11 ms·

They've been getting away for decades with labeling all sorts of their own costs as "taxes" and "fees" to customers. It's very misleading and IMHO should be ill

by eli 3y ago

They've been getting away for decades with labeling all sorts of their own costs as "taxes" and "fees" to customers. It's very misleading and IMHO should be illegal.

dfxm12 3y ago
If I understand what you're saying correctly, I think the Junk Fee Prevention Act, which Joe Biden championed in this last SOTU address, is being marketed as doing this, more or less.
darth_avocado 3y ago
Exactly my thought. This problem wouldn’t have existed if the ISPs didn’t for decades advertise a plan for $50 and then charge $100 by adding on items like “just because we can fee” and “fee for processing your fee”.
- tptacek 3y ago
  Per the NCTA's Ex Parte filing with FCC: they are objecting only to pass-through fees applied by federal, state, and local authorities. They don't have any choice about any of these fees, which are really just taxes.
  - Gabrys1 3y ago
    The choice they have (as is mentioned near the end of the article) is to pay them themselves (cost of running business) and include them in the advertised price (like it probably is anywhere in the world outside the US)
    - tptacek 3y ago
      How is that better? You're asking for a world where the list price of Comcast Internet service is just quietly lower or higher depending on which suburb you live in. That's strictly worse than the current situation. You should look at all these fees on your ISP bill and get pissed off. The issue here is that the taxing body's ploy worked: you got pissed at Comcast and AT&T instead of them.
      - Gabrys1 3y ago
        It's better in exactly one way: you understand upfront what your internet is going to cost. The same argument goes for including the sale tax or many gas taxes in the displayed price, (or displaying the price including VAT in EU). FTR, I do get that by listing the tax explicitly you get to appreciate your local tax is lower than your neighbor's or get annoyed that it's higher (and then vote to change that). My internet provider in Poland offered me the internet service for 60PLN/mo. Guess how much I'm paying for it? 60PLN/mo. They obviously pay many taxes and fees to different organizations but I don't need to care about it.
        tptacek 3y ago
        NCTA proposed informing customers of the maximum amount of pass-through fees/taxes from governments customers might face, to avoid the "sticker shock" problem with bills.
        Gabrys1 3y ago
        Yes, why not, that seems reasonable. Your price is $60 plus up to $20 additional fees. I think I got an offer like this from Sonic on the Bay Area. They would eat up all fees exceeding the declared maximum. (Or I'm making this up, was in 2018)
        jkaplowitz 3y ago
        Having the individual fees listed feels important to me for two reasons: one, to allow customers who are so inclined to check for any calculation errors, as a safeguard against accidental or intentional overcharging by the ISP; and two, so that customers who want to lobby their elected officials to reduce or eliminate any of the charges can identify the specific charges applicable and each of their amounts, without which no meaningful political activism is possible.
        kergonath 3y ago
        > Having the individual fees listed feels important to me for two reasons: one, to allow customers who are so inclined to check for any calculation errors, as a safeguard against accidental or intentional overcharging by the ISP Aren’t there stories in the news regularly about ISPs adding additional “fuck you” fees just because they can? So this does not seem to be working. At the end of the day, when I buy a beer I don’t care that €0.20 is going to their administrative overhead and €1.28 to their installations’ maintenance. That is not supposed to be the customer’s problem. > and two, so that customers who want to lobby their elected officials to reduce or eliminate any of the charges can identify the specific charges applicable and each of their amounts, without which no meaningful political activism is possible. This does not seem to be working well either. And at the same time, other countries without this issue seem to be doing fine with their broadband prices. It looks very ridiculous from the outside, in any case.
    - lamontcg 3y ago
      Fees should just be illegal for any service, across the board. Cost of internet should just be what it is, plus any actual sales tax. Price should just be the advertised price. Anyone that tacks on fees should just get immediately sued for the fees. Fuck 'em. Tired of the bullshit we put up with.
      - CamelCaseName 3y ago
        Europe is a wonderful place. It was very weird going to a restaurant for the first time and paying the price listed on the menu, and not 30% more (sales tax + tip)
        lamontcg 3y ago
        I literally can't even imagine that utopia, because I still reflexively included a carve out for sales tax.
        lostlogin 3y ago
        We have that system down here in New Zealand. However we have only two supermarket chains and a near monopoly for many consumer good and building supplies. You can buy New Zealand produce around the world for less than it costs us in New Zealand. So going for a meal costs what it says on the menu and no more, but that cost is steep.
        jackson1442 3y ago
        I don’t think inclusive pricing and the cost of goods are necessarily linked, there are many other reasons goods and services could be more expensive in NZ.
        lostlogin 3y ago
        Oh there are, rules around employees, consumer guarantees act, acc levies and various other things. But it seems unlikely that have just 2 food suppliers isn’t a root cause of food price issues.
  - m463 3y ago
    That said, those fees are the reason "add free tv to your internet" is a huge scam on their part (and they make money on the advertising).
  - lozenge 3y ago
    But the FCC order itself explicitly says that government imposed fees won't be affected. The quote is in the article.
- perfectstorm 3y ago
  this was my gripe with Sonic which people love over here in the Bay Area. their trucks and billboards advertise $40/month for gigabit speed (this was a while back when i had them). they then charge you $10/mo for a phone line which i never installed but it was part of the package and there was no way to avoid it. the phone line brings in additional fees like 911 and other local taxes + the taxes on internet service and my bill was more like $62/month. $22 more than their own advertised price. I would have gladly paid $62/mo for gigabit speeds but i felt like i was overpaying them by $22 because of their ads.
  - senttoschool 3y ago
    More context here: https://forums.sonic.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=16903 https://forums.sonic.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=16903
- grecy 3y ago
  I worked for a very large telco. Marketing were tasked with always increasing revenue, so they would often sit around with their feet on the table while they came up with such brilliant fees as "you downgraded your internet plan? Fee" & "You want more data on your cellphone plan? Fee." It was sickening, but also very enlightening to realize it really was all made up.
tptacek 3y ago
I don't know what this means, but local franchise fees are in fact taxes.
- m463 3y ago
  The ISPs allow you to add "free television" with your internet service, then it turns out to be very NOT free. They do get lots of ad revenue even though they "don't charge" for the TV.
  - tekknik 3y ago
    This comment doesn’t make a lot of sense, and with all the quotes it’s hard to tell if you mean it’s actually free or not. If they are not charging you for the TV service then why are you complaining about ads? Complain about paying for ads, not getting an ad supported service for free.
    - m463 3y ago
      Years ago when signing up with a cable isp, I was offered cable television/cable box for no additional cost. Except no additional cost sidestepped the monthly surcharges and taxes that ended up on the bill anyway.
- eli 3y ago
  I just pulled up an old comcast bill and it has: "Federal Cost Recovery Fee" and "Universal Service Fund Surcharge (State)" and "Utility User’s Tax /Business" and "Universal Connectivity Charge" and "911 Line Tax (State)"
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Those are all pass-through fees. They are just taxes.
    - eli 3y ago
      They are not just taxes. Reimbursing the telco for their compliance costs makes about as much sense and reimbursing a restaurant for complying with local health code. If they were actually taxes Comcast wouldn’t be fighting this rule, which does not apply to government mandated taxes.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> labeling all sorts of their own costs as "taxes" This literally sounds like fraud to me. If I did that, i think i would get charged

by eli 3y ago

They've been getting away for decades with labeling all sorts of their own costs as "taxes" and "fees" to customers. It's very misleading and IMHO should be illegal.

dfxm12 3y ago

If I understand what you're saying correctly, I think the Junk Fee Prevention Act, which Joe Biden championed in this last SOTU address, is being marketed as doing this, more or less.

darth_avocado 3y ago

Exactly my thought. This problem wouldn’t have existed if the ISPs didn’t for decades advertise a plan for $50 and then charge $100 by adding on items like “just because we can fee” and “fee for processing your fee”.

tptacek 3y ago
Per the NCTA's Ex Parte filing with FCC: they are objecting only to pass-through fees applied by federal, state, and local authorities. They don't have any choice about any of these fees, which are really just taxes.
- Gabrys1 3y ago
  The choice they have (as is mentioned near the end of the article) is to pay them themselves (cost of running business) and include them in the advertised price (like it probably is anywhere in the world outside the US)
  - tptacek 3y ago
    How is that better? You're asking for a world where the list price of Comcast Internet service is just quietly lower or higher depending on which suburb you live in. That's strictly worse than the current situation. You should look at all these fees on your ISP bill and get pissed off. The issue here is that the taxing body's ploy worked: you got pissed at Comcast and AT&T instead of them.
    - Gabrys1 3y ago
      It's better in exactly one way: you understand upfront what your internet is going to cost. The same argument goes for including the sale tax or many gas taxes in the displayed price, (or displaying the price including VAT in EU). FTR, I do get that by listing the tax explicitly you get to appreciate your local tax is lower than your neighbor's or get annoyed that it's higher (and then vote to change that). My internet provider in Poland offered me the internet service for 60PLN/mo. Guess how much I'm paying for it? 60PLN/mo. They obviously pay many taxes and fees to different organizations but I don't need to care about it.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        NCTA proposed informing customers of the maximum amount of pass-through fees/taxes from governments customers might face, to avoid the "sticker shock" problem with bills.
        Gabrys1 3y ago
        Yes, why not, that seems reasonable. Your price is $60 plus up to $20 additional fees. I think I got an offer like this from Sonic on the Bay Area. They would eat up all fees exceeding the declared maximum. (Or I'm making this up, was in 2018)
        jkaplowitz 3y ago
        Having the individual fees listed feels important to me for two reasons: one, to allow customers who are so inclined to check for any calculation errors, as a safeguard against accidental or intentional overcharging by the ISP; and two, so that customers who want to lobby their elected officials to reduce or eliminate any of the charges can identify the specific charges applicable and each of their amounts, without which no meaningful political activism is possible.
        kergonath 3y ago
        > Having the individual fees listed feels important to me for two reasons: one, to allow customers who are so inclined to check for any calculation errors, as a safeguard against accidental or intentional overcharging by the ISP Aren’t there stories in the news regularly about ISPs adding additional “fuck you” fees just because they can? So this does not seem to be working. At the end of the day, when I buy a beer I don’t care that €0.20 is going to their administrative overhead and €1.28 to their installations’ maintenance. That is not supposed to be the customer’s problem. > and two, so that customers who want to lobby their elected officials to reduce or eliminate any of the charges can identify the specific charges applicable and each of their amounts, without which no meaningful political activism is possible. This does not seem to be working well either. And at the same time, other countries without this issue seem to be doing fine with their broadband prices. It looks very ridiculous from the outside, in any case.
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    Fees should just be illegal for any service, across the board. Cost of internet should just be what it is, plus any actual sales tax. Price should just be the advertised price. Anyone that tacks on fees should just get immediately sued for the fees. Fuck 'em. Tired of the bullshit we put up with.
    - CamelCaseName 3y ago
      Europe is a wonderful place. It was very weird going to a restaurant for the first time and paying the price listed on the menu, and not 30% more (sales tax + tip)
      - lamontcg 3y ago
        I literally can't even imagine that utopia, because I still reflexively included a carve out for sales tax.
      - lostlogin 3y ago
        We have that system down here in New Zealand. However we have only two supermarket chains and a near monopoly for many consumer good and building supplies. You can buy New Zealand produce around the world for less than it costs us in New Zealand. So going for a meal costs what it says on the menu and no more, but that cost is steep.
        jackson1442 3y ago
        I don’t think inclusive pricing and the cost of goods are necessarily linked, there are many other reasons goods and services could be more expensive in NZ.
        lostlogin 3y ago
        Oh there are, rules around employees, consumer guarantees act, acc levies and various other things. But it seems unlikely that have just 2 food suppliers isn’t a root cause of food price issues.
- m463 3y ago
  That said, those fees are the reason "add free tv to your internet" is a huge scam on their part (and they make money on the advertising).
- lozenge 3y ago
  But the FCC order itself explicitly says that government imposed fees won't be affected. The quote is in the article.
perfectstorm 3y ago
this was my gripe with Sonic which people love over here in the Bay Area. their trucks and billboards advertise $40/month for gigabit speed (this was a while back when i had them). they then charge you $10/mo for a phone line which i never installed but it was part of the package and there was no way to avoid it. the phone line brings in additional fees like 911 and other local taxes + the taxes on internet service and my bill was more like $62/month. $22 more than their own advertised price. I would have gladly paid $62/mo for gigabit speeds but i felt like i was overpaying them by $22 because of their ads.
- senttoschool 3y ago
  More context here: https://forums.sonic.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=16903 https://forums.sonic.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=16903
grecy 3y ago
I worked for a very large telco. Marketing were tasked with always increasing revenue, so they would often sit around with their feet on the table while they came up with such brilliant fees as "you downgraded your internet plan? Fee" & "You want more data on your cellphone plan? Fee." It was sickening, but also very enlightening to realize it really was all made up.

tptacek 3y ago

I don't know what this means, but local franchise fees are in fact taxes.

m463 3y ago
The ISPs allow you to add "free television" with your internet service, then it turns out to be very NOT free. They do get lots of ad revenue even though they "don't charge" for the TV.
- tekknik 3y ago
  This comment doesn’t make a lot of sense, and with all the quotes it’s hard to tell if you mean it’s actually free or not. If they are not charging you for the TV service then why are you complaining about ads? Complain about paying for ads, not getting an ad supported service for free.
  - m463 3y ago
    Years ago when signing up with a cable isp, I was offered cable television/cable box for no additional cost. Except no additional cost sidestepped the monthly surcharges and taxes that ended up on the bill anyway.
eli 3y ago
I just pulled up an old comcast bill and it has: "Federal Cost Recovery Fee" and "Universal Service Fund Surcharge (State)" and "Utility User’s Tax /Business" and "Universal Connectivity Charge" and "911 Line Tax (State)"
- tptacek 3y ago
  Those are all pass-through fees. They are just taxes.
  - eli 3y ago
    They are not just taxes. Reimbursing the telco for their compliance costs makes about as much sense and reimbursing a restaurant for complying with local health code. If they were actually taxes Comcast wouldn’t be fighting this rule, which does not apply to government mandated taxes.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> labeling all sorts of their own costs as "taxes" This literally sounds like fraud to me. If I did that, i think i would get charged