FCC Exempts Some ISPs From Having to Disclose Caps, Fees The new FCC has taken its first step toward rolling back net neutrality by stripping away transparency requirements for smaller ISPs. The transparency rules, included in the larger net neutrality rules, simply required that all ISPs make usage caps, fees, and other important details about a broadband connection clear to consumers. But in a 2-1 partisan vote (pdf) this week, the FCC scaled back these rules for ISPs with less than 250,000 subscribers. A 2015 order under Wheeler had already temporarily exempted ISPs with less than 100,000 subscribers.

per year to adhere to the rules. ISPs had long declared these requirements to be too "onerous" to actually fulfill. The data never really supported this; one FCC estimate indicated it would take these ISPs roughly 6.8 hoursto adhere to the rules. And the requirements were beneficial to the customers of these ISPs. The transparency requirements, originally passed in 2010, required that ISPs make the following items perfectly clear when selling service to consumers: quote: • Price -- the full monthly service charge. Any promotional rates should be clearly noted as such, specify the duration of the promotional period, and note the full monthly service charge the consumer will incur after the expiration of the promotional period. • Other fees -- all additional one-time and/or recurring fees and/or surcharges the consumer may incur either to initiate, maintain, or discontinue service, including the name, definition, and cost of each additional fee. These may include modem rental fees, installation fees, service charges, and early termination fees, among others. • Data caps and allowances -- any data caps or allowances that are a part of the plan the consumer is purchasing, as well as the consequences of exceeding the cap or allowance (e.g., additional charges, loss of service for the remainder of the billing cycle). Mignon Clyburn, the lone dissenting Democrat remaining at the FCC, said the narrative of the tiny ISP over-burdened by having to be clear with customers isn't what the push is actually about. Mignon Clyburn, the lone dissenting Democrat remaining at the FCC, said the narrative of the tiny ISP over-burdened by having to be clear with customers isn't what the push is actually about. "Many of the nation’s largest broadband providers are actually holding companies, comprised of many smaller operating companies," Clyburn said. "So what today’s Order does is exempt these companies’ affiliates that have under 250,000 connections by declining to aggregate the connection count at the holding company level." The original exemption was tailored to prevent large ISPs from taking advantage of it, something that changed with this week's order. “In an ongoing quest to dismantle basic consumer protections for broadband services, the majority has decided to exempt billion dollar companies from being transparent with consumers,” she added. Consumer advocates agreed with Clyburn's assessment. "Yet again, Chairman Pai has acted to weaken consumer protections at the FCC," said Public Knowledge in a statement. "Today’s action means that more ISPs could withhold essential information about their broadband pricing and service, making it harder for many more subscribers to make informed decisions and hold their providers accountable. How can it be good for consumers if companies conceal anything about the price, speed, and data caps for their broadband service?" FCC boss Ajit Pai has long promised to FCC boss Ajit Pai has long promised to kill net neutrality rules while in charge of the agency. But given the rules' popular support, rolling them back via the FCC rule-making process would require a public comment period ISPs (and the politicians that love them) wouldn't be keen on. Instead, ISPs are pushing Congress to craft new regulations that would kill the rules, potentially as part of a Communications Act rewrite aimed at curtailing the FCC's consumer watchdog authority.







News Jump California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more Cogeco Rejects Altice USA's Atlantic Broadband Bid; AT&T Is Astroturfing The FCC In Support Of Trump Attack; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 110 comments

b10010011

Whats a Posting tag?

join:2004-09-07

Bellingham, WA 31 recommendations b10010011 Member Government by the business and for the business



You sign a contract and you pay whatever they tell you to pay or you go without.



What are you going to do, switch ISP's? LOL Fat chance in most markets. Why should a business have to tell it's customers how much it's really going to cost.You sign a contract and you pay whatever they tell you to pay or you go without.What are you going to do, switch ISP's? LOL Fat chance in most markets.

GlennLouEarl

3 brothers, 1 gone

Premium Member

join:2002-11-17

Richmond, VA 4 recommendations GlennLouEarl Premium Member Consumer protection continues to go down the Pai-hole. ppappas

join:2001-12-15

San Jose, CA 3 recommendations ppappas Member Should be an FTC not FCC issue This is something that should hold true for all businesses, not just telco & cable companies, so its really the FTC's domain, not the FCC. tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY 3 recommendations tmc8080 Member Slim Shady This could become problematic for wireless mvnos trying to pull a fast and shady business practice, giving the bigger carriers a bad rep by proxy.

IT Guy

Ow, My Balls

Premium Member

join:2004-07-29

Las Cruces, NM Cisco ASA 5505

Cisco Meraki MX64

2 recommendations IT Guy Premium Member No Consumer Protections EVER



Why are conservatives compelled to be on the wrong side of history? And then there's this: » arstechnica.com/tech-pol ··· m-theft/ Why are conservatives compelled to be on the wrong side of history?