this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
970 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37712 readers
437 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is why the ISPs don't want to do it. The FCC told them:
The ISPs refuse to eat the costs of doing business. They know people will shit when they see all the fees that customers do not need to pay are being charged to them.
There will be lawsuits when the fees are listed.
It's not really about eating the costs of doing business. A restaurant doesn't charge you $1 at the end of your bill for washing your fork, it's just part of the cost of serving the dish and so your Salmon Rice dish is $18 not $17.
The point is that the listed prices for services should either have these fees be built right into the price...as pretty much all businesses do...or if you're going to put it at the end of the bill then it needs to be clearly defined per FCC.
It's a transparency problem. Not only is your $60 cell phone bill not actually $60 but then they also don't tell you about the additional fees very well when they tack them on at the end. It's gotta be one or the other, not neither.
Why does everyone try to prove everyone else wrong? That entire first paragraph is completely unnecessary. You can simply add to a discussion without being "well actually " about some detail you want to nitpick. The other two paragraphs are spot on.
It's really one of the worst things brought over from reddit
I like to imagine people doing that in an every day conversation. It's ridiculous. No one would ever talk to them lol
Seems like a friendly enough response was given to your comment and you automatically assumed they were only interested in saying you're wrong.
Having a discussion is not "proving everyone wrong"
That was my point, thanks.
I see what you mean too. I think a lot of people on Lemmy are just terminally online and so they don't have regular conversations with real people all that often.
Thank you.
What are you talking about? You are the one who ranted about people proving you wrong.
You made a big deal out of someone being perfectly pleasant replying to you.
Your viewpoint of anyone responding to you with anything other than agreement as an attack seems to be the real issue.
I'm not upset, you shouldn't be either, it's not that big of a deal.
Especially when they were wrong. They're obviously going to pass along any actual cost they have one way or another.
That's not what's shady or what's being addressed. It's the $60 ***(plus $100 in unlisted fees we literally won't even let our support provide or estimate on signup) to lie about prices that's the problem.
I recommend reading either the quoted text, or the article. Preferably both.
I did. "Passing on costs" is entirely irrelevant to everything.
The entire point of all of this is that service providers are using nebulous fee structures to lie about pricing. That's the entire thing. There is nothing else.
Um, do you only have conversations with people who agree with you?
People in real life don't nitpick every word you say.
No, that's fair. But also, when you're conversing in "real life", people probably aren't paying that much attention to every word you say and don't care enough to "nitpick".
I think it's worse here on Lemmy tbh
Edit: wait fuck did I just do it by accident?