Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 31 2018, @10:54AM   Printer-friendly

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

The fight to secure net neutrality protections for Californians keeps showing how far ISPs and their surrogates will go to make a buck off of ending the free and open Internet. The latest maneuver is a flood of deceptive robocalls targeting seniors and stating that net neutrality will raise their cell phone bills by $30 a month and slow down the Internet. It's not just a lie, it's proof that you've successfully put them on the defensive by contacting your representatives about net neutrality.

The robocalls don't mention net neutrality by name. Instead, they simply assert that S.B. 822 will raise their bills and slow down their Internet. If ISPs decided to make this true by coordinating to raise prices in reaction to net neutrality legislation it would probably be illegal under federal antitrust law. There is no evidence that says net neutrality harms ISPs to the point where they must raise prices to make money. In fact, the evidence says the exact opposite.

[...] This year, the two major wireless and wireline providers (Verizon and AT&T) that are leading the effort to oppose California passing net neutrality legislation are expected to receive an additional $7 billion in cash in hand from Congress' tax cuts. (Verizon - $4 billion, AT&T - $3 billion). That's after having their 2017 net income receive a one-time jump of approximately $38.7 billion ($20 billion to AT&T, $18.7 billion to Verizon) in deductions from those tax cuts. Yet these high profits augmented by tax policy changes give them no pause in deploying their surrogates to falsely state that they must raise everyone's bills simply because they do not like consumer protection.

[...] When talking to their stockholders, ISPs have never claimed that net neutrality has forced them to raise their prices. Not one single legal document or financial disclosure report that carries a potential liability for lying have large ISPs represented that net neutrality will require them to raise prices. In fact, at least one ISP flat out admitted that the entire 2015 Open Internet Order with its legal landscape change in ISP privacy, competition, and consumer protection did little to affect their business plans.

[...] The FCC's decision to abandon the 2015 Open Internet Order and surrender oversight over the ISP industry will go down as the biggest mistake in Internet policy history. Already the U.S. Senate has voted to reverse the FCC and, with enough pressure, the House of Representatives may follow in September. An overwhelming number of businesses, education institutions, civil rights activists, and individuals across the political spectrum weighed in opposition but were ignored by the federal agency. It should come as no surprise that dozens of states have introduced bills with many having enacted various protections.

California stands on the brink of passing what many have called the "gold standard" of state-based net neutrality laws. You've already beaten back big ISPs' attempts to gut and kill this bill once, and you can do it again. If you live in the state, take the time to call your state representative today before the bill is voted on this week. Real voices, not ISP robocalls, need to be heard. Tell your California assemblymember to vote "yes" on S.B. 822.

Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/08/when-isps-tell-seniors-net-neutrality-laws-will-increase-their-bills-theyre-lying


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by digitalaudiorock on Friday August 31 2018, @12:30PM (16 children)

    by digitalaudiorock (688) on Friday August 31 2018, @12:30PM (#728710) Journal

    The feds don't seem to care what they do in any way at all. Look at what Verizon does already. I don't have FIOS but my understanding is that they add line items to you bill labeled as "taxes" that aren't consumer taxes at all, but rather taxes they pay that they're passing on to the consumer. That's not only deceptive, but they're successfully duping people into thinking they're getting screwed by the feds rather than Verizon. How have they not been called out for this?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 31 2018, @12:37PM (7 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 31 2018, @12:37PM (#728713) Journal

    I don't have FIOS but my understanding is that they add line items to you bill labeled as "taxes" that aren't consumer taxes at all, but rather taxes they pay that they're passing on to the consumer.

    So the label "taxes" is correct.

    • (Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Friday August 31 2018, @01:12PM (6 children)

      by digitalaudiorock (688) on Friday August 31 2018, @01:12PM (#728725) Journal

      Bull fucking shit. That's totally deceptive and implies that they're required to collect some consumer tax and you know it is. Why don't they add line items for all their overhead costs that they're passing on the the consumer...$.05 for donuts and coffee?

      This also helps Verizon to lie about the total cost of the service. You can't even force them to tell you what your final bottom line bill will actually be after all the bullshit addons. I have Optimum Online and to their credit, they're never done that shit. When they way a service will be $xxx a month, that's what it is...period. But go ahead and defend Verizon for fucking the consumer as long as their sticking it to the tax system right?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 31 2018, @01:14PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 31 2018, @01:14PM (#728726)

        its only deceptive if you are a moron.

        Hiding them inside a single line item of 'fees' would be deceptive. This way you get to see who is making your bill go up. *you* are paying them regardless.

        • (Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Friday August 31 2018, @01:21PM

          by digitalaudiorock (688) on Friday August 31 2018, @01:21PM (#728728) Journal

          its only deceptive if you are a moron.

          You do realize that they do NOT include those costs when they tell you up front what the service will cost right? If you don't think that's deceptive then you're the fucking moron....but I'll bite...when are they going to start adding the Trump tariff line item?

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 01 2018, @01:10AM (3 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 01 2018, @01:10AM (#729049) Journal
        What's deceptive about it?

        Why don't they add line items for all their overhead costs that they're passing on the the consumer...$.05 for donuts and coffee?

        Those things are their costs. Taxes are imposed by some greedy government that Verizon doesn't have control over.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by dry on Saturday September 01 2018, @03:42AM (1 child)

          by dry (223) on Saturday September 01 2018, @03:42AM (#729091) Journal

          Taxes are imposed by some greedy government that Verizon doesn't have control over.

          Going for a funny mod? Verizon and the rest of the ISP's seem to have a fuck of a lot of control over the governments, at all levels.

          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday September 01 2018, @08:52AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 01 2018, @08:52AM (#729161) Journal

            Verizon and the rest of the ISP's seem to have a fuck of a lot of control over the governments, at all levels.

            Sure they do - when they play ball [soylentnews.org].

            Your "urban myth" is named qwest. It was the one holdout that wouldn't hand call records over to the NSA.

            The CEO was Joseph P. Nacchio. He went up the river for insider trading after his defense was barred from presenting evidence based on a dubious national defense claim by the prosecution.

            The remains of Qwest were absorbed by Centurylink.

            I think there's a way to figure how who is the master here by determining who gets punished when they don't do what the other side wants.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 01 2018, @06:20AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 01 2018, @06:20AM (#729122)

          Taxes are imposed by some greedy government that Verizon doesn't have control over.

          And the government also provides the enforcement of the artificial monopoly the telco's get to enjoy.

           

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 31 2018, @12:39PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 31 2018, @12:39PM (#728714)

    To be fair, all companies pass down taxes and fees to customers. They dont just 'eat' the costs. That is why reducing them is always good for for everyone. At least now they itemize them, before it was just lumped into the bill and you never knew.

    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday August 31 2018, @02:45PM (3 children)

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday August 31 2018, @02:45PM (#728763) Journal

      > They dont just 'eat' the costs.

      Not entirely true. Raising prices, whether because of higher taxes, higher expenses, or just plain increasing the profit margin, on a particular good or service increases the cost of it, and causes all the consequences of any price increase-- the law of supply and demand. Consumers can and will seek out alternatives, and demand will go down. A business may eat some of the cost of a tax increase in order to maintain demand.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 31 2018, @03:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 31 2018, @03:14PM (#728775)

        Careful, you're ruining the whole narrative about why corps shouldn't pay any taxes. The resultant brain splatter from the believers could be messy.

        Ah, who am I kidding? Those types never let reality intrude on their ideological purity.

      • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday August 31 2018, @08:03PM (1 child)

        by deimtee (3272) on Friday August 31 2018, @08:03PM (#728939) Journal

        With something like internet service, they will price it at whatever point will bring in the highest total revenue, the optimum price point. They will then spend the minimum required to provide the service. The difference is profit + tax. If one goes up the other goes down. The price to the consumer will not change directly due to tax changes, it will remain at the optimum price point.

        --
        If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 01 2018, @06:25AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 01 2018, @06:25AM (#729125)

          Around here, its hard to get "unbundled" internet.

          Every ad I see for internet service is dingbatted with the proviso that I buy TV and phone as well, all way overpriced.

          HughesNet is looking better and better to me, only if to get out of the bundle crap. I flat do not want their TV or phone!

          Especially the TV. Way too little bang for the buck. I hardly ever watch the thing. Too many fu king ads.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday August 31 2018, @01:47PM (1 child)

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday August 31 2018, @01:47PM (#728735)

    You're quite right: The feds don't care. The telecom industry can do pretty much whatever they feel like.

    As an example of the kind of stuff they get away with all the friggin' time: The federal and sometimes state government gives the telecoms subsidies to upgrade the wires going to rural areas. The telecoms just keep the money and do pretty much nothing. The next year, they get the same subsidy to do the same thing they said they were going to do last year. This has been going on for decades.

    And they never called called on it for some reason [opensecrets.org].

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Friday August 31 2018, @04:21PM

      by digitalaudiorock (688) on Friday August 31 2018, @04:21PM (#728799) Journal

      As an example of the kind of stuff they get away with all the friggin' time: The federal and sometimes state government gives the telecoms subsidies to upgrade the wires going to rural areas. The telecoms just keep the money and do pretty much nothing. The next year, they get the same subsidy to do the same thing they said they were going to do last year. This has been going on for decades.

      This. There's a long history of sweet deals they get by making promises they never have to keep. Verizon's all but been allowed to reclaim the AT&T monopoly of decades ago bases on what??...some promise to share their land line cables with competing providers?...those same obsolete copper landlines that they've now dropped support for altogether, requiring customers to switch to fibre?

      While we're at it, since these are always also pay TV providers: Going way back, they are required to carry any local area network stations that are available OTA unencrypted. However somehow, magically, those rules apparently did NOT apply to the new digital stations, which of course are all that exist now, and they're all encrypting those networks along with everyone else.

      We call this free markets...ffs.

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 31 2018, @04:45PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 31 2018, @04:45PM (#728812) Journal

    The feds don't seem to care what they do in any way at all.

    The FCC blatantly lying to the American public implies that they do care. [arstechnica.com] It's just that what they care about is screwing all of us over.