If nothing else, it's pretty clear that both the FCC's national broadband plan and their network neutrality rules are going to focus heavily on transparency -- as in, making sure the consumer knows precisely what kind of connection they're buying. One of the agency's workshops this week focused specifically on this issue, and the FCC's "sixth network neutrality principle" is transparency. At the moment, "transparency" to the FCC means the consumer getting accurate speed and network management information about their connection:But what remains untouched by the FCC so far is the ISPs' use of "unfees" or various other below the line charges that used to covertly glean additional revenue from customers. Via the use of these fees, bills are jacked up and rate hikes are imposed while the advertised price remains the same. By using "official" sounding names (like regulatory recovery fees), carriers also get the luxury of pretending it's all Uncle Sam's fault. It's false advertising. It's in every industry.

In the better part of a decade that our users have been complaining about such practices, we've seen a number of politicians pick up on the fee issue as a pet project. However, those efforts are quickly forgotten. While Attorneys General have cracked down on wireless carriers for everything from pretending that capped service is unlimited to sneaky contract extensions and ETFs, the use of bogus fees to jack up the advertised price continues to be perfectly acceptable.

If the FCC's going to talk so much about transparency, shouldn't the litany of billing tricks used by wireless and terrestrial (VoIP included) carriers at least be part of the conversation?