3 ms·

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

by 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.
az226 3y ago
Comcast wants to list a lower list price for getting customers through the door. They want to make comparison shopping difficulty so customers give and just choose them. And then they sneakily add all the junk fees on the customer's bill, but deep down the UI so you have to download the PDF to see it, not exposed inside the UI itself, so few customers ever see it.
- tptacek 3y ago
  Again: they asked explicitly to be allowed to quote the maximum of all the pass-through fees in their regions, and were denied.
  - az226 3y ago
    The proposed change allowed them to show a range which was comically broad and equally non-transparent. No dice.

by 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.

az226 3y ago

Comcast wants to list a lower list price for getting customers through the door. They want to make comparison shopping difficulty so customers give and just choose them. And then they sneakily add all the junk fees on the customer's bill, but deep down the UI so you have to download the PDF to see it, not exposed inside the UI itself, so few customers ever see it.

tptacek 3y ago
Again: they asked explicitly to be allowed to quote the maximum of all the pass-through fees in their regions, and were denied.
- az226 3y ago
  The proposed change allowed them to show a range which was comically broad and equally non-transparent. No dice.