Advocates, Industry Disagree on Additional Broadband Label Revisions

Consumer advocacy groups and industry disagreed about whether the FCC should adopt additional requirements for its new broadband labels as the latest version is currently being implemented (see 2211180077). Some industry groups urged the commission to wait until the new labels are being used and can be evaluated for effectiveness before making any revisions. Comments were posted through Friday in docket 22-2.

Bundled services should be itemized so consumers can "make more informed judgments about the value of the plan components when comparing the plan to other provider offerings," said the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. ISPs should also be required to submit the labels to the commission in addition to presenting them at the point-of-sale, NDIA said. Require ISPs to display additional fees that may increase an advertised price, said the cities of Longmont and Loveland, Colorado, in joint comments. "Finding an ISP whose bills match its advertised price has become a rarity and an expensive and time-consuming undertaking for consumers," the cities said.

The FCC could host focus groups to "ensure that the label meets the needs of the average consumer," said Next Century Cities and Consumer Reports in joint comments. The groups backed adding information about service reliability and speeds to the label. Information about outages could also "make all the difference" to a consumer choosing between a larger or local provider, they said. Don't require labels for non-mass market services bought by E-rate and rural health care program applicants, said the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition. Doing so would be "counter-productive and may negatively impact competition in the marketplace," the group said.

Don't "presume to impose additional labeling requirements without the benefit of the real world experience that lies just around the corner," said NCTA. It's "implausible to suppose that Congress intended for the commission to immediately revisit virtually every aspect of the adopted rules before the statutorily required rules have gone into effect," it said. USTelecom agreed, saying the FCC shouldn't "overengineer the labels with complicated, extraneous information that will not enhance comparison shopping."

Revising the label requirements while they're being implemented "will more likely add to consumer confusion than cure it," said CTIA. This inquiry is "untimely" and the FCC "does not explain why a second phase of rulemaking is necessary," said ACA Connects. There's "no basis to conclude" that the current requirements are "inadequate to meet the needs of consumers," it said.

Any additions to the labels "would upset the balance the commission crafted" and "outweigh any potential consumer benefits," said NTCA and the Wireless ISP Association in joint comments. They opposed additional language requirements, saying it would be "simply unmanageable even if it were limited to the top ten non-English languages." The labels should also "focus on core elements of the standalone broadband price and not extend to discounts or taxes," they said. WTA said "many of the proposed additional labelling requirements entail substantial complexities, burdens and operating expenses for small ISPs."

The "burden on providers of providing a mere 15 translations should be entirely reasonable," said New America's Open Technology Institute. Consumers should also have information about ancillary fees and network management practices, the group said. The Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable asked the FCC to consider requiring that providers "disclose sunset dates for the support of customer-owned equipment." Provide "simple notices" for consumers to understand a provider's data collection and sharing practices, said the Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Privacy Information Center and Ranking Digital Rights in joint comments.