Comcast, AT&T Try To Kill New Requirements To Be Transparent About Their Shitty Pricing
from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept
The 2021 infrastructure bill did some very good things for broadband. Not only did it include a massive, $42 billion investment in broadband deployment and require better mapping, it demanded that the FCC impose a new “nutrition label for broadband,” requiring that ISPs be transparent about all of the weird restrictions, caps, fees, and limitations of modern broadband connections.
It’s 2023 and there’s still no label. And big broadband providers including Cox, AT&T, Comcast, and Charter are, unsurprisingly, trying to have the entire requirement killed. After whining for two years that it was too hard to comply with the requirement, industry trade groups and lobbying organizations have been petitioning to have the new rule killed entirely:
The US broadband industry is united in opposition to a requirement that Internet service providers list all of their monthly fees. 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.
To be clear, requiring that these regional monopolies be clear about pricing is pretty much the bare minimum when it comes to regulatory oversight. Big ISPs for decades have advertised one price, then saddled your bill with spurious below the line surcharges to hit you with a higher rate.
The FCC, lobotomized after decades of lobbying, routinely engages in regulatory theater when it comes to big telecom. As in they’ll implement some fairly tepid efforts to demand “transparency” by big monopolies, but they routinely lack the courage to actually take aim at the underlying monopoly power and lack of competition (lest it upset campaign contributors and domestic surveillance allies).
And even the transparency efforts are routinely undercooked. Activists and consumer groups were already annoyed at the Rosenworcel FCC’s implementation of these new rules, noting that the agency didn’t really require that ISPs put the label anywhere conspicuous, defeating the whole purpose, and wasn’t doing a good job illustrating real world speeds.
It’s not particularly clear where this goes from here. The Rosenworcel FCC has generally been fairly feckless when it comes to standing up to predatory monopolies. And the telecom industry just successfully scuttled the nomination of popular reformer Gigi Sohn, leaving the FCC without the voting majority needed to do much of anything “controversial” — even if it was actually inclined to do so.
A reformer like Sohn would have likely pushed the FCC staff to try a little harder. I’d imagine that once Sohn’s less “controversial” replacement (Anna Gomez) is confirmed by Congress there will be some kind of label eventually, but it’s far from clear that the actual implementation will hold much value once big ISPs get done watering it down.
And this is the “best case” scenario under feckless Democratic leadership. If Trump or DeSantis win the presidency, control of the FCC will revert to Republican “leadership,” which in telecom historically involves simply doing whatever Comcast and AT&T tell them to.
Filed Under: broadband, broadband label, fcc, fees, high speed internet, telecom, transparency, usage caps
Companies: at&t, charter, comcast, cox
Comments on “Comcast, AT&T Try To Kill New Requirements To Be Transparent About Their Shitty Pricing”
Dark Vader territory
“I Am Altering the Deal, Pray I Don’t Alter It Any Further.”
Full disclosure: I am living in a foreign country.
When reading something like “The US broadband industry is united in opposition to a requirement that Internet service providers list all of their monthly fees.” I feel like we are talking about bizarro world.
The U.S. is supposed to believe in capitalism, and in capitalism, everything is supposed to converge to the most efficient solutions by virtue of pricing.
But that requires the price to be known.
It’s like planning a road trip in a country where you have to add bribes for all officials on the way. You cannot plan ahead what you will actually need; you only learn rough figures as you go and they may change on a whim.
Corrupt banana countries, the kind where police officers can just threaten to take your cash and/or beat you up if you aren’t playing nice. OK, bad example, but there may be other differences to the U.S.
Re: Capitalism?
Who told you that about capitalism? Or is that the impression that you have noticed?
Full capitalism is taking advantage of 1 group to sell to another. Its like the NEW phrase, “Fair trade”. IT HAS NO MEANING/It has many meaning, depending on Who you ask.
You can look back to the 1970’s and see what happened, In 1969 Corp taxes dropped from 90% to 30%.
The Worst of it was the discovery of Pollution around the nation. And asking the corps to CLEAN UP. THEY LEFT.
They found that Wages were lower in other countries, Lower taxes, Lower Material Costs, NO regulations on Pollution.
They found they could make things <1/10th the price of the USA.
if they can print those fees on the bills they send people, they can also print those fees on terms of service and adverts. The only reason not to do so would be that they are varying what they charge based on demographics or social status.
Re:
That’s left to the accounting and collections department. Like restaurant workers in some cultures, they probably don’t get paid a fixed wage but live from tips, or more precisely from what they can collect above the fees proper.
Demanding up-front declared fees would make it impossible for the personnel to be paid according to their accounting creativity and would fail to provide incentives for optimal utilization of the customers’ bank accounts, like making mouthbreathers pay through their nose.
Re: They charge based on demographics or social status
Right. A Spanish billboard offered a land line for $6 a month in 1999. The agent began to argue with me, changed her mind and I had a $6/month phone until GTE pulled out of the area.
I called the California Public Utilities Commission the day after Christmas, a Commissioner answered his own phone, and I convinced him that a public hearing was in order Since the 1990’s rewriting of the 1934 Communications Code was to interduce “competition” into the last mile.
What a joke the hearing was.
P.S. A Conductor on Amtrak mentioned years ago that three different ticket prices were at the discretion of the Agents.
Now that an Airline executive runs Amtrak, all bets are off
as if these companies would do such a thing! anyone would think they were nothing other than lying, money grabbing assholes!!
If you can’t list them, we shouldn’t be required to pay them.
Great
If they can’t figure out how much they’ll be, they can’t collect. Problem solved.
PLEASE! get them some tissue
handed a bill
What do you do?
Pay it.?
Because if you dont, it will goto Collections and cost you 2-3 times MORE.
AFTER you have paid, you can contest it.
There was a Federal Tax on Phone bills of $1, that lasted from 1900 until about 10 years ago.
Funny part is…DID the gov. get the money? Because the Fed, FORGOT ABOUT IT.
Re: Federal Excise Tax
This Quaker Meeting failed to pay that phone tax for the decades of the war against Vietnam, and for decades later. Never heard a word from GTE, PacBell or AT&T.
Oddly, the phone companies had to itemize the phone bill only one time in each year.
There was a compony Evergreen, in Colorado that would (after “deregulation”) tack on a dollar as a 3ed party provider on every American’s telephone bill, dropping the little charge if they got a telephonic complaint from a customer.
And divide up the $take between the actual Telcos
What is next for these Real Men of Genius?
… they will have a suggested tip like everywhere else.
My tip is – plant your crops early next year.
Quick, Congress!
While they’re distracted by this shiny flag, remove the protected duopoly of their industry and throw in requirements for last-mile sharing of lines at fair market prices!
Not holding my breath…
Maybe
As long as their pushing to show costs up front,
maybe the fcc could cut the forced tax on the general public that forces cable and other providers to carry broadcast free over the air television AND forces the companies to then PAY for carrying the stations they are forced to carry.