Net Neutrality Repeal Will Kill ISP Transparency Requirements Bans on throttling, blocking, and paid prioritization aren't the only things going the way of the dodo when the Trump administration takes the axe to popular net neutrality rules next week. As Ars Technica notes, the rules also required that ISPs be more transparent about the universe of misleading fees, usage surcharges, and other bill add ons that have plagued consumers for years. From CenturyLink's bogus "Internet Cost Recovery fee" to the rise in broadcast TV fees, usuing nonsensical charges to jack up the advertised rate has become a popular industry pastime.

two sets of transparency requirements that will be killed with the FCC votes to kill the rules next week. There's technicallysets of transparency requirements that will be killed with the FCC votes to kill the rules next week. One set of transparency requirements were created in 2010 with the first net neutrality rules, and an expanded version of transparency requirements were added to the 2015 version. ISPs unsuccessfully sued to eliminate the requirements in both instances, with the 2010 version being the only thing that survived that court battle. As Ars notes, these are the things ISPs need to currently reveal they will no longer be obligated to after the repeal: • Price: the full monthly service charge. Any promotional rates should be clearly noted as such, specify the duration of the promotional period and 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). Even with these rules, ISPs often tap danced over, under and around good taste on this front, thanks in large part to regulators from both parties that have consistently, historically, failed to crack down on this behavior. That said, the government's plan to largely gut all meaningful oversight of ISPs is likely to make the problem much worse. FCC boss Ajit Pai has justified the removal of these requirements by insisting they're "too onerous" for ISPs to adhere to. "[W]e retain the transparency rule as established in the [2010] Open Internet Order, with some modifications, and eliminate the additional reporting obligations of the [2015] Title II Order," Pai's neutrality repeal proclaims. "We find many of those additional reporting obligations significantly increased the burdens imposed on ISPs without providing countervailing benefits to consumers or the Commission." Moving forward post repeal, large ISPs will be able to engage in throttling, blocking, paid prioritization deals, hamstringing of interconnection points, and the use of various, often misleading fees without having to disclose them at the point of sale. ISPs will still need to document some of these behaviors somewhere via fine print on their website and to the FCC, but given this FCC and the industry's Moving forward post repeal, large ISPs will be able to engage in throttling, blocking, paid prioritization deals, hamstringing of interconnection points, and the use of various, often misleading fees. ISPs will still need to documentof these behaviors somewhere via fine print on their website and to the FCC, but given this FCC and the industry's track record -- making those disclosures easily-accessible -- or cracking down on ISPs when they don't -- isn't likely to be a top priority.







News Jump WISPs Get CBRS Range As Great As Six Miles At 100 Mbps Speeds; Windstream Officially Exits Bankruptcy; + more news Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news 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 ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 29 comments



kdwycha

join:2003-01-30

Ruskin, FL 10 recommendations kdwycha Member Sigh This is making America great? Transferring wealth to corporations and removing consumer protections? Bout time for me to apply for Irish citizenship and blow this popsicle stand. Nucleartx

join:2016-09-08

Belton, TX ·Grande Communica..

·AT&T Business

9 recommendations Nucleartx Member We are fighting a losing battle It does not matter with the current heaping pile of fly magnet sitting in the commissioner chair. Even with the rules in place, his office will just turn a blind eye and deaf ear on the matter. That office has been lost for the next 3 years. Sadly I fear we have lost this major battle but not the long term war.

WHT

join:2010-03-26

Rosston, TX 6 recommendations WHT Member The Fog of Disingenuousity Providers should be and are aware of the blatant differences, but in their interest choose to paint them over.



An ISP is just that - an internet service provider - a facility that is agnostic to content and type of information transmitted. But they want to be gatekeepers to monetize (new school word for "show me the money") the transmission of data. Data caps were ineffective money trees because a) the blowback (another new school word), b) the admission of how few subscribers really use that much to be of any value, and c) the race to the top (or bottom depending how you squint at it) to give higher data allotments.



But what about Google and the likes? Your ISP is your connection to the world - you cannot connect without it, you cannot choose not to use it, it is not an optional enhancement. Goggle and social media are - you can choose to or not to use them. There is no comparison between an internet access provider and on-line content provider.



Moving forward to (quoting Karl's article) "misleading fees, usage surcharges, and other bill add ons".

Misleading - I don't think this is an appropriate word as it implies outright lying. Obfusication might be better.

Usage surcharges - Yup, they have them.

Other bill add ons - Tip of the iceberg.



It doesn't take much imagination to see a new landscape of....

Base DSL/Cable internet connection - $10

Basic internet access - $10

Email - $10

Social media - $10

Social media plus - $20

Streaming video - $20

Two news outlets - CNN $5 and Foxnews $5 (though I think Foxnews should be fantasy entertainment)



I could go on with my rant, but my dog can't use a laptop and is making damn sure I won't either.



Anonda649

@ri.net 3 recommendations Anonda649 Anon What will no net neutrality actually look like? Telecoms didn't block sites much before the rules came into effect. Maybe more of this price stuff, zerorating and carriers throttle video more easily for their unlimited plans, but maybe Trump wants to get rid of net neutrality because he remembers how at&t blocked 4chan once when it started mocking the company so Trump can pass around a list of websites that are on his naughty list so they can be blocked if the ISP companies wanna stay on his good side. Using unregulation instead of law to do the same thing just like how they said isps could block torrent sites that enable internet piracy while in Canada the companies are lobbying for a government foundation that does the same thing. sims

join:2013-04-06 2 recommendations sims Member Isn't verizon very clearly in violation of part 3? "Data Caps and Allowances"

Verizon has a cap for DSL, FIOS and gUDP but none of those are public.

Anona0432

@mycingular.net 2 recommendations Anona0432 Anon Transparency? They're not even transparent NOW.



Ask anyone that's ever called T-Mobile out for over-counting supposedly zero-rated video. quisp65

join:2003-05-03

San Diego, CA 2 recommendations quisp65 Member I would like to know the price after the special ends but...... I would like to know the price after the special ends but the current rules I don't think cover that issue enough. There must be loopholes. I have to ask that question in the forums.