The comments [large PDF] go into detail about ads that mislead on pricing and performance; bills with hidden, vague, or arbitrary fees (one company assesses a per mile charge, on your phone bill for every mile you fly on a partnered frequent flyer program); and the problems that have arisen from companies setting their own voluntary codes of conduct.
One solution that the comments propose, which Ars Technica recently wrote about, is the inclusion of a modified "Schumer Box" that prominently lists mandatory disclosures. Anyone who's ever received a credit card solicitation is familiar with the Schumer Box: it's the chart that lists the APR, billing cycle, interest computation method, and other important information. The consumer groups' comments suggest a graphic that discloses, for example, advertised minimum and maximum bandwidth, fees, any traffic shaping the ISP practices, and so on. A sample box can be seen here.
We are always in favor of making more information both available and understandable to consumers in order to help them make the best choice. We'll keep you updated on the FCC's action on these issues.
Consumer Groups' Comments Before the FCC [12Mb PDF]
Could a Schumer Box Help Wireless/Broadband Consumers? [Ars Technica]
(Photo: The Joy of the Mundane)
@Overheal: Ah yes, that annoying issue. Conversely, my current phone company not only doesn't charge me for incoming anything, they even give me free incoming text while int'l roaming. Of course, it's a Chinese company, but still...
]]>I signed up for Clear's WiMax service (in ATL) two months ago, and they were actually pretty frank about their 'expected' service levels. I'd chalk it up to them, perhaps, learning something from their terrible Clearwire service (municipal WiFi), where they constantly promised more than they could ever possibly deliver.
The only thing they were a bit fuzzy on was the bandwidth cap and limiter after the cap. They wouldn't say what, exactly, the cap condition was, though they did say that they are less interested with the raw amount than they are with the bigger picture of
bandwidth/time (given that wireless speeds are dependent on the number of connected users, the number/grade of antennae, and the actual connection speed of users).
Of course, I still had to ask the questions. I think this is a good direction, since most people don't know what questions to ask.
I wonder what arguments the ISPs will come up with to try and block the legislation....
]]>@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already:
That's because, on an asynchronous connection (such as Cable/DSL), the upstream bandwidth is substantially lower than the downstream, and is frequently tiered to allow some upstream data (uploading pictures, email attachments) with enough wiggle-room for TCP_ACK packets to make it through if the downstream is saturated.
A 384k upstream is enough space for the ACKs on 8mbit of downstream.
Also, keep in mind that "Home" ISPs are *NOT* in the business of providing you *UPSTREAM* capacity, the assumption being that if you actually do enough upstream traffic for it to matter, you should be on a business account.
]]>They are indeed required to allow upstream charges to pass. This prevents them from exerting pressure on upstream providers, such as long-distance carriers, in favor of their own services.
]]>I don't agree with it either, but that's how the system worked.
]]>Many are 9.99 monthly subscriptions, we did have the power to block these and credit the charges, but we were discouraged by management from doing so because, according to them "just because a person doesn't remember doing something doesn't mean they didn't."
]]>@YouDidWhatNow?: This happened to me a few years back when I had Verizon as a phone carrier. Charges from "OAN Services" started showing up on my bill, and when I called Verizon, they had the nerve to tell me that because I didn't have a specific type of third party billing block on my line, that they were bound by law to process a third party bill against my account. IMO, that type of block should be automatically applied to an account, and it should be up to the consumer to contact the carrier to have it removed if they sign up for a legit third party service.
After a few calls to OAN, I did get my money back. They actually had the nerve to claim I authorized the charges...on a date and time that I was at work 23 miles away.
]]>@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: 384k upload is more than most people need for residential service. However, being able to drop to almost 1/8 of what the person thinks they are paying for is crazy.
]]>@ShadowFalls: Most people answering the phone cant cite the laws that mold their policies, it doesnt mean they are lying.
Can you cite every law that requires you to do certain things at your job?
]]>I wouldn't take the word of someone like that as that might just be what they are "required" to say b policy. If they say the law demands it, ask them which law does that. If they can't answer, good chance they are lying.
]]>384K?!?!
]]>@YouDidWhatNow?: there are alot of buisness out there that quickly bill your phone company for services that you inadvertly signed up for. those ringtone commercials that you text, most people dont know those are recurring monthly subscriptions. prolly something along those lines.
]]>A couple months ago, some strange new charge for $13 showed up on our phone bill. It was allegedly some thing we "signed up for online" - which I'm sure translates to some BS tacked on to an online order that was done that we didn't notice.
I called the phone company to see what it was, and they said "dunno." So I asked why they were charging me for it, and the answer is that they are legally obligated to let ANY charge go through on your phone bill, no matter where it comes from, for any service, without contacting you first.
He repeated that several times. According to him (Embarq), any phone company is required by law to just charge you for whatever anyone tells them to charge you for, period.
He directed me to call the company issuing the charge, and they refunded it right away...but still. I find it very hard to believe anyone thinks it's OK to have a law like that. Unless he was lying to me. Anybody know?
]]>