ISPs complain that listing every fee is too hard, urge FCC to scrap new rule

Re:ISPs complain that listing every fee is too hard, urge FC... by IIsi50MHz on Friday August 18, 2023 @01:38PM (#37179270)

When I lived in Cincinnati, people had to choose DSL or cable internet, from two (which cable provider depended on part of town). Cable was the only fast option, unless you lived very-very close to a telco "switching office". Cost per month was more than double same-speed cost in Columbus. Columbus had multiple providers in each area. $35/month.

In Cincinnati, the Cr^H^HTime-Warner Cable rate rose every month of every year for as long as you remained a customer. Complaining would get you a story about it being a "billing mistake" and "a credit on your next bill". The credit usually didn't arrive unless you complained again. And even then they might randomly switch tactics to "We're so sorry. We'll give you [1 | 3] months of [HBO | Showtime | Starz | all premium channels.".

I'm still wary of comparing charges across metros. /-:

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ISPs complain that listing every fee is too hard, urge FC... by romafirst3 on Saturday August 19, 2023 @04:52PM (#37193075)

I’m not sure I get your point. I was trying to make the point they telcos in the USA are super shit and expensive and they don’t even provide value for money after all that.

It’s one thing to have a monopoly and gouge your customers if the product you are providing is unimpeachable but they are far from that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:ISPs complain that listing every fee is too hard, urge FC... by IIsi50MHz on Sunday August 20, 2023 @07:22PM (#37203896)

S'pose I was trying to reject the claim that prices should be comparable in different metros. I certainly wasn't saying that the dirth of competition in one place means the existing options were unimpeachable.

[ Parent | on HN ]