How the net neutrality repeal helps ISPs keep their hidden fees hidden
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
There is nothing left to undermine. Pai is egregiously anti-consumer and pro-ISP, full stop. That's not even up for discussion anymore.
The bigger problem is that there is a segment of our voting population who wrested control of the government and they are actively cheering him on. They don't care what happens to any of our services or infrastructure as long as it harms their 'enemies', namely the rest of the voting population.
Take any policy or position of this administration and it will always, always distill down to this. 100.0000% of the time.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
Since the breakup, each of the bells have gradually consolidated. This image I think is a few years old now but shows the progression of all the Baby Bells:
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
I hate to be that cynical person but does this even matter in the U.S.? A majority of people, myself included, only have a choice between 1 cable provider and a crappy DSL provider so we put up with the cable provider. Its like if you have to go to work, 25 miles away, and you have to choose between using a car or a bike. Yeah, you could get there on the bike however would it be valid to meet your commuting needs?
Upvote
6
(8
/
-2)
Your disclaimer has too many details. It would probably look more like:
*Does not include all fees, taxes, and random charges. Subject to increase without notice or recourse.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
VPN fee $35.99 per month. or... I wonder if it would be legal for an ISP to block VPNs and then just happen to offer you their own VPN service for a small extra fee?
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
That's a great image, but unfortunately it won't display inline here. Here's a smaller version that will:Since the breakup, each of the bells have gradually consolidated. This image I think is a few years old now but shows the progression of all the Baby Bells:
(click on the original link above for better detail.)
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
There is no problem that can't be solved with the suitable and prudent use of a flamethrower...
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
This is another thing to point to in the case against the FCC. Pai's public statements specifically indicate the transparency is important and enough to ensure ISPs do the right thing by the customers. He cannot then turn around and say they don't need to be transparent in the ruling itself. The text isn't consistent with what he's said.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Of course Consumers will be protected if ISPs disclose that they are going to block or throttle.
I mean consumers have 100's of choices of ISPs they could simply pick another!
What do you mean there are not a 100 choices in your area?
Look buddy, as a extremely highly educated republican I am telling you, as long as the ISP exists within the same solar system it should be considered a competitive option. The reason you can't get those other options in your house is obviously because of Benghazi and Obamacare.
I mean consumers have 100's of choices of ISPs they could simply pick another!
What do you mean there are not a 100 choices in your area?
Look buddy, as a extremely highly educated republican I am telling you, as long as the ISP exists within the same solar system it should be considered a competitive option. The reason you can't get those other options in your house is obviously because of Benghazi and Obamacare.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Nothing changes. You still have to buy from the one monopoly that serves your area. As a monopoly they still do whatever they want.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
While I don't agree with his proposal, I do understand and partially agree with his argument. Now, to punch myself in the face.....
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
People don't understand a lot of things. New car pricing stickers, a 1040 tax form, a mortgage Closing Disclosure... doesn't mean you get rid of that data though.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
Called Centurylink a couple weeks ago and got 1Gbps switched from $125/mo (and creeping) to a $85 for life of the account.
Wonder how long it will be until they try to reneg that.
Wonder how long it will be until they try to reneg that.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I'm sure they'll be clearly spelled out, in 2pt font, on a 30-page contract.
I can't imagine all of the little presents we'll get to discover going forward. Watch your mail closely for inserts.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
My Google Fiber bill has zero fees or taxes. It's just straight up "Fiber 1000: $70".
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Exactly. Hence why I agree with the argument, but disagree with the proposal.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
I guess we will all have to learn the ISP version of the Crow Anthem.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Ajit responds:
First, with a short 'whatever' jig:
Then, taking a drink from his he's-the-man-cup after his I-don't-give-two-shits grin:
To end in leading his 'children' with a group cheer:
Come on everybody; I don't... give a shit! I don't... give a shit!
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
I have charter/spectrum and thats what I pay for the 60mbps plan.. how did you get that for the 100 meg plan?
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Actually, the more correct question would be “why and how Americans still tolerate this level of indecency and absolute failure to operate as a legitimate business in all industry”.
The answer to that is two-fold. First, nearly all Americans have fallen for the bullshit “well that’s business” cop-out when businesses of any strip engage in activities and behaviors that would be considered unconscionable, but not illegal, if it were done by an individual. For instance, in a discussion I overheard this weekend someone was expressing their concern over their employer niggling them over hours because they have to take time off every week for cancer treatment; the person in question is salaried, had worked well over 40 hours/week to get projects done without additional pay due to that status over the several years they were with the company. Almost immediately, someone chimed in with, “I hear you, but they are a business, so I will play devil’ advocate….”
As a society Americans have duped themselves into believing that you are exempt from having any morals or ethics as long as your evil is under the umbrella of a “good business move”. That says quite a bit about us as a people. It is also a sign that we, as a nation, probably deserve exactly what is happening to us now.
The second part of this is the Two Party system that is deeply ingrained in our political system and the fact that one of those parties, while having always been pro-business, has devolved into a group of self-serving corporatist, fascists. I do not use the latter term lightly, the modern Republican Party meets all 14 characteristics of fascism. Worse they have spent the past 4 decades mastering the art of Newspeak to get roughly 49 percent of the populace, that they could not give a rat’s hindquarters about, to commit to the party line in stark contrast to their own best interests.
A very large segment of the GOP constituency is the polar opposite of the 1 percent and, despite their belief to the contrary, they are never going to be a part of that group. The Party leadership has excelled in using religion, race, and fear mongering to get half the populace to keep them in power so that they can serve corporations at the expense of the very people that vote for them. The Party is also emboldened because the constituency has demonstrated that they lack the intelligence or common sense to stop electing the very people they make their lives miserable.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
//pedant on
I think you mean that you agree with his premise, not his argument. He is proposing the removal of the data, based on the argument that disclosure is pointless if the general public does not understand the disclosure, which is in part based on the premise that many people don't understand the impact of packet loss.
//pedant off
That part of his premise is uncontroversial, but he'd be full of shit if the argument weren't so full of holes.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Nope...perfectly sound logic. The corporations are now consuming US.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Big businesses will raise a huge stink if that happens. A lot of them rely on VPNs.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Most businesses won't care if ISPs work over VPN users at the consumer level. It's not like they're paying for their employee's home service. Blocking VPNs would just be another way to force consumers into buying "business" class service.
Cha-ching!
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
What a miserable bastard. "Oh, don't worry, the Free Market will fix it!"
Now "no asymmetric information is just fine, because reasons."
FFS, you can't have even remotely useful free market effects when asymmetric information (and probably outright lying) is the order of the day.
Of course, you also can't have one in the presence of high barriers to entry; and that didn't stop him, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised...
Now "no asymmetric information is just fine, because reasons."
FFS, you can't have even remotely useful free market effects when asymmetric information (and probably outright lying) is the order of the day.
Of course, you also can't have one in the presence of high barriers to entry; and that didn't stop him, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised...
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
It would be interesting to know if sates could still theoretically implement laws that require ISPs maintain the practices mentioned as key points in this particular article. I can’t imagine anything from the FCC having authority to overrule state laws regarding consumer purchasing of services which is what most (if not all) of the points in this article are.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
After having sold these types of plans for another company as a third party, I'm guessing you are in a less competitive area of the country. The company I represented had four tiers signifying how much competition was in the area. If there were a lot of competition, then the pricing would be very competitive but with each tier of fewer competitors, the pricing would become downright ugly. I happened to live in the worst tier and I resented their pricing model. It felt arrogant and like they were the schoolyard bully.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
They have it covered. The wording is usually along the lines of "All fees mandated by law" and "All applicable service fees".
When asked for details, the answer will be:
"We cannot answer that question because we don't know your situation until after you sign this contract and agree to pay the full amount due for the term of the contract should you decide to cancel because it costs too much."
An example of the current "Full disclosure". This is from an offer I received from Comcast yesterday. TV+55Mbps internet at "$49.99 per month"
The "Offer" on the front of the letter
[The WiFi hotspots part of the deal changed recently. It used to be free access for all Comcast internet subscribers. Now anyone who has a speed under 25Mbps has to buy a short term pass (2hr, day, week or month) so that part is actually a benefit]
The details on the back...in small print and all run together...
The only mention of the "Money back guarantee" is in the wall of fine print at the bottom of the back of this ad where it states the limit of the refund.
That is with the current full disclosure rules. Under the new rules they will be able to safely omit all the parts that mention costs over and above the $49.99...
The CenturyLink offer I just received is much more concise
Speeds up to 25Mbps, $45/mo., Rate excludes taxes. Speed may not be available in your area
(Not available here, but I get one of these mail ads at roughly 6 week intervals)
The fine print disclosing extra costs is embedded in the "full details" block of small print.
All products are governed by tariffs, terms of service, or terms and conditions posted at CenturyLink.com. See CenturyLink.com/help for taxes. The "Help" consists of a list of the taxes that could apply, but might not and what each one pays for. Actual tax rates and fees are not disclosed.
The tax help page is only linked for customers who log in to manage their account. It is not a secure page and Google finds it at
http://www.centurylink.com/home/help/bi ... -bill.html
Another page not available to non-subscribers except by search engine is this one that lists all the fees that might appear on your bill with a link to an explanation of what it is. (It IS linked from the above page in the little menu to the right)
http://www.centurylink.com/home/help/bi ... -fees.html
What is missing is any way to learn in advance what fees and taxes you will actually pay and how much they will add up to for your service choices. These often add an additional 25% to %40 of your base payment.
This is under the current "Full Disclosure" rules ... Care to guess what will happen when these companies no longer have to tell customers that taxes and fees will be tacked on before the first bill arrives?
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Here is the result of the FCC's new regulations requiring ISPs to display their data plans:
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
The terms of the contract are explicit. Unfortunately the details simply list the taxes and fees that will be applied with a statement that the amounts are listed on a separate schedule that is not available and are subject to change without notice.
I got lucky ... when I signed up for basic Comcast internet service years ago, the rate was $24.95 for 1 year and is now at $49.95 with no added taxes or fees with a modem purchased from WalMart. Customer support tries to upsell me to a "better" service with TV! when I have to call for any reason.
Given the terms in the most recent print ad I have received, I will make no changes and just continue to pay a no added fees or taxes rate. I get reliable 4Mbps to 6Mbps which is adequate for my needs now. I may have to upgrade this next year for streaming TV for the wife, but that is not yet a need.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Well, at least you are in one of the what.. 10? markets Google Fiber is in. Because of how hostile incumbent ISP's are, its tough for Google to expand it when said ISP's are suing cities to block the expansion. (this is also true for Municipal Broadband initiatives..)
The closest I can get to fiber is if I move to somewhere in Dallas, or maybe Ft. Worth, but its no Google. If I wanted Google, I'd have to move out of DFW and move to Austin or San Antonio, which isn't feasible for like 99% of the US. (yes, I'm just pulling a random number)
What I think needs to happen, strip control of all utility poles from ISP's and give them to the respective cities and let them maintain them. That's what taxes are for. A company comes to roll out new wires with the proper permits and such that shouldn't take longer than a month to complete. Afterwards, your ISP's share those same wires and are nothing more than dumb pipes to the internet.
Oh wait, that's in an ideal world, we can't have that in the US where an ISP has to own every fucking thing to monopolize their profits.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Even better I remember asking Comcast for a receipt or a printout or something telling me what I just signed up for in the store. They said they don't do anything like that, I'd be able to see information in my online account. Really nice.
Of course you log in to your account and find... a bill. Nothing about what you're actually buying except a title like "High Speed Internet". Want to know what speed you're buying? Too bad. You're the sucker for living in the USA.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
It doesn't have to be ... if someone mentions the difference, the questioner will be reminded that the the rules are binding while statements by FCC commissioners are not binding. So please forget what they might have said and obey the rules they have made.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
This guy Ajit Pai has to be the biggest tool on the planet. Well, biggest after the tool-in-chief and his collaborators in Congress.
It's hard to believe there are people with so little integrity on the planet — no, scratch that, people whose entire personality is the opposite of integrity.
Appalling. An eternity in hell to all of them.
It's hard to believe there are people with so little integrity on the planet — no, scratch that, people whose entire personality is the opposite of integrity.
Appalling. An eternity in hell to all of them.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Congratulations! You've just delineated the overall rule book strategy of the entire GOP! Say one thing, do the opposite. The only thing missing here is blaming (insert your choice of immigrant country, race, non-Christian religion, Non-conservative political affiliation, "Hilary Clinton" here) for the down-sides to what they're doing.
That will come when the pitchforks and torches come out.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I'm actually sympathetic to the argument that disclosure of detailed network performance characteristics is burdensome to the ISPs. As the repeal order justifies:
Hell, if I had my way, they'd be required to disclose fee details on all advertising. Touting a promotional $30/month rate for the first 12 months? That's great! But you also have to say what it'll cost after those 12 months. ESPECIALLY if there's a contract term or disconnect fee that means the consumer just can't walk away, at no cost to them, once that 12-month period expires.
Having to provide up-front technical modeling of their network performance is one thing. I agree that the consumer doesn't benefit much, especially since individual performance can vary so greatly. I think users would actually be better served by guarantees of minimum performance levels, and a requirement that the ISPs take corrective measures if they're not meeting them for any customer. (After all, we don't require that they compute the "typical monthly charges" paid by their users, because that's not how pricing works.)
But having to give details of everything the customer is actually agreeing to when they sign up with a provider, whether it's in terms of network speeds or rates and fees, is no burden to the ISPs, and hiding that information or making it a chore to discover serves only to harm consumers.
But the thing that really irks me, and that I can't get past, is dropping point-of-sale disclosure of all pricing details, including one-time fees, monthly rates and surcharges. Saying "that info's publicly available on the web somewhere" is bullshit. Having to ferret out details scattered around corporate websites is no way to make informed purchasing decisions or comparison shop, particularly since each provider will present the information in a completely different way unless there's a standard, easily-digestible form like the "nutrition labels".
Hell, if I had my way, they'd be required to disclose fee details on all advertising. Touting a promotional $30/month rate for the first 12 months? That's great! But you also have to say what it'll cost after those 12 months. ESPECIALLY if there's a contract term or disconnect fee that means the consumer just can't walk away, at no cost to them, once that 12-month period expires.
Having to provide up-front technical modeling of their network performance is one thing. I agree that the consumer doesn't benefit much, especially since individual performance can vary so greatly. I think users would actually be better served by guarantees of minimum performance levels, and a requirement that the ISPs take corrective measures if they're not meeting them for any customer. (After all, we don't require that they compute the "typical monthly charges" paid by their users, because that's not how pricing works.)
But having to give details of everything the customer is actually agreeing to when they sign up with a provider, whether it's in terms of network speeds or rates and fees, is no burden to the ISPs, and hiding that information or making it a chore to discover serves only to harm consumers.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
- Status