12 ms·

FCC refuses to scrap rule requiring ISPs to list every monthly fee

• mikece 3y ago
  Aside from cable companies wanting to hide fees, is there any reason why this rule should be scrapped?
  • rolph 3y ago
    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 3y ago
    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.
    • topspin 3y ago
      Imagine how many "bullshit jobs" would no longer be necessary.
    • eppp 3y ago
      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.
      • Bud 3y ago
        This sounds like a feature, not a bug. To the extent that is the case, all of those thousands of ISP lawyers would now become incentivized to reduce the complexity of the bullshit fee structures you're talking about.
      • sharts 3y ago
        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 3y ago
          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 3y ago
        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.
      • pessimizer 3y ago
        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.
      • topspin 3y ago
        > 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.
    • throwaway14356 3y ago
      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.
    • arlcode 3y ago
      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)
  • kalupa 3y ago
    I'm sure they'll claim that it's too difficult, or too confusing for consumers, etc., etc.
  • sharts 3y ago
    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 3y ago
    I imagine some people won't be thrilled about the "Fee listing fee" that's going to show up on their bill.
  • jimbob45 3y ago
    Is there anything stopping them from charging a lump “fee” fee and then refunding whatever they don’t need?
    • isk517 3y ago
      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 3y ago
    Some people are generally against regulations.
  • legitster 3y ago
    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.
• datadrivenangel 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    In this case, ISPs are charging prices they don't want, but rather are mandated to by local governments.
    • pessimizer 3y ago
      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.
      • tptacek 3y ago
        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 3y ago
          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 3y ago
          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 3y ago
            > 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.
• ShakataGaNai 3y ago
  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.
  • polotics 3y ago
    Stating the obvious: if the fees are too hard to list, then how the hell are ISP's going to bill those fees?
  • eppp 3y ago
    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?
    • chupchap 3y ago
      List current rates and notify when there are changes. Banks do this already
      • 14 3y ago
        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 3y ago
          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.
• JoshTko 3y ago
  This is great. Kind of crazy that price transparency isn't available for healthcare yet in the US.
• meindnoch 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      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/ https://asliceofny.com/sunnyvale/menu/
      • meindnoch 3y ago
        "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.
• hot_gril 3y ago
  I want the FTC 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.
  • tomp 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      > 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 3y ago
        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 3y ago
        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 3y ago
          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.
• roflchoppa 3y ago
  Jessica Rosenworcel once again stepping to bat for the people.
• RajT88 3y ago
  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.
• Animats 3y ago
  "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.
• londons_explore 3y ago
  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.
  • londons_explore 3y ago
    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.
  • meepmorp 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      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 3y ago
        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 3y ago
      You could still add on whatever the average customer pays in taxes.
• tptacek 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      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!
      • lizard 3y ago
        > 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). This is what surprises and concerns me most about the ISP's dispute. Why wouldn't they be excited to "pass the buck" and blame the government for your higher bill? While these pass-through fees probably are a logistical nightmare for them, the fees themselves don't seem to be anything new thing so they must already be dealing with them anyways and the rule is just telling them share that information with the customer. Unless they've been absorbing the fees them as a cost of business and just charging higher service rates, in which case they aren't actually being passed through. Which seems like it would either make the whole conversation moot, or is something they could get in trouble for. Maybe I am just being cynical, my opinion of ISPs has been soured of late, but I suspect there is more to than just logistics. Possibly, people are being charged "unfairly" paying different rates for the same service regardless of location, but in the other direction: I.e. "Everyone" is paying $X for Y Mbps Down / Z Mbps Up, but some of them are paying $10 in pass-through fees while others are paying $20, and the ISPs are pocketing the difference. Alternatively, particularly if there is actually competition in the area, it may reveal that where ISPs appear to be offering comparable services at a similar rate have actually negotiated different pass-through fees are just charging more for the base service instead of passing those saving on to customers. It's probably debatable whether these things are actually bad or just the market at work, but it does make sense that ISP wouldn't want people catching onto them. In general, the current ambiguity would work in their favor because every time your bill goes up they can just hand-wave it as, "Oh, that includes various government fees and so on" where not the bill would have to actually say who's rates are going up.
• Madmallard 3y ago
  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.
• izzydata 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
  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.
  • thefurdrake 3y ago
    > I don't understand the ISP objection American ISPs operate under a confuseopoly paradigm of customer interaction. A confused customer is more likely to shut down and just pay the fees they don't understand. Forcing companies to enumerate each item that goes into the cost will allow customers to determine just how shitty a value proposition those ISPs are offering. These companies have been in full damage control mode for years, having earned themselves positions of significant scorn in the US already.
  • wolverine876 3y ago
    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.
    • gotoeleven 3y ago
      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.
• bell-cot 3y ago
  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".
  • protocolture 3y ago
    OR and this might sound crazy, not implement a stupid system of taxes and fees to begin with.
    • thefurdrake 3y ago
      OR and this might sound crazy, if they can render the cost onto the customer's bill, they can damn well list the components that went into that bill to begin with.
    • halJordan 3y ago
      The US is quite a large place, you cant just say that different localities and different areas of emphasis need the same fee and to draw from the same fee. At best you're asking to hide the fees behind yet another level of bureaucracy that we'd then need a foia request just to see the breakdown
• registeredcorn 3y ago
  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. :)
• shmerl 3y ago
  Good. Let ISPs charge flat fee without all that foolery with "surcharges".
• prepend 3y ago
  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.
• 1letterunixname 3y ago
  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.
• resuresu 3y ago
  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.
• what-no-tests 3y ago
  Can they at least offset some of my fees by paying me a dividend for all the data they sell to law enforcement agencies?
• virtuous_sloth 3y ago
  If you can afford to bill it, you can afford to list it.
• macinjosh 3y ago
  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.
• failuser 3y ago
  I hope this will not result in FCC being dismantled or nerfed.
• kj4ips 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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..).
• ivanmontillam 3y ago
  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?
• hedora 3y ago
  Coming soon to a bill near you: $50/mo FCC fee itemization fee
• nektro 3y ago
  let it be known this is biden's FCC
• az226 3y ago
  If they can charge me, they can list the fee. Pretty fuc*king simple. Same bs hospitals, oh we can't predict what the bill will be but every time you have the procedure somehow a bill is able to be generated.
• protocolture 3y ago
  So lets say I am a retailer. I don't own the product (have a relationship with the person ultimately setting the pass through charges) and I sell the subscriptions to the end user for access. Unless those passthrough charges are made available to me before the customer signs up, I cannot reasonably estimate them when advertising the service. Instead, I can only pass them through when they appear on my invoice, or absorb them. In fact those are the 3 options here. Pull out of the market, pass the costs through (and attract fines) or absorb the pass through fees. Punishing me as the access provider doesn't make sense. Whether or not you have personal misgivings against the access carrier, it seems like the municipality setting the pass through charges should be asked to make them more consistent, or provide an API for lookup. I dont know what the response here is going to be from the retailers, but I am betting its not going to be pro consumer.
• nottorp 3y ago
  How can you budget anything in the US if you're never charged a price you can look up beforehand?