LazyAK47

Yes, this is all a first world problem. But in an age when technology is getting ahead of people's lack of discretion or knowledge, this all seems a little excessive. But maybe I am overestimating people...I usually do

Exactly, I think ISPs are focused on expanding and improving their own infrastructure rather than end user equipment. And since they rent out bandwidth to other companies such as Boost Mobile or Straight Talk, equipment fees are an additional revenue source that won't necessarily cause a lot of backlash...yet

Thank you very much for the context, I believe it's always important to keep that in mind. I only know what I've experienced and with your points this all doesn't seem so bad and it IS very situational. I do have concerns that the context in one area will be different than another because you can't shop across state lines or nationwide, and so people will accept and compare the options they have locally. Say $1 bottle of water is acceptable in one area and $5 is acceptable in another. Companies will compete with whoever is in a state/region's market and are free to have different pricing/fee schemes between the different regions. So while these things are situational, other companies are going to emulate profitable practices by other companies as long as there is either no competition or regulation from governmental authorities.

Frontier is charging customers of it's broadband service for usage of customer-owned equipment. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/07/frontier-customer-bought-his-own-router-but-has-to-pay-10-rental-fee-anyway/ "The company confirmed that it refuses to stop charging the Wi-Fi router rental fee even when customers use their own router and claimed it does so in order to cover higher support costs for customers..." When I first started getting internet service on my own during college, one of the first things I did was buy my own modem/router so I could avoid the monthly rental fee for ISP-owned equipment. I even purchased one for my parents because, in the long run, it was MUCH cheaper to own than to rent. I think in most cases for everything, owning is cheaper than renting, at least in the long run. And my parents and I have never had any problems using equipment that we owned, as long as the equipment was compatible with the service we were using. While I somewhat understand Frontier's justification for charging the monthly fee as servicing equipment that is not "specifically designed to work with our service," I think it opens the door for other companies to do the same while not running afoul of the FCC. I don't believe I should pay fees for using my own property in this context. The current FCC does not seem like it would push back against companies in favor of consumers. I know there are similar situations that are readily accepted in today's society. Such as, corkage fees in establishments that serve alcohol or maintenance/registration costs for other things we own. But this fee from Frontier seems egregious because a lot of modem/routers currently sold are advertised as compatible with various ISPs. I can't imagine that "higher support costs" for customers that don't use ISP-provided equipment actually exists or has an actual bottom line effect. Will fees like this become the new normal? Edit: In a lot of areas, such as in my college days, the variety and competition of ISPs are very limited...so what kind of options would people actually have to avoid fees and, as people say, "vote with their wallet"