6 ms·

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 “jus

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.
    - woobar 3y ago
      Somehow T-Mobile figured that out. And charge me a nice round numbers that include all their fees and taxes. They are also able to advertise their prices nationwide.
      - bradleybuda 3y ago
        And as a consumer you can choose to use them if you like that model. The market works!
        lmm 3y ago
        Only if you magically know for free which companies are using that model and which aren't.
        tekknik 3y ago
        T-Mobile advertises, last I checked you can watch the adverts for free.
        lmm 3y ago
        The problem is that companies are deceptive in their adverts (and in the US this is apparently just normal and accepted). A company's ability to put out an advert that says "we're honest, our adverts don't lie to you" doesn't solve this problem for obvious reasons.
        tekknik 3y ago
        As a T-Mobile customer, and not paid at all to endorse their services, I can assert that their adverts do not lie.
        lmm 3y ago
        Verifying that you are what you claim is definitely not free.
    - gamblor956 3y ago
      My small regional ISP doesn't charge the fees that Comcast charges my neighbors in my building, those are included in its list price because they're a cost of the ISP doing business. You should look at all these fees on your ISP bill and get pissed off. You're right, we should be pissed at Comcast and AT&T fraudulently misrepresenting the cost of service. They chose to pass these fees along (conveniently marked up for their "costs" associated with administering this fee to their customers) and are pretending that they don't have a choice. The thing is, "service fees" aren't government-imposed. They're fees entirely made up by Comcast and AT&T for the privilege of providing the service that the customer is already paying them for. Since they're not optional, they can and should be rolled into the advertised price.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        As we both read the NCTA filing, we're both aware that NCTA is objecting to pass-through fees from federal, state, and local authorities, not to service fees they themselves make up.
    - fivre 3y ago
      That's already the case. ISPs have the freedom to charge prices that vary by region and available service tiers. Most consumers aren't going to care that a portion of the price is Comcast structuring prices so that it can cover mandated costs of doing business. I've never encountered a company listing, say, that it's charging additional pennies so that it can meet its Social Security tax obligations, for example. That level of granularity simply isn't that interesting for consumer-level prices. If Comcast thinks these fees are unreasonable and wants to lobby voters and politicians to work against them, it is free to do so via other means.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - rtpg 3y ago
      > The FCC order said the requirement to list "all charges that providers impose at their discretion" is meant to help broadband users "understand which charges are part of the provider's rate structure, and which derive from government assessments or programs." These fees must have "simple, accurate, [and] easy-to-understand name[s]," the FCC order said. The point is that the fees are charged to the ISPs, and then the ISPs want to pass it onto the consumer but not actually say that that's what is going on. Yes, some localities will charge more things. Hell, listing them out would add pressure to make these fees go away! The FCC isn't the one imposing these fees. But ISPs are choosing to charge the users, but also not advertising these fees ahead of time! Advertising "this service costs X" but actually costing X + Y is something that feels pretty unambiguously bad. Then again the US is the land of "every locality sets its own sales tax" so....
      - tptacek 3y ago
        No, these fees are devised by governments to be passed on to consumers. Not that it especially matters --- it's also the case that taxes levied directly to ISPs are passed to consumers, because money is fungible. But here, it's especially overt that this is money governments are collecting these fees from their constituents; they're just using the ISPs as bill collectors.
        rtpg 3y ago
        I am assuming here that the ISP is who would get in trouble for not sending the money to the locality, not the N individual customers. I'm also assuming that if I sent my ISP money for the internet cost, minus the passthrough costs, the ISP would act as if I owe them money. I get what you're saying about the fee being for the consumer. It's just like... OK then, well tell the consumer how much they are going to pay. You mentioned that the lobbying is to get rid of these locality's taxes, and I'm not pro-federalism so hey why not. But all of these places have to collect the money anyways, so there is _a_ logic to how much to charge. Many places in the world, the price of internet is "type your zip code into a box and then we tell you". This seems eminently reasonable. This precludes a nationwide campaign to say exactly how much the service costs (unless ISPs just decided to eat the costs themselves!). But wouldn't it be good for people to know how much something costs?
  - 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

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.
  - woobar 3y ago
    Somehow T-Mobile figured that out. And charge me a nice round numbers that include all their fees and taxes. They are also able to advertise their prices nationwide.
    - bradleybuda 3y ago
      And as a consumer you can choose to use them if you like that model. The market works!
      - lmm 3y ago
        Only if you magically know for free which companies are using that model and which aren't.
        tekknik 3y ago
        T-Mobile advertises, last I checked you can watch the adverts for free.
        lmm 3y ago
        The problem is that companies are deceptive in their adverts (and in the US this is apparently just normal and accepted). A company's ability to put out an advert that says "we're honest, our adverts don't lie to you" doesn't solve this problem for obvious reasons.
        tekknik 3y ago
        As a T-Mobile customer, and not paid at all to endorse their services, I can assert that their adverts do not lie.
        lmm 3y ago
        Verifying that you are what you claim is definitely not free.
  - gamblor956 3y ago
    My small regional ISP doesn't charge the fees that Comcast charges my neighbors in my building, those are included in its list price because they're a cost of the ISP doing business. You should look at all these fees on your ISP bill and get pissed off. You're right, we should be pissed at Comcast and AT&T fraudulently misrepresenting the cost of service. They chose to pass these fees along (conveniently marked up for their "costs" associated with administering this fee to their customers) and are pretending that they don't have a choice. The thing is, "service fees" aren't government-imposed. They're fees entirely made up by Comcast and AT&T for the privilege of providing the service that the customer is already paying them for. Since they're not optional, they can and should be rolled into the advertised price.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      As we both read the NCTA filing, we're both aware that NCTA is objecting to pass-through fees from federal, state, and local authorities, not to service fees they themselves make up.
  - fivre 3y ago
    That's already the case. ISPs have the freedom to charge prices that vary by region and available service tiers. Most consumers aren't going to care that a portion of the price is Comcast structuring prices so that it can cover mandated costs of doing business. I've never encountered a company listing, say, that it's charging additional pennies so that it can meet its Social Security tax obligations, for example. That level of granularity simply isn't that interesting for consumer-level prices. If Comcast thinks these fees are unreasonable and wants to lobby voters and politicians to work against them, it is free to do so via other means.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rtpg 3y ago
    > The FCC order said the requirement to list "all charges that providers impose at their discretion" is meant to help broadband users "understand which charges are part of the provider's rate structure, and which derive from government assessments or programs." These fees must have "simple, accurate, [and] easy-to-understand name[s]," the FCC order said. The point is that the fees are charged to the ISPs, and then the ISPs want to pass it onto the consumer but not actually say that that's what is going on. Yes, some localities will charge more things. Hell, listing them out would add pressure to make these fees go away! The FCC isn't the one imposing these fees. But ISPs are choosing to charge the users, but also not advertising these fees ahead of time! Advertising "this service costs X" but actually costing X + Y is something that feels pretty unambiguously bad. Then again the US is the land of "every locality sets its own sales tax" so....
    - tptacek 3y ago
      No, these fees are devised by governments to be passed on to consumers. Not that it especially matters --- it's also the case that taxes levied directly to ISPs are passed to consumers, because money is fungible. But here, it's especially overt that this is money governments are collecting these fees from their constituents; they're just using the ISPs as bill collectors.
      - rtpg 3y ago
        I am assuming here that the ISP is who would get in trouble for not sending the money to the locality, not the N individual customers. I'm also assuming that if I sent my ISP money for the internet cost, minus the passthrough costs, the ISP would act as if I owe them money. I get what you're saying about the fee being for the consumer. It's just like... OK then, well tell the consumer how much they are going to pay. You mentioned that the lobbying is to get rid of these locality's taxes, and I'm not pro-federalism so hey why not. But all of these places have to collect the money anyways, so there is _a_ logic to how much to charge. Many places in the world, the price of internet is "type your zip code into a box and then we tell you". This seems eminently reasonable. This precludes a nationwide campaign to say exactly how much the service costs (unless ISPs just decided to eat the costs themselves!). But wouldn't it be good for people to know how much something costs?
- 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.