Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Government The Almighty Buck The Internet

FCC To End Biden-Era Rule That Forces ISPs To List All Their Fees (arstechnica.com) 120

Posted by BeauHD from the less-transparent dept.
The 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.

FCC To End Biden-Era Rule That Forces ISPs To List All Their Fees More | Reply

FCC To End Biden-Era Rule That Forces ISPs To List All Their Fees

Comments Filter:

  • 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 ...

  • Now do it for groceries (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @04:21PM (#66227304) Journal

    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: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Instead of an itemized list of what you bought and how much each item cost,

      and fees charged by non-government entities such as owners of utility poles.

      Itemized for each pole?

    • 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.

      • Water and electric companies, too. "Water plan fee", etc. Heck, my electric bill is now two pages due to all the add-on fees, and all the taxes on those fees that are also broken out to separate lines.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Burdell ( 228580 )

          I don't have that, but maybe because my utility is a municipal-owned company. They changed billing systems last year, which did result in one new line, the fuel charge for electricity. The utility's electricity rate is set (changes have to be approved by the city council), but they buy their electricity from TVA, which charges a fuel fee that can fluctuate from month to month. In the past this wasn't visible, but now it is.

          This is a case of an external cost outside their control, and IMHO is reasonable to d

      • Now imagine the chicanery that is going to happen when AI companies have to start charging the actual cost to turn a profit...

        • Now imagine the chicanery that is going to happen when AI companies have to start charging the actual cost to turn a profit...

          Gee thanks. Now my ISP has added an extra AI fee.

      • Not defending the ISP's here, but that's not quite how it works in most of the U.S. In most places, it's labeled Sale Price + sales tax. Sales tax is usually predictable based on City/State, but varies amongst them.

        Again, not defending the ISP's here, but at most U.S. stores they like to advertise (for example) "$6 pairs of socks for $9.99+tax." The final price, including tax, will vary by City/State. The "+Tax" part is usually fairly simple because it's just one or two percentage-based summed taxes.

        ISP

    • If you read the summary, it contradicts the headline:

      > 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.

      > ISPs will be allowed to provide links to price labe

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by caseih ( 160668 )

        Mod +1 informative. To bad I don't have mod points. Hopefully someone reasonable will do it for me.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by necro81 ( 917438 )

        So the labels aren't going away. The ISPs will be required to advertise the highest amount they could possibly charge the customer, including all taxes and fees. And they'll be required to have those labels. The only thing going away is the requirement the label (not the price) be on the same page as the offering, and the ability to download the information in spreadsheet form.

        The purpose of the itemized labels wasn't just to let consumers know how much their actual bill would be, rather than the advertised price. The itemized labels also made it harder for ISPs to hide their bullshit nonsense fees. What the heck even if a "broadband recovery fee" or a "convenience fee", and how does the ISP defend that being part of the bill? Now, it's just a "and here's all the extra stuff we're going to charge, justifiable or not, and we'll hide it in this one line item."

        It's an informat

        • Yes, but the itemized labels are not going away.

          - The headline is wrong
          - The first sentence is misleading. The labels will be still there, they're just going to not necessarily be on the main page advertising the product but will be linked to in that instance.

          And in the end, as you point out,the fees making up the final price are bullshit, so you're interested in the final price. And ISPs are now required to publish the highest possible price you may be charged, even if you might be charged less.

          They can it

          • Yes, but the itemized labels are not going away.

            They will be on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of Leopard."

  • 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.

    • 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: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.

    • I still like RTMark's idea from back in the day about this stuff.

      If the courts insist that corporations are people, then the court should be willing to sentence a corporation to death when it kills people.

  • 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.

    • 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."

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • "Most of the non-voters I've actually interacted with couldn't stand the idea of voting for either candidate."

            Well, as long as you've carefully surveyed the situation...

            " The assumption that a non-vote was a vote for Trump is just that, an assumption. And a bad one at that."

            I'm not making that assumption. I'm just not making the assumption that a non-vote was a vote *against* Trump, which, without evidence (and no, "I talked with some of my non-voting friends" is not evidence) is an equally bad assumption.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by sims 2 ( 994794 )

        ~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: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]

      • To add onto that, looking at 2020 vs 2024 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.

            In Australia you can write anything you like on your ballot or nothing at all.
            You just have to turn up and collect one and stick it in the box. (2 actually, in 2 different boxes. They're color coded, you'd figure it out.)

            It's done on a Saturday.

            You get plenty of time.

            There is postal voting.

            Paper and pencil, no machinery or computer nonsense.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by jezwel ( 2451108 )
              You forgot:

              Democracy sausages!

              Yes at nearly every polling location there will be some organisation (many charity led) with volunteer staff sizzling sausages and onions on the BBQ, offering food and drinks (soda, water, no beer though) at cheap prices.

              Normally located within walking distance in any but the most remote locations, it's a fairly quick outing to get your name checked off the roll, take your voting papers, (optionally) vote, and then stick your papers into the appropriate slots.

              Not only do you

        • 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.

          You don't fix the issue of uninformed voters by adding more of them. That'd be like thinking you can solve traffic jams by adding more cars. If someone doesn't care enough about politics to even bother to go vote, it's probably for the best that they don't.

          • Part of the idea is that if people are compelled to vote they will care more about politics, at least more than they do when they can just act like it's any other Tuesday in November.

        • In a country with disaffected voters, mandatory voting doesn't change anything. You go to a voting booth to avoid your $100 fine, and cast a "donkey vote" where you just select the top box (if the printed ballot forms are randomised you end up with no change in the election outcome), or an "informal vote" where you draw a dick on the voting form and toss it in the box knowing it will be rejected during counting.

          You can't fix disaffected voters by forcing them to vote. You need to change the system to make t

          • It doesn't fix every issue no but part of the idea is that now if me, a person who has been blithely not caring about politics but now I have to go sign a ballot, maybe I will care a little bit.

            Sure some people will donkey vote, some will write in a dick but will that be the majority or even a plurality or will some people actually take a moment and try to inform themselves just a little bit. Again, in that Pew poll most of the nonvoters still express a preference. If you want your vote to be "fuck off" a

    • 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.

    • I'd assume most of the country just has their ISP bill on autopay and doesn't give it much thought. This really isn't a dinner table issue like housing/healthcare/grocery/gas costs.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this, but it's just small potatoes over political issues to rage about.

    • > And they will find some excuse to justify it.

      Think of the children!

  • so much for (Score:4, Informative)

    by sit1963nz ( 934837 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @04:53PM (#66227348)
    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.

    • 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:so much for (Score:4, Insightful)

        by sit1963nz ( 934837 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2026 @05:36PM (#66227408)
        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.

        • 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.

          • Too much money in politics just to get elected, it can only come from the wealthy or corporations and so the politician is beholden to them and not the voters. This was made significantly worse when corporations became "people".
            some donate to both side so no matter who gets in, they STIL OWN the politician irrespective of what the voters chose.

            And you also have "entertainment" masquerading as "news" who have no restrictions on them blatantly lying to their audience. Again democracies can only survive if

  • Enabling legislation for broadband labels: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]

    These 6 items are what they planned on / changed.

    (1) read the label to consumers over the phone;

    There are two extremes where you either wholesale exempt phone from any label disclosures or you read the entire label. It seems like their compromise was pretty reasonable: "monthly price inclusive of any monthly fees, including the introductory rate and its duration if applicable; typical download and upload speeds; latency; data allowance; contract term duration if applicable; and

  • Reimpose the requirements at the state level.

    The ISP's may then lobby the FCC for federal preemption of state rules on the way ISP's do business, but that might not be successful if the states challenge it in court.

  • Bait and Switch [google.com] is "advertise one price, charge another, higher price".

    It's a standard deceptive sales tactic to have the user commit to one price, then at the last minute, demand additional required payments.

    In free market terms, this tactic hides the true price from both competitors and consumers.

    Towards the end of the last administration, there was a limited push to put federal limits [nclc.org] on Bait and Switch but these prohibitions are slowly being rolled back [investopedia.com].

  • Clearly they can work out how much to bill you, obviously they can list those items they've added together that feed into the total they ask you to pay. See, not so hard. Otherwise you should only be required to pay the advises price, not a cent more.

  • ... so cooked. Guess who is to blame for this?

  • Airplane tickets and hotels will be the next target for re-enshitification of opaque pricing. So you wanna know the total cost for a flight to Omaha? Just give us your credit card number now. Enjoy the flight. Then check your monthly credit card statements as they arrive. Questions? Talk to the bot.
  • So basically they are legalizing gritting.

  • to remove the detail of the charges and just add them up on one line for us. So considerate of them!

  • Anyone doing anything honorable lately, would really stand out.

Slashdot Top Deals

Good salesmen and good repairmen will never go hungry. -- R.E. Schenk

Close