FCC To End Biden-Era Rule That Forces ISPs To List All Their Fees
14 123The FCC plans to roll back broadband label rules that require ISPs to itemize all passthrough fees. Under the proposal, providers could instead list a single "up to" amount for location-based charges. It would also allow ISPs to link to pricing labels rather than display them prominently, while eliminating machine-readable pricing files. Ars Technica reports: 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 "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 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, 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.
14 comments
Re:InB4 (Score: 5, Insightful)
by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @04:15PM (#66227294)
Why isn't it? Do you have a judicial or legal basis for that belief? Is it just the FTC's purview instead?
Re:InB4 (Score: 5, Insightful)
by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @05:23PM (#66227380)
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:InB4 (Score: 5, Insightful)
by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @04:46PM (#66227342)
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.
Transparency (Score: 5, Insightful)
by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @04:20PM (#66227302)
Trump: "I was the most transparent, and am, transparent President in history." -- except ... except ... except ...
Re:Transparency (Score: 5, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward ( None ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @05:48PM (#66227428)
Well, he is the most transparently corrupt.
Now do it for groceries (Score: 5, Insightful)
by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @04:21PM (#66227304)
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.
Re:Now do it for groceries (Score: 5, Insightful)
by Burdell ( 228580 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @07:13PM (#66227552)
For most businesses, they have to price all their products and services to include all their costs. For some reason, telecom companies get away with taking on "cost of us doing business" fees like crazy. For your grocery comparison, it'd be like picking up a $5 box of cookies, and getting a $1.27 "accounting fee" and $0.69 "stocking fee".
The ever-popular "regulatory recovery fee" is just a "you paid most of our employees through the service price, but we're going to hide paying our accountants". It's absurd; the price of the service should cover ALL of the service. Showing taxes and external fees is okay (although they need to be clearly presented with the price); that's how most US retail works already.
Government of the Corporation (Score: 5, Insightful)
by Smonster ( 2884001 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @04:35PM (#66227324)
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:Government of the Corporation (Score: 5, Informative)
by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @05:25PM (#66227386)
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).
Re:Government of the Corporation (Score: 5, Insightful)
by Smonster ( 2884001 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @06:00PM (#66227444)
I think the bigger thing is that a significant percentage of the population is more concerned with fitting in with their tribe than they are with thinking critically. Furthmore, a good percentage of those people are only minimally capable of thinking critically about a situation. Those people have the same vote I do. Well, not exactly. I live in a so called purple state of divided government, aka a swing state. Still, on the state level the percentages are similar. When people are able to blatantly lie and transmit that lie over and over with effective anonymity to influence the easily influence with zero negative consequences we get the government we have today.
We get a government which no longer represents the people, but instead enacts laws and polices favoring those who give them the most money. The saddest thing is that the voting public is entirely capable of putting an end to it. Well....we would be if so many of us were not so selfish, apathetic, gullible, and/or just down right dumb. It is no coincidence public education is attacked by the republicans. However, the democrats don't do themselves any favors with how the public school systems are run in our biggest cities either.
Half of the country voted for this (Score: 5, Insightful)
by migos ( 10321981 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @04:44PM (#66227330)
And they will find some excuse to justify it. Reminds me of sheep lining up at slaughter house.
Re:Half of the country voted for this (Score: 5, Informative)
by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @05:18PM (#66227368)
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%
How Many People Didn’t Vote in the 2024 Election? [usnews.com]
Re:Half of the country voted for this (Score: 5, Insightful)
by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @05:59PM (#66227442)
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.
I'd be in favor of that, but could easily see it challenged on 1st Amendment grounds - though I'd counter by proposing a "None" option on the ballot, so at least you participated. If voting was mandatory, it should also be a national holiday or people should otherwise be allowed time off from work to vote, as well as early in-person voting, and voting my mail would definitely have to be allowed, postmarked by election day. You have to provide various opportunities to vote if it's required...
I'll add that my personal feeling is that if you don't vote/participate, you don't get to complain.
Re:Half of the country voted for this (Score: 5, Insightful)
by twocows ( 1216842 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @06:10PM (#66227466)
I wouldn't say half the country voted to this (even ignoring voter turnout etc). Political parties in the US are bundle packages; you can't get your pet issue a la carte, you have to get a bunch of other stuff with it. I voted for Harris in 2024 primarily because, despite agreeing with some conservative positions such as skepticism around many DEI initiatives, I felt Trump would severely injure our international relations at a time where we needed to project both strength and unity in the face of Russian aggression (and I think that has played out -- I don't think he's been good for IR). Weighing all things together, I felt Harris was the better choice. That doesn't mean I voted "for" everything Harris stood for, at least not intentionally. Functionally, yeah, my vote would have contributed to the progression of those things I didn't like as well, but not because I supported them. The system isn't set up to allow me to separate out these different things, so I vote based on the prioritization of all the different pros and cons. By the same token, the people who voted for Trump may not have agreed with every single last thing he said.
I think one of the failures of our way of doing things is that the wide variety of nuance your average voter has can't come across clearly because every single political party and candidate is a bundle package. I don't like it, I think we should consider trying to do things in a different way.