NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Those surprise overage charges on your wireless bill will soon be a thing of the past.

The vast majority of America's wireless carriers came to terms with the Federal Communications Commission on Monday, agreeing to alert consumers when they are approaching their monthly limits for voice, data and text messages, or when they are about to incur international roaming charges. Mobile providers will send a second alert when customers reach those limits.

The news comes after a nearly two-year FCC probe into "bill shock" -- the sudden, unexpected increase in monthly wireless charges without a change to a customer's plan. The regulator estimates about 30 million Americans have experienced some form of bill shock.

A study that the FCC conducted last year found that 84% of Americans who experienced bill shock said they were not tipped off by their wireless company when they were about to exceed their limits, and 88% said they heard nothing from their provider after they went over.

The overage charges aren't cheap: 67% of the complaints the FCC received last year involved fees of $100 or more, and 20% were for $1,000 or more. The largest: $68,505.

At an announcement of the new agreement in Washington on Monday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said that practice was a "real problem that needed to be fixed." As a result, he called Monday's announcement, "A victory for more than 200 million wireless consumers."

"Every consumer deserves to be treated fairly," he said. "These actions harness technology to empower consumers, to ensure consumers get a fair shake and not bill shock."

Genachowski said the FCC had been considering enacting new regulations that would have forced carriers to send free voice or text messages when customers approach and reach monthly limits that would incur overage charges. The regulator was also going to mandate a similar approach for international roaming charges, and it would require carriers to clearly disclose any tools that they offer to help customers monitor balances.

But the wireless carriers -- though CTIA, the industry's largest trade group -- decided to voluntarily take up the FCC's guidelines. As a result, the FCC said it would tentatively hold off on its regulations with a "trust but verify approach." The regulator will post a public portal on its website to allow consumers to report whether carriers are complying with the rules.

"If we see non-compliance, we'll take action," Genachowski said.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/17/technology/fcc_wireless_bill_shock_agreement/index.htm

Its too bad we have to rely on the government for this.

People are sheep. We should be boycotting service providers that abuse us, and bring our business to those that don't. (That whole two-year lock in thing makes that difficult, which is a good reason for boycotting 2-year plans. )

Instead, we keep giving these companies our business, and then wait for the FCC to step in and impose some basic rules of fairness.

and why can't the Customer keep track of what ,and how much he's been using?

Just what we need in this country, more regs...Read the contract before you sign and stick to your budget! Can't remember the last time I spent money without being "aware" of it!!

Yes, they should be doing that. But, are you against the company having to inform the customer if they're going go over their minutes/data?

I got overcharged once. Way back sprint used to have the mobile to mobile free as part of the plan. Then they changed it to a $5 add on. When I changed to a new plan they didn't inform me this was no longer part of it and didn't ask me if I wanted to add it. The next month I had a $500 bill. (was in college and both my mom and gf were sprint). I thus got into huge arguments back and forth to billing. I told billing "I am not paying this so send me back to customer support". Then some person told me he would send me my call list and I had to identify all the calls that were to sprint carriers.

I asked "don't you have software to do this?" He said no. So after I get my papers and do all that I call them back only to talk to a different person that says "I have software that can do that."

This took me 3 months to get fixed and I ended up paying about $120 or so because it was 3 months all at once because I refused to pay until it was all worked out.

Now, if they could do that to the banks.......

In an ideal world, yes. Yes, I would absolutely be opposed to the company being legally coerced into taking this step.

But with all the other things that are dysfunctional about our current implementation of capitalism... no. I see this as a band aid approach, which solves a tiny problem while ignoring the larger problem. Given a choice between band-aid and no band-aid, I support the band-aid.