Proposed Rule2022-26853
Empowering Broadband Consumers Through Transparency
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 16, 2022
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Commission seeks comment on additional proposals to implement the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Act). Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on refining broadband consumer labels to include more comprehensive information on pricing, bundled plans, label accessibility, performance characteristics, service reliability, cybersecurity, network management and privacy issues, the availability of labels in multiple languages, and whether the labels should be interactive or otherwise formatted differently so the information contained in them is clearer and conveyed more effectively.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 241 (Friday, December 16, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 241 (Friday, December 16, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77048-77053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26853]
[[Page 77048]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 8
[CG Docket No. 22-2; FCC 22-86; FR ID 116786]
Empowering Broadband Consumers Through Transparency
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on additional
proposals to implement the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(Infrastructure Act). Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on
refining broadband consumer labels to include more comprehensive
information on pricing, bundled plans, label accessibility, performance
characteristics, service reliability, cybersecurity, network management
and privacy issues, the availability of labels in multiple languages,
and whether the labels should be interactive or otherwise formatted
differently so the information contained in them is clearer and
conveyed more effectively.
DATES: Comments are due on or before January 17, 2023, and reply
comments are due on or before February 14, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments, identified by CG
Docket No. 22-2, by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
<bullet> People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f393c3c6a6f6b1f393c3c71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92f4f1f1a7a2a6d2f4f1f1bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a> or
call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erica H. McMahon of the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0346 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3174435852501f7c527c50595e5f715752521f565e47"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2461564d47450a694769454c4b4a644247470a434b52">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), in CG Docket No. 22-2,
FCC 22-86, adopted on November 14, 2022 and released on November 17,
2022. The full text of the document is available for public inspection
and copying via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ddbbbebee8ede99dbbbebef3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98fefbfbada8acd8fefbfbb6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).
This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR
1.1200 through 1.1216. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain
summaries of the substances of the presentations and not merely a
listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence
description of the views and arguments presented is generally required.
See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex
parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in
Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
The FNPRM proposes rule amendments that may result in modified
information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any
modified information collection requirements, the Commission will
publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment
on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Public
Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks comment on
how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. Public Law 107-198; 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
1. In 2021, the President signed into law the Infrastructure Act,
which, in relevant part, directs the Commission ``[n]ot later than 1
year after the date of enactment of th[e] Act, to promulgate
regulations to require the display of broadband consumer labels, as
described in the Public Notice of the Commission issued on April 4,
2016 (DA 16-357), to disclose to consumers information regarding
broadband internet access service plans.'' See Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat. 429, section
60504(a) (2021) (Infrastructure Act).
2. In a Report and Order released on November 17, 2022 (FCC 22-86)
(Broadband Label Order), and published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, the Commission adopted a new broadband label to help
consumers comparison shop among broadband services, thereby
implementing section 60504 of the Infrastructure Act. Specifically, the
Commission required broadband internet service providers (ISPs or
providers) to display, at the point of sale, a broadband consumer label
containing critical information about the provider's service offerings,
including information about pricing, introductory rates, data
allowances, performance metrics, and whether the provider participates
in the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). The Commission required
that ISPs display the label for each stand-alone broadband internet
access service they currently offer for purchase, and that the label
link to other important information such as network management
practices, privacy policies, and other educational materials.
3. In the proceeding, commenters offered certain suggestions for
the labels that were not adopted because the record requires additional
development on such issues. The Commission therefore seeks further
comment in this FNPRM on issues related to accessibility and languages,
performance characteristics, service reliability, cybersecurity,
network management and privacy, formatting, and whether ISPs should
submit label information to the Commission.
[[Page 77049]]
A. Accessibility and Languages
4. In the Broadband Label Order, the Commission explained that all
consumers, including those with disabilities, need broadband service
for access to emergency services, telehealth services, and video
conferencing, as well as to news and entertainment. Several commenters
suggested additional ways to improve accessibility of the broadband
label. For example, the American Council of the Blind proposed that
video relay service and video calling service be made available to
provide customer service in American Sign Language for broadband
labelling information, irrespective of whether the broadband label
information is provided in hard copy or digitally. The City of New York
proposed that the Commission require Braille or a Quick Response (QR)
code with a tactile indicator for blind or visually impaired consumers.
5. In the Broadband Label Order, the Commission required ISPs to
post information on their websites in an accessible format, and the
Commission strongly encouraged them to use the most current version of
the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). See WC3 Web
Accessibility Initiative, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
2.1, <a href="https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/">https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/</a>. The Commission did not specify
which WCAG sections would be relevant to the broadband label in the
Broadband Label Order. The Commission seeks comment on whether to adopt
specific criteria, based on the WCAG standard. For example, the WCAG
2.1 suggests providing text alternatives for any non-text content so
that it can be changed into other forms people need, such as large
print, Braille, speech, symbols, or simpler language. The WCAG also
suggests providing definitions of words or phrases used in an unusual
or restricted way, including idioms and jargon and abbreviations. The
Commission seeks comment on whether to mandate specific WCAG
suggestions for the broadband label. Commenters should cite to the
specific WCAG sections they propose the Commission adopt.
6. In the Broadband Label Order, the Commission required ISPs to
make the labels available in English and any other languages in which
they market their services in the United States. The Commission seeks
further comment on whether ISPs should be required to make the label
available in languages other than those in which they market their
services, such as Spanish, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese,
Korean, Vietnamese, and Tagalog. Should ISPs base the languages
available on the consumer or network location? For example, should a
provider offering services in an area with a significant Spanish-
speaking population be required to provide a label in Spanish even if
it does not provide its marketing materials in Spanish, while a
provider serving a region with a significant Vietnamese population be
required to provide the label in Vietnamese? Should the languages
available comport with the Census Bureau's American Community Survey
data or another identifiable metric? Should providers be required to
translate their labels into other languages upon the request of any
consumer considering purchase of the provider's service? Or would
providing information on the Commission's planned glossary web page in
additional languages, including translated label templates, resolve any
language barrier problems? What are the burdens, if any, associated
with requiring providers to make the label available in languages in
which they do not market their services?
B. Price Information
7. In the Broadband Label Order, the Commission adopted a
requirement that labels display the base monthly ``retail'' price for
standalone broadband, i.e., the price a provider offers broadband to
consumers before applying any discounts such as those for paperless
billing, autopay, or any other discounts, along with one-time and
recurring monthly fees. The Commission did not require providers to
display additional information that affects the bottom line price
consumers pay each month, such as discounts for paperless billing and
for bundling broadband with other services. The Commission seeks
comment on whether to require providers to display these discounts and
other variables (such as location-specific taxes) in future versions of
the label. Should such a requirement include all potential discounts
and other price variables, or just those that reflect most consumer
purchases or providers' most popular packages? If the Commission were
to adopt a more comprehensive set of labels, how can it best ensure
that additional point-of-sale labels do not overwhelm consumers with
too much information, thus rendering comparison shopping too difficult
for the average consumer?
8. The Commission seeks specific comment on pricing information for
bundles. Would a label requirement for bundled services, with a single
price for the entire bundle, help consumers? Do so many consumers
purchase broadband in a bundle that requiring labels for bundles makes
sense? If the Commission were to adopt such a requirement, would the
Commission need to define ``bundled services'' for these purposes? If
yes, the Commission proposes to use the definition that the Commission
adopted for purposes of the ACP Data Collection Order (FCC 22-87) and
seeks comment on that approach. See Affordable Connectivity Program, WC
Docket No. 21-450, Fourth Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 22-87), adopted on November 15, 2022 and
released on November 23, 2022. Are there any specific services that
should be included or excluded from such a requirement? The Commission
seeks comment on these and any other issues relevant to bundled
services.
C. Performance Information
9. Speed. Broadband speed is measured in megabits per second, or
Mbps; generally, the higher the speed, the faster a user can download
and upload files and stream videos. In the Broadband Label Order, the
Commission adopted a typical usage measurement requirement, explaining
that, at a minimum, ISPs must list on the label the typical download
and upload speeds for fixed and mobile broadband services. The
Commission also noted that many providers describe their mobile service
offerings in standards-based and marketing terms such as LTE, 4G, 5G,
5G UC, or 5G UWB service (instead of providing the typical speeds
associated with the offer).
10. The Commission recognized that the speed a customer will
experience can vary depending on the consumer's equipment, how many
devices are operating in the household, network congestion, network
usage of nearby customers, and the distance to a cell site (for
wireless broadband). Given these variables, the Commission seeks
comment on whether there are more appropriate ways to measure speed and
latency other than ``typical'' for purposes of the label disclosure
such as average or peak speed and latency. Should the Commission
require providers to add another speed metric to the label in addition
to typical speed? As discussed in the Broadband Label Order, some
commenters offered alternatives to typical speed measurements. The
Commission seeks comment on whether any of these proposals, or another
metric, would be more useful, and on any burdens on providers of
implementing such proposals.
11. Commenters should discuss alternative methodologies that would
be useful for consumers. As the
[[Page 77050]]
Commission explained in the Broadband Label Order, it is important that
providers measure and disclose speeds consistently in order to ensure
that consumers can compare options when selecting a service provider or
a service offering.
12. Reliability. Service reliability is an additional performance
measure that is extremely difficult for consumers to discern when
shopping for a broadband service, yet can factor greatly into their
purchase decisions. Service reliability has taken on increased
importance in light of increased reliance on consumer broadband
services to support telework and virtual schooling. The record in the
proceeding evidenced support for providing service reliability
information to consumers.
13. To what extent would adding a reliability measure to the label
improve the availability of that information to consumers? How would
this information assist consumers with their purchasing decisions? If
the Commission required a reliability measure to be provided to
consumers, how should reliability be represented on a broadband label?
Would a metric such as ``Network availability = XX.XX% (Y minutes
unavailable per month)'' be appropriate? The Commission anticipates
that a metric such as this would be easily comprehensible and uniformly
applicable across fixed and mobile broadband networks. In addition, it
should be relatively straightforward for ISPs to measure availability
in terms of the percentage of time/minutes per month that their service
is ``hard-down'' (meaning that service quality is not simply degraded
but unavailable) and is likely already captured at peering points. The
Commission seeks comment on this metric, as well as on any alternatives
that would be easy for consumers to understand and compare when
shopping for broadband service. If this metric is adopted, how should
it be calculated to ensure that it can be compared across service
providers? For example, would a reliability metric need to be expressed
in a way that is specific to a geographic area or specific to certain
networks within a service package? Should calculation of a reliability
metric account for conditions that might be considered as outside of
the provider's control (e.g., customer power outages, mobile devices
outside of the service provider's geographic coverage area with/out
roaming), and if so, how should it account for them?
14. Would including the FCC SpeedTest app through a link on the
label assist consumers in determining whether ``they are getting what
they paid for'' (i.e., whether their service is available in a
particular instance)? Should the Commission take steps to confirm the
accuracy of information on reliability, and if so, what steps should
the Commission take?
15. Cybersecurity. Consumers may find it relevant when comparison
shopping whether the broadband service that they are considering is
reasonably secure. Should ISPs be required to disclose at the point of
sale information about their cybersecurity practices? What standards or
best practices should be used to benchmark a broadband service's
security posture? How should broadband labels describe or depict the
security of a broadband service to make that information as easy as
possible for consumers to understand? Should broadband labels warn
consumers if an ISP has left certain cyber risks unmitigated by
reasonable security measures? If this information is to be made
available to consumers, would including a link on the label to direct
consumers to the provider's website be sufficient?
16. Other Service Characteristics. The Commission seeks comment on
whether there are other service characteristics, beyond speed and
latency, and possibly reliability and cybersecurity, that ISPs should
display on the label. For any such performance characteristics, do ISPs
currently measure them and, if so, do they measure them in a reasonably
unform way? As the Commission considers additions to the label, it
seeks to balance the consumer benefits against the costs to ISPs.
D. Network Management and Privacy
17. Network Management Practices. In the Broadband Label Order, the
Commission adopted a requirement that the broadband label link to the
ISP's website for more information on network management practices,
rather than including such practices in detail on the label. The
Commission seeks further comment on whether a link to the network
management practices is sufficient or if the label should include more
specific disclosures about whether the provider engages in blocking,
throttling, and paid prioritization. The Commission notes that, under
the 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order, 83 FR 7852 (Feb. 22, 2018),
ISPs are required to disclose any blocking, throttling, affiliated
prioritization, paid prioritization, or security practices in which
they engage. Commenters should discuss whether these disclosures should
be added to the label or whether a link to the provider's network
management practices is sufficient. Additionally, the Commission seeks
comment on whether network management practices, either in the label or
linked, should be written in a way that is clear and understandable for
non-technical audiences.
18. Privacy Policies. The Commission observed in the Broadband
Label Order that several commenters discuss issues related to privacy,
such as whether an ISP discloses consumer data to third parties and
whether ISPs collect and retain data about consumers (e.g., the
websites the consumer visits). These commenters urge the Commission to
add certain privacy elements to the new label, such as disclosures
about user data collection, retention, and tracking. Other commenters
argue that, due to the limitations on the amount of information that
may be included in a concise label, expansive privacy disclosures on a
label are impractical.
19. The Commission seeks comment on whether to continue to include
a link to the service provider's current privacy policy in the label
instead of including any detailed privacy information in the label
itself. Commenters should discuss whether the Commission should require
providers to affirmatively state, in addition to providing their
privacy policy, whether the provider collects or uses consumer data for
reasons other than providing broadband service, and if this is shared
with third parties.
E. Format Issues
20. Interactive Labels and Drop-Down Menus. The broadband label the
Commission adopted does not include interactive options or expanded
labels with additional information. Consumers may, however, find an
interactive label helpful. For example, customers may be able to input
their household internet activity and see additional information that
would estimate their internet experience under each plan.
Alternatively, interactive labels can also be used to reveal additional
information that may be important to a small subset of consumers but
might be confusing to the average consumer. The Commission seeks
comment on whether to require ISPs to provide additional information in
an interactive label.
21. An interactive label could also include an ``expand'' option
that would provide more detailed information on specific categories of
information, such as pricing. For example, such a tool could provide
monthly pricing totals for the options a consumer selects.
Alternatively, ISPs could provide this additional information in a
chart or table on their websites to assist consumers in determining
what services will best meet their needs. Further, the Commission seeks
comment on how to
[[Page 77051]]
provide this same information in dissimilar sales contexts such as in-
store and over-the-phone settings. Commenters should discuss these
options and any burdens associated with implementing these proposals.
Commenters should also address how proposed interactive labels must be
machine readable as well as accessible and translated in languages
other than those in which they market their services.
22. Focus Groups and Surveys. The Commission notes that, in both
initially drafting and then updating its fuel economy labels, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used consumer
feedback from surveys and focus groups. The Commission seeks comment on
whether it would be useful for the Commission to similarly employ focus
groups, surveys, or subject-matter experts to provide feedback on
future refinements to the broadband labels.
23. Style Guides and Implementation Tools. The broadband label the
Commission adopted is a tool for comparison shopping and works best
when it is standardized across the industry. The record in the
proceeding shows that other federal agencies, namely the EPA and United
States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), have published compliance
tools for entities that must comply with their fuel economy and
nutrition labels. For example, the FDA published a style guide
showcasing how a label should appear in various settings; it included
an annotated template that assisted a product's design team with the
creation of the label. Everything from font size, kerning, line width,
and color was explained in detail. The Commission seeks comment on
whether a similar set of tools would be appropriate to ease the burden
on providers of creating labels and to enhance consistency in the
marketplace, or whether having templates in the form of fillable PDFs
on the Commission's website serves that purpose. If an additional style
guide would be helpful, the Commission seeks comment on what should be
included in it, with particular attention to accessibility concerns and
point-of-sale scenarios both online and in retail storefront
situations.
F. Labels Submitted to the Commission
24. In the Broadband Label Order, the Commission required ISPs to
provide broadband labels at the point of sale and to archive their
labels for two years. Several commenters proposed that the Commission
give ISPs the option of submitting labels directly to the Commission
instead. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should allow ISPs
to do so and whether it should maintain a database of labels and post
them on the Commission's website. Alternatively, should the Commission
allow providers to seek a hardship waiver from the requirement to
display labels on their websites, and only if such waiver is granted,
permit them to submit their labels to the Commission? In either case,
how long should the labels remain on the Commission's website?
Commenters should discuss whether the entire label should be submitted
to the Commission or whether only the data disclosed in the label, such
as the pricing information and typical speeds, should be provided to
the Commission in spreadsheet form. In addition, commenters should
address any burdens on ISPs of providing labels to the Commission, and
any concerns about the possible burdens on consumers with this proposed
approach.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
25. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on the
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM provided.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
26. In the Broadband Label Order, the Commission required broadband
internet service providers (ISPs or providers) to provide, at the point
of sale, labels for fixed and mobile broadband services that contain
information about prices, introductory rates, data allowances, and
broadband speeds, and to provide links to other information about
broadband services on their websites.
27. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on additional issues
based on commenters' feedback and suggestions in response to the
Empowering Broadband Consumers Through Transparency NPRM, 87 FR 6827
(Feb. 7, 2022). Specifically, the FNPRM seeks comment on issues related
to: (i) accessibility and languages, (ii) performance characteristics,
including reliability and cybersecurity; (iii) network management and
privacy, (iv) formatting, and (v) whether ISPs should submit label
information to the Commission.
28. In order to improve and enhance accessibility for people with
disabilities, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should
require broadband label information to be provided in Braille, large
print, audibly, and in American Sign Language, as well as other
formats. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt
specific criteria, based on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), section 2.1. This section suggests providing text alternatives
for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms
people need, such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler
language. The WCAG also suggests providing definitions of words or
phrases used in an unusual or restricted way, including idioms and
jargon and abbreviations.
29. The Broadband Label Order required that the labels be provided
in English and in other languages in which the provider markets its
services. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether ISPs should be required to
make the labels available in other languages, such as Spanish,
Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and
Tagalog, or whether they should be required to translate the labels
into other languages upon a consumer's request.
30. The Broadband Label Order required ISPs to disclose in the
labels their typical download and upload speed measurements for each
broadband service offering. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether the
Commission should use a different metric, such as average speed, or
require ISPs to disclose speeds for certain time periods. The FNPRM
also seeks comment on additional performance characteristics that the
Commission should consider requiring in the label.
31. In the Broadband Label Order, the Commission adopted a
requirement that ISPs include a link in their broadband labels to
additional information about their network management practices. In the
FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether a link to the network
management practices is sufficient or if the labels should include more
specific disclosures about whether the provider engages in blocking,
throttling, and paid prioritization. The FNPRM also seeks comment on
whether the Commission should continue to require that the labels
contain a link to the service provider's current privacy policy or
whether they should include more detailed privacy information in the
label itself. The FNPRM also requests that commenters address whether
the label should state if the provider collects or uses consumer data
[[Page 77052]]
for reasons other than providing broadband service, and if such
information is shared with third parties.
32. In addition, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission
should require ISPs to provide an interactive label or a drop-down
menu, with more detailed information about their service offerings. The
FNPRM also seeks comment on whether the Commission should employ focus
groups, surveys, or subject experts to provide feedback on further
refinements to the broadband labels. In addition, the FNPRM seeks
comment on whether the Commission should create and post a style guide
to assist providers with compliance and if so, what should be included
in a style guide. The FNPRM also seeks comment on whether the
Commission should require ISPs to provide labels for their bundled
service offerings. Finally, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether the
Commission should permit providers to submit their labels to the
Commission, and whether the Commission should maintain a database of
all required broadband labels, and post them on the Commission's
website.
B. Legal Basis
33. The proposed rules are authorized under sections 4(i), 4(j),
13, 201(b), 254, 257, 301, 303, 316, and 332 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 163, 201(b), 254, 257,
301, 303, 316, 332, section 60504 of the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (2021), and section 904 of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-260, 134
Stat. 1182 (2020).
C. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
34. The FNPRM seeks comment on specific proposals to refine the
broadband labels adopted in the Broadband Label Order. These proposals
could result in additional reporting and compliance requirements for
ISPs.
35. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether to require that broadband
label information be provided in Braille, large print, audibly, and in
American Sign Language, as well as other formats in order to make the
labels more accessible to people with disabilities. The FNPRM also
seeks comment on whether ISPs should be required to provide the labels
in languages other than those in which they market their services, such
as Spanish, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Korean,
Vietnamese, and Tagalog. In addition the FNPRM seeks comment on whether
to require providers to translate the labels into other languages upon
a consumer's request. If additional language requirements are adopted,
ISPs would be required to make the labels available in those languages.
36. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether there are more appropriate
ways to measure speed and latency other than ``typical'' for purposes
of the label disclosure such as average or peak speed and latency. The
Commission asks whether it should require providers to add another
speed metric to the label in addition to typical speed. During the
proceeding, some commenters offered alternatives to typical speed
measurements. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether any of these
proposals, or another metric, would be more useful, and on any burdens
on providers of implementing such proposals. In addition, in the FNPRM,
the Commission considers requiring additional information in the label
on service reliability and cybersecurity practices. If adopted, these
proposals would alter the metrics ISPs would be required to report on
the broadband labels and will result in alternative recordkeeping
requirements.
37. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether a link to
the network management practices is sufficient or if the labels should
include more specific disclosures about whether the provider engages in
blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. The Commission also
seeks comment on whether network management practices, either in the
label or linked, should be written in a way that is clear and
understandable for non-technical audiences. If the Commission adopts
requirements for disclosing network management and privacy policies
beyond links to the ISP's website (as is required in the Broadband
Label Order), ISPs will be required to display additional information
in the labels, resulting in alternative reporting requirements.
38. In addition, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether to require ISPs
to provide additional information in an interactive label, which could
also include an expand option that would provide more detailed
information on specific categories of information, such as pricing.
Alternatively, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether ISPs should provide
this additional information in a chart or table on their websites to
assist consumers in determining what services will best meet their
needs. Further, the Commission seeks comment on how to provide this
same information in dissimilar sales contexts such as in-store and
over-the-phone settings. If adopted, these proposals would require ISPs
to comply with additional label requirements.
39. The FNPRM also seeks comment on whether the Commission should
require ISPs to display discounts and other variables in the labels. In
addition, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should
require ISPs to provide labels for their bundled service offerings that
include broadband internet access services. If adopted, this would
require ISPs to display labels in addition to the ones required for the
stand-alone broadband internet access service.
40. Finally, several commenters proposed that the Commission give
ISPs the option of submitting labels directly to the Commission instead
of displaying them at the point of sale. The Commission seeks comment
on whether to allow ISPs to do so and whether to maintain a database of
labels and post them on the Commission's website. Alternatively, the
Commission considers whether to allow providers to seek a hardship
waiver from the requirement to display labels on their websites, and
only if such waiver is granted, permit them to submit their labels to
the Commission. Allowing providers to submit labels to the Commission
may result in some additional reporting requirements for those
providers who opt to do so.
D. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
41. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
42. The Commission will evaluate the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the FNPRM and
this IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this
proceeding.
E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
43. None.
[[Page 77053]]
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 8
Cable television, Common carriers, Communications common carriers,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Satellites,
Telecommunications, Telephone, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-26853 Filed 12-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 16, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.