Proposed FCC Bill Shock Rules Not Tough Enough, Consumer Groups Say
So-called bill shock regulations offer a “common-sense approach” to consumer protection “in an increasingly complex and frequently confusing wireless marketplace,” consumer and public interest groups said in a filing at the FCC. But the groups said the rules proposed by the FCC in October don’t go far enough. Comments were due Monday at the FCC under the commission’s revised timetable. CTIA and the major carriers hadn’t filed comments at our deadline.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Evolving research supports the need for the FCC to take action, the groups said. “Consumer Reports surveyed more than 58,000 wireless subscribers and found that approximately
one in five subscribers had received a bill that was significantly higher than they had expected,” they said. “Half of those who reported such bills said the bill was at least $50 higher than expected, and one in five of those who experienced such bill shock reported that the bill was $100 more than expected.”
The groups asked the FCC to impose tougher regulations than those that the commission proposed Oct. 24. The FCC should require wireless carriers to obtain a subscriber’s affirmative “opt-in” agreement to penalty fees before they can be charged. When a limit is reached, service would be cut off to those who don’t agree, but they could still make 911 calls. Bill shock regulations also should apply to prepaid mobile service providers and regional and rural carriers, the groups said. The Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the Center for Media Justice, Consumer Action, Free Press, the Media Access Project, the National Consumers League, the National Hispanic Media Coalition and the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative signed off on the filing.
Sean Murphy -- a Washington man whose son racked up $9,100 in charges from AT&T after watching 45 minutes of video on YouTube on his cellphone in Guatemala -- also asked the FCC to impose tough regulations. The fee was later reduced by the carrier. “This fourteen year old boy’s phone was consuming service at the rate of $3 per second, $200 per minute, $12,000 per hour, and could have exceeded $168,000 by the time AT&T disabled the service more than 14 hours later,” Murphy wrote.
The Rural Telecommunications Group questioned the need for bill shock regulations. “While the Commission clearly perceives that ‘bill shock’ is a problem, the NPRM provides little if any evidence that such a problem exists,” RTG said. “The NPRM relies primarily on anecdotal evidence based on a small sampling of consumer complaints.” The FCC’s proposals in the notice would impose “substantial costs on all carriers, and have an inordinately harmful impact on smaller carriers,” RTG said.
The Rural Cellular Association said rural carriers face few complaints and shouldn’t be targeted by the FCC. “Rural and regional carriers should not be subjected to an automatic bill shock mandate on account of the larger carriers’ inability to provide their customers with accurate billing information,” said President Steve Berry. “RCA members pride themselves in excellent customer service and make every effort to ensure their customers’ billing information is clear and accurate.