- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- technology@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
If Comcast hates it, it must be the best solution. In fact, I think we America should run all laws by Comcast executives
As a mortgage lender, welcome to the full transparency world. The only people that complain about it are the people that have a lot to hide.
When they say “too hard” I hear “will cut into our profits.”
deleted by creator
I agree with the sentiment of your concern as it is a shit load of info. Only part I would disagree with is that nobody explains it. Depends on your realtor of course but mid-pandemic lockdowns my realtor sat down with my wife and I and went page by page, all printed out, and explained everything. Stopped periodically to see what questions we had, and even light heartily quizzed us. He showed us where he was making money, where the bank makes money, what was likely to happen the moment we signed with the mortgage (sold to a different lender), and where our risks were.
It was a lot. And I don’t look forward to it. But in a day and age where anything can be searched online at your fingertips due diligence is expected by both parties and I felt comfortable going into the closing feeling we had covered most everything.
deleted by creator
Fun fact: one of the big plusses of the EU was a unified consumer protection law that gives customers extensive rights to fight back against malicious hidden clauses they didn’t have to expect if they weren’t explained to them explicitly. Was a surprisingly pro-consumer legislation, that.
All I hear is “we´d lose too many our costumers if we had to tell them how we´re fleecing them.”
Most of them are regional monopolies. How many customers could they possibly lose?
This article has serious “not the onion” vibes!
I say boohoo to the industry that stole hundreds of billions of dollars from the government by taking money to build out a nationwide fibre network and doing fuck all with it.
The Book Of Broken Promises: $400 Billion Broadband Scandal And Free The Net - that’s from fucking 2014. Just imagine how much money we’ve shoveled away on subpar service while we also get fleeced for a new build out.
Local ISP here I actually had to search on third praty sites to get any idea what their business tier costs since their site refused to say. When they’re allowed to hide things to a point where you need to go through several pages to know what upload speed and data caps they offer it’s obvious they’re looking to screw with people. Top tier was about $150/month for 6tb originally, then during the covid years it got bumped to 8tb because reasons, bow the standard top tier is about $130 with a 3tb cap. Make up your mind people, are you charging for the speed or the volume?
I have a better solution. If it’s too much work to list it then it’s not worth charging it.
They just don’t want people to look at their bills and see:
C-Suite 3rd Yacht Fund: $2.39
Monopoly Maintenence Fee: $5.25
Lobby/Bribe Fee: $3.16Well, I see an opportunity for consolation right here!
Monopoly maintenance/lobbying (bribes): $8.41
I bet those business geniuses can find all kinds of ways to “reduce fees”. That is the number of fees, not the total dollar amount of fees.
poor babies…
And yet they still manage to list them perfectly fine on my bill.
How about we just scrap the ISP instead and start over with a company that can list what they are charging for? This isn’t hard. Either it’s a legitimate fee or it’s not. I have a feeling they just don’t want to disclose that they have been ripping people off for a few extra bucks every bill for the last decade.
That’s what it is. They don’t want people to know what extra fees they’re tacking on. Of course they can list what they’re charging for. Is their accounting so bad they don’t know who they’re charging for what? I seriously doubt it. This is as easy as a spreadsheet output.
If they’re so unsure what they’re charging people, perhaps it might be worth looking into their reported earnings and tax paid.
That’s exactly what this is. They obviously have software that calculates the fees, so claiming they can’t tell us why is bullshit when they clearly know why already.
They don’t want customers to know how much of the fees are “non-mandatory,” i.e. what is imposed by the ISP but not required by law.
I have to itemize every invoice, for ever customer. Sometimes 100+ items long, and it’s rarely the same, customer to customer. I’m pretty sure they can figure out how to do it too.
That’s some real chutzpah to tell the FCC they’re charging so many bullshit fees they can’t even keep track of them.
coming soon: Fee Listing fee
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Five lobby groups representing cable companies, fiber and DSL providers, and mobile operators have repeatedly urged the Federal Communications Commission to eliminate the requirement before new broadband labeling rules take effect.
The filing was submitted by NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, which represents Comcast, Charter, Cox, and other cable companies.
The trade groups met on Wednesday with the legal advisors to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and Commissioner Brendan Carr, according to the filing.
The FCC rules aren’t in force yet because they are subject to a federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under the US Paperwork Reduction Act.
The five trade groups complain that this would require ISPs “to display the pass-through of fees imposed by federal, state, or local government agencies on the consumer broadband label.”
ISPs could instead include all costs in their advertised rates to give potential customers a clearer idea of how much they would have to pay each month.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Why would it be easier for the consumer to get one line item “ALL FEES” on their bill, instead of a more granular, itemized bill that explains the reasons I’m paying for something?
It isn’t easier. It’s just more obfuscating.
“The labels must be displayed to consumers at the point of sale and include monthly price, additional charges, speeds, data caps, additional charges for data, and other information.”
Its talking about point of sale not bills
Alrighty, why would I prefer everything be condensed at the point of sale instead of spelled out for me?
The point of it is that they have to show the max cost, not say it cost $59 then once you’ve signed up start charging $74 because of undisclosed ‘hidden’ costs. We don’t deal with that bullshit in Australia, my ISP tells me it’ll cost $99 a month for my chosen speed and unlimited data, thats what I pay no extra charges unless i select a package that gives me extra.
I imagine that would take a very, very specific law here in America. Corporations screwing over customers is our new national pastime. But honestly as long as I saw the total bill with no change from what was advertised to me that would be fine too.
Because then they don’t have to come up with technobabble to disguise what the fees are, can you imagine if they actually listed “yatcht fee” the peasents would revolt.
Why am I paying all this money then? I mean, assuming we wanna believe this bullshit premise. Your computers can’t itemize a bill!?
Seriously, if you couldn’t even be bothered to write it down then it couldn’t have been something worth being billed for
