After years of public confusion regarding telephone bills, the FCC adopted Truth-in-Billing rules in 1999. At that time the Commission said these rules would “improve consumers' understanding of their telephone bills and help consumers detect and prevent unauthorized charges (cramming).” These rules require that a telephone company's bill must:

Provide a brief, clear, non-misleading, plain language description of the service or services rendered to accompany each charge;

Identify the service provider associated with each charge;

Clearly and conspicuously identify any change in service provider;

Contain full and non-misleading descriptions of charges;

Identify those charges for which failure to pay will not result in disconnection of the customer's basic local service;

Provide a toll-free number for customers to call in order to lodge a complaint or obtain information;

Place charges from third parties that are not telephone companies in a distinct section of the bill, separate from telephone company charges; and

Provide a separate subtotal for third-party charges in the separate bill section and on the payment page. Telephone companies also must notify consumers, on their websites and at the point of sale, of any options they offer to block charges from third parties that are not telephone companies.

No doubt, these rules have been a great benefit to consumers. However, with the numerous technological changes to the telecommunications industry since the rules were established 21 years ago, the Commission recently decided it was now time for an update. On December 13, 2019, the FCC released a Public Notice in Docket 98-170 seeking industry input regarding how the Truth-in-Billing rules should be modified to keep up with new technologies such as VoIP. The agency also is interested in how government-mandated fees such as universal service charges should appear on bills. Should these charges be segregated, or should they be included with other billed items?

Specifically, the agency seeks answers to the following questions:

First, should the Commission extend its existing truth-in-billing rules, which currently apply only to wireline and wireless common carriers, to interconnected VoIP service providers?...We seek to refresh the record in light of the increasing numbers of consumers who have replaced their traditional circuit-switched phone service with interconnected VoIP service. Would consumers of interconnected VoIP service benefit from the truth-in-billing rules? For example, would such rules aid consumers both in determining whether to subscribe to an interconnected VoIP service in the first place and, thereafter, in assessing a provider’s ongoing fees and conditions vis-à-vis those of other providers? Would rules requiring that charges be clear and conspicuous enhance interconnected VoIP consumers’ ability to detect erroneous charges and unauthorized changes in their service arrangements?

Second, we seek to refresh the record on whether the Commission should require all voice service providers to separate on consumer bills those line-item fees that are government-mandated from those that are not to the extent they include separate line items on a consumer’s bill. Would such an approach serve the Commission’s historical truth-in-billing goal “to aid customers in understanding their telecommunications bills, and to provide them with the tools they need to make informed choices in the market for telecommunications services?” If the Commission were to require such separation, what would be the most consumer-beneficial way to do so while minimizing regulatory burdens on voice service providers?

We seek additional comment on how to define “government-mandated charge” for these purposes. In the Truth-in-Billing FNPRM, the Commission noted that mandated charges could be defined as those that providers are required by law to collect from consumers and remit directly to federal, state, or local governments, or could also include charges that providers are not required to collect from consumers but choose to do so through separate line items, to reimburse themselves for their own payments toward government programs. Under this definition, charges for universal service, state and local taxes, 911/E911, and other line-item fees should be considered government-mandated. We seek further comment on how we should define government-mandated charges. (FCC December 13, 2019 Public Notice, at pp. 1-3).

Industry comments will be due 30 days after the Public Notice appears in the Federal Register. The feeling here is that updating the Truth-in-Billing rules will benefit telecommunication companies as well as consumers. An educated public reduces consumer complaints and minimizes the opportunity for bad actors manipulating bills for their own benefit.