ISPs Oppose 'Esoteric Metrics' in FCC Broadband Labels

ISPs sought minor modifications of the FCC’s 2016 broadband consumer labels as the agency works to create new labels required by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In reply comments posted Friday in docket 22-2 (see 2203100059), disagreement continued on what details should be included in the labels. Others raised issues with calls to require privacy disclosures in the eventual labels, suggesting links that include more detailed information instead.

The record shows the FCC isn't "bound by the infrastructure Act to adopt the 2016 broadband label," said NTCA and the Wireless ISP Association in joint comments. The intent is to "convey appropriate information to consumers," the groups said, and not a "specific mandate to publish labels in a particular form with prescribed content." Including information about a provider's network technology "is relatively easy to accomplish," said the Fiber Broadband Association, repeating its request that this be included in the label.

Don't "reinvent the wheel," said AT&T. The FCC could modify the 2016 labels to "streamline the content" and clarify certain methodologies, the ISP said, saying providers shouldn't be required to update labels for existing customers or create ones for grandfathered plans. Including "esoteric metrics" would "alienate the average consumers and reduce the value of the broadband consumer labels," said USTelecom.

Ensure providers have "flexibility in conveying pricing information," said T-Mobile, noting that “[c]onstitutional constraints on speech regulation become especially salient in the context of the burdensome requirements that some commenters have proposed.” AT&T opposed "straightjacketing providers" and "prohibiting them from adding explanations and context where appropriate." NCTA agreed, saying rules that "impose speech mandates that add complexity to the process of shopping for broadband would be difficult to justify." Conduct "a careful review" of the impact the labels may have and "appropriately tailor any mandatory labels to avoid any constitutional pitfalls," said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Require ISP privacy disclosures to "provide much needed sunlight on ISP privacy practices beyond dense and lengthy privacy policies that consumers may not fully review or understand," said the Center for Democracy & Technology. It said the FCC has the authority to do so and the First Amendment "is no bar to narrowly tailored disclosures." TechFreedom disagreed, advising the FCC to avoid adding items that "have little, if anything, to do with the labels originally formulated in 2016." Privacy is "too important and too complicated of an issue to address" in the labels, said Adtran, suggesting the issue be discussed in a separate proceeding.

Reject calls to require "overly technical information" like packet loss metrics or data about bundled services, said the National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association. CTIA said packet loss is "a prime example of a data point that is more likely to confuse than educate” consumers. Don't require labels on marketing materials or "other vaguely defined but potentially broad scenarios," said ACA Connects, noting it's "infeasible to reproduce this amount of information in such a wide array of contexts."

The record shows the labels should "be as simple and easy-to-understand as possible," USTelecom said, noting several commenters backed "using links for more detailed information” (see 2203110064). Links would “allow easy access to additional information about services, features, plans or other details,” CTIA said. Physical labels should also be available for consumers who shop in person, said Next Century Cities: Providers should make labels available "at any point there is a change in a consumer's service."

Require expiration dates for ISPs' introductory rates, said the city of Boston, Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues and NATOA in joint comments. Local governments "are all too familiar with reports of confusing advertising practices and promotional rates making it difficult for consumers to comprehend the costs associate[d] with their broadband service," they said. The groups also backed requiring adding labels to consumers' monthly bills.

Several commenters backed calls for the FCC to develop a website explaining technological terms that may appear on the labels. Having "this type of information available will help to promote broadband adoption," said Starry. It could also be "a home for the methodologies" the FCC may set for the labels, said the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. The group said it's "odd to see most of the opposition to the labels coming from the largest cable and telephone companies" because they "often have the most resources to comply with such requirements."