs usually do both) that explicitly give new customers a better deal. I’ve actually known other companies to lower your bill the longer you have their service.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      I spent 30 minutes in a chat with Comcast support trying to get the introductory rate after explicitly asking at the beginning if they could do that for me as an existing customer and the rep stating “yes.” 30 minutes later they told me those rates are only for new customers. I then stated that I could go down to the store and cancel my service then sign up under my wife’s name to get the discount and the rep told me that’d be the only way to get the lower pricing.

  • Tygr
    link
    fedilink
    English
    74
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    As a mortgage lender, welcome to the full transparency world. The only people that complain about it are the people that have a lot to hide.

    When they say “too hard” I hear “will cut into our profits.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      112 years ago

      All I hear is “we´d lose too many our costumers if we had to tell them how we´re fleecing them.”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years ago

        Fun fact: one of the big plusses of the EU was a unified consumer protection law that gives customers extensive rights to fight back against malicious hidden clauses they didn’t have to expect if they weren’t explained to them explicitly. Was a surprisingly pro-consumer legislation, that.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        82 years ago

        I agree with the sentiment of your concern as it is a shit load of info. Only part I would disagree with is that nobody explains it. Depends on your realtor of course but mid-pandemic lockdowns my realtor sat down with my wife and I and went page by page, all printed out, and explained everything. Stopped periodically to see what questions we had, and even light heartily quizzed us. He showed us where he was making money, where the bank makes money, what was likely to happen the moment we signed with the mortgage (sold to a different lender), and where our risks were.

        It was a lot. And I don’t look forward to it. But in a day and age where anything can be searched online at your fingertips due diligence is expected by both parties and I felt comfortable going into the closing feeling we had covered most everything.

  • GreenBottles
    link
    fedilink
    English
    132 years ago

    perhaps stop fucking bending us over with all your bullshit fees

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    162 years ago

    That’s some real chutzpah to tell the FCC they’re charging so many bullshit fees they can’t even keep track of them.

  • Zima
    link
    fedilink
    232 years ago

    I have a better solution. If it’s too much work to list it then it’s not worth charging it.

  • Monkey With A Shell
    link
    fedilink
    English
    222 years ago

    Local ISP here I actually had to search on third praty sites to get any idea what their business tier costs since their site refused to say. When they’re allowed to hide things to a point where you need to go through several pages to know what upload speed and data caps they offer it’s obvious they’re looking to screw with people. Top tier was about $150/month for 6tb originally, then during the covid years it got bumped to 8tb because reasons, bow the standard top tier is about $130 with a 3tb cap. Make up your mind people, are you charging for the speed or the volume?