this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
317 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

59402 readers
2904 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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!

[–] there1snospoon@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] TauriWarrior@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"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

[–] there1snospoon@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Alrighty, why would I prefer everything be condensed at the point of sale instead of spelled out for me?

[–] TauriWarrior@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] there1snospoon@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Spacemanspliff@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

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.