Archives: Phones & Cell Phones

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering action that will either improve cell phone bills—or set in place rules that will allow cell phone companies to continue mislabeling certain fees as government-mandated charges.

At issue are the agency's "Truth-In-Billing" rules and whether states are allowed to go beyond the federal minimum in adopting their own rules on cell phone and long distance billing.  Consumers Union joined with AARP, the Asian Law Caucus, Disability Rights Advocates, the National Association of State Public Interest Research Groups and National Consumer Law Center in asking the FCC (PDF) to prohibit misleading fees and charges on bills and to respect the rights of states to continue to implement and enforce their own pro-consumer rules.

Consumers groups (PDF) and state officials (PDF) are asking the FCC to prohibit cell phone bills from using misleading terms such as "regulatory assessment fee" to describe add-on charges. Legitimate government mandated charges should be strictly defined and clearly separated from other charges on the bill.  If permitted, the other add-on charges should be accurately labeled so the consumer clearly understands they are not government fees or taxes.

For example, the term "regulatory assessment fee" is used by some cell phone companies to recover expenses, such as the cost of lawyers and lobbyists and property taxes, which are normally included in the price of service as a normal business expense. Wireless phone companies oppose the labeling rule.

States across the country are beginning to respond to consumer complaints about cell phone service by adopting their own rules on billing, disclosure and other aspects of service.

The wireless phone industry is asking the FCC to ban states from adopting their own wireless phone rules and regulations.  The cell phone companies are instead asking the FCC to adopt an industry-drafted set of guidelines as the only allowable consumer protection. Consumers Union believes that goes beyond the Commission's legal authority and is contrary to the intent of Congress. Federal requirements and enforcement should complement, not displace, traditional state authority.