Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikece | Hacker News Reader

Aside from cable companies wanting to hide fees, is there any reason why this rule should be scrapped?

I imagine some people won't be thrilled about the "Fee listing fee" that's going to show up on their bill.

Yes. Those who support it will be paid handsomely by lobbyists. Why doesn't anybody stand up for those people's right to make money at public expense?

the actual title explains the problem a little more acurately

>>FCC says “too bad” to ISPs complaining that listing every fee is too hard<<

Some people are generally against regulations.

I think, playing devil's advocate for the ISPs here, the argument is over how they are supposed to be displaying local government fees on their advertising. Which would make for some pretty complicated ads if you could imagine, like, a billboard between 3 or 4 townships that all have different fees.

Here, the FCC I think provides a pretty reasonable suggestion that they can use "up-to" fees when displaying prices But it still means you have to know some of the geographic data on the person you are advertising a price too.

I'm sure they'll claim that it's too difficult, or too confusing for consumers, etc., etc.

Is there anything stopping them from charging a lump “fee” fee and then refunding whatever they don’t need?

Bold of you to assume they would ever refund anything. Most of these fees exist because they want more money and don't want to just outright say they want more money.

No. In fact, given the dishonest behavior of ISPs, the FCC should go even further, and require all ISPs to list the full sticker price of any offered services, and ONLY the full price, in all advertising.

They shouldn't even be allowed to list a price that doesn't yet include the fees. No asterisks. No appendices. No see below. No fine print. Just list the real price. Always.

Imagine how many "bullshit jobs" would no longer be necessary.

How would that work when you may not even know where the person wants service? You might know a general area and there might be unknown fees that the isp cant know until after they negotiate with the various stakeholders to build service.

Don't cell providers across the country charge the same price regardless of coverage guarantees?

Generally you'd probably negotiate w/ stakeholders BEFORE advertising. I'm not sure why any sane person would advertise something before having a solid idea of what is possible, unless they are running for political office.

I cant even guarantee you we can build in any given building even if a resident wants the service. Cell providers don't have to deal with physical issues of access.

i think the same way it works everywhere else? Some customers are more profitable than others.

Often the more expensive service is more profitable but if you want simple pricing you can do the opposite.

If you don't know the price that you can charge, you shouldn't get the right to make one up for advertising. That's creating a special right for the stupid or lazy.

> How would that work when you may not even know where the person wants service?

No cost until the service location is known. It's a two way street, right? It's entirely reasonable that if you were to obligate the ISP to deliver precision in pricing they'd have no recourse but to require accurate disclosure of the service location.

This is all fantasy, however. This clown world we've built doesn't contemplate such things. The minor ask the FCC is making here is as far as it will go, and if the big ISPs put enough campaign money into the right "family foundations" we might not even get that much.

This sounds like a feature, not a bug. To the extent that is the case, all of those thousands of ISP lawyers would now become incentivized to reduce the complexity of the bullshit fee structures you're talking about.

lets also require an api and standardize the offers.

Just like one can see 2 jars of peanut butter side by side in the store.

Maybe it's different in the US but here in Germany I'm charged exactly the sum that was advertised when I signed up for the service.

Even if you do the "taxes not included" dance, I doubt US ISPs are incapable of just charging (and advertising) a single sum that covers everything. I'm honestly surprised this is not already happening (again I could be mistaken)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com