FCC moves to loosen broadband fee disclosure rules

The Federal Communications Commission is preparing to roll back parts of its broadband price-label rules, including a requirement that internet providers list certain monthly fees one by one. The change matters for customers comparing service plans because providers could present many location-based charges as a single maximum amount instead of itemizing them.

According to a draft FCC order released ahead of the agency’s July 22 meeting, providers would be allowed to show pass-through fees either as an exact total for a customer’s location or as a maximum “up to” charge for any area where the plan is sold. The order would take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, according to the FCC.

The FCC said the affected fees are monthly charges imposed by governments or third-party infrastructure owners, passed along by the provider and varying by location. The agency gave examples including local right-of-way fees and pole attachment fees, and said taxes are excluded from the definition.

Price labels could be less visible

The current broadband labels were designed to give consumers clearer price and service information before they buy internet service. Under rules adopted during the Biden administration, the FCC required providers to itemize discretionary monthly fees they pass through to customers.

The draft order under Chairman Brendan Carr would change that approach. The FCC said the existing itemization rule can be difficult to apply because these charges differ by address and can require many versions of a label.

The draft would also let providers link to broadband labels rather than display the full labels on ordering pages and customer account portals. The FCC acknowledged that using links instead of automatic display may mean fewer people read the labels, while saying interested consumers would still be able to view them.

The agency also plans to end a requirement that providers publish the label data in machine-readable spreadsheet files on their websites. The FCC said providers would still have to make labels usable with screen readers and other assistive technology.

Another proposed change would relax phone disclosure rules. The FCC said sales representatives could summarize key label fields in conversation instead of reading label information word for word.

Consumer groups warn of hidden charges

Public Knowledge, the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, New America’s Open Technology Institute, the National Consumer Law Center, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposed the rollback in a January filing.

The groups told the FCC the changes would worsen “junk fees, hidden charges, and difficult-to-understand billing” and could widen the digital divide. They argued that ending fee itemization would remove pricing transparency and let providers obscure charges they choose to pass through to customers.

The groups also urged the FCC to keep machine-readable data, saying it helps comparison-shopping tools and market research. They said phone disclosures remain useful because consumers may encounter misleading offers through mail, email, texts, fake websites or robocalls.

The Utility Reform Network also objected to parts of the plan. In a filing, the advocacy group said archived labels help show how prices and services change over time, and that fee itemization can reduce unexpected bills.

Industry groups back the changes

Telecom and cable groups supported easing the rules. USTelecom told the FCC that providers may have to create and update hundreds of labels to account for geographic differences in fees and match the correct label to a customer’s address.

USTelecom also argued that machine-readable files mainly benefit third-party researchers rather than consumers. NCTA, the cable industry group, told the agency that maintaining labels for every combination of government pass-through fees is burdensome and said several requirements do not help consumers understand available services.

This story draws on original reporting from Ars Technica.