Consumers ‘Not Getting the Transparency They Deserve’ in Broadband Services, FCC Told

The FCC’s forthcoming broadband consumer labels should be “simple, consistent, and easy for consumers to use,” said Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel Friday during the agency’s first virtual public hearing on the labels (see 2203100059). Current disclosures “are not consistent from carrier to carrier, so it’s really hard to compare service and prices,” Rosenworcel said, and there’s “no time to waste” given Congress’ one-year deadline to adopt new labels.

Having “a clear and consistent framework that consumers can rely on ... along with clear, upfront understanding of the cost” is “something that we at the commission feel will benefit all consumers,” said Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Chief Alejandro Roark. The hearings will “help us bring consistency and clarity to the broadband marketplace,” Roark said.

Broadband disclosures are “extremely opaque and confusing for the average consumer,” said Joshua Stager, New America’s Open Technology Institute deputy director-broadband and competition policy. There are “tons” of ancillary fees that are “difficult to find” and “quite costly” for consumers, Stager said. “Consumers are not getting the transparency they deserve,” he said, although smaller ISPs have been “embracing transparency.”

The FCC’s current transparency rule requires providers to disclose accurate information about network management practices, performance characteristics and commercial terms, said Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Attorney Adviser Jerusha Burnett. The FCC wants to ensure the new labels “are actually useful to consumers,” Burnett said, noting the agency should consider “careful and nuanced” translations in other languages.

The “lack of consistency in the marketplace complicates the consumers’ purchasing experience,” said Public Knowledge Director-Government Affairs Greg Guice. The FCC should explain “what the level of broadband is that a consumer needs,” Guice said. There’s “almost no standardization” about how consumers receive billing information from carrier to carrier, said Nebraska Public Service Commissioner Crystal Rhoades (D). “We’re going to need to provide some basic guidance on the types of speed required for different online activities,” Rhoades said.

“It’s critical to stay away from jargon,” said USTelecom Vice President-Policy and Advocacy Diana Eisner. Information about packet loss “means nothing to the average consumer,” she said, and the labels “need to be tailored to what is important when someone is shopping.” Stager said the labels “should not be designed to just reflect today’s reality” and should have “the potential to educate consumers,” which Guice echoed. Consumers should know what to expect based on a certain speed, Guice said.

There’s a “real need for objective, readily available, and standardized information about internet services,” said Onward Eugene Managing Director Matt Sayre. Consumers “choose no option” when overwhelmed or subscribe “to plans they can’t afford,” said Digital Access to All consultant Maribel Martinez.

The FCC “should allow flexibility by reference to existing standards to ensure this information is accessible,” Eisner said, saying the labels should be allowed through a link on a provider’s website. But older Americans may be buying broadband for the first time and “not be going online,” so other ways of accessing this information should be considered, said Project Get Older Adults OnLine Executive Director Debra Berlyn, who chaired the 2015 Consumer Advisory Committee that recommended the 2016 labels.

Providing information itself rather than the labels in alternate formats “should be the goal of final accessibility regulations,” said American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities CEO Margaret Nygren. The FCC should also collect and maintain public data, making it available for researchers to access and analyze, Nygren said.