[HN Gopher] FCC refuses to scrap rule requiring ISPs to list eve...
___________________________________________________________________
FCC refuses to scrap rule requiring ISPs to list every monthly fee
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 251 points
Date : 2023-08-30 18:37 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| ivanmontillam wrote:
| I'm with the FCC on this one.
|
| It's silly ISPs are fighting this, because if they can charge you
| a specific fee, it's obvious they can provide an CSV or Excel
| file with all the fees. I don't see anything too hard about it.
| It's literally a SELECT and maybe a JOIN with it.
|
| Hell, I don't even understand what's so hard about it. Literally,
| Twilio gives you a nice CSV file with all the fees and tiers
| applicable to you and you can use it to ask for discounts. If
| Twilio can do it, you standard AT&T for sure can.
|
| It's ironic how in The Land of the Free, ISPs are fighting to be
| opaque. If your corporate strategy is based on obscurity, maybe
| it's time for some serious consumer protection regulation?
| Madmallard wrote:
| This should not be news. This should be status quo. The fact that
| it is not means our society is late-stage capitalism dog vomit.
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| A published list of fees, while transparent, is a useless
| blizzard of data by itself.
|
| One customer-useful approach would be a "dslreports.com"
| providing precise total average monthly bill amount for a
| specific address along with the breakdown.
| izzydata wrote:
| I don't see why they can't just charge a flat rate that is
| slightly above whatever the sum of all fees would be and then
| they sort it out themselves. Is it actually better for the
| consumer that they charge us $36.78 instead of $40.00 so they can
| avoid listing 15 different local fees?
|
| I'm honestly asking because I don't know.
| legitster wrote:
| I believe that the rules are that if you list something as a
| fee, all of that money has to go towards that fee or else you
| get in trouble.
|
| The FTC suggests though that ISPs just raise prices and
| internalize the fees. But then your price is always going to
| look worse than the next guy, and you may just encourage local
| governments to give you more fees for you to bury for them.
| legitster wrote:
| I'm actually struggling to understand this a bit.
|
| So an ISP needs to advertise a "$29/mo + local fees" plan as
| "$29/mo + $0-$80/mo in fees"
|
| I guess other than making the advertising super annoying, I don't
| understand the ISP objection. Assuming every provider is faced
| with roughly the same kind of fees and it's a level playing
| field.
|
| > Providers are free, of course, to not pass these fees through
| to consumers to differentiate their pricing and simplify their
| Label display if they believe it will make their service more
| attractive to consumers and ensure that consumers are not
| surprised by unexpected charges.
|
| This is a surprisingly snarky response from the FCC. "If you are
| so worried about the label being confusing why not just raise
| your prices?" It's hard to believe that they are suggesting this
| seriously.
| Macha wrote:
| A lot of those fees are not usage taxes or similar, but rather
| costs of doing business that an ISP has chosen to pass on to
| customers as seperate fees so they can keep the headline price
| low.
|
| It's like if your supermarket advertised their prices as $50,
| and then you go up to the till and it's $60 because they've
| included a "shelf stacking fee", and they claim that they can't
| just include that in their advertised price because their shelf
| stackers' wages vary by jurisdiction.
| legitster wrote:
| > A lot of those fees are not taxes or similar, but rather
| costs of doing business that an ISP has chosen to pass on to
| customers as separate fees so they can keep the headline
| price low.
|
| This kind of fee hiding is already conclusively illegal for a
| variety of reasons and not at all what the FCC is discussing
| in this article.
|
| This is much more akin to how, a grocery store might have to
| disclose a liquor tax as part of the sales price instead of
| the sales tax.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| It's an important point for the FTC to emphasize, IMHO:
|
| Businesses in many domains love to claim that any increase in
| their cost - taxes, suppliers, etc. - must be passed on to
| their customers.
|
| That is absolute ripe BS, and anyone who knows any economics,
| finance, or has run even the smallest business knows it. More
| bizarre is that consumers - and others who know better and have
| no vested interest in the BS - all repeat it.
| legitster wrote:
| > That is absolute ripe BS, and anyone who knows any
| economics, finance, or has run even the smallest business
| knows it.
|
| ??? Are you arguing that increases in costs are not passed on
| to consumers at all?
|
| It's also worth pointing out that the FTC is _not_ just
| talking about passing along random costs - they are
| specifically talking about things like the Universal Service
| Fee (basically sales tax for ISPs) and local regulatory fees.
| Things that are assessed on customer billing.
| gotoeleven wrote:
| Did you know that money doesn't come from a magic tree?
|
| And since it doesn't come from a magic tree, it has to come
| from customers or from profits.
|
| And a lot of these businesses have low profit margins to
| begin with (ie health insurance). Those businesses that are
| already low margin do have to pass the costs on to customers
| otherwise the risk adjusted return of their business is not
| worth it compared to savings bonds.
|
| Ultimately if the cost of doing business is higher whether
| its because the government has imposed additional fees or
| because your money tree died, the cost of the producing the
| product has gone up and this has to be an upward pressure on
| prices. Unless you're running a money tree farm which must be
| the "smallest businesses" you're referring to.
| amflare wrote:
| If an ISP advertises $49.99/mo, then they need to itemize on
| the bill anything that makes the final charge greater than
| $49.99. Right now, ISPs generally have a "Fees" line, with no
| insight into what said "Fees" are, unless you jump through
| hoops to contact them. ISP are complaining (presumably because
| the increased transparency will make it harder to milk the
| customer) by trying to claim that itemizing the invoice will be
| confusing since they have to pass-through all these state and
| federal fees. The FCC is saying "tough shit", and if they want
| to keep it "simple" then they need to roll these fees into the
| sticker price.
|
| Basically, either itemize or be upfront. If the ISP doesn't
| want to itemize, then the bill must match the advertised price.
| If they want to keep the advertised price lower, they need to
| itemize all additional fees being added to the bill.
| adrr wrote:
| They are passing along fees like universal access fee. This
| is tax on the provider, not the customer. Some providers
| don't pass it along like google fiber. It's impossible to do
| price comparison if they don't list out what random charges
| they are tacking on your bill. My google fiber bill is $100
| for their $100 plan and that's the way it should be.
| legitster wrote:
| This is not what the FCC in the article are saying at all:
|
| > Providers must itemize the fees on consumer bills, and we
| see no reason why consumers cannot assess the fees at the
| point-of-sale any less than they can when they receive a
| bill.
|
| The FCC's entire rule is to make providers itemize fees on
| advertising, _just like providers are already doing on their
| bills_.
| bhhaskin wrote:
| ISPs are putting BS fees instead of raising their prices.
| macinjosh wrote:
| After reading the FCC's statement this is clearly about elected
| officials and regulators wanting cover from corporations for the
| taxes and fees they levy. The corporations want to point out what
| goes into their costs on the bill, but it is impractical to
| advertise on price when each viewer of a TV ad may have a
| slightly different cost because of their location.
|
| Either way, consumers are paying for it. The two parties are just
| arguing over how it is presented to the public. We will probably
| end up with even less transparency in advertising with tactics
| like: "plans as low as $X" or the like.
| what-no-tests wrote:
| Can they at least offset some of my fees by paying me a dividend
| for all the data they sell to law enforcement agencies?
| JoshTko wrote:
| This is great. Kind of crazy that price transparency isn't
| available for healthcare yet in the US.
| hedora wrote:
| Coming soon to a bill near you:
|
| $50/mo FCC fee itemization fee
| virtuous_sloth wrote:
| If you can afford to bill it, you can afford to list it.
| meindnoch wrote:
| What is tge FCC equivalent for restaurants? We need legislation
| to _prominently_ display those bullshit "service fees" and
| "kitchen appreciation fees" everywhere, not just the final bill.
| cvoss wrote:
| I don't know that the consumer expenses for dining out rise to
| the same level of importance as those for internet service in
| the digital world. On the luxury/need spectrum, the former is
| decidedly on the luxury side while the latter is increasingly
| on the need side.
|
| That being said, I am curious what cities/regions or restaurant
| types you see this happening at. I don't think I've ever
| encountered anything like that where I live (southeast) except
| for things like the customary mandatory 18% gratuity for
| parties of 6 or more.
| hot_gril wrote:
| Bay Area and California in general. San Francisco was first
| with the 5% restaurant healthcare fee, which I think was a
| citywide tax that explicitly allowed businesses to list the
| fee separately. Maybe this inspired other restaurants in
| adjacent cities to start adding similar things despite not
| having any law like that, usually (but not always) mentioning
| the fee in fine print. It got even more widespread lately
| with the classic "covid fee" which later got changed to
| "inflation fee." The other less rigid thing is asking for a
| 22-30% tip on the credit card machine, often for things you
| don't traditionally tip for; at those places I use cash.
|
| Highest I've seen is 8% while also asking for a tip, but at
| least the fee is clearly listed at the top of the menu:
| https://asliceofny.com/sunnyvale/menu/
| meindnoch wrote:
| "An 8% Co-op Wellness service charge is added to all orders
| and is split 40/60 between employees+managers and the
| cooperative. It is not a tip."
|
| Yeah, this is the kind of bullshit I'm talking about. It's
| a percent-based surcharge, so why can't they just increase
| their prices by 8%?
|
| Prices on the menu are meaningless at this point. With
| sales tax, the "obligatory" tipping and these new bullshit
| fees you'd be closer to the real price by mentally doubling
| everything on the menu. How people put up with this shit is
| beyond me.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Just deduct it from your tip and move on.
| hot_gril wrote:
| It's more like 30-35% but yeah. Don't forget the credit
| card fee if you're using that, except that one actually
| makes sense since you can opt out.
| no_wizard wrote:
| With the absolute proliferation of hidden / undisclosed /
| hard to find fees since 2020, the trend only seems to be
| accelerating.
|
| For instance, I went out to eat the other day, and I hadn't
| gone to a regular restaurant in awhile. Prices seemed
| reasonable. Then the final bill came, and had almost $7
| dollars worth of various little fees.
|
| Prior to 2020, this was nearly unheard of, and I certainly
| never experienced it.
|
| I have vowed to not eat out for the foreseeable future
| without a _really_ compelling reason.
|
| The calculus would be different if that had to be listed in
| the price or otherwise disclosed in an obvious manner. This
| happens in other establishments too.
|
| For another example, apparently, my apartment mandates a
| cleaning "charge". This is not disclosed in the lease, nor on
| the website, or anything of that nature. Its taken out of
| your deposit, non optional. Apparently, this is completely
| legal, and its frustrating.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| Good. Companies should be able to charge the prices they want,
| but if that's the case they should be required to disclose the
| full price and nothing but the price.
| tptacek wrote:
| In this case, ISPs are charging prices they don't want, but
| rather are mandated to by local governments.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| That's a normal part of business.
| tptacek wrote:
| Really? In what other ordinary retail business do you need
| to get a customer zip code before you can quote them an
| accurate price on a standard offering?
| mqus wrote:
| Don't they need to know your address anyways to check if
| they can provide service at all?
| vel0city wrote:
| Practically all of them. I don't see the final price from
| pretty much any online store until I put in my ZIP as
| otherwise it doesn't know shipping or taxes.
|
| But at least I can see the final price _before_ I choose
| to commit to buying the item. Many ISPs won 't tell you
| what the bill is going to be until they've already wired
| you up for service.
| jcranmer wrote:
| E-commerce?
| meepmorp wrote:
| Zip code isn't nearly enough information to work out
| telecom taxes/fees, as they often cross political
| boundaries with potentially different rates and charges.
| You need a full street address.
| tzs wrote:
| Same for sales tax, if you are selling in a way where the
| applicable sales tax is where the customer lives rather
| than where the seller is.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Those are expenses. The ISPs choose the price they want based
| on their expenses. Complaining about local regulations is no
| more or less legitimate than complaining about the price of
| copper.
| macinjosh wrote:
| The US has a long tradition of separating taxes from sale
| prices. Every fast food joint lists a price w/o sales tax.
| You don't pay sales tax to the state individually. The
| state is taxing the businesses' sales, but the cost is
| passed on to you. Why should ISPs not be able to do the
| same thing Del Taco does?
|
| In my area we have small shopping districts that have their
| infrastructure funded through a 1.7% sales tax on every
| retail business. Best Buy doesn't change the price of the
| iPhone 14 to reflect this. Should they? I don't know.
| Instead taped to the surface of every checkout is a typed
| note informing the customer of the improvement fund. I
| think a good compromise would be to allow advertising to
| remain how it is, but require a full detailed bill at the
| point of sale.
| tptacek wrote:
| No, they're not. Comcast's price doesn't float municipality
| to municipality. These are simply taxes that local
| governments are charging and forcing Comcast to collect.
| frumper wrote:
| Prices do change in different municipalities. I've paid
| different sticker prices in different towns that are
| within an hour of each other for the same service.
| viraptor wrote:
| This is the real price though. The customer doesn't care
| normally - the price is what they pay, not the weird
| partial amount that the ISP itself gets in the end.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _customer doesn 't care normally - the price is what
| they pay_
|
| A savvy customer should. If 90% of the bill is Comcast,
| I'm going to negotiate with Comcast. If 90% is municipal
| fees, I'm going to call my city council.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Reaction: If $ISP can't even _list_ all the government taxes,
| fees, charges, etc. that they 're collecting on my bill...then it
| seems darned unlikely that they can correctly keep track of all
| those different types of funds, and properly remit them to all
| the various units of governments to which they are due. Clearly
| the DoJ, SEC, State Police, State Atty's General, etc. need to
| move in on $ISP's Accounting Dept., and "un-gently relieve" $ISP
| of all the "accidentally unpaid" funds they've retained. Along
| with some "extremely generous" penalties and interest for their
| "oversights".
| hot_gril wrote:
| I want the F _T_ C to crack down on unlisted fees in general,
| cause it's been getting out of hand lately. Like, I'm entitled to
| stay at a hotel at the lowest advertised price, not that plus
| some $100 "resort fee" they tack on after I've already paid once.
| legitster wrote:
| This is specifically a hack to get around listing and booking
| costs. I'm surprised the big players like Expedia or Google or
| Booking haven't started cracking down on it themselves.
| hot_gril wrote:
| Sometimes, but not always. In some cases I only find out
| after I've booked. They could at least tell me about the fee
| on their site before booking if they only wanted to trick
| Google. They want to trick me too.
| legitster wrote:
| Well it depends on where you come from. If you book direct
| on Bookings.com you never see the website. And if you have
| a blatantly different price on Bookings than Expedia you
| might get dinged by Bookings!
|
| I agree that resort fees are BS, but hotel listing sites
| are also an absolute coordinated shakedown on hotels and
| this is their response.
| mr337 wrote:
| I thought resort fees were a Las Vegas thing. Are other
| places doing it as well? I hope not as it get very
| expensive very quickly.
| legitster wrote:
| I've seen them a lot of times for nicer-ish hotels in any
| major city. Sometimes it will include things like Wi-fi
| or breakfast, but usually it's mandatory with the stay.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Yep. Most places with a pool or on-site spa.. I've seen
| them in San Diego, Chicago, and Hawaii of the top of my
| head.
| hot_gril wrote:
| Even if you go through bookings.com, you still see a
| final $ amount before paying if they include the fees in
| the booking cost. That's their hack to show up higher
| when you look for low prices. _Some_ places are so scammy
| that they charge the resort fee much later, in-person, as
| you 're checking in or out.
| legitster wrote:
| Again, Bookings.com takes up to 20% off of _the entire
| price_. So it 's in the hotel's incentive to hide as much
| of the price from Bookings.com as possible by waiting
| until you are in person to charge you the rest.
| theragra wrote:
| Are EU residents protected from this? I never encountered
| any fees except booking price.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Amen. This is the government intervention we need. Way too many
| services are tacking on large hidden costs as a run around to
| prevent price comparison. If there is no way to opt out, it is
| the price, not a fee.
| tomp wrote:
| Are you even required to pay that?
|
| Like, why would you just pay some random invoice some company
| sends you, without you asking for it?
|
| Would they pay your "resort guest fee" if you sent them an
| invoice?
| chrisnight wrote:
| > Are you even required to pay that?
|
| One sad part of the situation is that even if you aren't
| required to do something, it can result in you being
| completely banned from said business's services under the
| idea that they can refuse service to someone for any reason.
| With the business model nowadays mostly being franchises, a
| ban from an entire subset of businesses can be a substantial
| burden for someone, especially if the business takes up a
| large part of the market.
|
| Edit: Not to say this will necessarily happen in this
| circumstance, but it is a very real possibility when refusing
| to work with certain businesses.
| uxp8u61q wrote:
| What will happen is much simpler. They won't give you the
| room key if you don't pay, and will eventually ask you to
| leave the premises if you're not a customer.
| hot_gril wrote:
| It's usually not a big chain doing this, so I'd gladly get
| banned since I'm never going back anyway. That's not the
| problem (see adjacent).
| prepend wrote:
| Hotels in all the major chains do this. Try staying in a
| Hilton or Hyatt or Marriott in a touristy place like
| Hawaii or Florida and not get a resort fee or something
| stupid. If you're lucky they are advertised and you can
| filter.
|
| If you're unlucky you find out at check-in and your
| options are pay or find a new hotel while your family
| waits.
|
| Or if you're super lucky, you find out at checkout and
| just refuse to pay and be on your merry way.
| hot_gril wrote:
| Hilton etc will charge the fee when you book. I just
| tried with Hilton Orlando. It's mildly annoying getting a
| booking bill more than the widely advertised price, and
| it should be illegal too, but you know what you're paying
| when you pay.
|
| What I referred to above is being charged a resort fee
| after you've already paid the initial booking fee. Last
| two places I saw this were Balley's in Vegas and VYE in
| Miami.
| prepend wrote:
| I stayed at a Hyatt on the Florida gulf and I didn't pay
| anything to book. But I had a reservation with an amount.
| When I got to check in they let me know there was a $35
| resort fee. It was frustrating.
| hot_gril wrote:
| It's after I pay and before I stay. I could refuse, but then
| I'd have no hotel and lose the booking payment.
| londons_explore wrote:
| If you have already paid 'in full', then I think you'd be
| morally in the right to just say you didn't bring your
| wallet because you had paid already online.
| hot_gril wrote:
| Yes I am, but morally right doesn't mean I get the room.
| Also, they tend to put the refundable deposit on my card
| when I check in, which actually makes sense just in case
| whoever they admit isn't me*, or I booked long ago and my
| old card is now defunct.
|
| * or more broadly, whoever they admit (whether or not
| it's me) has enough credit at the time of the actual stay
| to entrust the room to
| abawany wrote:
| Exactly. I was once called 2 hours after I had checked-in
| in a new town and informed that I must pay extra to stay
| due to some booking confusion between them and the travel
| agency. It was a huge hassle to find a new place that
| night and check out of the greedy hotel asap. You can be
| sure I left honest reviews of my experience in a few
| places.
| 0x457 wrote:
| Even you fully pay online, you have to put down a deposit
| for a room and bring your id.
| failuser wrote:
| I hope this will not result in FCC being dismantled or nerfed.
| londons_explore wrote:
| In the UK, the advertised price of a service must be the price
| that a typical user ends up actually paying.
|
| And it can't be hidden in the terms - all the actual amount paid
| by a regular user must be the headline price of the advert.
| Taxes, fees, etc must all be included.
|
| It works pretty well.
| meepmorp wrote:
| The taxes/fees on telecom services are complicated in the US
| because we have multiple overlapping taxation authorities who
| might impose them. Unless you know a person's address, you
| don't actually know what they're on the hook for.
| viraptor wrote:
| For the ISPs I dealt with in other countries, the lookup
| normally starts with: tell me your address so we can tell you
| what services we provide they're. Sounds like the price could
| easily come after that step.
| meepmorp wrote:
| The issue here is a requirement to provide product labels
| for broadband services, with the intent of letting
| consumers compare between providers, i.e., before the point
| where they inquire about service. I totally agree that they
| should be required to provide a complete (and accurate!)
| list of taxes and fees to a potential customer _before_ any
| agreement.
| londons_explore wrote:
| There are some things that get quibbled over - for example
| should the advertised price of an ice rink include the price of
| ice skate hire? Most people don't own their own ice skates
| round there, so have to hire them too.
|
| But in general, it means there are usually no hidden fees.
| tptacek wrote:
| Just a reminder: the ISPs objected only to labeling pass-through
| fees, which aren't fees at all, but rather taxes levied by local
| governments and mandated on the ISPs (franchise fees are the most
| common example). Contrary to popular opinion, most of these
| franchise contracts don't include exclusivity; either way, it's
| money that goes to your municipality's general fund, not to
| Comcast.
|
| NCTA asked instead to be allowed to label the maximum possible
| total bill customers would face, but FCC has, apparently,
| rejected that.
| mulmen wrote:
| Any idea why they did this? What did Comcast stand to gain by
| not labeling these taxes? My imagination is failing me here.
| All I can think is that if Comcast wants it then it is probably
| bad for me.
| tptacek wrote:
| Since they're willing to label the maximum possible price,
| which maximizes the sticker shock, I'm inclined to take them
| at their word that the problem here is logistical: they
| operate retail businesses (and work with partners at big box
| stores) where they don't know until they speak to the
| customer what the pass-through fees will be, and that makes
| accurate labels difficult to pre-print.
|
| My stake here is just to alert people that their
| municipalities are taxing them for using the Internet, and
| hiding it in "fees" that most customers assume are Comcast
| soaking them (see: this very thread).
|
| Because of the historical and contractual differences between
| TV cable and fiber, there are municipalities where you're
| taxed differentially based on whether you're with Comcast or
| ATT/Verizon!
| roflchoppa wrote:
| Jessica Rosenworcel once again stepping to bat for the people.
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| Excellent news. When the ISP's claim it's "too hard" to do, you
| know something is wrong. Either the ISP's are lying (duh) or the
| taxes and fees structure is just messed up... or someone is
| trying to slip in bullshit charges.
|
| Our world needs more transparency. It breeds competition... and
| hopefully bankrupts a few corrupt corporations.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I don't have any sympathy for telecos. But... it is difficult.
| For example, the city school district in my city, whose
| boundaries are not congruous with the city boundaries has an
| excise tax on different classes of wireless service.
|
| These types of rules may have unintended consequences, for
| example requiring that you collect a street address before
| providing pricing. It also may encourage telcos like TMobile,
| who embeds fees in rates to be more AT&T-like "executive
| retreat recovery surcharge".
| Arrath wrote:
| If they can figure out what to charge me by the time they
| send me a bill, they damn well can provide a detailed
| breakdown of the charges. Claims of it being too hard should
| be derided as the utter bullshit they are.
| p0ckets wrote:
| According to the article: "all charges that providers impose
| at their discretion, i.e., charges not mandated by a
| government." So they wouldn't need to include your school
| excise tax.
|
| If they charge different fees depending on address (again,
| not taxes) then it seems like the intended effect to provide
| the actual price the consumer will pay.
| morgannewman wrote:
| This does not match my understanding, but I am not an
| expert. You receiving those charges is not mandated by the
| government; rather, passing them through to the consumer is
| entirely discretionary and often done by ISPs or cell
| carriers. The article discussed this with the suggestion
| that ISPs instead simply roll it into the base rate if they
| do not wish to have to advertise the additional fees. This
| is exactly what T-Mobile does for their cell phone plans
| and I love it.
| nix0n wrote:
| > These types of rules may have unintended consequences, for
| example requiring that you collect a street address before
| providing pricing.
|
| They already do this. In fact, they will collect your street
| address before informing you whether they've run fiber to any
| part of your ZIP (postal) code.
| mjevans wrote:
| They should be REQUIRED to provide service if they take an
| address and make an OFFER of plans.
| armada651 wrote:
| It is the telcos choice to bill regional fees directly to the
| consumer. They can also amortize regional fees across all
| their customers, meaning some may pay more while some may pay
| less.
| clhodapp wrote:
| That's true to a degree but it does create weird incentives
| where a municipality could charge a crazy-high tax and have
| the cost get amortized such that the bulk of it is paid for
| by people who live outside of their jurisdiction.
| eppp wrote:
| The taxes and fees change all the time. As an ISP you have no
| control over what the government fees are going to be. How can
| you list a price up front when you are at the mercy of the
| people making up these rules?
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| What a great gig! I ring a random doorbell. I say "You owe me
| $2" you say "What for?" I say "...I don't know but you still
| owe me $2 so I'll take that now."
|
| Oh it's not a random doorbell, it's a customer who's lawn I
| mow. ok. Totally ok then.
| [deleted]
| chupchap wrote:
| List current rates and notify when there are changes. Banks
| do this already
| 14 wrote:
| Not only banks but countless other services and businesses.
| Stock markets change minute to minute. Cryptocurrency
| changes by the minute. Heck even a grocery store has
| thousands of items that change from day to day and they
| seem to manage to list current prices all the time. In
| Canada they even guarantee the price is correct or get the
| item free or $10 off if item is more then $10. So I think
| everyone can see this excuse is a non issue.
| dessimus wrote:
| Grocery stores do not advertise with tax-inclusive
| prices, in fact the opposite. Heck, I live in a no-sales-
| tax state and even then, some items might still be taxed
| because they are considered "prepared foods" and fall
| under hospitality taxes, so the shelf price and total at
| the register may not be the same.
| permo-w wrote:
| this is a US problem. everywhere else I've been manages
| to put the tax on the labels
| elashri wrote:
| You are able to charge me for all these taxes and fees. why
| are you not able to list these charges in details on my
| monthly invoice?
| eppp wrote:
| Why would a bill be a problem? Is this not about upfront
| advertising?
| scq wrote:
| It's not about advertising.
|
| > The rules require broadband providers to display, at
| the point of sale, labels that show prices, including
| introductory rates, as well as speeds, data allowances,
| and other critical broadband service information.
| mulmen wrote:
| These invoices aren't issued up front. The marketing copy
| gets ugly and confusing.
| ROTMetro wrote:
| The fees are required to be listed 'at the point of sale'
| not on advertising. Basically they have to tell you at
| signup what they are going to charge you. Seems like an
| extremely reasonable requirement.
| mulmen wrote:
| Ah that is a lot more reasonable. But what is the nature
| of these fees? Can they change over time or based on use?
| Does Comcast know at signup what the fee will be when
| billed?
| [deleted]
| rileymat2 wrote:
| Don't most businesses have to deal with varying supply/input
| costs to some degree?
| ruined wrote:
| if they know enough to bill for it, they know enough to make
| it a line item on the bill. it's really silly to pretend
| otherwise.
| landryraccoon wrote:
| It's preferable that the burden fall on the ISP than on the
| consumer imho.
|
| The ISP should be free to boldly call out on the billing
| statement that those fees are government mandated, if they
| choose to.
| tptacek wrote:
| They're obviously not lying. NCTA's letter made the issue
| clear: retail stores have items pre-labeled, and, under this
| new rule, they'd need to create thousands of variations of
| those labels. Unlike sales tax, where the business always knows
| what it's going to be charging every customer, pass-through
| fees vary based on the customer's home address.
|
| Again: these aren't fees Comcast chooses to charge; it's money
| local governments are taxing from their residents, piggybacking
| on the ISP billing system.
| daft_pink wrote:
| I just want to point out that while it might be true there
| are some local fees included that are hyper local and hard to
| disclose. Where I live Comcast and other providers advertise
| fake low rates, and then tack on multiple surcharges and cost
| recovery fees that they refuse to disclose, should be
| considered false advertising, and make it impossible to
| compare between the different relevant services, because the
| fees represent more than 20% of your bill.
| tptacek wrote:
| NCTA isn't complaining about anything _but_ the pass-
| through fees.
| whatwhaaaaat wrote:
| Yes but if you label all the pass-through fees then
| everything else is a non pass through fee right?
| tptacek wrote:
| I don't understand your question, sorry.
| whatwhaaaaat wrote:
| You have fees. Some are government and some are actually
| just cost of getting the service - modem rental fee or
| bring your own modem fee.
|
| The pass through government fees get labeled as such
| (small township build rights fee).
|
| The other non government fees that are really just the
| price of the service are now clear because the government
| fees are labeled.
| babypuncher wrote:
| This is a problem they created for themselves. They
| engaged in sleazy, shitty business practices that made
| everybody hate them. We pass laws to make these practices
| harder and they find clever workarounds and loopholes to
| keep doing it.
|
| So now the FCC is passing a regulation that will be
| impossible for them to weasel out of. Comcast has nobody
| to blame but themselves. And personally, the more
| miserable it makes Comcast, the happier it makes me.
|
| These companies can't spend literal decades operating in
| bad faith then act surprised when voters and regulators
| say "enough is enough" and stop taking anything they say
| seriously.
| nimish wrote:
| FTA:
|
| >ISPs can meet the label requirement in alternate sales
| channels either by providing a hard copy of the label or by
| "directing the consumer to the specific web page on which the
| label appears."
|
| There's already lookups for sales tax. If they can bill the
| address the fees, they can show the fees to the customer.
| tptacek wrote:
| No: retail businesses don't need to "look up" their sales
| tax, because it doesn't change per customer.
| shaftway wrote:
| I think here the parent is saying "the ISP must be able
| to determine the fees in order to bill the customer (the
| lookup), so they should be able to determine the fees
| before billing the customer"
| hock_ads_ad_hoc wrote:
| I doubt the utility of mentioning what retail businesses
| do when we are talking about ISPs.
| abawany wrote:
| for online stores it does, based on shipping address.
| WWLink wrote:
| "NCTA's letter made the issue clear: retail stores have items
| pre-labeled, and, under this new rule, they'd need to create
| thousands of variations of those labels."
|
| That's a bunch of bullshit though. The cable companies use
| vastly different pricing all over the place, so there's
| already "thousands of variations of those labels" - in fact
| I'm pretty sure those labels are produced regionally.
| tptacek wrote:
| So we're clear: we're talking about labeling requirements
| that can change multiple times within the span of 10 blocks
| or so. This isn't a regional problem; it's about as local
| as it gets.
| amphitoky wrote:
| so why not regulate the other end too and force more
| consistency and transparency in pass-through fees as
| well?
| tptacek wrote:
| Because Home Rule prevents those regulations.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| tialaramex wrote:
| > these aren't fees Comcast chooses to charge
|
| These are, in fact, fees Comcast chooses to charge.
|
| This reminds me of the confusion of some other employees when
| a start-up I was working for got purchased. The new owners
| proposed that we should sign documents agreeing certain
| conditions in exchange for which they'd pay us a "bonus" of
| an amount to be determined by a complicated formula at the
| end of their financial year.
|
| So I glance at this document, it's as I think, and I explain
| this document requires you to work for them for a period of
| time, it's a weaker version of the document the senior people
| are signing or have signed -- but unlike theirs it doesn't
| actually pay us ordinary employees any money - therefore I
| explain you should not sign if you think you might want to
| work somewhere else any time soon. e.g. if your role makes no
| sense as part of the larger entity and you've got better
| things to do with your life rather than collect a salary for
| a few months until they realise you aren't necessary and fire
| you.
|
| I got widespread objections - it has a bonus scheme. Yeah,
| the way that scheme works _their_ accountants are going to
| decide whether _they_ pay us money in a year 's time. Guess
| what those accountants are going to say? They're going to say
| "No". If they wanted to pay us money, they would just pay us
| money as they did with our management. Employers can _always_
| pay you money. There is tax due on it if they do, but that 's
| their problem not yours. When an employer doesn't give you
| money the reason is that they don't want to give you money.
| Don't ask for another explanation, it's demeaning for them to
| have to pretend and for you to listen.
|
| In a year's time I got a call from the CTO, an old friend,
| was I on that bonus scheme? Yes, I said, it doesn't matter to
| me (then or now). He was warning people because he'd been
| tipped off that of course it was worthless, exactly as I had
| said, but whoever had told him had seen the numbers from the
| accountants now.
|
| Comcast _can_ choose not to charge these fees, but it wants
| to. It would like to be able to say "Our price is $49.99"
| and then bill you say $84 per month and blame the difference
| on vague "fees". They only need to justify how that adds up
| to $84 in the case that someone works very hard, maybe a
| journalist working on a story about rip off ISPs. And if it's
| bullshit? They just say "Oops" and refund some fees when
| caught if their lawyers tell them that's cheapest.
|
| In the UK for a long time ISPs would claim their charges
| didn't match the advertised price because it didn't include a
| fee they paid to BT Openreach, the incumbent telco whose
| copper cables they're using to provide service. In a way they
| were telling the truth, Openreach did charge them a fee.
| Unfortunately that fee is published by law, fairly small, and
| it had been steadily going down, because "maintaining some
| copper cables under the street" isn't expensive. On the other
| hand the fee these ISPs would add to the supposed "price" for
| consumers was larger and going up over time. Eventually the
| regulator told them to knock it off with this bullshit and
| just tell people the actual price including this mandatory
| fee.
| pseg134 wrote:
| This post is either generated by a LLM or a user having a
| stroke but it's pure gibberish.
| tptacek wrote:
| This is obviously not true. If you're in a municipality in
| the US (if you're not, none of this matters anyways), you
| can probably go to the website for that municipality and
| look it up; the franchise contracts for mine are the first
| search result, and they spell out the fees that Comcast are
| required to charge.
|
| The reason I'm on this hobby horse is that I serve on my
| local village telecom commission and, after 2 years of
| zoning out and playing solitaire whenever the "franchise
| agreement" came up as a topic, I finally paid attention and
| learned that we were making high six figures every year in
| our general fund charging Comcast users a Comcast tax. It's
| a thing my commission works on: just how much we should
| soak local ISP users.
|
| We've gone for several years without a franchise contract
| renewal because, apparently, Comcast doesn't want to do
| this anymore. I don't blame them!
| taeric wrote:
| This is still misrepresenting it, though? They are free
| to not pass the fees through directly to users. They are
| required to pay the fee to the municipality. These are
| not, necessarily, linked things.
|
| You are correct that it would somewhat increase their
| costs, such that they may have to increase their billing
| rate, but they are in no way required to pass the bill
| through directly to the customer.
|
| Note that this is very different from taxes. Those are
| typically collected by the business, but owed by the
| purchaser. Right?
| tialaramex wrote:
| > We've gone for several years without a franchise
| contract renewal
|
| And so as a result there's no Internet in your village
| and you just realised you aren't actually posting on HN
| and the reply has vanished in a puff of logic? No?
| tptacek wrote:
| I have no idea what you're trying to say here. No,
| obviously, we still have Internet access --- the current
| franchise agreement remains in force until we finally
| renegotiate a new one, which is stalled over these pass-
| through fees.
|
| I'm still not clear on what your original objection was
| to my comment. Do you really not understand what a
| municipal pass-through fee is? I mean, why would you,
| but: the concept isn't that hard to grasp, right? It's a
| tax that the municipality requires the ISP to collect.
| babypuncher wrote:
| This argument carries no weight. Comcast doesn't show me
| prices until I give them my address, at which point they have
| all of the data necessary to show me the _actual_ price.
|
| This is not a difficult problem for them to solve, they just
| don't want to do it because these companies are run by greedy
| shitgibbons who don't want to tell you the actual price of
| their product until the last possible second.
| Guvante wrote:
| There is an explicit exemption for mandatory charges.
|
| If Comcast decides to change it's rate because of those fees
| it can explain that.
| tptacek wrote:
| Again: they are exclusively objecting to labeling
| requirement for pass-through fees.
| Guvante wrote:
| What makes something a pass through fee?
|
| Does access to a conduit count? Does sales tax count?
|
| Pass-through fees is a vague category that effectively
| means "I spent money" which is useless.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| tareqak wrote:
| That's a technical problem though right? The ISP could create
| state/county/parish/municipal maps that show which
| passthrough fees are in effect. Putting that on a bill would
| be difficult I agree.
|
| What about listing the ceiling of the passthrough fees e.g.
| <$7.00 ?
| [deleted]
| ckozlowski wrote:
| "it's money local governments are taxing from their
| residents, piggybacking on the ISP billing system."
|
| I'm sympathetic to the point, and this feels like there's
| area for compromise here. Something along the lines of "We'll
| gladly support this change if local governments stop hiding
| taxes behind us."
|
| I have to believe the NCTA made this issue clear; I wonder
| then if the FCC noticed, and if so, why there isn't a similar
| directive levied at municipalities to stop this practice?
|
| To be clear, I fully support forcing ISPs to be transparent,
| period. But that is a messy issue they're dealing with, and I
| feel like there could easily a co-argument to localities to
| stop making it hard for them to be transparent.
|
| Edit: Just saw your comment below about Home Rule. Drat.
| Avshalom wrote:
| The FCC did notice.
|
| from the article:
|
| _Providers are free, of course, to not pass these fees
| through to consumers_
| tptacek wrote:
| That's even less transparent!
| neltnerb wrote:
| I don't care about any other company being "transparent"
| in this sense, I care how much what I am paying for will
| actually cost.
|
| It's a low bar, I guess, but the excuses as to why it's
| too hard are just so insulting to the reader...
|
| It's so incredibly strange to see a large corporation
| complain that figuring out how much its product costs is
| too hard with one hand while billing people those same
| fees just fine with the other.
| tptacek wrote:
| Mostly my subtext here is that municipalities should stop
| being so sneaky with their taxes and just come out and bill
| residents directly, instead of pretending that their taxes
| are just Comcast being greedy.
| ckozlowski wrote:
| I sense that perhaps a lawsuit targeting this practice
| might be incoming then, if the FCC forces them to
| proceed.
| tptacek wrote:
| On what basis would they sue the municipalities?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| That's NCTA's claim, and we should consider their side, but
| maybe we shouldn't take it all at face value?
| tptacek wrote:
| We can take what they're objecting to at face value,
| because they're the ones objecting. So when I say that NCTA
| is objecting only to pass-through fees, I feel like I'm on
| pretty firm ground, because they _have not_ objected to
| other labeling requirements.
| resist_futility wrote:
| They already know what the fees are from, they just don't
| want to tell the consumer. How else would they calculate
| them?
| vel0city wrote:
| If they want to simplify their marketing, just roll all those
| extra fees into their final price. I have that currently with
| my AT&T internet bill, the amount my card gets charged every
| month is the same as what it was advertised.
| tptacek wrote:
| They're not allowed to do that.
| vel0city wrote:
| Well, they do, I don't understand why they wouldn't be
| allowed to. Same thing with my cell phone bill through
| Mint, other than regular sales tax all the other telecom
| fees are all rolled into their price.
|
| They just mess around with their actual price until the
| final price lines up with their marketing. Its not
| exactly challenging math.
| usefulcat wrote:
| I don't understand that statement. I have Google fiber
| and AFAICT that's exactly what they do, and have done for
| as long as I've been a customer.
|
| Before buying, I only ever saw one advertised price for
| this particular product, and since becoming a customer I
| only ever see that same price on the statements they send
| me each month.
| tptacek wrote:
| My understanding is that they are being required by the
| FCC to break these fees out, though someone else on the
| thread claims otherwise and for all I know is correct.
| Either way: hiding the fees and raising their rates does
| the opposite of what people want from this FCC ruling!
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Again, this is spurious. They can create the bill; they can
| label the charges on the bill. That's inarguable.
| mikece wrote:
| Aside from cable companies wanting to hide fees, is there any
| reason why this rule _should_ be scrapped?
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Is there anything stopping them from charging a lump "fee" fee
| and then refunding whatever they don't need?
| isk517 wrote:
| Bold of you to assume they would ever refund anything. Most
| of these fees exist because they want more money and don't
| want to just outright say they want more money.
| supertrope wrote:
| Some people are generally against regulations.
| rolph wrote:
| the actual title explains the problem a little more acurately
|
| >>FCC says "too bad" to ISPs complaining that listing every fee
| is too hard<<
| Bud wrote:
| No. In fact, given the dishonest behavior of ISPs, the FCC
| should go even further, and require all ISPs to list the full
| sticker price of any offered services, and ONLY the full price,
| in all advertising.
|
| They shouldn't even be allowed to list a price that doesn't yet
| include the fees. No asterisks. No appendices. No see below. No
| fine print. Just list the real price. Always.
| Vespasian wrote:
| Maybe it's different in the US but here in Germany I'm
| charged exactly the sum that was advertised when I signed up
| for the service.
|
| Even if you do the "taxes not included" dance, I doubt US
| ISPs are incapable of just charging (and advertising) a
| single sum that covers everything. I'm honestly surprised
| this is not already happening (again I could be mistaken)
| topspin wrote:
| Imagine how many "bullshit jobs" would no longer be
| necessary.
| eppp wrote:
| How would that work when you may not even know where the
| person wants service? You might know a general area and there
| might be unknown fees that the isp cant know until after they
| negotiate with the various stakeholders to build service.
| sharts wrote:
| Don't cell providers across the country charge the same
| price regardless of coverage guarantees?
|
| Generally you'd probably negotiate w/ stakeholders BEFORE
| advertising. I'm not sure why any sane person would
| advertise something before having a solid idea of what is
| possible, unless they are running for political office.
| eppp wrote:
| I cant even guarantee you we can build in any given
| building even if a resident wants the service. Cell
| providers don't have to deal with physical issues of
| access.
| throwaway14356 wrote:
| i think the same way it works everywhere else? Some
| customers are more profitable than others.
|
| Often the more expensive service is more profitable but if
| you want simple pricing you can do the opposite.
| topspin wrote:
| > How would that work when you may not even know where the
| person wants service?
|
| No cost until the service location is known. It's a two way
| street, right? It's entirely reasonable that if you were to
| obligate the ISP to deliver precision in pricing they'd
| have no recourse but to require accurate disclosure of the
| service location.
|
| This is all fantasy, however. This clown world we've built
| doesn't contemplate such things. The minor ask the FCC is
| making here is as far as it will go, and if the big ISPs
| put enough campaign money into the right "family
| foundations" we might not even get that much.
| pessimizer wrote:
| If you don't know the price that you can charge, you
| shouldn't get the right to make one up for advertising.
| That's creating a special right for the stupid or lazy.
| throwaway14356 wrote:
| lets also require an api and standardize the offers.
|
| Just like one can see 2 jars of peanut butter side by side in
| the store.
| kalupa wrote:
| I'm sure they'll claim that it's too difficult, or too
| confusing for consumers, etc., etc.
| legitster wrote:
| I think, playing devil's advocate for the ISPs here, the
| argument is over how they are supposed to be displaying local
| government fees on their advertising. Which _would_ make for
| some pretty complicated ads if you could imagine, like, a
| billboard between 3 or 4 townships that all have different
| fees.
|
| Here, the FCC I think provides a pretty reasonable suggestion
| that they can use "up-to" fees when displaying prices But it
| still means you have to know some of the geographic data on the
| person you are advertising a price too.
| sharts wrote:
| Yes. Those who support it will be paid handsomely by lobbyists.
| Why doesn't anybody stand up for those people's right to make
| money at public expense?
| lizard wrote:
| I imagine some people won't be thrilled about the "Fee listing
| fee" that's going to show up on their bill.
| kj4ips wrote:
| This is fascinating, I live in a region where there are patches
| of competitive ISP area, and as a consequence, I have never seen
| an ISP advertise a price outside of a targeted mailing or phone
| call.
|
| I had assumed that most of the rest of the country was like this,
| and you only got prices after you gave an address.
|
| Even a medium size ISP that was running a "price for life" deal,
| didn't even advertise with the price was, and you got better
| deals if you were in a competitive area. (Based on comparing
| mailed advertisements).
|
| Prices appear on physical mail advertisements I get for internet
| service, I get quite a lot of them, but billboards, television
| ads, and everything else simply lacks a price and touts product
| quality and speed.
| scarab92 wrote:
| Australia simply banned component pricing altogether.
|
| You are simply not permitted to communicate any price other the
| total price, which must include government fees and sales
| taxes.
|
| What makes this especially nice is that Australia also doesn't
| allow employers to pay under a living wage (currently about USD
| $21 for casual staff), which means tipping culture never took
| off here, so your total out of pocket is always exactly equal
| to the advertised amount.
|
| Aide: I believe in some jurisdictions in Australia it's
| actually illegal to solicit tips, as it's known to be
| discriminatory (since tipped amounts are known to vary by race,
| gender, age etc..).
| registeredcorn wrote:
| This reminds me of the notorious Hanlon's razor, "Never attribute
| to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
|
| Similarly, in cases where a company claims complexity, "Never
| attribute to inability via complexity that which is adequately
| explained by greed." Call it Corn's Razor, if you will. :)
| RajT88 wrote:
| It's been too long since the FCC last fulfilled its role as the
| benevolent dictator.
|
| From what I can tell, that's mostly been limited to wireless
| spectrum regulation these past ~20 years, with a few exceptions.
| prepend wrote:
| For all of AT&T's flaws as an ISP, their billing has been quite
| boring and amazing. I'm charged $0.55 in fees on every bill and
| that's it. So I pay $55.55 each month, pretty consistently for
| the past 20 years or so.
|
| The bandwidth is mediocre and I could switch to other companies
| but just finding the price was hard because there were activation
| fees and equipment fees and state and local fees and an fcc fee
| and some random fee they decided to add that changes from month
| to month. It was so weird. And also odd that they would have
| different state, local, and fcc fees that att didn't.
| shmerl wrote:
| Good. Let ISPs charge flat fee without all that foolery with
| "surcharges".
| resuresu wrote:
| I cancelled my home internet, got tired of haggling with them
| every month. I'm posting this from my phone which i also tether
| to my laptop when needed.
| Animats wrote:
| _" Separately, the order said the FCC rejected a wireless-
| industry "request to include potentially complex and lengthy
| details about data allowances on the label, and instead affirm
| that providers can make those details available to consumers on a
| linked website." To maintain simplicity, the labels must
| "identify the amount of data included with the monthly price,"
| and "disclose any charges or reductions in service for any data
| used in excess of the amount included in the plan," the FCC
| said."_
|
| Good.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-30 23:01 UTC)