FCC's Broadband Label Proposals See Industry Support, Consumer Protection Concerns

But an array of consumer and disability advocacy groups also defended the current labeling rules regime in comments due Friday in docket 22-2. A further NPRM proposing a variety of changes was approved 2-1 in October. In her dissent, Commissioner Anna Gomez criticized some of the proposals as anti-consumer (see 2510280024).

Trade groups backed the FCC's suggestions to eliminate such requirements as providers having to itemize government-imposed, location-specific fees and offer a machine-readable version of the label. CTIA said that even with the proposed changes to the label itself, it "would continue to provide useful information as consumers shop for a broadband plan that fits their needs."

Backing the changes in the FNPRM, WISPA said the FCC should make compliance with any future content-based provisions optional. Smaller broadband providers shouldn't have to expend additional time and resources to again modify their current broadband labels if they opt to maintain compliance with existing rules, the group said. Conversely, any new mandatory changes should extend compliance deadlines for smaller providers, it added.

NCTA argued against requiring providers to have the broadband label in the account portal of all customers. The label is to help comparison-shop for service, and once someone has signed up, the label isn't necessary, it said, arguing that the most up-to-date information is in billing statements or the customer's account portal. The rules also mean providers must change their labels multiple times a year due to "each and every change to government-imposed fees," so the FCC should allow providers to display an "up-to" fee level or to state only that fees may apply, rather than itemizing them geographically.

NTCA said the agency shouldn't consider additional requirements proposed in the 2022 broadband labeling FNPRM, such as those for broader website accessibility standards, labels provided in languages that ISPs don't use for marketing, and cybersecurity disclosures that could reveal vulnerabilities. NTCA also said the proposed interactive label features would exceed FCC statutory authority.

ACA Connects said some labeling rules that the FCC wants to remove "are administratively complex, difficult to automate, technically disruptive, and, as a general matter, provide little or no meaningful benefit to consumers." Having to configure websites to render full labels "has been unexpectedly costly and technically challenging" for small and midsize providers that use third-party vendors or legacy site templates, the group said, and letting providers show broadband labels via an icon or link rather than embedding the full label on every point-of-sale webpage would ease that burden. Breezeline likewise argued for allowing a link or icon, saying that the label plus service-specific promotional text on the marketing page is overwhelming for many customers and often creates unnecessary confusion.

A single label format requirement "constrains innovation ... and may not reflect the diversity of offerings or customer preferences across regions and technologies," said Incompas. The approach used for nutrition labels never quite fit broadband services, it said, and the fact that the FCC and FTC haven't used that approach in adjacent markets shows that the broadband labeling regime "addresses a theoretical, rather than an actual, market failure."

Label Allies

The proposed labeling changes "are not about fixing what is broken [but] about making the problem of junk fees, hidden charges, and difficult-to-understand billing worse," said groups including Public Knowledge, the Open Technology Institute at New America and the National Consumer Law Center. They said the FCC should set up a staff group to receive and investigate consumers' labeling complaints and look for patterns of not complying. That meaningful data would let the agency "make an informed [judgment] about what requirements serve consumers and which do not."

AARP said ISPs haven't shown or quantified any supposed compliance burden. "It seems likely that the cost of compliance pales in comparison to the vast revenues that ISPs derive from their residential customers." Telephone-based information "is essential, especially for older adults." AARP also said the FCC should keep a placeholder for any replacement of the affordable connectivity program, thus guaranteeing that it doesn't have to re-create the work done before on ACP-related labeling. The Utility Reform Network added that axing significant accessibility and transparency provisions would violate the plain language of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

A coalition of disability advocacy organizations similarly said some of the FCC's proposals "will impede accessibility, undermine transparency, and could potentially weaken compliance with obligations under" the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Any changes that the agency ultimately adopts should explicitly reaffirm ISPs' obligations to maintain accessible broadband information and interfaces, said the groups, including Deaf Equality, the Association of Late-Deafened Adults, the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf, and the Cerebral Palsy & Deaf Organization.