FCC Delays Law Banning Your ISP From Charging You 'Rental Fees' For Hardware You Already Own

from the you're-not-helping dept

For the last few years, broadband customers have complained that Frontier Communications, the nation's third-biggest telco, has been charging its customers a $10 per month rental fee for modems they already purchased and own. Normally, you're supposed to be able to buy your own modem instead of paying your ISP a rental fee upwards of $10 per month. To nab some extra dough from captive customers, Frontier basically decided to charge its customers a rental fee anyway, giving them a polite, though giant, middle finger when they complained.

And because the Trump FCC is a glorified rubber stamp for the industry's biggest players, consumers who complained to the agency received little more than a glassy eyed stare.

Fast forward to last January when the problem was fixed, shockingly enough, by the US Congress. A massive US government spending bill approved by Congress and signed by President Trump (who I'd all but guarantee didn't understand the scope of what he was signing) not only included some updates to the Communications Act cracking down slightly on bullshit cable TV fees, but also included a little noticed provision that formally bans the nonsense Frontier has been engaged in.

Here's the wrinkle. While that law was supposed to take effect this month, a clause included in the measure gave the FCC the right to delay the restriction by six months. So that's precisely what the FCC did. And the FCC justified the move by claiming that the pandemic simply made it too onerous for a big ISP to stop ripping people off:

"As the nation tackles the COVID-19 pandemic, multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) and providers of fixed broadband Internet access service are among the entities that are integral to the Commission's ongoing, nationwide effort to keep Americans informed and connected during this national emergency. So that these service providers may focus their resources on this critical effort, we provide appropriate flexibility for MVPDs and providers of fixed broadband Internet access service to fulfill their obligations under the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019 (TVPA)... we find that good cause exists for granting a blanket extension of section 642's effective date until December 20, 2020."

Several things here. One, keep in mind this FCC did absolutely nothing for nearly two years as a major telecom monopoly charged users $10 for absolutely nothing. And the very first time they take substantive action on the issue, it involves delaying implementation of a law that actually helps. This is, for those playing along at home, the kind of "hands off approach" to regulation that the FCC loves to (falsely) claim spurs investment and innovation. In reality, finding creative new ways to rip off captive customers is as innovative as US telecom tends to get.

Two, there's really nothing about a pandemic that would make it difficult to stop charging people bullshit fees. Three, the FCC's effort to "keep people connected" during this crisis consists of an entirely voluntary, temporary pledge to not kick users offline during the pandemic. It's a pledge many ISPs are simply ignoring, knowing full well the FCC just gutted much of its authority over telecom as part of the net neutrality repeal.

Keep in mind the only reason anybody is doing anything about this is thanks to a law that required a miracle to pass. More often than not, a campaign cash slathered Congress blocks such legislative fixes unless they're buried in broader legislation (which was the case here). And because the FCC just neutered its authority over telecom at lobbyist behest, there's a universe of issues just like this the FCC can't and won't address. Keep in mind the Trump FCC has even been trying for several years to ban states from protecting consumers' privacy (again at telecom industry behest). And because there's little to no competition in many broadband markets, there's no "market solution" here either. Surely you can see the problem forming here?

As of now, this particular law cracking down on bogus cable fees and bullshit surcharges won't take effect until December. Even then, you'd need this FCC to actually enforce it, and there's been absolutely zero indication so far this agency is capable of standing up to telecom monopolies.

Filed Under: fcc, modems, rental fees

Comcast Sued Over Router Update That Makes Your Wi-Fi Hotspot Public, Ignores Your Opt-Out Preferences

from the pay-us-to-pay-us dept

In June of last year, Comcast quietly announced that it was deploying a new "Xfinity Home Hotspot" initiative that would turn user home routers into publicly-accessible hotspots. Updated routers broadcast two signals: one being yours, and the other being an "Xfinitywifi" SSID offering free Wi-Fi to Comcast users in the area (prepaid Wi-Fi for non-Comcast customers). Comcast's FAQ attempts to minimize customer worries about the initiative by noting the public Wi-Fi doesn't count against the customer's usage caps, and the router delivers extra bandwidth (above your provisioned speeds) to counter any extra usage load.

There are a number of problems with the initiative. One, you're paying Comcast a monthly fee (up to $10 in many areas) to rent hardware that's using your bandwidth (and around $30 in electricity annually) to effectively advertise and sell Comcast services. Two, the service is being deployed market-by-market without prior consumer consent. It's also opt out not opt-in, and users complain the routers continuously and mysteriously reset this preference each time the hardware receives a firmware update. Three, Comcast's sending out misleading e-mails that may place an order for the new hardware without your consent.

Complaints have been growing about this initiative for a while, but they appear to have reached a fevered pitch this week with the news that Comcast is now facing a class action lawsuit over the Xfinity Home Hotspot program. Reading the complaint, lawyers don't appear to have noticed yet that the opt-out mechanism often doesn't actually work -- but from the looks of things the fact Comcast doesn't give advanced warning about the changes may be enough for a case:

"Grear claims that Comcast does not request customers' authorization to use their residential equipment and networks for public use. "Indeed, Comcast's contract with its customers is so vague that it is unclear as to whether Comcast even addresses this practice at all," the lawsuit claims. In using its customers' home networks to build a national network, Comcast "has externalized the costs of its national wi-fi network onto its customers," Grear says in the complaint. He claims that the new routers use much more electricity than regular routers, and that this is "a cost borne by the unwitting customer."

Fortunately, Comcast customers can skip the legal proceedings and take things into their own hands by buying their own compatible router and modems, thereby avoiding paying Comcast a $10 per month rental fee to help build Comcast's nationwide Wi-Fi network. Estimates suggest Comcast makes $300 million per quarter just off of these modem rental fees alone, and the monthly fee has steadily climbed sykward over the last several years.

Filed Under: hotspots, lawsuits, modem rentals, modems, opt-out, routers, terms of service, wifi
Companies: comcast

Poor Record Keeping Means Comcast Gets To Charge Customers For Modems They Already Own?

from the something-doesn't-seem-right-here dept

Let's say you're a big cable ISP who has just bought another cable ISP. One of the things both you and the other cable ISP offered was an option to buy a modem or lease a modem. However, after taking over the other ISP, you discover that there are no records of which customers bought and which are leasing. What do you do? Well, if you're Comcast, you apparently just assume everyone is leasing it and start charging them a monthly fee, even if they actually had bought the modem. Even better, it didn't even bother to notify people of this change, it just added the charge, and didn't bother to do something as silly as to make it a line item on the online bill that many people check. It was on the printed bill, but for people who get the online version, they're not going to check the printed bill very often. Simply deciding that because of a lack of records everyone should be charged, even if they owned their own modem, seems quite questionable. But, these days "questionable" activities seem to be the norm at so many broadband providers.

Filed Under: modems, ownership
Companies: adelphia, comcast