Remember the broadband “nutrition” labels ISPs are required to show consumers? The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its ongoing campaign to "delete" regulations, could soon change what’s on the label and how it’s presented.
The FCC kicked off a proceeding to eliminate certain broadband label requirements and is seeking comment on whether it should streamline or remove any other rules that are “unduly burdensome and provide minimal benefit to consumers.”
The requirements on the chopping block include mandates to:
- Read the label to consumers over the phone
- Itemize state and local passthrough fees that vary depending on location of the consumer
- Provide information about the now-concluded Affordable Connectivity Program
- Display labels in customer account portals
- Make labels available in machine readable format
- Archive labels for at least two years after a service is no longer offered to new customers
- Offer the label in multiple languages
I think most won’t complain about removing the ACP rule, since the program expired in June 2024 and is unlikely to return anytime soon. But as for the rest of these?
Frankly, they’re headscratchers. I’m confused on what’s so “burdensome” about these requirements and why the FCC thinks they don’t help consumers. Particularly the rule that ISPs must itemize state and local passthrough fees, which means they must list all the additional charges they’re passing onto the consumer. This includes discretionary fees like monthly equipment rental cost and data overage charges, as well as things like pole rental fees that vary state-by-state.
The FCC’s argument, citing comments from telecom trade groups, is that itemizing these costs could produce labels “so lengthy that the fees overwhelm other important elements of the label” and providers may be forced to make multiple labels for the same is service.
That says a lot about the true cost of broadband service.
I'm not the only one who noticed, either.
“It was really interesting to see the complaint here of, oh you know the label would get unwieldy and difficult to read because we have so many fees. Which is you know, kind of telling on yourself in some ways,” Raza Panjwani, senior policy counsel at New America’s Open Technology Institute, told me.
Sadly, the reason for axing that rule is at least logical. But surely, having the customer see the label when they sign into their account is a good thing?
Apparently not. The FCC said this requirement “may confuse customers over time” as prices change and make the original label outdated. But it implies ISPs would have to continue displaying that same label despite changes, which “feels like a pretty obtuse reading of the rule,” Panjwani noted.
“When I log into my account, I should see in label format what is the plan that is currently active, and I should be able to trace back changes through notices from the company,” he said, like how credit card companies update their fees.
If a provider sells internet over the phone, they should give label info over the phone as well. Ditto if they advertise in multiple languages or choose to pass through fees.
“By eliminating these requirements, Chairman Carr is creating broadband label blind spots that make the market less honest and less competitive,” Benton Director of Policy Engagement Drew Garner said.
Missing the point
All told, the FCC’s proposal misses the point of why the broadband labels were created in the first place.
The federal government recognized that lack of broadband price transparency is a problem when it mandated the use of labels in the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act. Operators like Charter and Comcast have made their own commitments to step up on price transparency to curb subscriber declines.
Instead of listing rules to get rid of, maybe the FCC should think about how to make the labels simpler in other ways. For instance, make them easier to find on the provider’s website.
I had mixed results tracking down ISP labels. More often than not, you have to input your address to get the info and if the ISP doesn’t offer service in your area, tough luck. Or I eventually found a webpage but had to jump through hoops to get there.
Heck, Carr directly brought up that issue himself at October’s Commission meeting.
“Since the labels became available, some have said that finding the needed information can be a ‘Sisyphean task,’” he said.
The Taxpayers Protection Alliance has also argued the information on the broadband labels is “too technical for many consumers to find practical.”
As a reporter who’s well aware of just how technical broadband can get, I don’t entirely disagree. But remember, these labels are meant to emulate nutrition facts on food products. They're meant to make the technical accessible.
Nutrition labels list all types of fat, vitamins and minerals as well as ingredients, which can sound just as technical as download and upload speeds. You probably wouldn’t like it if a label left out an ingredient that could pose a potential health risk (say, an allergy).
Why should broadband, which is arguably just as essential as food, be any different?
Op-eds from industry experts, analysts or our editorial staff are opinion pieces that do not represent the opinions of Fierce Network.