FCC rejects "it's too hard" excuses from ISPs, moves forward with Broadband Nutrition...

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 4,181   +1,427
Staff member
In context: Transparency has been a recent ongoing theme for a lot of tech-related companies. Apple got the ball rolling by requiring developers to include "Nutrition Labels" in their app descriptions. Regulators worldwide have called for more consumer transparency, with various companies fighting for or against open practices.

Most recently, the FCC adopted a transparency rule requiring internet service providers to create information labels so customers can make informed purchasing decisions. The tags must list data caps, performance, and a detailed breakdown of the subscribing price, including all associated fees.

Of course, it was no surprise when Comcast filed a complaint against the rule, arguing that implementing the proposed labels would "impose significant administrative burdens" on the company and add "unnecessary complexity" to its operations. It claimed that to comply with the FCC's rule, it would have to create 251 labels to provide all the required information.

Comcast was not the only provider complaining about the new regs. Five lobbying bodies, including America's Communications Association, CTIA, The Internet & Television Association, The Rural Broadband Association, and The Broadband Association, jointly petitioned the FCC to discard the rule in favor of an older, simpler label proposed in 2016.

On Tuesday, the FCC told them all, "No." It will proceed with implementing the rules whether ISPs like it or not. Commissioners reasoned that consumers should know the final price and all other incidental expenditures before deciding which plan and provider is best for them.

"Every consumer needs transparent information when making decisions about what internet service offering makes the most sense for their family or household," said FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel. "No one wants to be hit with charges they didn't ask for or they did not expect. That's why Broadband Consumer Labels are so important."

The complaints from ISPs and their lobbying groups are clearly hogwash, but even if they weren't, they illustrate how frustratingly complicated it can be for a consumer to go through a bill to figure out why it is so much more than the quoted price. Isn't it ironic that your ISP is arguing that it is too hard to list 251 bits of information upfront but has no problem listing them on your bill? It's like going to a restaurant and ordering a $10 cheeseburger, only to get the bill showing it was $20 because of water, napkin, silverware, seating, greeting, order processing, bathroom use, climate control, entertainment tax, and numerous other undisclosed fees.

So good on the FCC for standing its ground. However, hold your expectations in check. Far too often, we have seen the Commission enact rules with no teeth. Let's see how this one goes before applauding the FCC too much. Also, let us not forget that a lot of those fees spring from government bureaucracy.

Permalink to story.

 
It's not too hard to know enough about them send them over to the billing department and charge us for them....

What this says to me is that the ISPs don't even know what they're charging us for. They're just making numbers up and billing us for them.
 
It's not too hard to know enough about them send them over to the billing department and charge us for them....

What this says to me is that the ISPs don't even know what they're charging us for. They're just making numbers up and billing us for them.
I've gone rounds with customer service regarding these fees. If they tell you they can't tell you they are lying. I got that from my previous ISP. I asked them repeatedly before subscribing I want to know what my total monthly bill is. At first they tried telling me it was the price they quoted me. I said, "So you mean to tell me that $XXX is my total bill including fees and taxes."

"Ummm well no. We can't tell you that until the bill is calculated." Well get out your calculator then. "Ummm, er..."

My current provider was much better. When I talked with the rep about getting set up I was a bit more relaxed about it because I knew I'd just get the same run around, so I asked, "Can you give me a rough ballpark of what my monthly bill will be with the taxes and fees included?"

He said, "Heh. I can tell you exactly what it will be." and he gave me the total monthly out-of-pocket. I was surprised to say the least.
 
"Isn't it ironic that your ISP is arguing that it is too hard to list 251 bits of information upfront but has no problem listing them on your bill? It's like going to a restaurant and ordering a $10 cheeseburger, only to get the bill showing it was $20 because of water, napkin, silverware, seating, greeting, order processing, bathroom use, climate control, entertainment tax, and numerous other undisclosed fees."

Yes, like DK Oyster. FTW!
 
ISPs are simply fearful of FCC regulations over them and will come up with any kind of excuses. Right now if I am correct, ISPs can raise rates and fees as they please because they are not considered a PUC which they have eluded for years and should be. Just as food companies are required to list ingredients, ISPs should be required to explain those extra fees and taxes. Thumbs up for the FCC.
 
Last edited:
It's like how police won't say what you're charged with BEFORE they cuff you so you don't try to run if the charge has a lot of years attached to it.

It's 2023 and ISP's should be doing this by now without a fight. I mean, assuming the crackdowns were serious to begin with that is.
 
ISPs are simply fearful of FCC regulations over them and will come up any kind of excuses. Right now if I am correct, ISPs can raise rates and fees as they please because they are not considered a PUC which they have eluded for years and should be. Just as food companies are required to list ingredients, ISPs should be required to explain those extra fees and taxes. Thumbs up for the FCC.
Yes Spectrum just raised their rates here another $5 last month!ARRRG!
 
Back