The FCC is moving to dismantle a rule requiring internet service providers to publish detailed “nutrition labels” for their service plans, just over a year after the requirement went into effect. The changes it’s proposing could roll back transparency requirements that took years to establish — making it harder to tell how much you’ll be paying for internet service.
In a 2-1 vote on October 28th, the FCC passed a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that could significantly scale back the Broadband Facts label, something internet service providers have been required to provide since April 2024. The label, initially proposed all the way back in 2016, offers a breakdown of everything that goes into the bill for an internet service plan, including charges ISPs often don’t include in the advertised prices for their plans, such as state and local pass-through fees.
Requiring ISPs to display their pricing in a clear, standardized way was intended to strengthen transparency so consumers know what they’re actually signing up for. Affordability remains a major issue for America’s broadband network, especially since the Affordable Connectivity Program ended last year due to a lack of funding. So, anything that makes pricing clearer seems like an obvious benefit to consumers.
However, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative is attempting to strip back regulations, including the Broadband Facts label requirements, on the grounds that they’re “burdensome” and “provide minimal consumer benefit.”
The broadband labels proposal, which Carr introduced earlier in October, targets six specific rules around the label. They include requirements for labels to show an itemized list of state and local pass-through fees, for ISPs to read out Broadband Facts labels to customers over the phone, and for the labels to be available to customers in their ISP’s online account portal. The NPRM also mentions seeking comment on “whether to eliminate the multilingual display requirement,” which requires ISPs to display their Broadband Facts labels in the same languages they use to advertise their services in the US.
“This is one of the most anti-consumer proposals I have yet to see.”
— FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez
The FCC’s proposal argues that requiring ISPs to display itemized lists of the fees they charge “may confuse consumers” — though it’s hard to imagine that looking over a list is more confusing than being hit with an unexpectedly pricey bill.
Carr and Commissioner Olivia Trusty, the two Republicans of the partially staffed FCC, both voted in favor of the NPRM. Lone Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez was the only vote against it. “This is one of the most anti-consumer proposals I have yet to see,” Gomez said during the October 28th Open Commission Meeting. “The goal of the labels is to empower you, consumer[s] at home, so that you know clearly what is included on your bill. But with this proposal, the agency says, ‘You don’t need that clarity.’”
Gomez questioned the motivation for revoking the label requirements. “What adds insult to injury is that the FCC does not even explain why this proposal is necessary,” she said. “Make it make sense. Instead of scaling back the information that customers receive, we should be making sure that in fact, they can benefit from the labels.”
Carr disagreed in a statement on the NPRM, saying, “Rather than focusing on the information that consumers want and need, the agency added costly requirements that are unrelated to a consumer’s purchasing decision.” Trusty shared similar views in her statement: “As this proceeding moves forward, I will be particularly attentive to whether any of our current requirements inadvertently undermine the goal of informing consumers. It is always valuable when the FCC can eliminate rules whose burdens outweigh their benefits, but it is essential that we act where rules frustrate their own purpose.”
Jilane Rodgers Petrie, assistant vice president of public affairs for the wireless industry trade association CTIA, told noti.group in a statement that “CTIA members are committed to transparency and provide consumers with extensive information to help them select the broadband services that best meet their needs. We look forward to continuing to work with the Commission to refine the broadband labels in a way that complements these efforts and aligns with the law.”
CTIA was among several trade associations that filed a joint petition in 2023 asking the FCC to reconsider aspects of the broadband labels policy, including how itemized lists of state and local pass-through fees are displayed and a requirement that ISPs document instances when they direct customers to the labels on “alternative sales channels,” like physical stores or phone calls.
Alisa Valentin, broadband policy director at the nonprofit Public Knowledge, emphasized in comments to noti.group that the fees detailed in the broadband labels matter to consumers, especially people who are already on a tight budget. “Consumers expect to know the true cost of critical services that keep them connected. The Commission should be making it easier to compare and shop for high-speed internet instead of shielding ISPs from transparency,” Valentin said. “The Commission has a choice: They can empower consumers through transparency or enable exploitation with hidden fees.”
[Notigroup Newsroom in collaboration with other media outlets, with information from the following sources]
