It is really sad they actually had to make a law for this. You would think it would just be common sense. But Noooo! Companies will rip consumers off any way they can, as long as they can get away with it! And yet there are so many who think government regulations are not needed because the telecommunications industry (and banking, insurance, health, energy/utilities and other industries) are so honest cough, cough that they surely will "self-regulate" with the consumer's best interests in mind. Yeah right!
Which only makes it more sad. There's too much "my way or no way" going on. It seems no one is willing to meet in the middle and compromise anymore.
The law should have been retroactive (in effect) -- that is, Frontier et alia should have been required to refund all such "rental" fees all the way back to their inception.
Nah! That would be nice but making such a law is against the law! As it should be! It would be like your city lowering the speed limit today on your street from 35 to 25MPH, then giving you a ticket because last week you went 35MPH on that street. That's just wrong. So the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits “ex post facto” laws—laws that apply "after the fact". In fact, the thought that such a law being illegal was so obvious to our Founding Fathers and writers of the Constitution, that many even argued against including it in the Constitution! They argued such a law was so obviously unjust that it was simply unnecessary to include it in the document! In some circumstances, they can make laws "effective" on a past date, but they cannot charge any entity with the crime, or convict, sentence or punish anyone "after the fact". And that means they cannot force any ISP to refund any rental fee that was collected before that law was actually "passed" - regardless the "effective" date. You most typically see "ex post facto" laws as "tax" laws. Where they pass a tax law later in the year, but make it effective back to Jan 1 of that year. Those are legal in many cases because they are not really criminal laws, they are tax laws. Now the other way around is perfectly legal. That is, if you were convicted of a crime in the past, and at a later date they passed another law that said that action was "no longer" a crime, then your conviction can be overturned and your record expunged. For example, if you were convicted of marijuana possession 30 years ago, now that many states have made such possession legal, convictions can be expunged and records cleaned. Getting any fine refunded is another issue. What would be nice is if Frontier et al voluntarily refunded those rental fees. I would like to see that. In fact, if they voluntarily refunded those fees, that would make me think much more highly of the company than it would if they were forced to refund them.
They are not crooks if it is not illegal. They can be greedy and unscrupulous and still not be crooks - UNLESS they are bribing their Congressmen to vote down consumer protection laws!
The dictionary definition does not seem to require that the actions be illegal: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/crook
A baby Great White Shark may never have eaten anything when it is spawned but it is a carnivore nonetheless.
Okay. So? Those baby sharks will even eat their weaker siblings when competing for food - while still in the womb! Being a carnivore does not make one a criminal. In fact, in nature, carnivores are essential to a balanced ecosystem. That's exactly why it was necessary to reintroduce the top predator, the grey wolf, to Yellowstone decades after they were killed off by the nearby ranchers and farmers. The exploding elk population were malnourished and starving because of over-grazing. The hungry elk then started eating the willows and other trees which the beaver population needed. So beavers nearly died out. Other indigenous vegetation and wildlife nearly died out or did die out. Now that the wolf is back, elk herds and beaver colonies are healthy and thriving. Vegetation (trees, grasslands, bushes, etc.) is abundant and able to support all sorts of wildlife, which also is returning back to normal levels The entire ecosystem is returning back to the way it should be and becoming balanced, all because the gray wolf is a carnivore. That reminds, me. I need to take the steaks out of the freezer. You are splitting hairs in a futile attempt justify your inaccurate accusations. Your definition clearly states the crook is a "dishonest" person. Are you being honest by accusing them of illegal activities when those activities were NOT illegal at the time? No. Does that dishonesty make you a crook? According to your definition, yes!!! If you think they are doing something "illegal", do something about it! Call the cops, report them to your state's attorney. Contact your elected officials. Sign CR petitions when they come around (I did!). Making false accusations is NOT the right way to fight these unfair fees. I already said the ISPs are greedy and unscrupulous. That still does not mean what they did was illegal, regardless how disgusting and unfair that practice may be. So I see no point in arguing about the definition of the word "crook".
I am splitting hairs? LOL. I just stated that they were crooks based on their unethical behavior. I made no legal challenges. I have clearly offended you by having an opinion. So with that, I exit this conversation...
Bill, you miss my point. Being a carnivore is a fact of being, not simply of actions. And being a "crook" is a defect of character, whether one has, or has not, had the opportunity to act upon that character trait. It is written that merely to hate is to murder, and merely to lust is adultery. It is the goodness or evil in one's heart that determines what a person TRULY is, not the mere actions of that person.
That's funny. No. Opinions don't offend me. And I didn't spend 24 years in the military defending your Right to express your opinion only to be offended by it. So you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. If the fees were not illegal, they were not being dishonest (your definition of a crook). They were being greedy and unscrupulous. And now that those fees are illegal, if they do charge customers for those fees, they are crooks and can be criminally charged. And that's a good thing. Okay. I agree with that. Being a crook is a defect of character. But to my point - someone who has a character defect is not necessarily a crook - which is what you implied when you quoted me, then added your shark comments. But I fail to see the point of continuing to mince words here (for my part in that too). Pretty sure we can agree those companies that charged rental fees for devices when customers elected to purchase their own were being greedy scumbags. And now that Congress has passed a law saying subscribers can use their own and therefore, providers cannot charge those rental fees, this is a win for us consumers.
Did the ISPs that charged rental still provide support? If so, that will probably disappear when those rental fees stop coming in. In some parts of Europe a law was passed for something similar. Previously you had to rent the equipment from the ISP and you had no choice. With the new law, you can use your own equipment, but in most cases you're on your own if something doesn't work.
That's part of the whole argument the providers used. When you rent their equipment, ISPs provide full technical support. But when subscribers bought their own equipment, they still demanded help when things go wrong. Yet often the ISPs washed their hands from it as soon as they determine they don't own the equipment. I see both sides of that argument. In order to determine where the fault is, some troubleshooting of the equipment must be done. Plus the providers don't want to be accused of damaging the user's personal stuff. Its a slippery slope.
