FCC: 30 Million Users Facing 'Bill Shock' → Those additional charges

"The carriers are clearly identifying these impositions as a cost imposed upon the carrier that is being recovered from the consumer,"

Barf. Most of those "un-fees" are clearly just part of the cost of doing business and should be factored into the advertised price. It should be considered false advertising if anything is added to advertised price other than explicit taxes such as sales tax.

A "final price" billing total before signing up would be good. But I have no problem with providers showing just how much gov't fees, taxes, regulatory costs, etc are included. Federal, state, and local gov'ts would love to order providers hide those fees in a single advertised price - that way they can raise fees & taxes at will and the poor schmucks will never know the gov't is robbing them blind.

He was clearly referring to the "unfees" and not government mandated taxes and fees as you are referring to.

In addition, he is 100% correct. The advertised prices should be 100% the price before those government mandated taxes and fees otherwise they are falsely advertising the price of their service.

Before you even start.... there is not a single person in this country that does not know the price being shown is before taxes in virtually every case. There are very very few places, that give you the price with taxes. If the couriers chose to do that then so be it, but they won't because that makes the advertised price higher going against their goal and it would be very inconsistent throughout their servicing area.

And let's throw the cable companies into this mix. They advertise $29.99/month for 12 months unlimited long distance residential phone service that lures folks into switching. Then you get your first bill and discover that it's really $39.99 after taxes, fees and whatever else they line-item into the total price.

It's ridiculous. Any business that thinks it's "fair" is full of it. They know darn well that they are trying to pull a fast one. This is no different than a car salesman who only wants to tell you the final price for your new car and doesn't want to talk about how much you are getting for your old car. He's trying to point out that you are getting a $25,000 car for $20,000 and doesn't want you to know that you are getting $3,000 trade-in value for your car and most of the cost reduction is rebate money. He wants your old car because they make MASSIVE profits off used vehicles.

Of course this is why all great nations eventually fall. They become so corrupt, dishonest and "amoral" that they fail to notice the storm brewing on their border until it's too late.