FCC Says Vague Phone Fee Descriptions May Violate Truth-in-Billing Rules and Act

an FCC declaratory ruling Thursday in docket 98-170 stressed "a final determination will require the court to apply our ruling to the facts at issue in the case," Gregory Manasher and Frida Sirota v. NECC Telecom, No. 2:06-cv-10749. Plaintiffs' petition to the agency alleged NECC violated the rules and the act "by billing, charging, and collecting monies" that "were unjustly, unreasonably, and deceptively billed as 'recurring fees' and 'other fees,'" the FCC said. "Plaintiffs also alleged NECC billed plaintiffs 'for amounts in excess of the actual cost for telephone services.'" NECC disputed the allegations. Both parties cited the Supreme Court's Global Crossing v. Metrophones, disagreeing whether the FCC had addressed whether a Section 64.2401 rule violation is unreasonable under the act's Section 201(b). The court referred the legal issue and eight questions on billing details to the FCC. The agency sought comment in 2012, drawing responses from two telco trade groups and consumer advocates. The commission ruling provided answers. O'Rielly said he's concerned the ruling could limit carrier discretion under 1999 truth-in-billing rules intended as "broad, binding principles" rather than detailed rules. "I disagree with the portions of this item that suggest that clarifying information must be contained on the bill itself," he said. He's "troubled" by the FCC action because the "flourishing voice market" is giving consumers various options: "This item should strike a more careful balance. Instead, its effort to explicitly or implicitly constrain billing practices could make compliance more burdensome for providers of legacy services or confuse consumers with more billing detail than helpful." NECC didn't comment.