this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2025
358 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

76258 readers
3855 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://discuss.online/post/28602691

The rule took effect in April 2024 after the FCC rejected ISPs' complaints that listing every fee they created would be too difficult. The rule applies specifically to recurring monthly fees "that providers impose at their discretion, i.e., charges not mandated by a government."

ISPs could comply with the rule either by listing the fees or by dropping the fees altogether and, if they choose, raising their overall prices by a corresponding amount. But the latter option wouldn't fit with the strategy of enticing customers with a low advertised price and hitting them with the real price on their monthly bills. The broadband price label rules were created to stop ISPs from advertising misleadingly low prices.

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Static_Rocket@lemmy.world 96 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is so dumb, how could anyone at the FCC even humor such a request?

"Please help us, we overcomplicated billing and don't want to explain it to anyone"

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 74 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It’s easy - ISPs just bribed the people running the FCC now (because that’s become an ok thing to do), and the FCC turns around and says “yep sounds good”

FCC Bribe Fee: $30.00
[–] rafoix@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 week ago

Centrists and conservatives consider Brice’s to be speech.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago

the first term they were angling to get rid of NN, which was distraction of the 2017 tax cuts, i remember tha tpeople were tired of the NN news they dint tune in the tax cuts.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

This is so dumb, how could anyone at the FCC even humor such a request?

https://brendancarrisadummy.com/

[–] redlemace@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago

I look into my crystal ball and foresee new fees, no later than 4 cpu clock-cycles after the kill of the requirement.

[–] notarobot@lemmy.zip 23 points 1 week ago

"FCC will kill requirements for isps to list all fees so that they can continue to add fees"

[–] candyman337@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

This title is something that doesn't make sense said in a way that makes it look logical. If they can't manage their fees those fees shouldn't exist. But that's not really why this requirement it's going away, it's because they were bribed.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago

That just means the FCC will stop requiring it though. A class action can still beat them into submission. The lawyers benefit most from this but it still gets the job done.

[–] unphazed@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I won't say who, but I used to work for a large telco. Seeing their charges, it was x plan with y equipment fee. I have had two other ISPs in the past 2 years, one of which was Comcast. I had x plan with no equipment fee (I just bought a cable modem, cause fuck leaving my router even slightly exposed). What fucking companies came up with these other bs fees? Or are we talking phones? Cause yeah, that's all kinds of fee fuckery

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 4 points 1 week ago

Even talking about phones, having so many fees that you cannot list them all is insane.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

comcast was the worst. its thier tierd service, and trying to pedal thier "rent a router' service. sooner or later they will be allowed to slow down peoples internets, to force them to buy more expensive plans.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Find the place with the highest fee, roll it into the base price that you offer nationwide. Problem solved. In the place where it's exactly as high as that, you won't make any profit. Anywhere it's lower than that, you will make a profit.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 30 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Let’s be real here. The problem isn’t that it’s “too complicated” to list the fees. What’s complicated about listing a few numbers? The problem is that they don’t want to list a myriad of fees.

The fact that “tell your customers what you will charge them” is a rule that had to be instantiated in the Biden legislation is in itself a joke.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I agree. You should just charge one price, and that way customers know exactly how much it's gonna be.

[–] redlemace@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

absolutely right. Just like airline tickets, hotels and the like. Marketing got in the way...... Look we only cost 5 euro but the 299.87 worth of fees we have to add and/or collect on behalf of others makes the price go up.

Well guess what, so has the competitors! And guess again: I don't give a shit about that break-down, just give me the final figure. That's what I have to pay. So that all matters doesn't it? No need for you to tell me how you spend it, the money yours after the sale.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

i wonder if these "breakdown fees" allows them more wiggle room to sneak a extra fee the customer wouldnt notice.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago

What’s complicated about listing a few numbers?

You should see my power bill