Cable Lobby To FCC: Please Don't Look Too Closely at the Prices We Charge (arstechnica.com) 26
The US broadband industry is protesting a Federal Communications Commission plan to measure the affordability of Internet service. From a report: The FCC has been evaluating US-wide broadband deployment progress on a near-annual basis for almost three decades but hasn't factored affordability into these regular reviews. The broadband industry is afraid that a thorough examination of prices will lead to more regulation of ISPs. An FCC Notice of Inquiry issued on November 1 proposes to analyze the affordability of Internet service in the agency's next congressionally required review of broadband deployment. That could include examining not just monthly prices but also data overage charges and various other fees.
[...] Cable industry lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association complained in a filing released Monday that the Notice of Inquiry's "undue focus on affordability -- or pricing -- is particularly inappropriate." The group, which represents cable providers such as Comcast and Charter, said that setting an affordability benchmark could lead to rate regulation.
[...] Cable industry lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association complained in a filing released Monday that the Notice of Inquiry's "undue focus on affordability -- or pricing -- is particularly inappropriate." The group, which represents cable providers such as Comcast and Charter, said that setting an affordability benchmark could lead to rate regulation.
Are we under any obligation to pay? (Score:3)
If the consumer agrees to one price, and are billed another price. Is there a contractual requirement to pay the hidden charges?
In my opinion, it is in the cable company's own best interest to be up front about charges. And make sure the customers are ready and willing to pay for the services. Given that most cable service is a regulated monopoly, there is not really much need to compete with other cable companies on price.
Consumer protection is not about giving us free or cheap stuff. It's about having a healthy industry that doesn't collapse under its own scammy behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a contractual requirement to pay the hidden charges?
Go ahead and raise a dispute with their forced arbitration provider that they selected for you. I'm sure that will be an unbiased way to get a resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
I would prefer to join a class action in a jurisdiction where the arbitration has been squashed. This is where attorneys come in very handy, because as an individual there is not much legal pressure I can put on a cable company. My only choice is to walk away, which is not necessarily a viable option for many people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The mere fact that they can force you to not take them to court is already a problem in and by itself.
Re: Are we under any obligation to pay? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck taking on a billion dollar company that can simply shut off your service and fuck up your credit forever...
Re: (Score:2)
He will at least cost them a fair amount of money talking to customer service for several hours.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean he'll get shunted off to doing unpaid work for them training their new AI customer service on problem customers.
Re: (Score:2)
It's precious that you think they'll care and won't just shut off your service for non-payment.
Re: Are we under any obligation to pay? (Score:2)
You are not required to pay fees that are not in your contract. If they increase prices, you can simply cancel the service.
FCC is continuously looking for more revenue sources though under the guise of regulation.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Should I even ask how much time and grief that took?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a free market for most people. You have wired, wireless and satellite providers virtually everywhere in the US.
The problem is that FCC is forcing companies to be 'more transparent' which results in things like modem fees because some people yammered they should get a discount when they bring their own modem. The only thing you can't fight fee increases from is FCC surcharges and other taxes. People complaining about their bill better look at what is actually increasing, most likely it is due to regula
Re: (Score:2)
That's one of the issues with the Communications Act. Those regulatory fees go into the FCC's budget. But we also fund this agency. I feel there is a serious conflict of interest here. Regulatory fees ought to go to the general fund. They money belongs in the treasury, and Congress ought to be the one to determine how much funding the FCC needs in order to fulfill its mission.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the case in a lot of situations. I mean, look at things like speed-trap towns, where they attempt to fund themselves via operating a speed trap and fining oodles of outsiders. This goes away when states require all ticket money to go to the state general fund, not the town's in question.
Civil asset forfeiture is one that I could go on for hours about. But police are highly interested in keeping it because it's a way for them to get money.
Etc...
They're against it? Go for it! (Score:3)
The group, which represents cable providers such as Comcast and Charter, said that setting an affordability benchmark could lead to rate regulation.
Sounds like a good thing to me, the consumer. Might be bad for the profits of the cable companies though.
Personally, I'd prefer competition, or at least customer owned "not for profit" utilities (yes, I consider internet today a utility).
I still remember studies showing that cable companies do drastically better when there's alternatives to them.
In short: In general, whatever cable companies want, I think the opposite would be better. Fuck cable companies in general.
Re: (Score:3)
I still remember studies showing that cable companies do drastically better when there's alternatives to them.
Competition almost always drives better (for the consumer) results, at the expense of company profit. It's no small wonder why cable companies push so hard to stifle it.
Here's anaolgy (Score:1)
Best laugh of the week? (Score:2)
The Internet & Television Association complained in a filing released Monday that the Notice of Inquiry's "undue focus on affordability -- or pricing -- is particularly inappropriate.
Seriously, I'm glad I didn't have a mouthful of food or drink when I read that - I involuntarily laughed out loud. The utter cheek! Here we have an oligopoly - one that enjoys the fruits of free access to public rights-of-way for their cables while simultaneously benefiting from tax breaks and sometimes government handouts - complaining about a focus on affordability! Entitled much, you bastards?
This is dark humour to be sure, but it's still humour - unless the government blinks and these parasites continue
Oops. They missed the target. (Score:2)
[...] Cable industry lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association complained in a filing released Monday that the Notice of Inquiry's "undue focus on affordability -- or pricing -- is particularly inappropriate." The group, which represents cable providers such as Comcast and Charter, said that setting an affordability benchmark could lead to rate regulation.
Lobby groups aren't supposed to just come right out and say, "Don't look at our pricing. We're trying to rape our costumer's wallets." They're supposed to cut fat checks and hand them under the table to the decision makers.
I look for this to go poorly for them. Poor babies. They might lose a few pennies on the dollar. Like, one or two. A wrist-slap for being so stupid as to put out a statement about it. Next time they'll know, just hand them the damned money up front. Fools.
If they're against it, it must be good (Score:2)
At this point you can be certain that if a cable company does not want something, you most definitely DO want it.
I've worked in cable (Score:2)
FCC asking for more clarity on pricing... (Score:1)
Stop it - they're not ISPs any more (Score:2)
All ISP were devoured, and are companies worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.
And then, on *top* of the alleged price, they add the taxes they're supposed to be paying. And they increase that annually, if not more frequently.
Let's start by raising the tax brackets for those whose income is above $440k/yr. As in tripling it. And roll *everything* into "income", no more 14% for investment income.
Then we'll see the prices stabilize or drop.