Unfortunately, they will probably respond by raising rates to cover lost revenue from early termination fees and the loss of lock-in. This is arguably better though, since there is up-front pricing.<p>EDIT: Perhaps the only situation where it isn’t is where they are the only game in town and you intend to ride out the whole contract.
Termination fees are utter garbage because say you happen to get locked into a 3 year fiber internet contract[1] (we are), and the price of fiber internet suddenly decreases by 3/4 then you end up paying like $200 more per month than anyone else getting the same fiber internet from the same company.<p>The minute you eliminate termination fees, it’s a free market again and the company is obliged to give you the best price at any given time.<p>[1] you really have no choice here because if there is any kind of infra upgrade involved then every telco wants 36 months despite the build only costing ~$500.
> “So, today we kick out a rulemaking[...]”<p>Is it too much to ask that those who run the government use just slightly more formal language when making statements in their official capacity?
Law of unintended consequences: these services will get more expensive either monthly, upfront setup costs, or require customers to buy the equipment. End result, all customers will now be subsiding those early terminating subscribers. This will probably lead to lower connectivity in rural and poor areas (who can no longer afford up front setup fees) causing a new, much worse problem.
I think is is overstepping what I need the FCC with my life. But you know what I want them to do? Increase the number choices I have. Breakup local monopolies on cable/fiber and make tax deals with local municipalities illegal or fair to competitors so we can avoid "I get one choice in internet provider".