We're picking up quite a bit of static between the wireless industry and the Federal Communications Commission over the concept of mobile phone "bill shock," and how many consumers have actually been jolted by an unexpectedly high wireless bill. CTIA - the Wireless Association calls the FCC's latest data on the question "Inflammatory" and "an orchestrated 'solution' in search of a problem."

But the Commission isn't taking these charges lying down. "Denying Bill Shock by Distorting the Facts," the agency titled its response on the FCC's official blog.

"It's unfortunate that CTIA, which represents one of the country's most innovative and productive industries, has decided that ignoring or distorting the facts is a better strategy than simply addressing wireless customers' concerns," write the agency's Joel Gurin and John Horrigan.

Whoa. Let's see if we get under the crossfire here and take a look at the data.

A sudden increase

Back in May, the FCC released a survey concluding that 30 million Americans, or one in six US consumers, have experienced bill shock, which the Commission defines as "a sudden increase in their monthly bill that is not caused by a change in service plan." It was conducted by Abt/SRBI and Princeton Research Associates, who interviewed 3,005 American adults in English and Spanish.

The study found that 84 percent of respondents who acknowledged experiencing some distress at the size of their bill said their mobile carrier "did not contact them when they were about to exceed their allowed minutes, text messages, or data downloads." Eighty-eight percent said their carrier didn't get in touch with them after they got their unexpectedly high bill, which in a third of cases had jumped by $50 and in almost a quarter by $100 or more.

But on Wednesday CTIA Vice President Christopher Guttman-McCabe shot back with some serious questions about the study—most notably whether most of the respondents were adults.

"From what we can tell, only 902 of the respondents, when asked directly if they were 18 years or older, said 'yes'," Guttman-McCabe wrote. "Let me repeat—only 30 percent of the respondents said that they were over 18."

And none of the survey questions actually mention the term "bill shock," CTIA adds. "The term is an ends-driven invention by the FCC, not the survey company or the respondents. It was not part of the survey."

And on top of that, CTIA had some questions about Question 52 of the survey, which asked respondents "Has your cell phone bill ever increased suddenly, from one month to the next, even if you did not change the calling or texting plan for your phone?"

The question, Guttman-McCabe continued, didn't distinguish

between a "sudden increase" based on a significant increase in use, or a change in use patterns. It also, as discussed above, never asked whether that increase came as a shock. Further, question 52 was phrased so that respondents could answer affirmatively—that they had experienced a sudden increase in their bill—even if they had changed their calling or texting plan, contrary to the FCC's own definition of "bill shock." Additionally, there was no time frame for the question. So, consumers could have experienced "sudden increases" years prior to the survey and would have responded "yes."

Bottom line: "This survey completely disregards the evolution of the wireless marketplace and the broad array of plans available from wireless providers, such as unlimited calling or texting plans or buckets of minutes/texts that give consumers greater control over their wireless bills," CTIA concluded.

Untrained eyes

But that's not true, the FCC insists—in fact, on the age issue, CTIA has made a "whopper of an error." First, all the respondents were asked their age, Gurin and Horrigan say, but they concede that to "the untrained eye," the data might seem confusing.

902 respondents were asked whether they were over 18. The rest were asked "May I please speak to the person age 18 or older in the household who had the most recent birthday?" The latter question was directed towards individuals who responded on landline phones; the former to consumers who answered on their mobiles.

The FCC's bottom line: "The survey also asked respondents to tell us how old they were (standard practice in surveys). All respondents—except for 3 percent who refused to give an age—said they were age 18 or older."

There's also heated back and forth between the FCC and CTIA over whether the survey data extrapolates to 13 percent (CTIA) or 17 percent (FCC) of the United States population reporting bill shock.

We'll let the statisticians parse that one out. Either number represents a significant percentage of recession-suffering Americans unpleasantly surprised at the size of their mobile bill, we think.

Amazingly low

Beyond these disputes, CTIA raises some reasonable concerns, to which the FCC doesn't respond. Was question 52 too open ended? And when did these "bill shock" incidents take place?

On the other hand, the wireless industry protests just a bit too much at the term in question, which is commonly used by the European Union to discuss the problem. Guttman-McCabe comments that "it was interesting that the FCC initiated this proceeding, when the complaint numbers that they had been tracking for years showed that the number of complaints per subscriber were amazingly low."

Yeah, but those are based on gripes that the relatively small number of consumers who know how to complain to the FCC bring to the agency. It seems to us that going out in the field and checking in with the majority who don't is a good idea.

To be fair, most mobile subscribers don't wind up with an $18,000 mobile phone bill like Bob St. Germain of Dover, Massachusetts did. But these days an unexpected 50 to 100 bucks due is a nasty kick in the pants that your average consumer doesn't need.

So here's hoping the volume on this shouting match drops by a few notches, while the more useful discussion on methodology and question framing continues.