Donate
  • Freedom
  • Innovation
  • Growth

"Shock" Treatment

 Today at the FCC the commissioners will vote on, and likely approve, moving forward with a “notice of proposed rulemaking,” a first step in crafting yet more regulations. This time it’s in the guise of protecting consumers from “bill shock” from their wireless bills.

The “problem” that the FCC is seeking to solve is that some people apparently are surprised by their mobile bills, having not kept track of minutes used or text messages sent or volume of data used. The truth is that customers who are worried about costs have many available options from pre-paid phones, even though the government is trying to regulate those outright (see “Hanging Up On Liberty: How Prepaid Mobile Laws Restrict Freedom, Impose Onerous Regulations and Fail to Stop Criminal Behavior” ) to a variety of usage tools provided by service providers, and even unlimited use plans which charge a flat rate for as much usage as you want.

And it’s a curious time to regulate, as customers today are awash in choices and pay less per minute than at any other time. That’s until new regulations drive up costs.

Speaking of government costs, perhaps the FCC should be looking at the smothering blanket of taxes that have been layered on mobile communications service. Taxes and fees drive up the cost of communications wildly and in some cases government prevents companies from disclosing the charge as a separate line item.

This results in true bill shock. A common complaint of consumers is that they are sold a plan and then get the bill, loaded with fees and taxes required by the government. In most taxing jurisdictions around the country taxes on mobile wireless even exceed taxes on gambling, pornography and liquor.

Perhaps government needs to get its house in order before having any moral authority to investigate so called “bill shock.” In typical out-of-touch government fashion, in its haste to foist new “government knows best” rules on the public, the FCC is fixated on the mote in their neighbor’s eye rather than the beam in their own.