Slashdot Mirror


The Ridiculous Tech Fees You're Still Paying

Esther Schindler writes "None of us like to spend money (except on shiny new toys). But even we curmudgeons can understand that companies need to charge for things that cost them money; and profit-making is at the heart of our economy. Still, several charges appear on our bills that can drive even the most complacent techie into a screaming fit. How did this advertised price turn into that much on the final bill? Why are they charging for it in the first place? Herewith, fees that make no sense at all — and yet we still fork over money for them. For example: 'While Internet access is free in coffee shops, some public transit, and even campsites, as of 2009 15% of hotels charged guests for the privilege of checking their e-mail and catching up on watching cat videos. Oddly, budget and midscale hotel chains are more likely to offer free Wi-Fi, while luxurious hotels — already costing the traveler more — regularly ding us.'"

29 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. Internet costs in Australia by Smiddi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Internet costs in Australia. Its not uncommon to pay around $70/month for ADSL 1 speeds (1.5Mbps).

    1. Re:Internet costs in Australia by mjwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Internet costs in Australia. Its not uncommon to pay around $70/month for ADSL 1 speeds (1.5Mbps).

      I see you're on Telstra.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:Internet costs in Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Many (although not all) McDonalds / Starbucks / a few other food/drink chains around AU give free wifi.

      As for why AU internet costs $40-$100 a month (depending on ISP and how much 'data' you get per month) - it's simply to do with international data rates and the fact there's only a dozen or so international pipes going from AU to other countries, and the fact the vast majority of your data is going to be to/from the US or EU.

      You'll notice almost every time you get a free increase in your monthly data quota (likely), or a decrease in your cost (unlikely) - it's roughly a few weeks/months after the news of an international cable having undergone an upgrade, (much rarer) a new international cable having come up, or alternatively a similar cable coming up between a country AU connects to and the US/EU (which indirectly reduces the cost of your data over that set of pipes).

      See: http://www.cablemap.info/

    3. Re:Internet costs in Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's actually a load of nonsense - the figures you are quoting is the average across the country. Telco deployments are not based on these average figures, which is why there is actually no internet provided in the middle of the Simpson desert despite the statistic telling us there are 2.8 potential customers every square km. Serving a town or a CBD environment is not that different from place to place, although there are extremes even within the sanitised figures. The vast majority of Australians live in urban areas, ie suburbs, the customer density of Australian suburbs doesn't differ that much from UK suburbs, or US suburbs.

    4. Re:Internet costs in Australia by Albanach · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you know anything about Australia? Do you realize that a huge part of the country is essentially desert and uninhabited. Your population density stats mean little.

      Look at a state, like Victoria, with a population density of 63/sq mile. That would put it in the middle of the US states, somewhere around Mississippi. Certainly it's no new york city, but neither is it Alaska.

      Somewhere with that sort of population should easily be able to support multiple ISPs and have faster and cheaper internet service than that mentioned by the OP. Of course OP may live in the middle of Western Australia, in which case the 1.5 Mbit for $70 is probably a bargain.

    5. Re:Internet costs in Australia by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is a propaganda lie. Proof is easy, these following infrastructure items all cost more than communications infrastructure; roads, gas services, power services, sewerage services and storm water services. All of the cost more to build and more to maintain. Funnily enough not one of them in metropolitan areas is subject to population density. When it comes to linking cities of course roads cost way and above the cost of putting a cable in the ground.

      Reality is, countries with substantive infrastructure also have one other burden, incumbent telecommunications firms run by psychopaths who routinely lie, deceive and misrepresent reality in order to generate greater profits. Lies to keep rotting copper profitable, lies to prevent self publishing and attempt to monopoly publishers, lies to restrict bandwidth in order to be able to charge more for it, lies to prevent governments working around that insane greed in order to create what is becoming an essential broadband service.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:Internet costs in Australia by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just so you know, noplace else in the United States wants to be considered as similar to Mississippi.

  2. Economics 101 by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oddly, budget and midscale hotel chains are more likely to offer free Wi-Fi, while luxurious hotels — already costing the traveler more — regularly ding us.'"

    This isn't odd at all. People staying at budget and midscale hotel chains are more price sensitive, so they're going to not come to your hotel if you don't have free wifi. The people staying a luxury hotels are not as price sensitive and are more likely to be worried about other things beside a charge for internet access when selecting a hotel.

    1. Re:Economics 101 by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 4, Informative

      $9.99? If you went to Reno (or Vegas) and only got ripped off for $9.99 per day, then you've done better than most people.

    2. Re:Economics 101 by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't odd at all. People staying at budget and midscale hotel chains are more price sensitive, so they're going to not come to your hotel if you don't have free wifi. The people staying a luxury hotels are not as price sensitive and are more likely to be worried about other things beside a charge for internet access when selecting a hotel.

      While this is true, I think the author was pointing out one of the 'flaws' of capitalism; Technology and infrastructure makes offering such amenities a very cheap proposition. And yet, you wind up paying through the nose for them in certain situations; It is basically a misrepresentation of the true cost of the good or service being provided. They can say the hotel room with everything a "less price sensitive" customer is looking for is offered at a competitive room rate, but the room rate quoted, and which is being compared against with other providers, is not the actual cost you will pay for it. This makes straight comparisons between different offerings difficult; It does not encourage a truly competitive marketplace, because it hides costs. It's sortof like the old axiom "Give away the razor, charge for the blades", except in this case, you can only see the cost of the razor, not the blades.

      This is fundamentally anti-competitive and is not a truly 'free' marketplace, because price comparison is made very difficult in an effort to trap the less savvy agent. While "caveat emptor" may be a nice rebuttal in theory, in practice those uttering this phrase are making a far-reaching assumption: That the buyer is capable of being aware. Uttering these words is like saying "Oh, there's a minefield over there" after you've already stepped on a mine. If one truly supports the free market, then such predatory pricing tactics cannot be endorsed.

      A true free market system works best when all the agents have equal access to the data needed to make informed decisions; This ensures true competition, which is the driver of innovation. By obscuring these details and attaching hidden fees, it contributes to market inefficiency and hinders competition -- you can't be sure what you're paying for is at a competitive price, and thus, competition is less prevalent. Less competition means greater inefficiency. It means less trade. Those dollars aren't working as hard, and while it may benefit the individual vendors participating in such deception, it harms the entire economy.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Economics 101 by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Free WiFi. Just connect, often to an unsecured AP. At most, there's a single key for all guests.

      Paid WiFi. Supposedly, they have to have a way to track your usage to get the charges straight. So you get your own login. Now they know who is who and, at a minimum, what services you are contacting (even for encrypted connections). For high rollers, that is valuable information to have. It could be used for anything from marketing to industrial espionage.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Economics 101 by rockout · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your comments on this matter are a good explanation of why you don't own a restaurant or deli.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    5. Re:Economics 101 by bws111 · · Score: 3, Informative

      OK, by your logic a store that sells nothing but tea should be hugely profitable, right? OK, lets see if that is correct.

      Let;s say you run a small store selling nothing but that hugely profitable tea. You only pay minimum wage ($8.50 in NY), only ever have 1 employee working at a time, are open 12 hours a day, and pay $2000/month in rent (not at all unreasonable for retail space). So, your wages are $8.50x12x30 = $3060/month, plus your $2K rent, is $5060 in expenses each month (ignoring little details such as utilities, taxes, bookkeeping, etc). Now, let's say you are charging the 'outrageous' amount of $2.00 for a tea. You need to sell, on average, (5060/2)/30 = 84 teas a day, or one every 8.5 minutes of every day, to break even. And that is ignoring the costs of ingredients and all of the other expenses that go with running a business. And again, that is JUST to break even. But you claim you can make 2000% 'insane' profit. Well, to get to your 2000% insane profit, you would need to be selling 20x as much tea, 1680 teas every day, or a tea every 25 seconds of every day. With ONE employee. That doesn't leave much time for that employee to stock shelves or anything, does it? Better hire another employee to help out. Uh-oh, your expenses just went up to $8120/month. To make your 'insane' 2000% profit you now need to sell 2706 teas every day.

    6. Re:Economics 101 by Tom · · Score: 4, Informative

      While this is true, I think the author was pointing out one of the 'flaws' of capitalism; Technology and infrastructure makes offering such amenities a very cheap proposition. And yet, you wind up paying through the nose for them in certain situations;

      What makes you think that's a flaw, and not a feature?

      It is basically a misrepresentation of the true cost of the good or service being provided.

      Ah, you are thinking free market and capitalism are the same thing. Yes, the rest of your comment pretty much indicates that as well. Well, time to wake up and realize that they aren't.

      Capitalism simply means that the means to production are in the hands of private entities (companies or individuals), in contrast to ownership by cooperatives, the state, or the nobility.

      The Free Market theory is about how trade and exchange of goods happen. Nothing in the theory requires the buyers or sellers to be capitalists. You could easily have socialist collectives exchanging goods between them on a free market, for example.

      A true free market system works best when all the agents have equal access to the data needed to make informed decisions;

      Wrong. It seems to be a detail, but it is one of the most important ones: A free market doesn't work "best" under this condition, it is a precondition. If you do not have total information, you do not have a free market, period. Which, yes, means each and every single market in the real world is not a free market, but an approximation.

      That's not just semantics. When dealing with the real world, you should never forget that the conclusions from the free market theory may or may not apply.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  3. 2009? by jaymz666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously? That's 4 years ago. That's a lifetime in the industry

  4. Screw that! I'll just hop on my WiFi hotspot by Naatach · · Score: 4, Funny

    Aww snap! $250 cell phone bill from overages in data usage.

    --
    There may be no "I" in team, but there's also no "F" in way.
  5. who is paying for it by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    luxurious hotels — already costing the traveler more — regularly ding us.'

    The company is paying for that.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. eMedia by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What about ebooks at the same price as the content but with making a big stock with expected losses, stocking, transporting, the physical media (paper, ink, printing, human labor) and all the chains of intermediaries with their corresponding profits? What about the same, but for music? What about movies, where you also must count too the big chunk that takes each theater?

    1. Re:eMedia by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      What about ebooks ... music ... movies

      Prices are not determined by cost. Prices are determined by what people are willing to pay. The COGS (cost of goods sold) only sets the floor.

  7. Not "odd" at all by jedinite · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >Oddly, budget and midscale hotel chains are more likely to offer free Wi-Fi, while luxurious hotels — already costing the traveler more — regularly ding us.

    Not odd in the slightest -- the majority of said "luxurious" hotel rooms are being consumed by (in no particular order) #1 the price insensitive and #2 business travelers (arguably a great overlap, if not outright subset, of group #1).

    Few of either group in covering a hotel bill for a few nights in San Francisco are going to care much if it's $845 or $885 with Internet.

    Finally, those in group #2 are much more likely to have elite status with the hotel, which typically (at the higher levels) includes free internet -- making it a "valuable" perk for your brand loyalty...

    --

    ---------
    There is no try at jedinite.com
  8. Just market forces by joe_frisch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Companies want to sell their products at the highest price each consumer will pay. By charging large fees for convenience items they are able to extract more money from people who place a higher value on their own time.

    So, you could save money getting a SIM card for your phone to use internationally, but that would take time and make it more difficult for people to contact you. You could go to the hotel lobby for internet, but using the internet in your hotel room saves time.

    This has the perverse effect that it may make sense for companies to spend extra money to waste your time or to provide worse service, if it pushes you to one of their higher priced services - assuming of course that they don't push you to a competitor.

    Its just one of the very annoying effects of the free market. If you want to feel good about it, think if it as a "tax" on the wealthy who are able to put a higher value on their own time.

  9. payroll cards by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Their last example - payroll cards with fees ought to be outright illegal. IMO.

  10. Upscale hotel customers get everything free. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Informative
    Most upscale hotel customers are business travelers and their corporate employer is picking up the tab. They don't even look at the bill. If they do it is to make sure the correct euphemism is used for the porn bill. So in some sense they get everything free.

    Again the real big businesses get into large contracts with the hotel chains and they get a different rate. But then the hotels get smart and add "service" fees. And the next round of contract talks things get negotiated. The cycle goes on.

    In all our travel, if there is no free parking, free breakfast and free wi-fi, I am not even looking at the hotel. They get filtered out.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  11. Verizon phone upgrade. by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Verizon wanted to charge me a $30 "upgrade" fee when I tried to upgrade to a new iPhone. They're already charging me $200 for the phone and $80/month for the service (plus a new two year contract to replace my recently lapsed one). That means I'm already going to be paying them $2,120. That sounds like a pretty sweet deal for them, what possible expense could this upgrade fee cover?

    1. Re:Verizon phone upgrade. by Pubstar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ignorance. I mean no offence by that but it's true. Go to a store to buy your phone, pretend that the upgrade fee is the breaking point and start to walk, and they will wave it. He'll, I did it most of the time if the customer was nice and just asked if I could.

  12. DNS and ICMP Tunnels by utkonos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why pay? Connect to their access point and tunnel all of your traffic over DNS or ICMP. The firewalls that they use rarely block ICMP and almost never block UDP port 53. All you need is to have a client installed on your machine and run a server out on the interwebs somewhere that is running the right server software and acts as a proxy. The tech to do this has been around for quite a while, and most linux distros have the clients and servers in their repositories. The main system used for DNS is called iodine and there are two different, very good ICMP tunnels that I know of. One is here and another here. If you search through your favorite linux or BSD distro's repository search for "ip over icmp" or "ip over dns" and you'll find what you need.

  13. Re:Maybe, but risks offending high paying customer by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only one that's ripping me off right now is AT&T, and that's only because Comcast would screw me harder. All I'm buying from them is DSL and I'm paying $47 a month. Meanwhile on my phone I not only get unlimited internet* (with email from my 10 year old address, YouTube, Google), but a phone with long distance, voicemail, 411, roaming, all unlimited and included in the $42 I pay them. I'm not going to name them but they're not the only ones and some may even be better. I've been with them for 5 years with no problems except their website is an ugly clusterfuck, but most are these days.

    Hell, even my credit card company doesn't screw me over, and I'll bet most of you the people you guys deal with don't screw you, either. But you're nerds, and we're not normal (at least I'm not). I use a small local bank, and they're damned near free. Wasting your money is stupid.

    But most people? Hell, I'll tell people what I'm paying for my phone when they're paying three times that for less stuff, and they go on using the expensive carrier they're with. And switching carriers is easy; maybe expensive if you're on a contract but easy.

    Why in the hell am I paying seven dollars more for internet alone than a phone WITH internet?? I guess because there's competition in the cell phone business. I wish my phone company sold internet.

    * I listen to KSHE on it all day long at work, that's eight hours a day using its radio, plus when I ask it the temperature or read a novel or newspaper

  14. Re:Touch-tone fees on Landlines? by cusco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My uncle was the first person we knew to have touch-tone service, back in the 1960s. I think there was a $1.50/month charge for it. By the time my folks got their first touch-tone phone in the early '80s touch-tone service was free. In 1997 Glenn's partner looked over the phone bill and found that they were still getting charged the $1.50/month fee.

    Up until the late 1960s you didn't own your phone, you leased it from Ma Bell. When I worked in a bank trust department in the early 1990s we paid a lot of our customers' bills for them, and I was shocked to see that many of them were STILL leasing their phone from the phone company. In one case at least I knew that the phone had been thrown out when it broke two decades before.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  15. Re:most places in las vegas have forced resort fee by Teancum · · Score: 4, Informative

    I found the best place for WiFi in Las Vegas was the municipal public library. You need to go out of your way to find it, but the librarians were pretty decent about helping you get hooked up if you were courteous and reasonable. It sure as hell beat trying to jerk around with the hotel management and the bandwidth was a hell of a lot better too. If you wanted to even bother, all you need to do is sit in you (presumably rental) car with your laptop or go inside and they even had outlets... or you could get onto terminals in the library.

    An added bonus by bringing your own equipment is that you essentially had no real time limit either.

    By far and away the worst places were the resort hotels, but even the budget motels are a pain in the rear.

    Don't even get me started with "roaming fees" for cell phones. Las Vegas is a death trap for most cell phone carriers. I purposely bought a throw-away cell phone at Wal-Mart with pre-paid minutes explicitly for calling from Vegas on the last time I was there. A buddy of mine brought in an AT&T cell phone, and ended up with a $500 cell phone bill before he left after just a few days in that city. His typical cell phone bill was usually about $40/month. Reno is almost as bad as Vegas too. By using the throw away cell phone, I only had to pay $50, including the brand-new cell phone and I even had minutes left over after the trip. It is just one of those "buyer beware" kind of things.