ISPs Created So Many Fees That FCC Will Kill Requirement To List Them All (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0179729286
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/10/09/1525208/isps-created-so-many-fees-that-fcc-will-kill-requirement-to-list-them-all
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/10/isps-created-so-many-fees-that-fcc-will-kill-requirement-to-list-them-all/
> Responding to a request from cable and telecom lobby groups, he is proposing to eliminate a rule that requires ISPs to itemize various fees in broadband price labels that must be made available to consumers.
>
> The rule took effect in April 2024 after the FCC rejected ISPs' complaints that listing every fee they created would be too difficult. The rule applies specifically to recurring monthly fees "that providers impose at their discretion, i.e., charges not mandated by a government."
>
> ISPs could comply with the rule either by listing the fees or by dropping the fees altogether and, if they choose, raising their overall prices by a corresponding amount. But the latter option wouldn't fit with the strategy of enticing customers with a low advertised price and hitting them with the real price on their monthly bills. The broadband price label rules were created to stop ISPs from advertising misleadingly low prices.
>
> This week, Carr scheduled an October 28 vote on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes eliminating several of the broadband-label requirements. One of the rules in line for removal requires ISPs to "itemize state and local passthrough fees that vary by location." The FCC would seek public comment on the plan before finalizing it.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/10/isps-created-so-many-fees-that-fcc-will-kill-requirement-to-list-them-all/
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like this decision, but knowing about it in advance would not have changed my vote.
Re: (Score:1)
> So you enjoy getting fucked on a regular basis?
I wish I were. I would definitely enjoy it.
Re: (Score:1)
Is that a justification? Or are you just explaining that MAGA doesn't care about consequences, only about winning?
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'm saying this is a decision that annoys me and I wish went the other way, but overall, it would not have impacted my vote had I known about it in advance. This thing I don't like is worth all the things that I do like. If someone wants to mock me because someone I voted for did a thing I disagree with, that's on their conscience.
Nothing is perfect. Nobody ever gets everything they want. No two people agree 100% of the time. That's life.
If you wanted Harris to win, I guarantee you she would h
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very roundabout way of saying "The ends justify the means."
Re: (Score:2)
>> I don't like this decision, but knowing about it in advance would not have changed my vote.
> Nor mine.
> Each thing getting chipped away in small amounts, but cumulatively the worst thing that's ever happened to the country.
Honestly, this doesn't matter even slightly to me. As long as it is *only* government fees that we're talking about, there is no real difference between showing $x in government fees and showing a list of smaller fees. The important part is requiring that they disclose the final total, including the fees.
The only people who care about which specific government fees are involved are the Republicans looking for ways to reduce taxes. So arguably, from the left's perspective, this is is an improvement, becau
Re: (Score:2)
Neither would have any of the other anti-consumer policy changes that are liable to financially molest you.
Idiocracy was a documentary. (Score:3)
Terminator may come true next.
Partial Fee Payment? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they can't list to me what the fee is, how are they able to collect on it?
So if I pay for the actual service provided, then include $.01 extra toward the fees, how do they know which fee I did not complete payment for? In theory, if I ask them to provide which fees I didn't fulfill payment for, they would be unable to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not exactly how billing works. Regardless of how they get there, you owe $63.01 and you paid $60. You have a balance of $3.01. They don't really care what wasn't paid in particular. It's a balance due.
Re: (Score:2)
If I am paying a fee for some purpose, how would I be able to check if I am getting what I paid for if I don't even know how much I am paying for each purpose?
Re: (Score:2)
> If they can't list to me what the fee is, how are they able to collect on it?
They can list to you what the fees are. They can't necessarily list to [arbitrary person known by only a zip code] what the fees are, and doubly so to [arbitrary person known only by a 30-mile radius].
Of course, if they were being honest, they could say for $39.99 + $10.99 or less in taxes and surcharges and give a maximum price. Nobody is going to complain if the price turns out to be cheaper.
Great, I Hate Knowing What I'm Paying For! (Score:4, Funny)
Now all I have to do is provide my bank account details and let them deduct whatever they want - they seem like a competent and trustworthy bunch!
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like what the food industry has become.
Switch to 5G internet if you can (Score:4, Informative)
Price competition is the only way to rein in these blood suckers
Which fees? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The rule applies specifically to recurring monthly fees "that providers impose at their discretion, i.e., charges not mandated by a government."
In other words, whenver the company feels like it needs more ROI, and adds made-up fees.
LONG past time to reregulate the industry. Heavily.
Re: (Score:2)
If we had real consumer protection, any fee that is mandatory and doesn't vary based on regional/state/federal law is disallowed. It's just the base price. If their billing practices were under the FTC's purview, I don't think it would have ever gotten this bad. Nobody else is allowed to do this.
Not cause and effect (Score:5, Insightful)
The headline reads:
> ISPs Created So Many Fees That FCC Will Kill Requirement To List Them All
This implies that the number of fees is a reason for the proposed requirements change. The number has nothing to do with the proposal, rather, the attitude of the new leadership of the FCC, is entirely responsible for the change. The new FCC wants to cater to (right-leaning) businesses, even if it screws the people. It's as simple as that.
Re: (Score:3)
"The new FCC wants to cater to (right-leaning) businesses..."
So just businesses then. And I don't agree, the "new FCC" wants to cater to one side of identity politics so they make decisions explicitly to screw customers.
Re: (Score:2)
> So just businesses then
How about Larry Ellison (Oracle) and Elon Musk (Tesla) or Rupert Murdoch (NewsCorp / Fox). Those are not small businesses, but they are right-leaning.
Broadband labels already suck (Score:2)
The way the labels are structured is already misleading. Top line price can either be an introductory rate or normal rate and you have to do added gymnastics to consider the added charges, discounts..etc on top of that. They are also too rigid leaving ISPs to dump important details in external URLs.
If you allow ISPs to itemize arbitrary costs of doing business and leave them out of the charges and terms section of labels they become less than worthless. No information at all is better than an overt lie.
Excuses (Score:5)
The FCC is just catering to the lobby, showing all of the fees is a simple task that they already do because how the hell else would they charge you for them if they didn't already keep a track of it?
Re: (Score:3)
We can totally agree that those fees are BS. The costs of doing business are supposed to be folded into the sticker price, not added at check-out. I would be completely fine with them putting a note on every bill saying that it would be $5 less (made up number) were it not for some regulatory requirement, but it shouldn't be a separate surprise line item.
But don't think Americans are "tricked" into distrusting the government. That's a strong thread going all the way back to the mid 18th century. The i
Easy way or the hard way (Score:2, Insightful)
The FCC chairman could tell the lobbyist to take a hike. Tell them that "we can do it the easy way or the hard way".
But that sort of thing cuts down bribes.. sorry, donations to him and his team.
The tough guy act is reserved only for silencing the critics of the Humpty Dumpty president.
Re: (Score:2)
Republican FCC gonna Republican FCC
Just charge rge advertisted price? (Score:4)
If they just charged the advertised price, then we wouldn't need to this sort of regulation.For this reason, the problem isn't all the fees, but the fact that they are allowed to add on fees, outside of the advertised price. In addition to this, any price increase should be communicated in advance and before the minimum cancellation window.
Re: (Score:2)
I can agree with that.
What is this crap? (Score:3)
Sounds like the US ISP market is completely broken. You know what fees I pay here (Europe)? Two. One is for the fibber and the speed, the second on is for a static IP, which I find beneficial for some things. No other fees whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Tmobile had, for a long time, a flat fee that included all taxes. No fees at all. These can be easily done, but they make it harder to screw customers. That is all this is about, the US has a fascist party in power now, this is what fascists do. Everything is to benefit corporations and the state.
Re: (Score:2)
They still do! At least for me anyway. I can't speak as to what anyone else is paying.
Re: (Score:2)
Not broken, but maybe sprained. Unless your ISP is a government, you are also paying similar fees, they're just folded into the sticker price. Which is how businesses traditionally handle the costs of doing business. We just have some weird (dumb) rules when it comes to telecoms that let them pull this nonsense. Fixing it requires Congress to change the law, but they'd rather let regulators make things up as they go. It's not an ideal delegation of power, but it stems from the fact that legislators ten
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on who you go to I guess. I use T-Mobile for home internet service.
My ISP advertised $50/month, no bullshit. So I signed up.
I pay $50/month, no bullshit.
My current bill looks like this:
Regular Charges, Sept 19-Oct 20: $50.00
Total Due: $50.00
I mean....it doesn't get much more simple than that.
For phone service, I use US Mobile. Their bill is almost as simple. It looks like this:
Unlimited Minutes and Text: $8.00
Service Fee: $2.00
Recovery Fee: $2.48
Total Due: $12.48
Yeah, those $4.48 in fees is annoying
Imagine our shock (Score:2)
Brendan Carr has the balls of the oligarchy resting on his chin, so this latest betrayal of Americans is not at all surprising. It's just business as usual.
Usual, that is, for a newly-minted Fascist regime. Give it a few years, and the mere notion that consumers might have any say in how they're treated, or any recourse against injustice, will be a quaint and distant memory.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers haven't had a say in a long time. It's been so long since companies had functional support many adults do not even realize it. Call screening became pervasive decades ago. There is never recourse for the small guy, only now lying about prices is fair game too.
work is too difficult (Score:2)
"listing every fee they created would be too difficult."
Difficult how? Making lists is not difficult.
If they were honest all the fees would be listed as:
$3.99 - fee type: money grab
$0.95 - fee type: money grab
$0.10 - fee type: lets make billions of dollars
$10.99 - fee type: executive yachts fund contribution
$1.00 - fee type: executive yachts fund contribution fee
Bullshitting customers is easy: get ChatGPT to make up the fees. How hard is that?
But it's easier to get Brendan Carr to get rid of any regulation
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather it be illegal to list any fees. Just advertise a single price and that is what you pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Reticulating splines...
De-MOCK-racy (Score:2)
Percent of consumers for this: 5%
Percent of plutocrats for this: 99%
Re:77 million americans voted for this (Score:5, Informative)
Because they were tricked into believing Kamala would cut their children's genitals off and/or eat their pets.
American's are fucking dumb. Religion tells them to use their gut and "faith" instead of actually checking shit!
Re: (Score:1)
Correction: "Americans", no apostrophe.
Americans cant punctuate.
Re: (Score:2)
> 77 million americans voted for this so they're getting what they want, let them have it.
As much as I don't give a fuck if those voting for trump get screwed as a result, the remaining 263 million Americans are NOT getting what they want. Can we not consider them?
Brendan Carr (Score:2)
Big round of applause for Trump lackey, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Carr
Misleading Title After Reading Further (Score:2)
The article linked specifically says this only applies to fees that they do not set rates or terms of. Therefore it is not because the ISP added fees that that this is happening.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not what the article actually says. Direct cut-and-paste:
"We propose to eliminate the requirement that providers itemize discretionary, recurring monthly fees that represent costs they choose to pass through to consumers and which vary by consumer location," Carr's draft proposal said. "Examples include state and local right of way fees, pole rental fees to utility companies, and other discretionary charges where the provider does not set rates or terms directly."
"discretionary charges where the prov
monopolies can already charge whatever they want (Score:2)
Yes, the practice of advertising a base price that is impossible to obtain because of "mandatory" fees is ridiculous, and exactly why the FCC made this rule in the first place. And ISPs should not be singled out here; any business that charges an amount different than advertised other than by sales tax should be slapped with a heavy false advertising fine. Caving to oligarchies and lobbies to repeal this rule should inflame everyone, but then again it's just par for the course.
But all that said, in huge
Re: (Score:2)
Your analysis is correct, but I must disagree with your conclusion. Just because there is only one ISP available in certain areas, and therefore, customers have no choice but pay what that one ISP charges, is not an argument for "who cares what they advertise?" Just because they are a de facto monopoly in such a region is even more reason NOT to institutionalize (through the rules) their ability to obfuscate and hide how much they're screwing people.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you are right of course, my conclusion was flippant. What I really meant was that they should first prioritize efforts to break those monopolies, especially when they are "official" due to agreements between the ISP and local municipalities.
Then don't list any fees, we don't care. (Score:3)
We want the actual price to be what is advertised. Force them to only advertise one final price and actually require that no additional fees are allowed to be listed or charged over that one advertised price. Simple, and this is what the providers want since they apparently 'can't figure out how list all the fees'.
Billing (Score:2)
Their Billing system surely has no problem with "all these fees". WTF.
Re: (Score:2)
Their accountants would flip their lids if they couldn't track where the income came from, or to which internal account it was allocated. So this whole crybaby spiel is bullshit. They just want more revenue and the ability to hide how they got it.
Australia (Score:2)
In Australia, the retail price you see is the price you pay.
The USA has become a distopian corpratoctracy where the government (on both sides) serves oligopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, this makes the US of A look stupid as hell. The ISPs want to fuck you plain and simple. Luckily there is a fiber ISP that arrived in my home town about two years ago. The price advertised is the price paid, and as a bonus, it's half of what the cable monopoly wants. Our government is full of ass clowns on both sides of the aisle. I refuse to claim either one of them.
Stupid fees (Score:2)
They don't want to list the fees because so many of them are stupid. Imagine:
1. CEO fellatio fee: $2.95
2. CEO bonus contribution: $2.50
3. C-suite lunch fee: $1.50
4. Political lobbying fee: $2.00
5. Arbitration retainer fee: $1.00 ...
misleading (Score:2)
Headline should be more like "orwellian FCC chair once again gives into corporate interests over people's rights, surprising no one"
I care about the total monthy cost not the fees (Score:2)
The American way of doing things is to advertise the price before all of the fees and taxes. This is totally opaque (by design, I might add)
The easiest way to get a real cost is to submit and sign up, wait for the first bill, and then and only then you get to see the true cost. Trying to piece it together is bordering on an exercise in futility. I could almost argue that you are wasting your own time (depending upon how you value it by trying to get to the bottom of all the taxes and fees) You just need t
Truly an impossible task (Score:5, Funny)
If only they had some sort of device to help them keep track of the fees and automatically produce the listings. If only.
Re:Truly an impossible task (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really not that hard to enforce the intention of the rule... Change the rule to require that the total price with all fees must be the largest number shown on any advertisment. If they want to show the breakdown of the fees in a smaller font, fine... But you must show the *total* price. And that must be the largest font on the ad.
Re: (Score:1)
Although then every single tax jurisdiction - city, county, state, and federal - must have a different ad.
So a web store or advertisement, or a search engine, could not advertise price, or e.g. sort results by price, unless you revealed your location first.
And national TV ads would be, I guess, unable to state a price.
Not much different than if say Amazon were required to advertise only prices including sales tax, except at least there are only 50 of those (I think?) For cable it's every city.
Re: (Score:1)
That's only if the ISPs want to tack on fees. No market based fees? No market based ads.
Re: Truly an impossible task (Score:2)
What? This is about third-party pass-thru fees, outside the control ofvthecISPs:
> We propose to eliminate the requirement that providers itemize discretionary, recurring monthly fees that represent costs they choose to pass through to consumers and which vary by consumer location," Carr's draft proposal said. "Examples include state and local right of way fees, pole rental fees to utility companies, and other discretionary charges where the provider does not set rates or terms directly. We seek comment on whether providers should instead display on the label the aggregate amount of such fees."
They simply want to add up all the stupid charges they have no control over as one simple line item - it's not really that big a deal.
I'm old enough to remember when Congress passed a law that taxes ISPs so that politicians could get some money to spend on their pet projects. The ISPs retaliated by listing the taxes on every bill, and lawmakers got upset and tried to block the ISPs from enumerating the taxes imposed on them.
The
Re: (Score:2)
> They simply want to add up all the stupid charges they have no control over as one simple line item - it's not really that big a deal.
That is quite the biased interpretation you made there.
The ISPs have total control over their charges. There is no requirement that cost-of-doing-business be passed on to customers as additional fees. ISPs are free to set their rates sufficient to cover their costs + profits just as every other business does.
I own a business. I charge my customers the price I have chosen for my goods. I pay all of the costs of operating my business out of the price that I charge. I do not itemize each transaction as pr
Re: (Score:2)
Some of these ISP charges ARE like Sales Tax - and a home on one side of the street in a different city will pay a different "telecommunications tax" rate than a home directly on the other side of the street. In some cases, crossing the street even puts you in a different state with very different taxes. Since people generally don't share the precise coordinates of their service address when visiting a web site, an ISP has no idea what fees will be when they advertise a price even in a targeted ad. For "bro
Re: (Score:2)
A valid point... when discussing advertising. The article was not about advertising.
The article was about a requirement to itemize fees added to the bill as opposed to lumping them together as "unspecified fees".
-The ISP argument (per the article) is that it is too complicated to itemize the fees they are charging.
-The counter argument is that if they can figure out what to charge, they can itemize it on the bill.
My post (which you replied to) was about the difference between Taxes and Fees.
-Where I live,
Re: (Score:2)
> They simply want to add up all the stupid charges they have no control over as one simple line item - it's not really that big a deal.
Its not a big deal to just list them either. If they have the ability add them all up, they have the ability to list them all.
Re: (Score:2)
Were I them, I might set a national price knowing that I was so big I could find a price that washed out the differences while maintaining profits. Ever notice that small retailers (like convenience stores) have minimums for using a card, but the big ones don't?
Re:Truly an impossible task (Score:4, Informative)
"Although then every single tax jurisdiction - city, county, state, and federal - must have a different ad."
Boo hoo. How can any company compete!
"So a web store or advertisement, or a search engine, could not advertise price, or e.g. sort results by price, unless you revealed your location first."
Oh, definitely a problem never seen before!
"And national TV ads would be, I guess, unable to state a price."
Then don't.
"Not much different than if say Amazon were required to advertise only prices including sales tax, except at least there are only 50 of those (I think?) For cable it's every city."
And? Who thinks Amazon should have special treatment.
Everything you said is predicated on an assumption that it should be easy for companies to lie to consumers. Wonder what you do for a living?
Re:Truly an impossible task (Score:4, Informative)
Also this itemization rule only came about because those same ISP's abused the fees to such a degree that the FCC had to act, everyone was pissed, this didn't come out of nowhere.
The FCC even gave a potential solution:
[1]https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
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.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/isps-complain-that-listing-every-fee-is-too-hard-urge-fcc-to-scrap-new-rule/
Re:Truly an impossible task (Score:4, Informative)
> Although then every single tax jurisdiction - city, county, state, and federal - must have a different ad.
State and local taxes, being a "charge... mandated by a government", are specifically exempt from the rule. The average person is aware that advertised prices don't include sales tax and, perhaps more importantly, a person can find out from a different source (e.g. the government) what the sales tax is, so there won't be surprising extra charges.
Re: (Score:2)
> State and local taxes, being a "charge... mandated by a government", are specifically exempt from the rule.
I was replying to a post that proposes to not do that. It proposes, "you must show the *total* price."
Re: Truly an impossible task (Score:2)
That post said "total price with all fees". I guess that most people consider sales tax to be different from frees.
Re: (Score:2)
Different from fees. I blame my phone's auto-screwup.
Re: (Score:2)
> State and local taxes, being a "charge... mandated by a government", are specifically exempt from the rule.
Not all mandated fees are non-discretionary. If the government puts a cap on a fee, the cable company starts calling it a mandated fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily, just list cost "Up To" the highest price that could be applied.
Re: (Score:2)
> Although then every single tax jurisdiction - city, county, state, and federal - must have a different ad.
All they have to do is have some copy up front that says "As low as 19.99!*"
And then have some fine print at the bottom: "* Final price may vary depending on local tariffs" or whatever legalize the lawyers come up with. The ISP version of "prices and participation may vary".
Re: (Score:2)
Thats just the downside to running a giant company that operates in many jurisdictions. Maybe they should have thought about this "problem" before they went on a merger spree.
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't require changing the rule. ISPs don't have to itemize any fees that are included in the advertised price.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
If they can't figure this simple thing out, how can I expect them to operate anything as complex as a network?
Re: (Score:2)
They figure it out just fine when it is time to generate a bill.
Just re-use that code over in the advertising department.
Re: (Score:2)
Or list the charge for the basic service, with the footnote, in something actually readable instead of the "Flyspeck 3" commonly used to hide embarrassing details, that these prices do not include locally-imposed access charges, with a link to a page where the potential customer can put in their general location and get an itemized list of any and all additional charges that apply to service in their area -- if the ISP can't itemize the additional charges for an area, then they can't charge them to the cust