Groups Disagree on Content, Extent of FCC Broadband Consumer Labels

Industry, state officials and advocacy groups disagreed how the FCC should proceed in adopting new broadband consumer labels, in comments posted Thursday in docket 22-2 (see 2201280038). Industry disagreed whether certain information should be required or optional, while state officials and advocacy groups called for strong enforcement and regular publishing of the labels online and on consumer bills. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) required the FCC to adopt labels and hold public hearings on the issue (see 2201270030).

Broadband disclosures "are opaque, confusing, and intimidating," said New America's Open Technology Institute, which first proposed the labels in 2009. Update the existing labels to include total monthly cost, median speeds and latency, OTI said, and ensure the labels are "prominently displayed ... available in multiple languages ... and machine-readable."

"Clarify the purpose of the broadband label" and various terms to "combat confusion regarding which companies are required to produce labels," said Incompas. It said the FCC should clarify that ISPs subject to the requirement don't include resellers, E-rate and rural healthcare providers, and those that provide services to large business and government entities because they "typically are not purchasing mass-market [broadband internet access services]" and don't "need the same type of protection that residential and small business customers may need."

Adopt "clear definitions of performance metrics" for fixed broadband that "track the definitions of speed and latency," said SpaceX. It also backed including an "all in" cost for equipment, installation and other fees related to "delivering broadband service to a consumer's home." Allow providers the option to include information about jitter and service interruptions, suggested Viasat.

Include a line about network technology, said the Fiber Broadband Association, because consumers "value" this information when choosing a broadband service. There's "more than sufficient evidence in the market that consumers recognize there are differences in technologies in delivering broadband service," FBA said. Incompas said giving providers the option to include speed symmetry reliability in their label would let them "emphasize their superior network capabilities" and "distinguish one's service."

The existing labels were the product of "an expert body" made up of a variety of stakeholders, said ACA Connects, backing their use as "a starting point." Modify them to direct providers to clarify pricing options and introductory rates, the group said. Avoid "imposing more expansive label disclosure requirements" than was required in 2016, said Lumen. Providers should "have significant discretion as to how they display the required content," it said.

The labels should "generally follow both the content and the format" of the FCC's 2016 labels, said NCTA (see 2201180055). "There is no need to reinvent the wheel," the group said, saying additional information should be "permitted, but not required." Let providers meet the disclosure requirement by "providing a link to information housed electronically," said USTelecom. Require labels only for existing offers, the group said, because labels for legacy plans "will create confusion and frustration for customers."

Congress "did not intend to lock the commission into using the 2016 labels" as written in the IIJA, said Verizon, backing some of the existing labels' content and disclosure rules "that are consistent with the 2018 [transparency] order." NetForecast suggested the FCC "convene a technical working group to specify the methodology for testing, scoring, and setting acceptable score values," including latency performance.

Don't view labels as "the repository of all the information a consumer may ever need," said CTIA, and instead "strike the right balance between transparency and simplicity" with the 2016 labels as a guiding point. AT&T backed adopting the content and format of the existing labels for fixed and mobile broadband. "Tread carefully" when considering what information providers must publish, it said, because it doesn't have "unbounded authority to mandate prescribed labels under the First Amendment." AT&T opposed "an enforcement regime" and suggested a "light touch" approach to compliance.

Give providers the option of whether to include packet loss and indicate latency “with a prefix qualifier of ‘Not greater than,’” said NTCA and the Wireless ISP Association in joint comments. “Demur from requiring providers to provide to all consumers information in which only a subset may be interested,” the groups said, citing bundled services, the affordable connectivity program and Lifeline.

Establish a glossary in multiple languages for consumers to know how to interpret the labels, said the Massachusetts Department of Telecom and Cable. The top of the labels should link to this information, the agency said. It backed adding lines for "typical peak usage" download and upload speeds based on specific "time-of-day" measurements. New York's Public Service Commission said the "distinction between fixed and mobile broadband is not so significant as to require two distinct formats." It backed adding information about "limitations on the usage of multiple devices" and requiring labels on "every ISP website."

Require the label on "every new and existing consumer’s monthly bill," said Consumer Reports, Public Knowledge and Common Sense Media in joint comments. Also require links to the label in other languages, the groups suggested, saying a "very limited number of links" should be allowed to avoid consumer confusion.

Effective enforcement of the labels "will depend on adequate staff capacity," said the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, suggesting "a dedicated staff group" to handle consumer complaints and conduct "regular reviews" or "formal audits" of disclosures. "Allow for concurrent jurisdiction" between itself and states to enforce the labels, said Connecticut's Office of State Broadband and Office of Telecommunications and Broadband in joint comments. States could submit reports to the FCC on complaint resolutions, it said, as states are "in the best position to monitor local provider adherence."

Require that providers submit their labels to a "centralized portal using a machine-readable format," said the Institute for Local Self Reliance. Doing so would "ease the reporting burden for providers" and "make the broadband label far more versatile" for accessibility or enforcement purposes, the group said. NTCA and WISPA disagreed and said it “expands and complicates an effort that is intended at its essence to promote simplicity.”