FCC says “too bad” to ISPs complaining that listing every fee is too hard::Comcast and other ISPs asked FCC to ditch listing-every-fee rule. FCC says “no.”

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    ·
    1 year ago

    listing-every-fee rule “impose[s] significant administrative burdens and unnecessary complexity in complying with the broadband label requirements.”

    Then, Mr ISP, you have too many fees or they are too complicated for you to charge.

    • sebinspace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see what’s so complicated. Where’s the burden of writing “because we fucking feel like it” on the bill?

  • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is how government should work. A government FOR the people.

    This is the kind of pro-consumer news that I’ve become accustomed to hearing only about the EU. I realize this doesn’t stop ISPs from simply levying fees and only demands that they list them, but seeing an itemized list of where your money goes is a first step in realizing that you might be getting screwed.

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We have government regulators in Australia. Surprise, surprise, fees aren’t lengthy, can be explained, and are investigated by the “Consumer Watchdog”—literally what the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is called—if shit’s starting to look shady or unreasonable. We love capitalism, but we put a long socialism leash on it to reduce strain, deception, and fraud that makes victims of smaller businesses or individuals.

      I love it. It makes a lot of shady ideas never leave the board room and if they do, chances are it ends up being really bad PR. All the while, playing the capitalism game well still nets high reward.

      • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Capitalism is fantastic.*

        • as long as it’s heavily regulated otherwise it turns the world into monopolistic hellscape.

        I love it when super pro capitalists cite Adam Smith. His seminal book on capitalism clearly explains the logical hellscape outcomes that will naturally evolve over time but people gloss over that.

    • danielton@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Broadband ISPs also had protected monopoly or duopoly status for a really long time. It’s been fucking hilarious watching the cable company freak out because T-Mobile 5G is a viable option in my area now.

  • spittingimage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    On the one hand I’m sceptical that a company couldn’t tell customers ahead of time what fees they might be paying.

    On the other hand, I once worked for an ISP that deleted its customer database and all backups to save itself data warehousing fees and literally had no idea how much customers were paying or what services it was providing them. So it does happen.

    On the other other hand (yes, I have three), incompetence shouldn’t shield you from the consequences of failing your responsibilities.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The ISPs arguments are bogus, anyway. The claim they don’t know the costs when offering a contract, but suddenly remember each and everything when writing the bill…

  • query@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    How is there more than one? Unless you need something slightly unusual like a static IP. Otherwise, everything should be covered by type of subscription, cost of subscription.

  • mrginger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’ll just make a fee for having to list their fees, and make the consumer pay for it.

    • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would be pretty bad for their reputation when its bad already.

      But consequence? No. We can’t get onto the Internet without them.

  • Godnroc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    You just know that track all of those fees anyways to make sure they bill you for them. Not listing them is just malicious.

  • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “directing the consumer to the specific web page on which the label appears.”

    I just hope they won’t intensionally traffic shape to load real slow, or have to click excessive buttons to list every items.