For fifteen years now we've noted how broadband ISPs bury all manner of below-the-line fees in customer bills in order to misleadingly jack up the advertised price post sale, and for just as long industry regulators have pretended this isn't actually happening. Whether it's the use of a "regulatory recovery" fee (which isn't sanctioned or imposed by any government) or the industry's new use of "broadcast TV fees" (which is just burying programming costs below the line), it's misleading advertising and perhaps someday regulators will wake up to the practice.
Until then we apparently have good old lawsuits, despite the arbitration clauses ISPs have buried in their AUPs trying to prevent consumers from exercising their legal rights. Fast forward to last month, when Time Warner Cable was sued by one individual that grew tired of the company's billing shenanigans. Jeremy Zielinski has sued the company for "deceptive acts and practices" and "false advertising," primarily because his real rate looks nothing like the advertised rate:
quote:
Specifically, he signed up for Time Warner Cable at a promotional $34.99/month package, only to discover his first bill was for $94.45. The $34.99 had magically morphed into $39.99 plus a $5.99 "internet modem lease" fee and a $47.99 installation fee -- all of which he insists were never mentioned anywhere in the original offer. The modem lease and install fees are fairly common these days -- and it's ridiculous but they're the kinds of things that people should absolutely clarify before signing up for new internet service.
To compound the problem, Time Warner Cable went on to insist the $35 per month fee should never have been offered in the first place. Amusingly (or not), the complaint doesn't even get into some of the more dodgy fees companies charge, like the "regulatory recovery fee" (an ambiguous, non-government mandated fee that's just padding the bill) or the more recent "
broadcast TV fee" that takes the a portion of the cost of programming and buries it below the line. Again, it's false advertising, and again, regulators have spent a decade turning a blind eye.
