WASHINGTON-The Federal Communications Commission last week told wireless carriers that bills to their customers must include their name, a phone number where billing questions can be answered, and carriers must use standardized language regarding federally mandated charges listed separately on bills.
Wireless carriers are excluded from most of the rules of the highly touted truth-in-billing proceeding. The agency told wireline telecom carriers they clearly must tell if a customer is being billed for a service offered by a different service provider than the one issuing the bill. The FCC also released a further notice of proposed rule making specifically asking whether wireless should be excluded from this mandate.
Normally, wireless carriers do not bill for services offered by other companies, said Thomas Sugrue, chief of the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. This is one example of how billing practices are different in the wireline vs. wireless arenas. In the wireline world, customers often receive one bill that contains charges from the local exchange carrier, the long-distance service provider and any other incidental charges, such as calls to pay-for-service 900 lines.
The rules, set to go into effect by the end of the year, are designed to address the confusion customers experience when reading these combined bills, said FCC Chairman William Kennard.
The truth-in-billing effort began when the long-distance industry started using line items to indicate universal-service contributions. The line items were not popular at the FCC or on Capitol Hill because it was clear it would be consumers-not telephone giants-paying for universal service.
Telephone companies, especially long-distance companies, said it was unfair to make it look like they were raising their rates for no reason.
Wireless carriers were excluded from some of the most onerous rules because of the competitive nature of the wireless industry, said Thomas Wheeler, president of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association. “This decision reflects how the competitive wireless industry is different from others … In a competitive market like wireless, the bill actually becomes a tool. The commission’s decision reflects how they did not want to stifle this competition by imposing a standard format,” Wheeler said.
The Personal Communications Industry Association specifically noted the disparity in complaints the FCC has received concerning wireless, saying “it was a clear indication that these rules are unnecessary and unwarranted for the wireless industry.”
It was this lack of consumer complaints-only 60 written complaints about wireless bills compared with 60,000 contacts regarding wireline bills-that influenced the FCC’s decision to exempt wireless from most of the rules. “The decision with regard to wireless carriers is based not so much on competition but on the lack of wireless complaints,” said an FCC spokeswoman.
However, FCC Commissioner Gloria Tristani said the wireless industry may have gotten too many exemptions. “I am not sure that we should be treating the industries differently … I would like to note that I would have gone further.”
FCC Commissioner Susan Ness also said she saw no inherent reason why wireless carriers should be treated differently.
FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth voted against the item. “We have two choices when it comes to truth-in-billing. We have the Soviet system of dictating what the truth is, or we have the American system of letting the marketplace for ideas prevail.”
