AT&T Jacks Up Broadband Rates With Misleading 'Property Tax' Fee

from the america's-greediest-network-is-also-the-sneakiest dept

For years we’ve talked about how the broadband and cable industry has perfected the use of utterly bogus fees to jack up subscriber bills, a dash of financial creativity it adopted from the banking and airline industries. Countless cable and broadband companies tack on a myriad of completely bogus fees below the line, letting them advertise one rate — then sock you with a higher rate once your bill actually arrives. Despite this being false advertising, regulators have chosen to look the other way for decades.

Last week, a new study highlighted how nearly 25 percent of your cable bill is comprised of bullshit fees, netting $28 billion annually from such surcharges. This week, AT&T is under fire for a new wrinkle on an old game. The company has started raising its customers’ broadband prices by as much as seven percent to help offset the company’s property taxes. In this case, customers who thought they were signing up for fiber broadband at a fixed, locked rate were suddenly informed they needed to pay 7% more to help pay off AT&T’s tax burden:

Effective October 1, 2019, there will be an increase in the AT&T Cost Assessment Charge used to recover AT&T property taxes. The monthly rate will change from 2.92% to 7.00% of your total AT&T Business Internet, Phone and/or U-verse TV monthly charges. This charge is not a tax or fee that the government requires AT&T to collect from its customers.

Again there are several problems here. One, advertising one rate then charging something else is false advertising. Two, AT&T’s property taxes are the cost of doing business, and should be included above the line. Three, these users were locked in at a “fixed, guaranteed rate,” then AT&T simply ignored the promise.

AT&T’s practice of adding its property taxes appears to have begun sometime in 2017. But there’s no indication that the rates being paid actually, realistically reflect AT&T’s property tax burden:

AT&T has been charging the property-tax fee to business customers since at least mid-2017. An AT&T business DSL customer in Oklahoma complained about it on Reddit at the time, saying the then-new fee was 1.08% of the monthly bill.

In January 2019, an AT&T customer complained in a DSLReports forum that the property-tax fee was raised from 2% to 6.69%. “So I gotta ask?did their ‘property taxes’ increase by 335%?” the customer wrote, noting the greater-than-three-fold increase.

In a functional market either competition would kick in to punish companies for this kind of behavior in the form of subscriber exodus, or a regulator would step in to, at the very least, warn the company away from such misleading predatory behavior. But this being the United States, where the FCC just effectively neutered itself at lobbyists’ behest, based on entirely manufactured justifications, and vibrant competition remains a pipe dream, we get neither option. Enjoy.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: at&t

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “AT&T Jacks Up Broadband Rates With Misleading 'Property Tax' Fee”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
52 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The wise guys in the Hollywood movies have script writers.

The wise guys in the Chicago Mob watch television like the rest of us and assume things like The Godfather, The Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire are role models.

The script writers find shady contacts to try to add verisimilitude to their shows; the contacts parrot back what they’ve seen on TV, and there ya go. Citogenesis

A Guy says:

Re: Re: State Actors

It can be. Sometimes things that are supposed to be private entities start performing government like services like a state and the executive branch lets them get away with it or encourages it because the executive branch benefits.

In those situations, private entities have been found to be state actors by courts and have been forced to comply with providing full government-like due process, forced to stop interfering with free speech, and are forced to start treating the citizens they interact with like they are a government agency.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: State Actors

"Sometimes things that are supposed to be private entities start performing government like services"

Sometimes people go to jail because of their corruption, performing illegal acts does not make you a state actor. The privatize everything crusade is not going well.

"private entities have been found to be state actors by courts"
In the us? Do you have any case numbers?

"forced to comply with providing full government-like due process, forced to stop interfering with free speech, and are forced to start treating the citizens they interact with like they are a government agency."

I am interested in the case numbers associated with these claims you have made. Lack of case numbers will result in your claims being unsubstantiated (circular file).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 State Actors

So you are saying that the government doesn’t have taps copying the backbone of the internet that runs through AT&T networks? You are saying the government didn’t force AT&T to allow that access and then grant monopoly powers to the company that used to be a monopoly until it was broken up only to reform just like a nightmare? You are saying the literally billions of dollars that have gone to upgrade the internet for rural users that still haven’t happened isn’t a payoff? You are saying the regulatory capture that was allowed to take place wasn’t all a quid pro quo for the monolithic company known as AT&T? If you believe these statements are incorrect, feel free to educate me.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 State Actors

I assume he’s basing his claims on one of the following:
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288

Though the first does not apply to AT&T since telecommunications have never been an exclusive activity of the state.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 State Actors

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501

  • seems to be about a hybrid private/government mess, no wonder they got it screwed up.

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715

  • seems to be about discrimination based upon race, which is something all private business is, sort of, required to comply with.

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288

  • what a mess that case is

"The facts that can bear on an attribution’s fairness–e. g., a nominally private entity may be a state actor when it is entwined with governmental policies or when government is en-twined in its management or control"

  • this means everything is a state actor – awesome! I think we all knew already that we live in a police state run by maniacs.
Anonymous Coward says:

  • In a functional market either competition would kick in to punish companies for this kind of behavior in the form of subscriber exodus, or a regulator would step in to, at the very least, warn the company away from such misleading predatory behaviour. *

Um, why did I read that as "In a fictional market…" as if this were a dream in colour?

Anonymous Coward says:

The problem with the broadband industry in america is that
there is little competition,
most place,s have cable tv, broadband 1 or 2 big companys offering a service .
And local state regulations reduce competition .
As long as this situation exist,s the customer will continue to get bad service and extra charge,s added on to bill,s .

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Toom1275 (profile) says:

At least the property tax is one that actually exists.

AT$T also charged mobile users in Portland, Oregon for a 1% "Clean Energy Surcharge" That AT$T doesn’t (and never had to) pay."

AT$T has offered refunds after a class-action lawsuit, but refuses to pay the legally-required penalties and fees.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

John Snape (profile) says:

Why not just do what I was told to do when I complained about censorship on social media: make your own broadband service and you can charge the lowest fees that keep the door open. You have a few extra billion laying around to create your own service, don’t you?

And before anyone comes in and says no one told me that (just one of many examples):

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190730/10391942678/josh-hawley-wants-to-appoint-himself-product-manager-internet.shtml#c1728

Their platform, their rules. Don’t like how they manage content/posters, leave and find/create a platform more to your liking.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

John Snape (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The fact that you’re too stupid to understand the difference between a website and physical infrastructure does not mean you have a valid point.

In other words, you can’t respond to my argument, so you resort to calling me stupid. Such a well thought out response you have there!

Besides, do you think anyone could wrest the users of Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter on the cheap? Do you think any of these three has minimal physical infrastructure?

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Reason one: Initial outlay of capital investment in the physical infrastructure required to provide Internet Access is very high, and is the reason why regional monopolies exist.

I have a question for you: Do you, or do you not, believe that the below the line fees implemented by ISPs in this fashion are bad?

Do you, or do you not, agree with the ISPs in this instance? In other words, what is your actual stance on this particular topic, to wit, the behavior of Internet Service Providers in the current system of regional monopolies and regulatory capture?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, I call you stupid because the fundamental differences between an ISP and a website you visit are so numerous and obvious that you’re either ignorant or trolling not to realise, and I consider both to be on the same level.

"Besides, do you think anyone could wrest the users of Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter on the cheap? "

You don’t have to. There are many communities and websites way smaller that people find valuable for things those websites don’t approve. It’s only a problem when you try demanding the freedom and the audience at the same team, which has never happened for truly controversial free speech.

Anonymous Coward says:

One, advertising one rate then charging something else is false advertising.

Advertising one rate then charging something else is fraud.

Contracting for services for one price when you knowingly intend to charge a different price is fraud ("obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises" – https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1341)

Advertising any fraudulent scheme is wire fraud. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343).

Sending fraudulent bills via mail is mail fraud. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1341)

Fraud includes any scheme to "deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1346)

Thanks to mandatory binding arbitration, AT&T is completely invincible to any consequences for their many misdeeds. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepcion)

AT&T’s response to this mockery of justice is to say if you don’t like it, you can lump it. (https://abovethelaw.com/2017/07/att-claims-forced-arbitration-isnt-forced-because-you-can-choose-not-to-have-broadband/)

Everything here is my opinion based on the sources provided.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

customers get everything they deserve because they do NOTHING except complain! when elections come round, the same money grabbing politicians will be re-elected and absolutely nothing will be done or be allowed to be done because of the ‘lobbying’ that encourages this sort of thing. add in that because of this lobbying and payments given to politicians, there is absolutely no worthwhile competition in any industry in the USA and as long as the corruption is able to continue, nothing will ever change! enjoy what you have brought on yourselves, customers or actually grow some and use your vote to get the badly needed changes!!

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"…the same money grabbing politicians will be re-elected and absolutely nothing will be done…"

Are there any politicians who are not money grabbing? Until we fix the soft money mess and the ability of lobbyists to donate and/or direct donations the continuum of corrupt politicians will continue. Even then we will have corrupt politicians, there will just be fewer of them.

Anonymous Coward says:

AT&T overloaded their butts in debt, buying/merging with DirecTV and Warner. Now they are having to find BS excuses to raise rates to start paying off some of that debt.

You knew this was coming. It’s been all over Techdirt here in one fashion or another for a couple of years. Last year they decided to end the practice of pro-rating when you terminated an account. They would knock off what you hadn’t used for the month from your final bill. Now when you terminate an account, you pay for the whole month, no matter where in the monthly billing cycle you are.

At that point I discovered a new ISP in town and I abandoned ship for a better ISP just before they implemented it. I get better speeds with about the same cost as previous with no caps.

It was only a matter of time before AT&T came up with new fees and the same for yet more of them down the line as they attempt to pay of the debt burden they have made for themselves in an effort to grow for growths’ sake. Obviously they did not corner the streaming market.

ECA (profile) says:

Worst part..

Iv done this years ago, and debated What the number are and wher they came from..
Ask them and the Employee dont know, or will give you a Canned answer.
Unless you can get past them and onto the managers(probably not, as this isnt even the Company, these are hired phone answer people)
Its as bad as trying to find a DIRECT email to yahoo..or a phone number.
99% of the people There only do what they need to do..

nasch (profile) says:

Future cable bill

Internet service: $91.50

Property tax fee: $6.65
Lobbying fee: $4.12
Employee salary recovery fee: $8.70
Clean energy fee: $6.10
Dirty energy fee: $9.45
Heavy internet user fee: $12.10
Broadband fee: $3.35
Universal service fee: $2.60
Fee fee: $4.80
Because we can fee: $8.25
What are you going to do, switch? fee: $10.00
Sending you a bill fee: $5.00
Customer service fee: $7.50
Capital expenditure recovery fee: $9.00
Fixed costs recovery fee: $12.50
Variable costs recovery fee: $7.99
Just in case we missed something fee: $25.50

Total: $275.15

Anonymous Coward says:

I'm going to start paying my bill with property tax fee credits

Since AT&T can add bogus fees to pad their bills, why don’t we all just pay with ‘property tax credits’…

You know, we will just take a credit from AT&T’s bill for the amount of property tax that we are already paying, since we are paying the property taxes, AT&T won’t have to pay them again, so we can just take a credit for the amount of the property taxes.

So lets see, I pay about $316 a month in property taxes, and my AT&T bill is roughly $150 a month, so I’m showing that AT&T owes me $166 monthly for property taxes. I’ll just send them an invoice for the monthly amount and call things good.

Right? Or perhaps we could pay with ‘good intention’ credits, you know we always thought the companies were supposed to have good intentions, so we will just pay them with those, since they seem to have a short supply these days…

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...