6 ms·

this is important. The billing style of large ISPs is set up to confuse consumers into thinking parts of their bill are actually just taxes when in fact they ar

this is important. The billing style of large ISPs is set up to confuse consumers into thinking parts of their bill are actually just taxes when in fact they are fees. This gimmick needs to stop. I once argued with AT&T when they raised my bill by issuing a fee (which violated the contract and meant I wasn't responsible for an ETF if I canceled). The CSR was convinced it was a tax, their manager also convinced it was a tax that they had nothing to do with. I kept kept saying over and over that private companies cannot levy a tax. I swear nobody understood this. This speaks to how successful these large companies have been at confusing everyone with their billing practices.

hosh 11y ago
Does that mean there is a case for a class-action lawsuit?
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago
  Oddly enough I canceled with Sprint for the same reason (they raised the price of what we contractually agreed I would pay). I called and had no problem getting my contract cancelled and going month to month. Years later I get a check in the mail for $200 from a class-action law suit related to this Sprint fee. Always read the contract. They say specifically they reserve the right to raise the cost of the bill, but if they do they provide some amount of days for you to cancel the agreement.
- slowmovintarget 11y ago
  Most contracts nowadays contain an agreement to binding arbitration with a clause that restricts you from joining such a class. The courts are essentially unavailable to consumers for anything where you sign an agreement these days. For example, take a look at your NetFlix agreement... or Verizon.
rpgmaker 11y ago
Did you end up suing them?
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago
  I was prepared to take them to small-claims court. I recorded my phone conversation (and warned everyone I spoke to that I was doing so). Eventually it came down to me saying that I'm canceling my account and I don't agree to the ETF fee. The person I spoke to (the manager's manager I believe) said he's canceling it but I will be issued an ETF. Ultimately the ETF never came and I went month-to-month. By the way, mentioning that you're recording the phone conversation changes drastically how a CSR treats you.
  - aceofspades19 11y ago
    I've worked as a CSR for a wireless company in Canada for a short period of time and as tech support for a large north american PC manufacturer for awhile and nothing I did ever changed just because a customer was recording the phone call. I still followed whatever the company policy was on the issue and spoke in a professional manner. Not saying you were wrong in anyway of course but if a CSR is doing their job properly they shouldn't be phased at all by a customer recording the phone call.
    - CaptSpify 11y ago
      I think this depends on a lot of factors. In my experience, ISP CSRs know that their company docs are complete BS and will change their tone immediately.
      - aceofspades19 11y ago
        Why? its not like they have anything to lose by having a customer record their call as long as they are following company policy and not doing anything ridiculous like swearing at the customer. Most of the time unless you are talking to a higher level, the CSRs can't really do a whole lot besides listen to you anyways so what are they going to do differently?
        CaptSpify 11y ago
donarb 11y ago
Actually some private companies do levy taxes. Walmart gets sales tax breaks from certain cities. Walmart will collect the sales tax on a purchase, then pocket the money. This in lieu of sending the tax money to the government and getting a rebate or such.
- function_seven 11y ago
  Right, but that's on the back-end. The tax you pay at the register is still whatever is mandated by the state/county/municipality that you're in. Wal-Mart most definitely cannot raise that rate on their own.
- deelowe 11y ago
  I'm certain WalMart would get these concessions via a rebate or discount on their quarterly filings and not at the register. The end result is the same, but as the op says, private companies can not levy taxes. Only the government can do that.
StavrosK 11y ago
The US practice of keeping tax separate from the price makes this sort of confusion very easy. Why not do it like other countries and just include one, final price, which is what comes out of my pocket? When a company quotes me a fee, it's exactly how much I will be expected to give them. There's no "but wait, there's also X and Y and Z" to it.
- notdonspaulding 11y ago
  > Why not do it like other countries and just include one, > final price, which is what comes out of my pocket? While it would be nice to have the price I see up front match the amount of money that actually leaves my wallet, there's a good reason it doesn't. In the US, taxes vary by where you are. Your city, county, state, and the federal government can all levy taxes on just about anything they want. The only thing that keeps those entities from constantly raising taxes is that consumers know when a price hike is caused by the business raising its prices versus the local municipality increasing taxes. If McDonald's wants to sell a burger for $1, it can advertise that price state-wide, and if you end up paying $1.25 in one city and $1.50 in another, that's a signal to citizens where their money is going when they buy the burger.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    Ah, ouch. That complicates things a lot. All my trips to the US are very expensive, because I'm used to the price being the price, and it later turns out that the price is actually 20%-40% lower than what I'm going to end up paying (if you include tips). So I see a $50 steak and go "eh, that's not that bad for this quality", only to end up with a $100 bill.
    - avemg 11y ago
      Perhaps you're just exaggerating to make your point, but I'm quite confident that you've never had a $50 steak end up anywhere close to $100 due to taxes and tips.
      - 11y ago

hosh 11y ago

Does that mean there is a case for a class-action lawsuit?

matt_wulfeck 11y ago
Oddly enough I canceled with Sprint for the same reason (they raised the price of what we contractually agreed I would pay). I called and had no problem getting my contract cancelled and going month to month. Years later I get a check in the mail for $200 from a class-action law suit related to this Sprint fee. Always read the contract. They say specifically they reserve the right to raise the cost of the bill, but if they do they provide some amount of days for you to cancel the agreement.
slowmovintarget 11y ago
Most contracts nowadays contain an agreement to binding arbitration with a clause that restricts you from joining such a class. The courts are essentially unavailable to consumers for anything where you sign an agreement these days. For example, take a look at your NetFlix agreement... or Verizon.

rpgmaker 11y ago

Did you end up suing them?

matt_wulfeck 11y ago
I was prepared to take them to small-claims court. I recorded my phone conversation (and warned everyone I spoke to that I was doing so). Eventually it came down to me saying that I'm canceling my account and I don't agree to the ETF fee. The person I spoke to (the manager's manager I believe) said he's canceling it but I will be issued an ETF. Ultimately the ETF never came and I went month-to-month. By the way, mentioning that you're recording the phone conversation changes drastically how a CSR treats you.
- aceofspades19 11y ago
  I've worked as a CSR for a wireless company in Canada for a short period of time and as tech support for a large north american PC manufacturer for awhile and nothing I did ever changed just because a customer was recording the phone call. I still followed whatever the company policy was on the issue and spoke in a professional manner. Not saying you were wrong in anyway of course but if a CSR is doing their job properly they shouldn't be phased at all by a customer recording the phone call.
  - CaptSpify 11y ago
    I think this depends on a lot of factors. In my experience, ISP CSRs know that their company docs are complete BS and will change their tone immediately.
    - aceofspades19 11y ago
      Why? its not like they have anything to lose by having a customer record their call as long as they are following company policy and not doing anything ridiculous like swearing at the customer. Most of the time unless you are talking to a higher level, the CSRs can't really do a whole lot besides listen to you anyways so what are they going to do differently?
      - CaptSpify 11y ago

donarb 11y ago

Actually some private companies do levy taxes. Walmart gets sales tax breaks from certain cities. Walmart will collect the sales tax on a purchase, then pocket the money. This in lieu of sending the tax money to the government and getting a rebate or such.

function_seven 11y ago
Right, but that's on the back-end. The tax you pay at the register is still whatever is mandated by the state/county/municipality that you're in. Wal-Mart most definitely cannot raise that rate on their own.
deelowe 11y ago
I'm certain WalMart would get these concessions via a rebate or discount on their quarterly filings and not at the register. The end result is the same, but as the op says, private companies can not levy taxes. Only the government can do that.

StavrosK 11y ago

The US practice of keeping tax separate from the price makes this sort of confusion very easy. Why not do it like other countries and just include one, final price, which is what comes out of my pocket? When a company quotes me a fee, it's exactly how much I will be expected to give them. There's no "but wait, there's also X and Y and Z" to it.

notdonspaulding 11y ago
> Why not do it like other countries and just include one, > final price, which is what comes out of my pocket? While it would be nice to have the price I see up front match the amount of money that actually leaves my wallet, there's a good reason it doesn't. In the US, taxes vary by where you are. Your city, county, state, and the federal government can all levy taxes on just about anything they want. The only thing that keeps those entities from constantly raising taxes is that consumers know when a price hike is caused by the business raising its prices versus the local municipality increasing taxes. If McDonald's wants to sell a burger for $1, it can advertise that price state-wide, and if you end up paying $1.25 in one city and $1.50 in another, that's a signal to citizens where their money is going when they buy the burger.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  Ah, ouch. That complicates things a lot. All my trips to the US are very expensive, because I'm used to the price being the price, and it later turns out that the price is actually 20%-40% lower than what I'm going to end up paying (if you include tips). So I see a $50 steak and go "eh, that's not that bad for this quality", only to end up with a $100 bill.
  - avemg 11y ago
    Perhaps you're just exaggerating to make your point, but I'm quite confident that you've never had a $50 steak end up anywhere close to $100 due to taxes and tips.
    - 11y ago