WASHINGTON-Consumer groups, disability advocates and state attorneys general urged the Federal Communications Commission to beef up telecom billing rules to help reduce confusion and safeguard against abuses.
“Only stronger billing rules will reduce consumer confusion and provide increased protections against misleading charges,” said John Perkins, president of the National Association of state Utility Consumer Advocates and consumer proponent for the state of Iowa. “Consumer advocates have presented the FCC with constructive recommendations on how to improve and enforce the standards needed to provide customers with accurate and truthful information. We hope the FCC will use our suggestions as an opportunity to make much-needed improvements to increasingly complex telephone bills.”
The groups expressed their views in written comments in an ongoing truth-in-billing proceeding at the FCC. The agency in March extended truth-in-billing rules to mobile-phone carriers, but rejected NASUCA’s request to prohibit line-item regulatory recovery fees levied by wireless operators to cover costs of implementing federal mandates such as local number portability, enhanced 911 and universal-service fund contributions. In addition, the FCC at that time pre-empted state regulation of line-item charges.
NASUCA and the Vermont Public Service Board have challenged those rulings at the 11th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Atlanta. Briefing in the 11th Circuit will begin in September.
Meantime, the FCC will review the latest round of comments on a number issues, including its tentative conclusion that states should be banned from issuing and enforcing laws that regulate cellular and long-distance companies’ billing practices. NASUCA and others strongly oppose such a pre-emption.
“The actions taken by the FCC thus far do not resolve our fundamental concerns over misleading and deceptive charges,” said Patrick Pearlman of the West Virginia Consumer Advocate Division. “On behalf of our nation’s consumers, we hope that the billing rules can be strengthened to eliminate some of customers’ existing confusion. However, stronger rules should not come at the expense of states losing their authority to protect residents from deceptive billing practices.”
