US regulators will block ISPs from charging unfair router rental fees

[Polycount]

In context: Few American citizens can genuinely say they love their ISP, and they are plenty of reasons for that -- cumbersome contracts, slow or unreliable internet speeds, and hidden fees, to name a few. While most of those annoyances probably won't be going anywhere soon, US regulators are at least addressing one ongoing problem: unfair equipment rental fees.

More specifically, monthly rental fees for routers, which some ISPs never provide in the first place. Further, those ISPs will charge you this fee even if you're using a router of your own that's fully supported by the company.

US regulators are tackling this issue by banning the fees entirely in either of the situations mentioned above. If your ISP never provided you with a router, or you returned the router they did give you, added rental fees will be illegal. If you have a router of your own and don't need or want a device from your ISP, they can't charge you.

This is a subtle but significant win for consumers. As Ars Technica has reported, ISP Frontier Communications has been known to charge its customers a $10/month "lease fee" for the privilege of using an often non-existent router.

When pressed on the matter by Ars, Frontier said it charges this fee because third-party routers lead to "more difficulty" with troubleshooting, and other customer-service related issues. Of course, as the outlet notes, Frontier won't provide support for third-party routers in the first place, so those who use such devices are left in a bit of an impossible situation.

At any rate, Frontier's transgressions have been well-documented by now, and they're not the focus of today's article. The bill that will block unfair router fees in the future can be read in its entirety right here. Since it's quite long, we've quoted one of the most relevant portions below:

A provider of a covered service or fixed broadband internet access service may not charge a consumer for—

"(1) using covered equipment provided by the consumer; or

"(2) renting, leasing, or otherwise providing to the consumer covered equipment if—

"(A) the provider has not provided the equipment to the consumer; or

"(B) the consumer has returned the equipment to the provider, except to the extent that the charge relates to the period beginning on the date when the provider provided the equipment to the consumer and ending on the date when the consumer returned the equipment to the provider.

This new set of consumer protections is expected to take effect about six months from now. However, the law gives the Federal Communications Commission the power to push the effective date back by another six months if there's "good cause" for doing so. We're not entirely sure what such a cause would look like, but ISPs will probably come up with something.

Image credit: Shutterstock (2)

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/83449-us-regulators-block-isps-charging-unfair-router-rental.html

 

[Uncle Al]

But how will they combat companies like Spectrum that build it into their regular price so you pay it, no matter what? I'd like to see a law that requires full disclosure of the companies costs and pass along charges so we know what else they are over charging for. After all, the primary reason for cost increases was infrastructure, which has remained unchanged for years and while 5G is coming, we should see those costs too so we know once again we aren't being gouged ....

 

[Cycloid Torus]

But how will they combat companies like Spectrum that build it into their regular price so you pay it, no matter what? I'd like to see a law that requires full disclosure of the companies costs and pass along charges so we know what else they are over charging for. After all, the primary reason for cost increases was infrastructure, which has remained unchanged for years and while 5G is coming, we should see those costs too so we know once again we aren't being gouged ....

Uncle Al, you have got my vote.

 

[AIC1Drew]

Just do a little bit of research and buy your own. No need to rent

 

[AIC1Drew]

But how will they combat companies like Spectrum that build it into their regular price so you pay it, no matter what? I'd like to see a law that requires full disclosure of the companies costs and pass along charges so we know what else they are over charging for. After all, the primary reason for cost increases was infrastructure, which has remained unchanged for years and while 5G is coming, we should see those costs too so we know once again we aren't being gouged ....

Unfortunately, it'll come down to the consumer in deciding where to trim the fat next.

 

[gusticles41]

If your ISP never provided you with a router, or you returned the router they did give you, added rental fees will be illegal.

How is this not already? Isn't there anything protecting consumers from being charged for items/services that aren't actually being provided?

 

[Cal Jeffrey]

I'm still strapped from a move halfway across the country, but I'm definitely in the market for a router. I could stomach Comcast's $13 modem fee, but my new provider (Grande - ugh) charges $25 per month. I will probably change providers while I'm at it due to sticker shock. Rep told me when I signed up that my monthly bill would be around $100 failing to mention the $65 in hidden fees. Yes. $65. Sixty-five dollars. 65!

 

[VitalyT]

Didn't know such problem existed. In Europe, ISP-s typically provide you with a modem+router (2 in 1) unit tethered to them, and they do not charge anything, the cost is amortized from the contract you sign with them.

My Internet (business package) in Ireland costs me 100 euro a month, which includes 500Mb Internet (unlimited), plus one digital phone line (with many free calls).

 

[GreenNova343]

Maybe it's because I bought it when they were still called TimeWarner, but my monthly Spectrum bill is usually itemized, which is how I calculated a few years back that buying my own modem would pay for itself after 7 months (I think their charge was maybe $7 a month). And again, I don't know about Spectrum currently, but TimeWarner actually kept on their site a list of compatible modems -- usually including the model that they "rented" out to their customers -- as well as instructions on how to "activate" your 3rd-party modem for it to be recognized by their network (as well as a help line for any issues that was -- shockingly -- very helpful). The only issue I had was in dropping off their modem, as it meant driving out of my way after work & waiting in line (most of the other people were either dropping off their STBs/Set Top Boxes or were having billing/account issues with their TV service).

I wonder, though, if they'd already gotten wind of this thing, because anymore I've noticed that the ISPs available locally are promoting this "whole house Wi-Fi" with their services. But you know all that means is that they're providing you with a 2-in-1 modem/router combination...& I would also bet that since it's not strictly a modem, they'll still be able to charge you a monthly equipment rental fee.

Personally, I've never had a problem with an ISP charging a "rental" fee for the modems, for a number of reasons:

1. They're providing the modem. Unlike a modem you buy for yourself from the store, or especially any router that you buy for your own use, you have to return "their" modem if you cancel the service. Aside from the difference in monetary scale, that's identical to leasing a car: you pay the monthly fee for the privilege of using someone else's equipment, but when the lease is up/service is cancelled you have to return it to them.

2. It's no different than renting a STB for your cable/satellite TV service. Sure, there have been TVs for a long time that were able to connect directly to the line & get "basic" cable channels -- although IIRC a few years back the big push for "digital" that happened in cable did away with a lot of that -- but if you wanted the "full" cable/satellite TV experience (onscreen guide, VOD library access, watching PPV events without having to call someone to order it first), you either needed a STB from the provider, or you needed a CableCARD from the company to plug into your 3rd-party STB or TiVO/DVR box (or even directly into your TV). Again, though, as with #1, you didn't buy the STB or CableCARD, you're renting it... & if you cancelled the service you have to return said equipment.

Personally, I don't see the point in this bill. Granted, $25/month is an awfully steep price, but the whole point is that you (the consumer) does not own the equipment. So unless you're building this stuff from scratch in your basement, you either a) have to buy your own equipment, or b) you pay a rental/leasing fee for as long as you use the equipment.

If the ISPs can't charge you an "equipment rental fee", what they'll do is just add a "network equipment maintenance fee" onto your monthly bill that covers the difference...& they'll then go back & charge it to everyone (including those of us that already own our own modems & routers). So thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Evernessince]

But how will they combat companies like Spectrum that build it into their regular price so you pay it, no matter what? I'd like to see a law that requires full disclosure of the companies costs and pass along charges so we know what else they are over charging for. After all, the primary reason for cost increases was infrastructure, which has remained unchanged for years and while 5G is coming, we should see those costs too so we know once again we aren't being gouged ....

Well when the ISPs were classified as title 2 (Net Neutrality cough) they were legally required to list all charges, fees, ect clearly on their bill. Big surprise, that's gone and as predicted, the hijinks restarted.

 

[wiyosaya]

Well when the ISPs were classified as title 2 (Net Neutrality cough) they were legally required to list all charges, fees, ect clearly on their bill. Big surprise, that's gone and as predicted, the hijinks restarted.

That's what I was just thinking. If this rule is coming through the FCC, given its now Pai's FCC, how could the FCC regulate this since Pai bailed on any FCC control?

 

[PEnnn]

Didn't know such problem existed. In Europe, ISP-s typically provide you with a tethered modem+router (2 in 1) unit, and they do not charge anything, the cost is amortised from an annual contract you sign with them.

Yes, that's Europe where consumers have protection. Unlike the "fine-print" economy we have here in the US where screwing the consumer is a normal business practice.

 

[Danny101]

What grinds my gears are cell companies who prevent me from using my phone as a hotspot unless I pay a fee. I paid for a certain amount of data every month. I should be able to use it however I please. Whether I use it on my phone, a computer (via a hotspot), or a TV (via hotspot) shouldn't make a damn bit of difference. It's still the same data. A class-action lawsuit should be filed against all providers who charge this unfair fee.

 

[Ean Mogg]

Didn't know such problem existed. In Europe, ISP-s typically provide you with a modem+router (2 in 1) unit tethered to them, and they do not charge anything, the cost is amortized from the contract you sign with them.

My Internet (business package) in Ireland costs me 100 euro a month, which includes 500Mb Internet (unlimited), plus one digital phone line (with many free calls).

Same as the UK free modem/router and Freeview dvr, but services you pay like Ultra Fibre and cable channels and it makes non smart TVs in to Smart TVs with free extras like YouTube plus many more I can't remember lol and I pay for Ultra Fibre plus extra channels like SyFy, Nat Geo, Universal, E! and History oh and free UK calls Telephone all for £52 and sometimes cheaper when my ISP does offers on Film channels and Sport channels ...now I'm on the cheapest ISP so expected the Indian Call centers who have stopped pretending to Western names ... but the one thing I like is one month contract on extras like Film Channels and the like, so I'm having Sky Cinema for a month or two over Christmas ...

 

[gamerk2]

How is this not already? Isn't there anything protecting consumers from being charged for items/services that aren't actually being provided?

What, you mean like some government agency that looks out for the consumer? Why would we need something like that?

 

[OptimumSlinky]

How is this not already? Isn't there anything protecting consumers from being charged for items/services that aren't actually being provided?

Conservatives frequently like to gut and hamstring any government agency tasked with consumer protection in the name of "unshackling free market innovation."