4 ms·

Large broadband providers in the US are allergic to policy and price transparency. They preposterously told the FCC they would not be able to list taxes and fee

Large broadband providers in the US are allergic to policy and price transparency. They preposterously told the FCC they would not be able to list taxes and fees on proposed consumer broadband labels![1][2] [1] https://www.fcc.gov/broadbandlabels https://www.fcc.gov/broadbandlabels [2] https://www.pcmag.com/news/isps-to-fcc-listing-every-government-fee-on-our-broadband-labels-is-too https://www.pcmag.com/news/isps-to-fcc-listing-every-governm...

oogali 3y ago
Not necessarily defending them, but taxes vary depending on state, county, city, and/or taxing district, against a matrix of what type of service is being sold and what revenue limits, if any. Then add another level as you're not being sold service by Spectrum but Spectrum of New York, and variable tax/fee contributions depend on total revenue of that subsidiary (e.g. Universal Service Fund[1]). It can be fairly complicated in a static state, but then add in new/pending legislature and it's something that needs to be updated monthly. Yes, they already do that work internally (and if they get it wrong, the government taxing entities tell them they are miscalculating the amount and assesses penalties and fees) but publishing it adds a new dimension. 1: https://sourceadvisors.com/blogs/salt/what-is-the-federal-universal-service-fund-fee/#:~:text=This%20contribution%20is%20known%20as,user%20of%20the%20telecommunications%20services https://sourceadvisors.com/blogs/salt/what-is-the-federal-un....
- freedomben 3y ago
  Exactly. It's not a valid excuse for the ISP, but it is a legitimate beef. The ridiculous array of taxes really are a giant PITA for them and for consumers.
  - nottorp 3y ago
    US ISPs don't have computers and databases? :)
    - freedomben 3y ago
      Sure they do, but even with a computer and a database, keeping track of exactly which taxes apply and which don't to who, from 3,143 counties and 19,495 cities isn't a trivial thing to do. Again it's not a defense of the big companies, but it is a legitimate beef.
      - alistairSH 3y ago
        They manage to get it right on my bill, so it's not like they don't have the information handy, they just don't want to disclose it until as late as legally possible.
        freedomben 3y ago
        not trying to unload on you because it's many different people, but Ok, I give up trying to say "it's not a defense of the ISPs" because clearly people aren't capable of separating threads of thought. I guess the limbic system response to "evil ISP" is just too overpowering for the frontal lobe and logic falls by the wayside. It's simply not possible that two different things can both be true? That ISPs already have to do it so should disclose what they're charging, but that also the number of taxes and fees are ridiculous? Why is that so hard to separate in people's minds? If a Comcast president said that ham sandwiches are better when they're grilled, and I said "he's got a good point there" would that also be misconstrued as a defense of their billing practices?
        alistairSH 3y ago
        Taxes and fees are complicated, no question. But it's completely ridiculous for ISPs (or anybody else) to use that as a justification for dark patterns during the sales cycle. Now, if the taxes and fees were so complicated, the company simply couldn't comply at all, at any point in the customer lifecycle, then sure, that's a good excuse. But that's not the case - ISPs manage to figure this stuff out eventually.
        avianlyric 3y ago
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- thechao 3y ago
  If they can bill me, they can tell me how much it'll cost. They know my address.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- MrRadar 3y ago
  If it is genuinely too complex ISPs could always take the approach of making the advertised price tax/fee-inclusive, like T-Mobile did.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > taxes vary depending on state, county, city, and/or taxing district, against a matrix of what type of service is being sold and what revenue limits, if any. Ow well, if yhey cant figure out all these complexities, how do they know they are charging me the rifht amount? US is really a wild place, if I demanded a random, unexplainable and higher than expected amount of money from my customers, I would be accused of fraud and no court would uphold my demands
- malfist 3y ago
  Every other business can list taxes and fees, no reason ISPs can't. And you can't tell me that metro net's mandatory "technology fee" of $10 to every customer can't be disclosed before you get to a buy page
- adrr 3y ago
  How do they know what to charge you? There is some billing system that has all the taxes and fees in it to apply to your bill and there are 3rd parties SaaS companies that solve taxes for business like Avalara that will give a break down of all the taxes it applied to a given address.
  - bluish29 3y ago
    They provide you with a form to check if your address is supported which is linked to one system that do the check. I think it is possible to link the two systems together to give you the price for your particular address. I don't think taxes and fees here has to do with anything other than your physical address (They are not the IRS after all)
- jcranmer 3y ago
  At the point where I'm querying about internet service, they need to know my address to ascertain that they can in fact have(/can run) a cable into my house. And when they know my address, they know all of the relevant jurisdictions imposing taxes on that and the relevant tax rates. The two things that are going to be difficult are if you want to promote, say, a nationwide "$60/month plan", or if you've got some corporate tax that's hard to calculate on a marginal basis that you're trying to pass onto consumers. Neither of those things are motivating to me. If it's too hard to compute the accurate tax fee per person, just roll that into your base plan calculation and budget accordingly. We don't expect to have to pay a corporation's corporate tax as a separate line item on the bill, so why should we expect that consumers have to pay an industry-specific corporate tax as a separate line item? At the end of the day, the reality is that this is an industry that is trying to advertise plans that are at wildly different rates from those the consumer has to pay, and they're upset that some truth-in-advertising laws is starting to be enforced. It's not even outlawing the wildly different rates; it's merely requiring transparency in the differences!
- mulakosag 3y ago
  If they can show me the price at checkout then why cannot show the price in listing.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    Because they need additional information like your address which is not available to them in the listing.
- avianlyric 3y ago
  They only need to publish the taxes and fees if they’re not part of the advertised service price. The FCC has made it very clear that if ISP don’t want to publish the minutiae of all the various taxes and fees, then those ISP are welcome to charge a single flat, advertised, price, and not inflate bills beyond that price with spurious taxes and “fees”. Of course that would require ISPs to be honest and upfront with their advertising and billing practices, something US ISP seem to be incapable of.
mattmcknight 3y ago
It doesn't seem preposterous to me at all. If the goal is to show the price breakdown on marketing materials, it's going to be tough for AT&T to fit 29,000 different permutations of tax regimes in a banner ad. "the company “would have to create over 29,000 separate labels”" from your source 2.

oogali 3y ago

Not necessarily defending them, but taxes vary depending on state, county, city, and/or taxing district, against a matrix of what type of service is being sold and what revenue limits, if any. Then add another level as you're not being sold service by Spectrum but Spectrum of New York, and variable tax/fee contributions depend on total revenue of that subsidiary (e.g. Universal Service Fund[1]). It can be fairly complicated in a static state, but then add in new/pending legislature and it's something that needs to be updated monthly. Yes, they already do that work internally (and if they get it wrong, the government taxing entities tell them they are miscalculating the amount and assesses penalties and fees) but publishing it adds a new dimension. 1: https://sourceadvisors.com/blogs/salt/what-is-the-federal-universal-service-fund-fee/#:~:text=This%20contribution%20is%20known%20as,user%20of%20the%20telecommunications%20services https://sourceadvisors.com/blogs/salt/what-is-the-federal-un....

freedomben 3y ago
Exactly. It's not a valid excuse for the ISP, but it is a legitimate beef. The ridiculous array of taxes really are a giant PITA for them and for consumers.
- nottorp 3y ago
  US ISPs don't have computers and databases? :)
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Sure they do, but even with a computer and a database, keeping track of exactly which taxes apply and which don't to who, from 3,143 counties and 19,495 cities isn't a trivial thing to do. Again it's not a defense of the big companies, but it is a legitimate beef.
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      They manage to get it right on my bill, so it's not like they don't have the information handy, they just don't want to disclose it until as late as legally possible.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        not trying to unload on you because it's many different people, but Ok, I give up trying to say "it's not a defense of the ISPs" because clearly people aren't capable of separating threads of thought. I guess the limbic system response to "evil ISP" is just too overpowering for the frontal lobe and logic falls by the wayside. It's simply not possible that two different things can both be true? That ISPs already have to do it so should disclose what they're charging, but that also the number of taxes and fees are ridiculous? Why is that so hard to separate in people's minds? If a Comcast president said that ham sandwiches are better when they're grilled, and I said "he's got a good point there" would that also be misconstrued as a defense of their billing practices?
        alistairSH 3y ago
        Taxes and fees are complicated, no question. But it's completely ridiculous for ISPs (or anybody else) to use that as a justification for dark patterns during the sales cycle. Now, if the taxes and fees were so complicated, the company simply couldn't comply at all, at any point in the customer lifecycle, then sure, that's a good excuse. But that's not the case - ISPs manage to figure this stuff out eventually.
        avianlyric 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
thechao 3y ago
If they can bill me, they can tell me how much it'll cost. They know my address.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
MrRadar 3y ago
If it is genuinely too complex ISPs could always take the approach of making the advertised price tax/fee-inclusive, like T-Mobile did.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> taxes vary depending on state, county, city, and/or taxing district, against a matrix of what type of service is being sold and what revenue limits, if any. Ow well, if yhey cant figure out all these complexities, how do they know they are charging me the rifht amount? US is really a wild place, if I demanded a random, unexplainable and higher than expected amount of money from my customers, I would be accused of fraud and no court would uphold my demands
malfist 3y ago
Every other business can list taxes and fees, no reason ISPs can't. And you can't tell me that metro net's mandatory "technology fee" of $10 to every customer can't be disclosed before you get to a buy page
adrr 3y ago
How do they know what to charge you? There is some billing system that has all the taxes and fees in it to apply to your bill and there are 3rd parties SaaS companies that solve taxes for business like Avalara that will give a break down of all the taxes it applied to a given address.
- bluish29 3y ago
  They provide you with a form to check if your address is supported which is linked to one system that do the check. I think it is possible to link the two systems together to give you the price for your particular address. I don't think taxes and fees here has to do with anything other than your physical address (They are not the IRS after all)
jcranmer 3y ago
At the point where I'm querying about internet service, they need to know my address to ascertain that they can in fact have(/can run) a cable into my house. And when they know my address, they know all of the relevant jurisdictions imposing taxes on that and the relevant tax rates. The two things that are going to be difficult are if you want to promote, say, a nationwide "$60/month plan", or if you've got some corporate tax that's hard to calculate on a marginal basis that you're trying to pass onto consumers. Neither of those things are motivating to me. If it's too hard to compute the accurate tax fee per person, just roll that into your base plan calculation and budget accordingly. We don't expect to have to pay a corporation's corporate tax as a separate line item on the bill, so why should we expect that consumers have to pay an industry-specific corporate tax as a separate line item? At the end of the day, the reality is that this is an industry that is trying to advertise plans that are at wildly different rates from those the consumer has to pay, and they're upset that some truth-in-advertising laws is starting to be enforced. It's not even outlawing the wildly different rates; it's merely requiring transparency in the differences!
mulakosag 3y ago
If they can show me the price at checkout then why cannot show the price in listing.
- mulmen 3y ago
  Because they need additional information like your address which is not available to them in the listing.
avianlyric 3y ago
They only need to publish the taxes and fees if they’re not part of the advertised service price. The FCC has made it very clear that if ISP don’t want to publish the minutiae of all the various taxes and fees, then those ISP are welcome to charge a single flat, advertised, price, and not inflate bills beyond that price with spurious taxes and “fees”. Of course that would require ISPs to be honest and upfront with their advertising and billing practices, something US ISP seem to be incapable of.

mattmcknight 3y ago

It doesn't seem preposterous to me at all. If the goal is to show the price breakdown on marketing materials, it's going to be tough for AT&T to fit 29,000 different permutations of tax regimes in a banner ad. "the company “would have to create over 29,000 separate labels”" from your source 2.