FCC To End Biden-Era Rule That Forces ISPs To List All Their Fees (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0184347040
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/07/07/1918257/fcc-to-end-biden-era-rule-that-forces-isps-to-list-all-their-fees
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/fcc-to-end-biden-era-rule-that-forces-isps-to-list-all-their-fees/
> ISPs routinely advertise prices much lower than those actually charged to consumers on their monthly bills. One method of raising monthly bill prices above advertised rates is to tack on fees that, ISPs claim, are used to offset charges imposed by local governments. ISPs would be well within their rights to advertise accurate monthly prices and charge those exact prices on monthly bills. But because ISPs rarely do that, the FCC has required them to make specific price disclosures to consumers for the past decade. The Biden-era FCC updated the broadband-label rules to require that ISPs " [2]itemize on the label (PDF) all discretionary monthly fees that the provider passes through to the consumer." The change drew protest from Comcast and other ISPs that complained bitterly about the complexity of listing all the hidden fees they had chosen to charge.
>
> Under Chairman Brendan Carr, the Trump FCC has steadily whittled away at requirements imposed under Democrats. An [3]order (PDF) released in draft form last week would eliminate the requirement to itemize passthrough fees and let ISPs list them in a single "up to" amount. The "up to" amount can include both government fees and fees charged by non-government entities such as owners of utility poles. "Rather than continuing to require providers to itemize 'passthrough fees' that can vary by location, we allow providers to display such fees in the aggregate, either as a maximum or 'up to' amount for the total fees applicable in any location where the service plan is offered, or as the exact total of such fees assessed in a particular location," the FCC draft order said.
>
> The order to be voted on later this month includes a few other changes that will please ISPs and their lobby groups. ISPs will be allowed to provide links to price labels instead of displaying the full labels prominently on ordering pages and account portals, and will be allowed to stop making the price-label information available in machine-readable spreadsheets. The FCC is also relaxing the requirement that price information be available over the phone. The FCC said the change will "allow phone sales representatives to present label information conversationally, as a summary of key label fields, rather than require verbatim recitation."
>
> The changes have been in the works since October 2025, when the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to let the public submit comments on the proposals. The outcome of that process is the draft order, which will be voted on at the FCC's July 22 meeting and take effect 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register. There are many types of passthrough fees that ISPs will be able to stop listing individually and roll into the "up to" amount. The FCC defined the fees as follows, saying they include just about anything that isn't a tax [...]. Another planned change will eliminate a requirement that providers archive all labels for at least two years after a service plan is no longer available. The Utility Reform Network, an advocacy group, [4]told the FCC that the archived labels provide crucial data about how prices and services change over time, and that machine-readable labels are important for affordability research and information accessibility.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/fcc-to-end-biden-era-rule-that-forces-isps-to-list-all-their-fees/
[2] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-68A1.pdf
[3] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-422742A1.pdf
[4] https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10116037230686/1
Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump: "I was the most transparent, and am, transparent President in history." -- except ... except ... except ...
Now do it for groceries (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of an itemized list of what you bought and how much each item cost, all you'll get is a final bill. Pay it or else.
Sound stupid? So is this.
We're not allowed to have good things (Score:2)
VERBOTTEN!
Re: (Score:2)
One t only please.
Government of the Corporation (Score:5, Insightful)
A government of the corporation, and for the cooperation. Corporations are people too, my friend. It is just that some people are more equal that others. Citizen United has made sure of that.
Re: (Score:2)
> A government of the corporation, and for the cooperation. Corporations are people too, my friend. It is just that some people are more equal that others. Citizen United has made sure of that.
It's not just that, they have more options and fewer responsibilities than regular (actual) people.
Re: (Score:2)
If our response to something like Citizens United is to elect Donald Trump 8 out of the last 12 years, well, we get the corporatist, corrupt government we deserve.
What did we think Project 2025 was about? I mean, they literally said they would do these things but a lot of people did not care (or maybe only care now).
Half of the country voted for this (Score:5, Insightful)
And they will find some excuse to justify it. Reminds me of sheep lining up at slaughter house.
Re: (Score:2)
> And they will find some excuse to justify it. Reminds me of sheep lining up at slaughter house.
It's been reported that just north of 65% of the population even participated in the vote during the 2024 election. Trump received just under 49% of the votes. 49% of 65% translates to roughly 32%. That's not half of the country.
There's a lot of sadness in all those statistics, but it's not the sadness of "half of the country supported / supports Donald Trump."
Re: (Score:2)
Your analysis assumes that people who didn't vote would not have voted for Trump if they had voted. Trump doesn't have the support of half the nation now, with his approval rating in the dumpster, but I'm not convinced that was the case during the election.
Re: (Score:2)
> Your analysis assumes that people who didn't vote would not have voted for Trump if they had voted. Trump doesn't have the support of half the nation now, with his approval rating in the dumpster, but I'm not convinced that was the case during the election.
My assumption is closer to accurate than the assumption that non-voters were supporting Trump. If they were supporting him, they could have voted for him. Most of the non-voters I've actually interacted with couldn't stand the idea of voting for either candidate. The assumption that a non-vote was a vote for Trump is just that, an assumption. And a bad one at that.
Re: (Score:2)
~1/3 voted for ~1/3 against and ~1/3rd couldn't be bothered to give a damn.
Roughly half the country was either in active support of this bullshit or was ok enough with it happening to not vote.
Re: (Score:2)
> And they will find some excuse to justify it.
The popular vote was 49.81% (77,303,568) for Trump and 48.34% (75,019,230) for Harris meaning Trump won by 1.47% -- or, as Trump and his minions call it, "a landslide". There were 90 million eligible voters who did *not* vote, meaning more people opted-out than voted for either.
Among all 245M eligible voters, the overall percentages were roughly: 31%, Harris: 30%, None: 36%
[1]How Many People Didn’t Vote in the 2024 Election? [usnews.com]
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-15/how-many-people-didnt-vote-in-the-2024-election
Re: (Score:2)
To add onto that, looking at 2020 vs 2024 [1]the difference in turnout was about 2%. [pewresearch.org] Was that all the difference, no, but it was definitely some.
Most nonvoters though do have a preference as the polling here demonstrates, they just don't vote for a variety of reasons including the fact a lot more people than we imagine just don't care or pay attention to politics.
It's a reason I have grown more and more favorable to some sort of compulsory voting like Australia does but I don't think it would fly over here.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voter-turnout-2020-2024/
so much for (Score:3)
By the PEOPLE for the PEOPLE...is that not how democracies work ?
Seems to me in the USA "the people" are now just a resource to be exploited by the wealthy.
What is it that the USA excels ib being able to lie to its population with all sorts of hidden fees etc, where as in the rest of the 1st world it is illegal to do so, the ticket price is the price you pay. Surely being truthfully informed so you can make an informed choice is one of the great freedoms.
Re: (Score:3)
> By the PEOPLE for the PEOPLE...is that not how democracies work ? Seems to me in the USA "the people" are now just a resource to be exploited by the wealthy. What is it that the USA excels ib being able to lie to its population with all sorts of hidden fees etc, where as in the rest of the 1st world it is illegal to do so, the ticket price is the price you pay. Surely being truthfully informed so you can make an informed choice is one of the great freedoms.
Freedom is for the monied classes. We are currently watching those monied classes instruct the government in removing rights from the non-monied classes a little at a time to see how far they can push that line before people snap. I have doubts that they don't have a plan in place to crack down on those they view as their lessers when that line finally gets crossed.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU and other democracies are actually doing something about that with actual consumer protection laws.
Americans need to get over the idea that what the US does is the best and everyone else's system is inferior.
Re: (Score:2)
> The EU and other democracies are actually doing something about that with actual consumer protection laws. Americans need to get over the idea that what the US does is the best and everyone else's system is inferior.
FWIW, I agree with you. Unfortunately, we don't tend to elect people that will actually implement any sort of protection for the consumer.
Re:InB4 (Score:4, Insightful)
Why isn't it? Do you have a judicial or legal basis for that belief? Is it just the FTC's purview instead?
Re: (Score:2)
reasonable question
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's the problem.
It used to be the FCCs purview until the net neutrality laws were shredded to pieces claiming this should be the FTC doing it instead.
Yet no one gave the FTC that power afterwards either.
So now both commissions say it's the other ones problem because they have no power to do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I think enough time has passed that we can start the "Trump admin bitchfest"
Yeah, this is the result from electing Republicans, who only are capable of destruction. If you asked them they couldn't actually tell you why this is good, you'll just get some vague, Randian nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
That is most definitely one of the purviews of the FCC that they should set billing stipulations. They are THE regulatory agency for the ISPs.