FCC Says 'Too Bad' To ISPs Complaining That Listing Every Fee is Too Hard (arstechnica.com) 102
The Federal Communications Commission yesterday rejected requests to eliminate an upcoming requirement that Internet service providers list all of their monthly fees. From a report: Five major trade groups representing US broadband providers petitioned the FCC in January to scrap the requirement before it takes effect. In June, Comcast told the FCC that the listing-every-fee rule "impose[s] significant administrative burdens and unnecessary complexity in complying with the broadband label requirements." The five trade groups kept up the pressure earlier this month in a meeting with FCC officials and in a filing that complained that listing every fee is too hard. The FCC refused to bend, announcing yesterday that the rules will take effect without any major changes.
"Every consumer needs transparent information when making decisions about what Internet service offering makes the most sense for their family or household. No one wants to be hit with charges they didn't ask for or they did not expect," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said. Yesterday's order "largely affirms the rules... while making some revisions and clarifications such as modifying provider record-keeping requirements when directing consumers to a label on an alternative sales channel and confirming that providers may state 'taxes included' when their price already incorporates taxes," the FCC said.
"Every consumer needs transparent information when making decisions about what Internet service offering makes the most sense for their family or household. No one wants to be hit with charges they didn't ask for or they did not expect," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said. Yesterday's order "largely affirms the rules... while making some revisions and clarifications such as modifying provider record-keeping requirements when directing consumers to a label on an alternative sales channel and confirming that providers may state 'taxes included' when their price already incorporates taxes," the FCC said.
You Can Charge What You Can't List? (Score:5, Insightful)
And no one is arrested why, exactly?
Re: You Can Charge What You Can't List? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It boggles my mind that FaceTime or WhatsApp hasnt killed the POTS system
POTS works when the power is out. It does not require a charged device, either. Just plug your POTS phone into the wall and it will work.
Re: (Score:2)
POTS works when the power is out. It does not require a charged device, either. Just plug your POTS phone into the wall and it will work.
Unless it's cordless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That used to be true. In my area they've abandoned all the copper lines. If you want "landline" (used to be AKA "wireline"), you get a lines AC-powered cable or fiber interface with RJ11 jack (or jacks). Obviously if power goes out, you ain't got phone.
Some of the interface boxes used to come with batteries, for maybe 8-12 hours use.
Many have a space for a battery, but they're cheaping out and not providing a battery. Usually you can provide and install one.
And, of course more and more have no facility
Re: (Score:2)
Just plug your POTS phone into the wall and it will work.
Just like the FCC requires. Too bad they are so conflicted between consumers and shareholders who must engage in commerce and yet resent doing business with one another. Yep, that's just how I feel about the FCC, too. Can't live with them, can't shoot 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
With the telephone system (POTS and cellular both) you still have interoperability. I can call any phone number in the world and expect my call to go through. With Facetime and WhatsApp I can only call other Facetime or WhatsApp users. I have to know what services my contacts use, and I have to use compatible services to call them. Telcos have worked very hard to be interoperable. Online services have worked very hard to not be.
HOW can you charge what you can't list? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You Can Charge What You Can't List? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a truth in advertising problem, not that they can't list the fees.
Consider if they try to put an ad in the newspaper. Up to x Mbit/sec for Y USD.
They would need to have a breakdown per census block.
You'd then suggest per zipcode? Right? Well, what if I told you that things like [city/county] Sales/Use tax don't break down cleanly on zipcode boundaries. And there are franchise fees. Fees charged by the municipality that get passed on to the customer. If municipalities don't actually break down on zipcode boundaries...
So instead, we then talk about internet ads. Users are supposed to be anonymous, in theory. Advertisers aren't allowed to have your full address and zip+4, right? Or how about mobile advertising, and I see a different price when I'm at work vs when I'm at home...
This isn't supposed to be a "defense of this crappy practice", but rather "this is way more complicated than the strawman you're burning."
Re: (Score:3)
Advertisers aren't allowed to have your full address and zip+4, right?
Dude, if that were true, I'd get almost no junk mail
Re: (Score:2)
I was specifically talking about internet advertising.
about 10 years ago I worked for one of the [then] top 5 advertising network companies [and it wasn't Google], and geo location data did technically include zipcode. But it was either a) based on GeoIP which could be very inaccurate b) voluntary data provided in the user's profile with said company I worked for.
And yes, the targeting data was included in RTB passed on to other networks. But it still didn't have [accurate or not accurate] zip+4.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a truth in advertising problem, not that they can't list the fees.
Consider if they try to put an ad in the newspaper. Up to x Mbit/sec for Y USD.
They would need to have a breakdown per census block.
You'd then suggest per zipcode? Right? Well, what if I told you that things like [city/county] Sales/Use tax don't break down cleanly on zipcode boundaries. And there are franchise fees. Fees charged by the municipality that get passed on to the customer. If municipalities don't actually break down on zipcode boundaries...
So instead, we then talk about internet ads. Users are supposed to be anonymous, in theory. Advertisers aren't allowed to have your full address and zip+4, right? Or how about mobile advertising, and I see a different price when I'm at work vs when I'm at home...
This isn't supposed to be a "defense of this crappy practice", but rather "this is way more complicated than the strawman you're burning."
In developed countries, when an advertisement lists "up to 24 Mbps for just £20 per month (on a 24 month contract with £49.99 joining fee)" that really is what you pay including all government and 3rd party charges.
Come to think of it, in most developing countries as well.
Re: (Score:3)
So instead, we then talk about internet ads. Users are supposed to be anonymous, in theory. Advertisers aren't allowed to have your full address and zip+4, right?
There are all sorts of advertisers who tout their services with an internet ad where clicking on the link takes you to a page where you can put in your address to get full details on what you can get. ISPs can list the base cost "plus associated fees", with the exhortation 'click here for details', and the linked page takes their address and returns a detailed breakdown of their plans with the fees broken out, showing the resultant totals. If it's too complicated for an ISP to break out a fee to show a pote
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of the fees are bullshit that are listed in ways to imply they are mandatory taxes the government is charging.
It's like if you ordered a pizza, and they requested a "DOT Compliance Fee". That may sound like a tax, but it's actually them pushing the cost of insurance onto you.
Or if you went to the local bi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cable companies first: (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't seem to be a problem: (Score:5, Insightful)
Comcast told the FCC that the listing-every-fee rule "impose[s] significant administrative burdens and unnecessary complexity in complying with the broadband label requirements.
Yet they have zero problem listing each and every fee on my bill (and the bill of millions of subscribers) every month. Strange...
Coming to a bill near you. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fee listing fee. I too am a Comcast hostage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've already got 10 Gs of satellite fiber.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice in theory. But coverage is far spottier than the coverage maps would imply. I certainly don't get good 5G broadband, even though I live in the middle of a 2,500-home subdivision, in suburban Houston. I have to use wifi calling because the signal is so poor.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a major NE city's suburbs, and right at my house there's essentially no signal. Walk 300' down my long driveway and signal is good. I ended up buying a nice "booster" (repeater) which works well. Downside is the phone needs to be pretty close to the indoor antenna, but that's okay with me as I'm not a cell phone addict. I mean, they're quite useful, but I don't have to have it with me at all times.
But that brings up a big frustration: most radio equipment is required to list RF specs, like sen
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice in theory. But coverage is far spottier than the coverage maps would imply. I certainly don't get good 5G broadband, even though I live in the middle of a 2,500-home subdivision, in suburban Houston. I have to use wifi calling because the signal is so poor.
I'm also in a Houston suburb (a big one on the west side of Houston named after an old interstate rail line). Our phones appear to work fine because there is a 5G tower outside the nearby elementary school (that of course idiots tried to protest), but my choice in ISPs is a joke. My wife has Verizon 5G for her phone but if you try to get 5G internet they say they don't currently offer it in my area.
I currently have Comcast because AT&T pissed me off years ago. Strange thing is, when I look at the cur
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast told the FCC that the listing-every-fee rule "impose[s] significant administrative burdens and
unnecessary complexity in complying with the broadband label requirements.
Yet they have zero problem listing each and every fee on my bill (and the bill of millions of subscribers) every month. Strange...
My favorite is the bolded bit. You don't get to tell lawmakers a thing is unnecessarily complex when it's the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Comcast told the FCC that the listing-every-fee rule "impose[s] significant administrative burdens and unnecessary complexity in complying with the broadband label requirements.
Yet they have zero problem listing each and every fee on my bill (and the bill of millions of subscribers) every month. Strange...
My favorite is the bolded bit. You don't get to tell lawmakers a thing is unnecessarily complex when it's the law.
Sigh. Previewed my own text but not the edited quote I tried to bold. Mia culpa.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Mega culpa.
Re:Doesn't seem to be a problem: (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet they have zero problem listing each and every fee on my bill (and the bill of millions of subscribers) every month. Strange...
ISPs actually seem to get them wrong fairly often, which has been a perennial cause for class action suits and the source of much consternation for the customers who are wrongly billed.
Which is yet another argument for why they should be forced to simplify their charges, lest anyone think I'm defending them. Because I'm not. At all. I feel as if I really can't be clear enough that I find their practices are indefensible.
Re: (Score:2)
Never too hard for them to bill for it though.. (Score:2, Insightful)
And I don't give a damn about people's discomfort over making things "political", you absolutely know this new ruling wouldn't have happened if Republicans had won in 2020.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And I don't give a damn about people's discomfort over making things "political", you absolutely know this new ruling wouldn't have happened if Republicans had won in 2020.
I don't know that for certain. How could I?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because the FCC has been under control of GOP aligned interests since 2016 up until recently, and it didn't happen then. Ajit Pai's very first act was to repeal net neutrality.
Asked and answered.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because the FCC has been under control of GOP aligned interests since 2016 up until recently, and it didn't happen then. Ajit Pai's very first act was to repeal net neutrality.
Asked and answered.
Oh, Ajit Pai. I remember him. He was the guy appointed by Barack Obama, right? I didn't realize President Obama was a Republican! Thanks for answering! Well done - kudos to you, sir!
Re: Never too hard for them to bill for it though. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
According to the internets Ajit Pai is a republican.
That doesn't change the fact that he was appointed to his post by a non-Republican. Does it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The U.S. president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. No more than three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.[3][8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It is built into the system that Obama had to name two Republicans, just as it is built-in that they would be shitty.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't change the fact itself, but, but the fact itself is irrelevant:
The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The U.S. president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. No more than three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.[3][8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It is built into the system that Obama had to name two Republicans, just as it is built-in that they would be shitty.
So, Obama chose a Republican over a Democrat to lead the FCC? Praytell, why would he do something that others things is so... gasp... terrible?
You see, the GGP wanted to blame Republicans, however, it seems pretty clear that the blame can -at least- be shared?
Honestly, all this partisanship on Slashdot is downright lame. Can we at least agree that, regardless of party, politicians suck? And, let's discuss the reasons why decision(s) are poor rather than heaping it on Donkeys and Elephants?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you are just reacting as a reflexive anti-partisan, but this is a public policy discussion and the sides are pretty clear: there is one party that is pro-industry and one that is pro-consumer (to varying degrees). If you want to hold both sides accountable for shitty policy, that it great, but Obama can't just ask RMS to declare that he is a Republican and seat him on the FCC. So your jaq-off rhetoric ("Why would Obama . . .") is either naïve or bad faith because it ignores the surrounding poli
Re: Never too hard for them to bill for it though (Score:2)
Why the name calling? I didnâ(TM)t resort to it, but you did.
Re: (Score:2)
@sid crimson what are you talking about? Republicans are against net neutrality (along with other things related to free speech, equal rights and just general common good ) https://archive.thinkprogress.... [thinkprogress.org]
Why would a non-republican appoint such an individual? Are Democrats also opposed to such things?... seems to be the case.
Re: (Score:3)
You're obviously a troll, but I'll answer your nonsense for the benefit of others.
Obama had an unwavering commitment to bipartisanship. Like a naive fool, he believed that Republicans would negotiate in good faith, and work towards the common good. Why it took him damn near 8 years to figure out that they're shamelessly dishonest, I'll never know. The rest of the world figured that out long-before he took office.
Now fuck off back to 8chan.
Re: (Score:2)
You're obviously a troll, but I'll answer your nonsense for the benefit of others.
Obama had an unwavering commitment to bipartisanship. Like a naive fool, he believed that Republicans would negotiate in good faith, and work towards the common good. Why it took him damn near 8 years to figure out that they're shamelessly dishonest, I'll never know. The rest of the world figured that out long-before he took office.
Now fuck off back to 8chan.
No... Obama wasn't the savior some thought him to be... and given his political acumen was not "naive" by any stretch of the imagination. He made his choice, and we don't know if it was purposeful... but we do know that he was not forced to appoint an (R).
Now, stop with your potty mouth and bring some decorum back to Slashdot,
Re: (Score:2)
You were told to fuck off, troll. Listen to your betters.
Re: (Score:2)
You were told to fuck off, troll. Listen to your betters.
LOL - you're not better, nor are they. Thanks for playing, troll.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that for certain. How could I?
EXACTLY!
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
In Popeye, with Robin Williams, there was an irritating fellow who collected taxes, and introduced a tax collection tax, a tax you paid to pay your other taxes.
Also, Republicans are happy to force businesses to list taxes, just to make sure you know how much you are paying, instead of hiding it the way government wants.
Given the choice, I'd go with the Republicans on this, warts and all.
Re: (Score:3)
And ultimately it makes no difference, because for a lot of people their ISP can happily rub its nipples while disclosing their fees, because they know that at the end of the day they're still cheaper than Starlink.
It's like what happened with Ticketmaster. They got in hot water for doing some shady shit with how they came up with the pricing, but if you go to buy Tickets today there's still all kinds of jacked up fees, because they basically have a monopoly. At least now there's no misconceptions about h
Re: (Score:2)
If you know your post is stupid enough that you post AC, why make the post?
"Inflation" was a world-wide problem. The US has some of the lowest in the world, thanks to that "democrat-ruled regime" (sic). Fun fact, GOP lead states like Florida have some of the worst rates of inflation in the country.
Remember the "inevitable" recession you right-wing nuts have been crowing about for the past few years? Did you notice that didn't happen? You can thank Bidenomics for that.
When it comes to economics, right-wi
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the "inevitable" recession you right-wing nuts have been crowing about for the past few years?Did you notice that didn't happen? You can thank Bidenomics for that.
I thought you could thank Orwell for that--you know, changing the definition of a word for political purposes. We did enter a recession, the white house said "naw, we didn't" and the news media murdered thousands of words explaining how the definition of "recession" used for decades wasn't really the definition of recession.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that had Darth Cheeto still been in office at the time he would have done the exact same thing (and that media aligned with him would have mu
Re: (Score:1)
you know, changing the definition of a word for political purposes.
I assume you're talking about the word "vaccine". You're a lying piece of shit. That didn't happen. Just because you didn't know what a vaccine was, doesn't mean the definition of the world changed.
Can you right-wing freaks get any more pathetic?
Re: (Score:2)
No, the GPP is on about the definition of "recession." The occurrence of recession in the US is commonly identified by two quarters of real contraction in GDP. In 2022, the US GDP contracted during the first two quarters. People, especially conservatives, who wanted to see (or at least portray) the US economy as failing because a Democrat was president at the time, jumped on two quarters of GDP contraction and announced that this constituted a recession. But that's not actually the definition of recession;
Re:Never too hard for them to bill for it though.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> Maybe you ought to rein in the hyperbole, because it's not based in fact.
Don't let a few facts ruin a perfectly good conspiracy theory.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's too hard to explain, then it should be too hard to charge. Glad to see the FCC is on the right side of something for once.
Big ISPs can go fuck themselves if they can't figure out a fee structure that is explainable to the average subscriber. I'm looking right at you, Comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
They went too far this time trying to push their regulatory capture.
It has to be believable to maintain the con.
Or....
Maybe it's kayfabe to *prove* that FCC is not captured. Hmmmm?
Re: (Score:2)
Glad to see the FCC is on the right side of something for once.
I'm still not over them allowing Verizon to violate the C block spectrum agreement [cornell.edu] which prohibited handset locking. It's gonna take a lot more than this to convince me the FCC isn't still just the telco industry's cuckold.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm not giving them any credit for anything beyond this single decision.
They're still a "commission" inside a revolving door of ex- VPs and K-street lobbyists pretending to regulate one of the most important industry sectors in the economy, which happens to also be the industry that made them rich AF and "qualified" for a congress which they generously donated campaign funds to, to confirm them to a government paycheck and pension in exchange for doing (if we're lucky) the square root of jack shit; and
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still not over them allowing Verizon to violate the C block spectrum agreement [cornell.edu] which prohibited handset locking. It's gonna take a lot more than this to convince me the FCC isn't still just the telco industry's cuckold.
That's a silly thing to be upset about. You should be more upset about the fact that the FCC isn't honoring the rest of the Block C regs, which amongst other things, should prohibit the discrimination against specific applications (e.g., making you pay more for HD video) Verizon engages in as routine business practice. The headset locking they actually got permission from the FCC to do. The rest of Block C they just started quietly ignoring after the 2016 Presidential election, correctly predicting that Ajit Pai wouldn't do a damn thing about it. :(
The handset locking was in response to a unique to Verizon (since everyone else could lock) problem. Criminal elements were stealing millions of dollars worth of phones from Verizon and reselling them. Stores were periodically broken into and entire shipments bound for them were intercepted and stolen. Verizon could ban stolen devices from their network, they have agreements with AT&T and T-Mobile to get them banned there too, but nothing stops them from being sold for use abroad. The purchaser never finds out unless they come to the States and their phone doesn't work.
The locking policy currently implemented is for 60 days, which is sufficient time for Verizon to ensure an order isn't fraudulent, without unduly burdening the consumer. After 60 days your device is unlocked and remains unlocked even if you leave Verizon while owing money on the device. T-Mobile won't unlock for any reason other than military deployment if you owe them one penny on a device. Not sure how AT&T handles it but I'd wager in a less friendly way than Verizon!
If it bothers you buy your phone directly from Apple, Google, or whomever. It will be unlocked from Day One and you'll pay the same without the hassle of dealing with Verizon. Most of the major OEMs have their own financing if you want to stick to the 24 month payment scheme at 0% APR rather than eat the whole cost upfront.
Unnecessary complexity? (Score:5, Insightful)
"impose[s] significant administrative burdens and unnecessary complexity in complying with the broadband label requirements."
It's too difficult to list every single fee they tack on above and beyond the required ones? Okay, then get rid of those fees. That will simplify everything.
As I've said before, grocery stores have no problem listing every single item you buy on a bill, including whether you're paying full price, sale price, or coupon price. Considering the number of items can reach multiple dozens, it is inconcivable (yes, I do know what that word means) ISPs can't list the fees they are charging people.
Re: (Score:2)
it is inconcivable (yes, I do know what that word means)
but... does that word mean what you think it means?
If you can charge it.. you can.. (Score:2)
If you can charge it, and know that you will, and can charge it, then surely it isn't overly burdensome to do so at the time of signup.
After all, signup happens once every few years, while you need to know what to charge for every month, which is at least 10X more often!
I wonder how they track the income from the fees (Score:2)
What? You say that couldn't possibly be tracking that!
Think again.
They know to the fractional penny what each fee brings in.
We just need their own accounting data to do the required enumeration
Remember fights over cellphone number portability? (Score:5, Interesting)
Carriers: "good luck switching from us, suckers! We own your number and you can't take it with you!!"
FCC: "make it work"
Or, how about the fight over allowing states to tax online sales [slashdot.org]?
Online stores: "We can't it's too harrrd!"
Supreme court: "suck it!"
Re: (Score:2)
No, out-of-state sales taxes were (and still are) a very legitimate complaint on the part of those stores.
And the "too hard" aspect of cross-state sales tax collection is a huge barrier to entry that protects the dominance of the big players like Amazon now. Consider how you would implement it. You can't just do a state-by-state lookup because localities can charge sales tax. ZIP code? Nope... those are set up by the USPS for its own convenience and no one else's. One code could be as small as a single
Re: (Score:2)
As for no taxation without representation, the consumer decided to live where they do with the sales tax rates they have. But like everything in our originally-federalist-but-increasingly-federal government, it's a mishmash.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware of the existence of Avalara and Taxjar. So I guess you could argue that the barrier to entry has been lowered. But regulatory capture is still present in this case. And that also just raises another problem: Government-mandated subsidies for one business by another. That's not as bad as a full-up barrier to entry to prevent the next Amazon ever from existing. But it's still a very bad overreach and should not be allowed.
And on the other point, the location of the customer is not what is
Re: (Score:2)
How about doing what other countries do? Forbid local governments to charge sales tax.
Another choice popular with corporations, is demanding the US federal government create a consistent, one-size-fits-all answer, which in this case would be a nation-wide sales tax-rate. Which is something other countries do.
Re: (Score:3)
Good (Score:2)
do resort fees next! needs to be on the main page (Score:2)
do resort fees next! needs to be on the main page as part of the price per night!
could it be (Score:2)
it is only too hard because they make them up as they go.
Nice, but not far enough. (Score:4, Interesting)
This shouldn't just be an FCC thing. The FTC, or whatever appropriate regulatory body, needs to make this universal in all cases. Sure, if you want to be pissy about it; go ahead and put a line-by-line itemization on the receipt. But *EVERY* posted price should be mandated to be inclusive of ALL taxes, fees, surcharges, whatever; with no exceptions for any business. If you can figure out what the taxes, fees, and surcharges are and who to remit them to; you can do the basic arithmetic to add them to the base price when you print up the tag.
Some leeway mat be appropriate when you sell across jurisdictions. But then again, maybe not. My Netflix, T-Mobile (The AT&T line my work pays for, not so much though.) and Apple One prices are all inclusive with the advertised price. If they can figure it out, other companies can do it too.
How about no fees? (Score:2)
Imagine just listing the final price and not having any fees. Oh the humanity!
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine just listing the final price and not having any fees. Oh the humanity!
Charter/Spectrum does that on my bill. They have done that for MANY YEARS now.
Too bad... (Score:2)
... so sad.
Is it hard or is it not hard (Score:2)
It a funny thing.... On one hand they say it is hard to list the charges up front. However, they don't seem to have any problem listing them all on your bill. I wonder why that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Idiots keep focusing on tax disclosures in advertising, but that is because the phone companies want you to think that is the issue - it is not - this is about disclosing all non-tax fees and listing the final
Re: (Score:2)
listing fees (Score:2)
well... if you can charge all those fees, that means you know how much you charge each customer for each fee.
thus, you have a list of those fees, and their value.
it's simple matter of printing that list on the invoice
Whoa! (Score:3)
The FCC shows some balls?
Is that legal?
The gall... (Score:2)
If listing the fees is too hard, charging and collecting them is too. What utter B S....
Why do USians Put Up With This Crap ? (Score:3)
Every time there's a story about US broadband/cable TV /phones etc. etc. I'm absolutely amazed at how utterly crap and downright scummy your service providers are !
Here in the UK I've got a basic fibre connection through Zen internet (great company). The price was advertised as being £ X per month and I pay £ X per month. They can't start altering my bill and tacking on extra arbitrary charges or they'd be in breach of contract.
And should I wish to switch providers I can do so at any time by requesting a MAC code which the provider is legally obliged to provide without any BS. Did that with a previous provider and as soon as the drone at the other end started trying to stall me I simply said "you're legally required to provide me a MAC code on request. I'm requesting it. Please provide it now or there will be legal consequences". It was provided without further ado.
I honestly don't understand how you USians allow companies to treat you in such a terrible manner and get away with all the bullshit they pull ???
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the UK I've got a basic fibre connection through Zen internet (great company). The price was advertised as being £ X per month and I pay £ X per month. They can't start altering my bill and tacking on extra arbitrary charges or they'd be in breach of contract.
This is only strictly true if you're on a contract. If you're out of contract or on a rolling monthly plan, telco's can introduce a reasonable inflation increase. As my mobile phone is on a rolling monthly (a whopping £6 pcm) it usually goes up to about 5-10% where I log on and update my monthly plan to whatever plan is £6 and usually get a small increase in my data allowance. That, my friends is what happens when you have a truly competitive market.
£6 pays for unlimited calls, texts an
Correct reaction to ridiculous claim (Score:2)
I mean a business that says "we cannot list charges but we can charge charges" is either directly lying or deeply dysfunctional (in which case, send in the aditors and skewer them).
New line item for having to show all line items (Score:1)
There will be a new line item charge .
âoe$5 recovery fee for breaking out line itemsâ
quantum billing (Score:2)
you'll know what your bill is when we bill you.
PS now a cat in every envelope
crooks (Score:2)
Those crooks will still find some way to hide the extra fees. For example, 20 clicks deep.
If you can't list it, how can you charge it? (Score:1)
If it is too difficult to list, how is it so easy to charge? Seems like it would be EASIER to list something than it would be to actually do the charging.
I wonder which came first: the corporate man or the sociopath? Do you you have to be a sociopath to rise through the ranks of a corporation? Or, does "playing the game" turn you into a sociopath?