Industry Pushback on Broadband Label Plan Anticipated

The draft would propose to adopt the FCC Consumer Advisory Committee’s 2015 recommendations that were adopted in 2016 as a launching point, as required by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and encouraged in President Joe Biden's executive order on promoting competition (see 2107090006). The draft proposes including some additional label information, including introductory or promotional rates and whether or how to include details about the $14.2 billion affordable connectivity program.

Relying on the 2016 labels as a starting point was “smart” politically because CAC included industry representatives in that process, said Consumers Reports' Senior Policy Analyst Jonathan Schwantes (see 1604040046). The question now is what kind of information must be included in the labels and where the labels should be displayed, Schwantes said.

Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council “support[s] the commission’s efforts to provide transparency for consumers,” emailed CEO Robert Branson: “More information provided in the right places such as online helps all to make informed decisions in these difficult economic times.” More people will be looking for a broadband plan due to the recent funding, said Next Century Cities Policy Counsel-Federal Programs Ryan Johnston, so having such labels will be “useful for helping those people get the plan that’s going to best meet their needs.”

There are some “fairly significant” proposed additions to the 2016 labels, said Marashlian & Donahue's Jonathan Marashlian. A substantive change was to include ACP data, Marashlian said, noting the proposal may apply only to mass-market services.

Another difference between the current proposal and what was previously adopted is that all ISPs would have to adopt the labels. In 2016, they were given a safe harbor to voluntarily adopt them. Making this a requirement for all ISPs is a “really big improvement,” Schwantes said.

The requirement may be more of a burden for smaller providers that have limited resources, Marashlian said. One solution could be giving these providers access to some form of a label maker so they can put their data into software that produces a label, he said.

ISPs will likely “fight hard” to make this voluntary, emailed CCG Consulting President Doug Dawson: “If they get that they’ve won.” There’s “certainly going to be pushback from providers” about the administrative burden, Johnston said, but “we’re looking at data that should already be collected anyway.” Verizon and T-Mobile didn’t comment. AT&T and the FCC declined to comment Tuesday.

“I have an extremely difficult time believing that the big ISPs will ever provide honest answers on this kind of label even if it’s mandatory,” Dawson said: “So even if this is ordered there will be a huge ongoing tug-of-war about what is and isn’t a responsive label.” Pushback is “definitely” anticipated, said New America’s Open Technology Institute Policy Analyst Claire Park. OTI proposed the labels in 2009.

Including information about introductory rates was a “good proposal,” said Public Knowledge Senior Policy Counsel Jenna Leventoff. The eventual labels will be a “real consumer education moment,” Schwantes said. It may be helpful for the FCC to provide a source for consumers with frequently asked questions so they can understand the information on the labels, he said. Leventoff agreed, saying it’s “helpful if that comes from a reliable source like the FCC.”