this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
970 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37739 readers
602 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Aww ... poor little ISPs.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HalJor@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago

Of all the technical challenges involved in doing what ISPs do, updating their billing process should be among the least "hard" things on the list. They just don't want to do it.

[–] takeda@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

They could always remove those complex fees and make the bill simpler...

[–] skellener@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Stop charging the fees that are too hard to list. Problem solved.

[–] OrangeJoe@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Soon there will be a new fee, the "listing fees fee"

[–] upstream@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

Good FCC.

pats head

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

Click here to see the summaryThe Federal Communications Commission yesterday rejected requests to eliminate an upcoming requirement that Internet service providers list all of their monthly fees.

In June, Comcast told the FCC that the listing-every-fee rule "impose[s] significant administrative burdens and unnecessary complexity in complying with the broadband label requirements."

The five trade groups kept up the pressure earlier this month in a meeting with FCC officials and in a filing that complained that listing every fee is too hard.

They complained that the rule will force them "to display the pass-through of fees imposed by federal, state, or local government agencies on the consumer broadband label."

That would give potential customers a clearer idea of how much they have to pay each month and save ISPs the trouble of listing every charge that they currently choose to break out separately.

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.


Saved 67% of original text.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Fun fact: taking a sum is an O(n) time operation, as is listing reasonably short numbers.

[–] lily33@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

For those of us not American, can someone explain what fees are root talking about? Isn't it like one fee of $X/month?

[–] azdle@news.idlestate.org 10 points 1 year ago

This is about "fees" over and above the advertised "price". So it says your plan is $65/month, but when you get your bill it's actually $95 because there's a "Cost Recovery Fee", a "Network Maintenance Fee", and a "Municipal Area Surcharge" (IIRC all real fees I've paid on an internet bill) on top of the advertised rate. They're often meant to look like taxes, but they aren't.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›