The FCC today announced (pdf) that the agency's new "consumer task force" has sent letters to AT&T, Google, Sprint Nextel, TMobile, and Verizon Wireless with the goal of collecting additional information on early termination fees (ETFs). As you'll recall, the FCC recently raised an eyebrow when Verizon recently doubled their ETF for all smartphones. Use of the fees has long been a contentious issue between carriers and consumer advocates, and carriers have settled a number of ETF class action suits for failing to make the fees clear.

You might also recall how these fees have long annoyed Minnesota Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, who has tried to pass laws twice aimed at reining in the fees. To keep such regulation at bay, carriers have recently started pro-rating ETFs each month over the length of the contract. Judging from the letters (pdf) being sent to carriers, the FCC isn't interested in banning ETFs as-so-much as they are interested in ensuring they're clear to consumers, and consistent across carriers.

ETFs have always been hotly debated among our readers. Some argue that consumers should be fully responsible for reading the contract they sign, and if they don't like the ETF penalty -- buy a fully unsubsidized phone and avoid a long term contract. Opponents of ETFs point out that ETFs are used to diminish the benefits of competition, the unsubsidized cost of contract-free phones are frequently jacked up in an unreasonable fashion, and even under a pro-rated system, the consumer isn't able to pay off the ETF over the length of a contract.

The debate has only grown as ETFs are becoming standard practice for terrestrial broadband service as well. As you'll recall, Verizon recently doubled their ETF for FIOS installations and wireless services, and the FCC asked them why. The telco's justifications weren't particularly compelling, and included the claim that the higher fees were designed to help consumers "of more limited means." Apparently, simple profit was an afterthought to philanthropy.

"The FCC is currently investigating options for improving consumer information and transparency about communications services and fees," says the FCC's letter to AT&T. "In the interest of clarifying these important consumer issues, we are now writing simultaneously to multiple companies to ask a standard set of questions on approaches to ETFs and their implementation," says the agency. The FCC's letters ask carriers which service plans and devices ETFs apply to, how users are informed of the ETF, and requests each carrier justify the use of ETFs.

For their part, the wireless industry's primary lobbying organization (the CTIA) issued a statement this afternoon pledging cooperation. In it, the carriers "agree with the FCC that transparency and disclosure is very critical and that consumers must understand the terms of their contract." "Ultimately, consumers in the United States have many options for subsidized handsets and lower priced plans that most consumers around the world do not have," insists the CTIA.

It's not clear if the FCC's inquiry will actually result in an substantive policy shift, or if this is just showmanship designed to make consumer advocates feel good (while either intentionally or inadvertently helping carriers stall ETF-constricting legislation). Again, it seems like if the agency is really interested in billing transparency, they might want to put some of their investigative energy into an examination of bogus below the line fees that have been tacked on to consumer bills for the better part of a decade.