Archived version: https://archive.ph/JsTV6

The US broadband industry is united in opposition to a requirement that Internet service providers list all of their monthly fees. Five lobby groups representing cable companies, fiber and DSL providers, and mobile operators have repeatedly urged the Federal Communications Commission to eliminate the requirement before new broadband labeling rules take effect.

The trade associations petitioned the FCC in January to change the rules and renewed their call last week in a filing and in a meeting with FCC officials. The requirement that ISPs list all their monthly fees “would add unnecessary complexity and burdens to the label for consumers and providers and could result in some providers having to create many labels for any given plan,” the groups said in the filing on Friday.

The trade groups said the FCC should instead “require providers to include an explanatory statement that such fees may apply and that they vary by jurisdiction, similar to the Commission’s treatment of government-imposed taxes,” or require “the display of the maximum level of government-imposed fees that might be passed through, so that consumers would not experience bill shock with respect to such fees.”

The filing was submitted by NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, which represents Comcast, Charter, Cox, and other cable companies. The NCTA’s ex parte filing described a meeting with FCC officials that also included wireless industry trade group CTIA and USTelecom, which represents telcos including AT&T, Verizon, Lumen (formerly CenturyLink), Frontier, and Windstream.

The meeting was attended by two other groups representing smaller ISPs: NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association and ACA Connects-America’s Communications Association. The trade groups met on Wednesday with the legal advisors to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and Commissioner Brendan Carr, according to the filing.

Comcast accused of “trying to create loopholes”

Comcast submitted its own filing urging the FCC to scrap the rules in June. The calls to weaken the FCC’s truth-in-billing rules angered consumer advocates, as we wrote at the time. “The label hasn’t even reached consumers yet, but Comcast is already trying to create loopholes. This request would allow the big ISPs to continue hiding the true cost of service and frustrating customers with poor service,” Joshua Stager, policy director at media advocacy group Free Press, told Ars.

Congress required the FCC to implement broadband labels with exact prices for Internet service plans in a 2021 law, but gave the FCC some leeway in how to structure the rules. The FCC adopted specific label rules in November 2022.

The labels must be displayed to consumers at the point of sale and include monthly price, additional charges, speeds, data caps, additional charges for data, and other information. The FCC rules aren’t in force yet because they are subject to a federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under the US Paperwork Reduction Act.

ISPs object to a portion of the FCC order that says, “providers must list all recurring monthly fees” including “all charges that providers impose at their discretion, i.e., charges not mandated by a government.” The five trade groups complain that this would require ISPs “to display the pass-through of fees imposed by federal, state, or local government agencies on the consumer broadband label.”

But just because an ISP says a fee is related to a government charge doesn’t mean that ISPs have to break them out separately. ISPs could instead include all costs in their advertised rates to give potential customers a clearer idea of how much they would have to pay each month.

“A provider that opts to combine all of its monthly discretionary fees with its base monthly price may do so and list that total price. In that case, the provider need not separately itemize those fees in the label,” the FCC order said.

Non-mandatory fees

Discretionary charges “include those the provider collects to recoup from consumers its costs associated with government programs but where the government has not mandated such collection, e.g., USF [Universal Service Fund] contributions,” according to the FCC. Comcast said the non-mandatory fees also include pass-through of state and local government fees.

The FCC order said the requirement to list “all charges that providers impose at their discretion” is meant to help broadband users “understand which charges are part of the provider’s rate structure, and which derive from government assessments or programs.” These fees must have “simple, accurate, [and] easy-to-understand name[s],” the FCC order said.

“Further, the requirement will allow consumers to more meaningfully compare providers’ rates and service packages, and to make more informed decisions when purchasing broadband services. Providers must list fees such as monthly charges associated with regulatory programs and fees for the rental or leasing of modem and other network connection equipment,” the FCC said.

Harold Feld, senior VP of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge, told Ars in June that the FCC “should reject the request to create loopholes which would obscure what fees providers decide to pass on versus those that are mandated by state law. It is an effort to pass blame to the state which properly belongs to the ISP.”

Debate over record-keeping rule

ISPs also object to a record-keeping requirement designed to ensure that ISPs follow the rules when they provide labels through “alternate sales channels” such as retail stores or customer service phone calls. ISPs can meet the label requirement in alternate sales channels either by providing a hard copy of the label or by “directing the consumer to the specific web page on which the label appears.”

ISPs that don’t provide hard copies of the label to prospective customers in those sales channels must document each instance in which they direct a consumer to a label.

“Requiring that providers collect identifying information and document every customer interaction would be highly disruptive to consumers seeking information through alternative sales channels and would impose significant burdens on providers of all sizes,” the trade groups told the FCC. The trade groups want the FCC to “clarify that a provider satisfies these rules by developing appropriate business practices to promote distribution of the label through alternative sales channels and retaining documentation of these practices for two years.”

Latino advocacy group ALLvanza also objected to the data-collection rule on privacy grounds, saying, “Many Latinos are already hesitant and/or unwilling to provide identifying information to companies or the government due to privacy concerns, fear of discrimination, potential immigration status issues, mistrust of institutions, and cultural preferences for privacy.”

ISPs could avoid the requirement to collect identifying information from consumers in retail stores by providing hard copies of the label. The FCC defended the compliance plan in a submission to the OMB last month as part of the Paperwork Reduction Act review, saying it needs detailed information to ensure ISPs follow the rules.

When ISPs choose not to provide hard copies of the labels in alternate sales channels, the FCC said it needs details on each customer interaction to “allow the Commission to investigate and enforce providers’ obligation to make the label available to consumers at each point of sale.”

The FCC also defended itself against industry accusations that the rule is too vague. “The Commission stated in the Broadband Label Order that ‘[p]roviders must document each instance when it directs a consumer to a label at an alternate sales channel and retain such documentation for two years.’ We believe it is unambiguous that this would include the identity of each consumer,” the FCC said.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    5110 months ago

    My local ISP lists one fee: the cost of service. I pay it. When I had Comcast at another residence I had all sorts of charges beyond the price of service. I don’t get why they can’t just be honest about the price to begin with.

    • Maeve
      link
      fedilink
      1310 months ago

      How could they sucker us into two year contracts, otherwise?

    • Dandroid
      link
      fedilink
      610 months ago

      I just don’t get it. I have AT&T internet. I have a monthly service cost of $80, and I pay $80 (plus tax or whatever. It’s some negligible amount, but always the exact same amount) every single month without fail. I have never once paid significantly more than my monthly rate since switching to AT&T 3 years ago.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      310 months ago

      Exactly. Mine goes a step further and includes relevant taxes in the price.

      So my ISP advertises $54.95 for my tier of service, so my card gets charged $54.95 each month. Every time I’ve checked my connection speed, it’s exactly as advertised: 50/10. So I pay exactly what they advertise and they provide exactly what they promise.

      I could probably save a bit and get faster service if I went with cable or something, but I’d have to deal with BS fees, poor customer service, and I’d need to call every year to keep the promo rate. My ISP delivers as advertised, so I stick with them.

      Why can’t other ISPs do the same?

      We’re getting municipal fiber soon, so I’ll probably end up leaving this ISP (I hope they offer service on the new network), but it’s been great the last few years.

  • Fuck Yankies
    link
    fedilink
    4610 months ago

    Is it because some of those fees are bullshit fees that target tech-ilitirate people?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3910 months ago

    So it’s too much work to list the fees they’re already changing people? Makes perfect sense, just like how grocery stores don’t show the price of each item until you’re already checking out.

  • Madison_rogue
    link
    fedilink
    2810 months ago

    It’s not too hard; they just don’t want you to know how they’re nickel and diming you.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1710 months ago

    Awww they’re just too shy to list the “we need bottomless profits for our investors” fee.

  • theodewere
    link
    fedilink
    1710 months ago

    lol “there are so many fees it’s hard to list them”

    what a truckload of buckets full of assholes… i want ALL internet either nationalized or community co-op, and all these assholes FIRED…

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1310 months ago

    If they can have someone program a fee in their accounting systems, that means they know exactly what that the fee is and under what conditions it’s applicable. It’s trivial from there to sort, filter, and list them.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      7
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Exactly. They just need to put their standard price per teir on the main website page and add a field for us to put in our address that shows all applicable fees for our area. They can use a mirror of their billing database to eliminate the hard part. The rest is easy.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1210 months ago

    While I welcome this change by the FCC, it’s not like I can do much with that additional information. Where I live I can choose from exactly one broadband provider, whether they accurately list out all fees or not. Showing accurate pricing is a start, but I’d appreciate some regional competition that could help keep prices down.

    • Maestro
      link
      fedilink
      910 months ago

      The rule is so that you can see what part of the fee is mandated by the government and what part is charged by the ISP. The ISPs are trying to blame price increases on the government. This will show they are lying.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1010 months ago

    Lol, screw them.

    My ISP sends me every fee they charge, which is $0. What’s listed on their website is precisely what I pay every month.

    My phone service also lists every fee I pay, which is a handful of federal, state, and county taxes (seven separate fees), along with normal service charges. All combined, those fees are <$1, but they are still itemized. My utilities also itemize every part of my bill.

    So ISPs have two options:

    • be like my ISP and don’t charge fees
    • be like my phone carrier and utilities and list every fee

    I prefer the first, but both are acceptable.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    What rubbish. If it was government-mandated fees, ISPs would print them on the bill in big bold letters, right next to the relevant Congressmember’s phone number. These fees are pure profit for the ISP. Deceptive advertising, nothing more.

    These companies need to be Ma Bell’d. Immediately.

  • heluecht
    link
    fedilink
    810 months ago

    @soyagi For me it is simple: When they are able to calculate the invoice for the customer, then they are surely able to show the said customer the real costs in advance.

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    510 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Five lobby groups representing cable companies, fiber and DSL providers, and mobile operators have repeatedly urged the Federal Communications Commission to eliminate the requirement before new broadband labeling rules take effect.

    The filing was submitted by NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, which represents Comcast, Charter, Cox, and other cable companies.

    The trade groups met on Wednesday with the legal advisors to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and Commissioner Brendan Carr, according to the filing.

    The FCC rules aren’t in force yet because they are subject to a federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under the US Paperwork Reduction Act.

    The five trade groups complain that this would require ISPs “to display the pass-through of fees imposed by federal, state, or local government agencies on the consumer broadband label.”

    ISPs could instead include all costs in their advertised rates to give potential customers a clearer idea of how much they would have to pay each month.


    I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    210 months ago

    Aww I feel so much for these uber-rich companies and their plights of having to actually do something that would be considered consumer-friendly. Poor babies.