In response, the FCC has publicly commented that there is more competition that ever from cable companies, as well as wireless and satellite providers.

But the FCC’s comments about an abundance of competition seem to have been put to the test recently as Verizon (News - Alert) has announced a new broadband surcharge. According to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, Verizon began e-mailing its roughly six million high-speed Internet subscribers, informing them they would no longer be charged the Universal Service Fund fee — which was $1.25 or $2.83 a month, depending on speed of service. But it went on to say that it was instituting a “supplier surcharge” of $1.20 or $2.70 a month beginning August 26.

Many point to this new fee as evidence that there is a lack of real broadband competition in the market and they further argue the timing of this increase — just as the FCC declared broadband subscribers no longer had to pay into the Universal Service Fund, is especially sneaky.

It is for this reason that the FCC decided to send a “letter of inquiry” to Verizon in order to ascertain the reasoning behind the surcharge. The letter is the first step toward a formal investigation. Verizon said it decided to impose the new fee on all Internet subscribers because of increased costs of providing service to customers who only buy high-speed Internet. Verizon strongly disputed the idea that it hadn’t been upfront with consumers about the new charge and said its timing was designed to minimize the impact on consumers who won’t see their bills change significantly.

From my vantage point, it is bizarre that the FCC needs to step in and protect consumers.

The following statement perhaps explains the point best:

“The commission takes its obligation to protect consumers very seriously,” said FCC spokesman David Fiske. “Consumers must be provided with clear and non-misleading information so they may accurately access the services for which they are being charged and the costs associated with those services.”

Let’s put aside the fact that the term non-misleading is something most people have never heard before — I imagine when most people encounter the term, they get the same confused feeling they get when trying to decipher the fees and taxes on their current phone bills.

The FCC’s actions are admirable. The question is why are they necessary?

If there truly is competition, why would Verizon and SBC — who just recently dropped their $2.97 “regulatory cost recover fee” — not be allowed to charge fees to their heart’s content? After all Federal Express and other shippers routinely add fuel surcharges to packages their customer’s ship.

If all of the above-mentioned companies are publicly traded and they have an obligation to shareholders to increase profit, what business is it of the FCC to step in and police the increased fees being charged? After all, isn’t it obvious that Skype (News - Alert), cable companies, Vonage (News - Alert), and other VoIP companies are wreaking havoc on the bottom line of Verizon, AT&T, and others?

This is the exact irony the public should be thinking about, as on the one hand, the FCC is allowing large-scale mergers to decrease broadband competition, but on the other hand is trying to make sure the companies in the new telecom landscape don’t take advantage of their newfound power.

One has to wonder if the problem is to allow all the mergers in the first place. It would seem that as fewer and fewer real alternatives exist in the market we will need the FCC to step and protect consumers ever more often. It is worth pointing out that the above scenario is exactly what consumer groups have been afraid of. Perhaps it is worth taking a breath and listening to what these groups and others are saying before we proceed to eliminate more broadband competitors from the market.