Sure they do, but even with a computer and a database, keeping track of exactly which taxes apply and which don't to who, from 3,143 counties and 19,495 cities isn't a trivial thing to do.

Again it's not a defense of the big companies, but it is a legitimate beef.

> keeping track of exactly which taxes apply and which don't to who, from 3,143 counties and 19,495 cities isn't a trivial thing to do.

I don't see this isn't a legitimate beef. If you can't comply with local regulations because you serve too many municipalities it sounds like you aren't a good fit to serve those customers. Perhaps the solution is to sell your infrastructure off to smaller, local companies who can comply. Or heck even just other equally big companies who are well run enough to manage such a problem.

They manage to get it right on my bill, so it's not like they don't have the information handy, they just don't want to disclose it until as late as legally possible.

not trying to unload on you because it's many different people, but Ok, I give up trying to say "it's not a defense of the ISPs" because clearly people aren't capable of separating threads of thought. I guess the limbic system response to "evil ISP" is just too overpowering for the frontal lobe and logic falls by the wayside.

It's simply not possible that two different things can both be true? That ISPs already have to do it so should disclose what they're charging, but that also the number of taxes and fees are ridiculous? Why is that so hard to separate in people's minds?

If a Comcast president said that ham sandwiches are better when they're grilled, and I said "he's got a good point there" would that also be misconstrued as a defense of their billing practices?

> but that also the number of taxes and fees are ridiculous?

You know ISPs go out of their way to artificially inflate the number of taxes and fees they charge you, right?

If every company took the approach ISPs took, then every recipe in the U.S. would be the length of a CVS receipt, listing out every minor and incidental tax and fee the company happened to pay as part of its operating procedures. You don’t see stores passing on “electricity fees”, and “union negotiations taxes” etc etc, because only ISPs take affront at the idea that they should pay for their business expenses, rather that passing them on a additional itemised billing items to their customers.

Calling it a “legitimate beef” crosses the line from considering a thread of thought into defending the ISP because it’s only true from their perspective.

Taxes and fees are complicated, no question.

But it's completely ridiculous for ISPs (or anybody else) to use that as a justification for dark patterns during the sales cycle.

Now, if the taxes and fees were so complicated, the company simply couldn't comply at all, at any point in the customer lifecycle, then sure, that's a good excuse. But that's not the case - ISPs manage to figure this stuff out eventually.

> It's simply not possible that two different things can both be true? That ISPs already have to do it so should disclose what they're charging, but that also the number of taxes and fees are ridiculous? Why is that so hard to separate in people's minds?

As several other people told you, because they can get it right on the bill but not on the contract and advertising. If they can do the first, they can do the other two but they don't want to.