Rule2022-26854
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
Effective
January 17, 2023
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) adopts rules as required by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Act) to help consumers comparison shop among broadband services. Specifically, the rules require broadband internet service providers (ISPs) 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).
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)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76959-76980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26854]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 8
[CG Docket No. 22-2; FCC 22-86; FR ID 117396]
Empowering Broadband Consumers Through Transparency
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) adopts rules as required by the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Act) to help consumers
comparison shop among broadband services. Specifically, the rules
require broadband internet service providers (ISPs) 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).
DATES:
Effective date: This final rule is effective January 17, 2023.
Compliance date: Compliance with the amendments to 47 CFR 8.1(a)(1)
through (6) of the Commission's rules are delayed indefinitely. The
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing
the compliance dates.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Erica H. McMahon, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ace9dec5cfcd82e1cfe1cdc4c3c2eccacfcf82cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9adfe8f3f9fbb4d7f9d7fbf2f5f4dafcf9f9b4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a> or (202)
418-0346, of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer
Policy Division. For information regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) information collection requirements, contact Cathy Williams,
Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918, or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d390b2a7bbaafd84babfbfbab2bea093b5b0b0fdb4bca5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="652604110d1c4b320c09090c040816250306064b020a13">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order, FCC 22-86, CG Docket No. 22-2, adopted on November 14, 2022,
and released on November 17, 2022. The full text of this document is
available online at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-requires-broadband-providers-display-labels-help-consumers">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-requires-broadband-providers-display-labels-help-consumers</a>. To request this
document in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g.,
Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) or to request
reasonable accommodations (e.g., accessible format documents, sign
language interpreters, CART), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f7919494c2c7c3b7919494d9909881"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ceaefefb9bcb8cceaefefa2ebe3fa">[email protected]</span></a> or call
the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice).
Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This document contains new information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public,
and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new
information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously
sought specific comment on how the Commission might further
[[Page 76960]]
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees, and the Commission received no comment.
Congressional Review Act
The Commission sent a copy of document FCC 22-86 to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Synopsis
1. In this final rule, the Commission adopts a new broadband label
to help consumers comparison shop among broadband services, thereby
implementing section 60504 of the Infrastructure Act. See
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat.
429, section 60504(a) (2021). Specifically, the Commission requires
ISPs 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 ACP. The Commission requires 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.
2. Consistent with the Infrastructure Act, the label the Commission
adopts for fixed and mobile broadband internet access service is
similar to the two labels the Commission approved in 2016, with certain
modifications. As discussed in the Empowering Broadband Consumers
Through Transparency Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 87 FR 6827
(Feb. 7, 2022) (NPRM), access to clear, easy-to-understand, and
accurate information about broadband internet access services helps
consumers make informed choices and is central to a well-functioning
marketplace that encourages competition, innovation, low prices, and
high-quality service. Commenters agree that a label associated with
stand-alone broadband service will provide important information to
consumers when selecting a provider and plan.
3. In addition to label content, the Commission adopts requirements
for the label's format and display location to ensure consumers can
make side-by-side comparisons of various service offerings from an
individual provider or from alternative providers--something essential
for making informed decisions. In this way, the label resembles the
well-known nutrition labels that consumers have come to rely on when
shopping for food products. The Commission also requires that the label
be accessible for people with disabilities and for non-English
speakers. Finally, the Commission enables third parties to easily
analyze information and help consumers with their purchase decisions by
requiring providers to make the label content available in a machine-
readable format.
4. Below is the label template the Commission requires ISPs to
display at the point of sale. This label establishes the formatting and
content of all requirements adopted in this final rule. The red text in
the label template is explanatory and simply instructs providers as to
the content they must provide in the label. The Commission expects
that, once the provider completes the required fields, it will post, or
otherwise provide, the entire label in black text. Accessible
materials, including the label template contained in this final rule,
will be available on the Commission's website.
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[[Page 76961]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE22.035
[[Page 76962]]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
A. Broadband Service Subject to the Label Requirement
5. At the outset, the Commission makes clear that the label
requirement applies to ``broadband internet access service plans''
because the Infrastructure Act directs the Commission to require the
display of labels that disclose information regarding ``broadband
internet access service plans.'' For purposes of section 60504 of the
Infrastructure Act, ``broadband internet access service'' is defined as
having the meaning specified in Sec. 8.1(b) of the Commission's rules,
``or any successor regulation.'' Broadband internet access service is
currently defined in Sec. 8.1(b) of the Commission's rules as ``a
mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the
capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or
substantially all internet endpoints, including any capabilities that
are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications
service, but excluding dial-up internet access service.'' See 47 CFR
8.1(b). The definition also ``encompasses any service that the
Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of the
service'' defined in the rules or that is used to evade the protections
set forth in the rules. No commenter proposed modifying that definition
for purposes of these broadband label rules.
6. The Commission agrees with INCOMPAS that enterprise service
offerings or special access services are not ``mass-market retail
services,'' and therefore, not covered by the label requirement.
INCOMPAS asks the Commission to clarify that ``providers or resellers
whose customers are larger businesses or governments--entities that
typically negotiate the terms of their service contracts''--should not
be required to display the labels. INCOMPAS argues that ``it would be
extremely difficult, confusing, and unnecessary for the wholesaler or
the reseller to create a label for hundreds of different plans if they
are not providing a standardized, mass-market service to residential
and business customers.'' INCOMPAS, however, does not point to any
specific evidence that it would be difficult for wholesalers and
resellers to create labels for their larger customers or that the
labels would be confusing for the customers themselves. Nevertheless,
in both the 2015 Open Internet Order, 80 FR 19737 (Apr. 13, 2015) and
the 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order, 83 FR 7852 (Feb. 22, 2018),
the Commission determined that ``mass-market retail services'' do not
include enterprise service offerings or special access services, which
are typically offered to larger organizations through customized or
individually negotiated arrangements. Nothing has changed to alter the
Commission's view regarding service offerings to large customers (or
other entities) that are not mass-market retail services; these
services are not covered by the disclosure requirements here.
7. The Commission disagrees with INCOMPAS that the Commission
should interpret the definition in Sec. 8.1(b) of the Commission's
rules to exclude ISPs participating in the E-Rate and Rural Health Care
(RHC) programs from the label requirements simply because the labels
might be viewed as ``redundant'' to the competitive bidding process,
during which time customers define the services that they need and
providers put forward bids. Thus, the Commission requires E-Rate and
RHC providers to provide a label along with any competitive bids
submitted pursuant to the E-Rate or RHC competitive bidding processes,
whether or not such provider defines their offered service as an
``enterprise'' service.
8. First, the Commission sees nothing in the text of the
Infrastructure Act to suggest Congress intended that the Commission
exclude services subject to the E-Rate and RHC bidding processes (or
the providers of those services), and the regulatory history suggests
the contrary. The Infrastructure Act expressly defines ``broadband
internet access service'' by reference to the definition in Sec.
8.1(b) of the Commission's rules, and the Commission previously has
interpreted that rule to include E-Rate and RHC services. Indeed, the
Infrastructure Act's label requirement drew upon the Commission's
broadband label efforts associated with the 2015 Open internet Order,
and that prior broadband label effort relied on a definition of
broadband internet access service from the 2015 Open internet Order,
that included E-Rate and RHC services within the universe of mass-
market retail services encompassed by that definition. The Commission
finds it reasonable to interpret ``broadband internet access service''
as currently defined in Sec. 8.1(b) of the Commission's rules in light
of that historical understanding that formed the regulatory backdrop
for Congress' action here.
9. Second, as a policy matter, the Commission sees no reason why
the bidding process means that the E-Rate and RHC consumers would not
benefit from the label. Most relevant to the purposes of the
Infrastructure Act, the label might help schools, libraries, and health
care providers to compare the offers being made in the competitive
bidding process with other alternatives in the marketplace. Further,
the labels could provide benefits in terms of enforcing E-Rate or RHC
rules, such as requirements to offer rates and terms that are
comparable to the best available offer to non-Universal Service Fund
(USF) recipients (See 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(1)(B)), or for purposes of
making comparisons between rural and urban rates, or the like.
10. Finally, the Commission clarifies (as it did in 2017) that, to
the extent that coffee shops, bookstores, airlines, private end-user
networks such as libraries and universities, and other businesses
acquire broadband internet access service from an ISP to enable patrons
to access the internet from their establishments, provision of such
service by the premises operator is not itself broadband internet
access service unless offered to patrons as a mass-market retail
service, as the Commission defines it here. The Commission nevertheless
has encouraged premises operators to disclose relevant restrictions on
broadband service they make available to their patrons. Thus, these
businesses need not create and display labels associated with those
services.
B. Broadband Consumer Label (Fixed and Mobile)
11. The Commission adopts one label requiring the same information
and in the same format for both fixed and mobile broadband service
offerings. The content that commenters identify as most important to
assist consumers in making informed decisions at the point of sale is
the same whether consumers are shopping for fixed or mobile broadband
service. Based on the record, the Commission concludes that two
distinct labels are unnecessary and may confuse consumers and be more
burdensome for providers to implement. Thus, all broadband internet
access service providers are required to display the same label format
as described below.
1. Content
a. Pricing
12. Service Plan Name. As with the 2016 labels (See NPRM, Fixed
Broadband Consumer Disclosure Label From the 2016 Public Notice and
Mobile Broadband Consumer Disclosure Label From the 2016 Public
Notice), the Commission requires providers to identify the name of the
service plan at
[[Page 76963]]
the top of the label. Broadband service providers generally offer many
different plans with different rates, contract terms, speeds, and data
allowances to meet customers' needs. For labels to be effective,
consumers must be able to differentiate each plan a provider offers;
only then can a consumer compare plans for that provider and across
competing providers. The instruction in the 2016 fixed broadband label
directed a provider to identify its plan by speed tier. While providers
may continue to identify their plans by speed (e.g., ``300 Mbps,''
``500 Mbps''), they may also differentiate their plans using
terminology of their choice (e.g., ``Gigabit Connection,''
``Performance Pro,'' or ``Blast internet''). Or, in the case of mobile
broadband providers, ``4G'' or ``5G.'' Because the Commission requires
providers to display critical information about each plan elsewhere on
the label, including speed metrics, the plan itself need not be
identified by speed tier. However, if a provider identifies the plan
name by speed tier, the speed tier must be accurate and consistent with
the speed metrics identified elsewhere in the label. The Commission
believes this will minimize confusion by allowing consumers to more
easily match the label to the associated advertised plan.
13. Monthly Price. Consistent with the 2016 labels, a provider must
display on the label, at a minimum, the base monthly price for the
stand-alone broadband service offering (i.e., an offering that is not
bundled with other services such as multichannel video or voice). We
believe consumers are accustomed to seeing base monthly prices, without
additional taxes and fees, when shopping for goods and services and
thus, the presentation of the base price should enable easy comparison
shopping.
14. The Commission disagrees with commenters that recommend ISPs
aggregate the monthly price identified on the label with any other
discretionary fees and government taxes--creating an ``all-in'' price.
Although this approach may have some benefit, the Commission agrees
with providers that it may be difficult to implement. For example,
government taxes vary according to the consumer's geographic location.
And a consumer's election to rent or purchase equipment may increase
their upfront or monthly charges. Installation fees may vary according
to the consumer's location and dwelling (e.g., apartment, single-family
home) as well. Thus, requiring display of a single, ``all-in'' price on
a label may be difficult for ISPs and potentially misleading for
consumers. Further, the Commission believes requiring that the labels
clearly itemize any additional discretionary fees and state that
additional government taxes will apply to each plan will better provide
consumers with a complete understanding of their bill. A provider that
opts to combine all of its monthly discretionary fees with its base
monthly price may do so and list that total price. In that case, the
provider need not separately itemize those fees in the label.
15. Introductory Rates. Based on the record, the Commission
concludes that if a provider displays an introductory rate in the
label, it must also display the rate that applies following the
introductory period. This approach implements the Infrastructure Act's
requirement that the label ``include information regarding whether the
offered price is an introductory rate and, if so, the price the
consumer will be required to pay following the introductory period.''
See Infrastructure Act, section 60504(b)(1). As the label template
shows, ISPs must prominently indicate whether the monthly price is an
introductory offer along with the post-introductory period rate so that
consumers can compare both. If the listed monthly price is non-
promotional, the provider must simply state that it is a non-
introductory rate, and no further disclosures are required on the
label. The provider may still include a link to promotional pricing
options elsewhere on its website. We agree with those commenters that
argue that the label should also clearly disclose either the length of
the introductory period or the date on which the introductory period
will end.
16. The Commission rejects the assertion that providers should
merely link to introductory rates. Relegating the introductory rate or
post-introductory rate to a location elsewhere on the provider's
website deprives the consumer of immediate access to information
critical to the consumer's purchase decision. Providers may give more
details about their non-introductory pricing through a link on the
label, but the text of the statute indicates that Congress viewed
introductory and post-introductory rates to be significant enough to
disclose them on the label itself. Further, even if Congress had not
provided that the label specify whether the offered price is an
introductory rate, the Commission finds that, based on the record, this
approach strikes the appropriate balance between ensuring that
consumers have the information necessary to select the broadband
services that meet their needs and avoiding a label that is
unnecessarily complex and unclear for them.
17. Billing and Other Discounts. In the interest of simplicity and
based on the record, at this time the Commission requires providers to
display only the ``retail'' monthly broadband price, by which the
Commission means the price a provider offers broadband to consumers
before applying any discounts such as those for paperless billing,
automatic payment (autopay), or any other discounts. The provider may
instead link from the label to a web page explaining such discounts.
Providers may also separately inform consumers about discounts as part
of their marketing materials. The Commission's conclusion is consistent
with most commenters' views that providers must be clear about the
conditions for discounts. The Commission believes this approach will
make the label a quick reference tool for consumers as they begin their
broadband shopping experience.
18. Nevertheless, the Commission recognizes that the price that any
one consumer will pay for broadband service is the product of many
variables, including bundling, discounts, and location-specific taxes
and that a principal goal of the label is to give consumers a reliable
idea of what they will pay each month that incorporates these pricing
variables, and does so in a way that is uniform among providers thus
enabling easy comparison shopping. While the Commission lacks the
record at this time on the best way to balance informing consumers
about the potentially large number of pricing options available for any
one service against overwhelming them with so many labels and pricing
information to effectively render comparison shopping impossible, with
the accompanying burden on providers of producing those labels, the
Commission asks questions in the accompanying Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, on how the Commission can address that balance in the
future.
19. Contract Plans. Similar to the Commission's approach to
introductory rates, the Commission concludes that ISPs that offer a
discount for consumers who commit to a contract term must display the
length of that term on the label. The Commission's determination is
consistent with the 2016 fixed broadband label that required providers
to ``identify [the] length of available long-term contracts'' and to
``provide . . . [the] price of stand-alone broadband service available
under each long-term contract option.''
[[Page 76964]]
20. The Commission believes it is critical that consumers know
whether the price identified on the label requires the consumer to
commit to service for a specified period of time and that if the
consumer decides to switch to another provider or terminate service
altogether, they may be subject to an early termination fee. No
commenter disputes that information about contract terms is important
to consumers making decisions about broadband service. As discussed
below, the provider must also disclose any applicable early termination
fees if the consumer cancels the service before the end of the
contract.
21. Bundled Plans. In this final rule, the Commission requires
providers to display a label for their standalone broadband services.
In the E-Rate and RHC context, the label will be for the broadband
internet access service submitted pursuant to the bidding process,
regardless of whether such service is combined with other services.
Consistent with the conclusion above, providers offering broadband
internet access service bundled with other services may note that via a
link in the ``click here'' section of the label where they describe
other discounts. This approach is supported by commenters and will
enable apples-to-apples comparisons of broadband internet access
services. And providers are free to describe in their marketing
materials the value of bundling, including the discounts associated
with bundling various services. The Commission seeks comment in the
accompanying FNPRM whether the Commission should, in the future,
require labels for bundles that include broadband service.
22. Additional Monthly Charges and One-Time Fees. The label must
display recurring monthly charges the provider imposes on top of the
base price described above, along with any one-time fees the consumer
must pay at the time of purchase.
23. First, under ``Additional Charges & Terms,'' providers must
list all recurring monthly fees. These fees include all charges that
providers impose at their discretion, i.e., charges not mandated by a
government. These discretionary charges include those the provider
collects to recoup from consumers its costs associated with government
programs but where the government has not mandated such collection,
e.g., USF contributions. Providers must give each fee a simple,
accurate, easy-to-understand name, thus enabling consumers to
understand which charges are part of the provider's rate structure, and
which derive from government assessments or programs. Further, the
requirement will allow consumers to more meaningfully compare
providers' rates and service packages, and to make more informed
decisions when purchasing broadband services. Providers must list fees
such as monthly charges associated with regulatory programs and fees
for the rental or leasing of modem and other network connection
equipment. Other monthly charges that must be listed might include
network access charges and USF charges. This list is not exhaustive.
24. Next, the ``Additional Charges & Terms'' section of the label
must include the name and cost of each one-time fee assessed by the
provider when the consumer signs up for service. This section will
identify one-time fees such as a charge for purchasing a modem,
gateway, or router; an activation fee; a deposit; an installation fee;
or a charge for late payment. The provider must also identify any one-
time fees the provider will impose if the customer cancels their
broadband service before the end of a contract term (e.g., an early
termination fee) and provide a link to a full explanation of when such
fee is triggered. If the provider's early termination fee is prorated
based on the time the consumer cancels service, the provider may note
that in the label, along with the maximum early termination fee, and
include a link to more details about its early termination policies.
25. Finally, providers must disclose any charges or reductions in
service for any data used in excess of the amount included in the plan.
They must also identify the increment of additional data, e.g., ``each
additional 50GB,'' if applicable, and disclose any additional charges
once the consumer exceeds the monthly data allowance. The Commission
agrees with commenters that limits on data usage is critical
information for consumers, along with any additional charges the
provider may assess once a consumer exceeds such a cap. And the
Commission has required disclosure of ``any data caps or allowances
that are a part of the plan the consumer is purchasing, as well as the
consequences of exceeding the cap or allowance (e.g., additional
charges, loss of service for the remainder of the billing cycle).''
However, as several commenters note, it is important to keep the label
information as simple as possible for consumers and to require
providers to comply by including links to their websites for more
detailed information about data allowances. This would include
providing information about any reductions in service or speeds once
the consumer exceeds his data allowance.
26. Taxes. Consistent with the 2016 labels, the Commission requires
ISPs to state under ``Additional Charges & Terms'' that taxes will
apply and that they may vary depending on location. The 2016 labels
included information about government taxes and fees. As discussed
above, the Commission agrees with those commenters that argue that
applicable taxes often vary according to the consumer's geographic
location, so either including them in the total monthly price or
itemizing them on the label may be difficult and potentially confusing
for consumers. As consumers are accustomed to seeing prices without
additional tax when shopping, the Commission believes this simple
disclosure should be sufficient for consumers to comparison shop among
providers and plans.
b. Performance Information
27. Speed and Latency. The Commission requires providers to
disclose in the labels speed and latency metrics associated with their
broadband services. Specifically, the Commission requires providers to
display their typical upload and download speeds and typical latency,
consistent with their current obligations under the existing
transparency rule and the 2011 Advisory Guidance. See FCC Enforcement
Bureau and Office of General Counsel Issue Advisory Guidance for
Compliance with Open internet Transparency Rule, DA 11-1148, released
on June 30, 2011 (2011 Advisory Guidance).
28. The Commission agrees with many commenters that urge the
Commission to include the same information in the label about speed and
latency as appeared in the 2016 labels. USTelecom, for example, argues
that the Commission ``should maintain its existing requirements for
disclosing speed and latency'' and ``continue to permit fixed ISPs that
participate in the Measuring Broadband America (MBA) program to
disclose their speed and latency results as a sufficient barometer for
performance customers can expect to experience.'' ACA Connects
similarly states that there is no need for the Commission to revisit
``its well-established guidelines'' for reporting speeds and latency by
fixed broadband providers. Commenters generally are not opposed to
disclosing speed and latency metrics in the label; they do, however,
offer a number of alternative ways to measure and display speed and
latency information.
29. Download and upload speeds were included in the 2016 labels,
and
[[Page 76965]]
no commenter argues for eliminating speed metrics from the label
entirely. Further, speed has historically been one of the most
important agreed-upon metrics for internet performance. As the
Commission stated in its Eleventh MBA Report, ``[s]peed (both download
and upload) performance continues to be one of the key metrics reported
by the MBA,'' and ``remains the network performance metric of greatest
interest to the consumer.'' See Eleventh Measuring Broadband America,
Fixed Broadband Report, Federal Communications Commission, Office of
Engineering and Technology, released on December 31, 2021 (Eleventh MBA
Report), at <a href="https://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2021/2021-Fixed-Measuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf">https://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2021/2021-Fixed-Measuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf</a>.
30. Thus, for purposes of satisfying this requirement, fixed
broadband service providers that choose to participate in the MBA
program may disclose their results as a sufficient representation of
the actual performance their customers can expect to experience for the
relevant speed tier. Nothing in this final rule supplants any
providers' existing obligations to provide data consistent with prior
Commission guidance in complying with the current transparency rule.
See 47 CFR 8.1 of the Commission's rules.
31. Fixed broadband service providers that do not participate may
use the methodology from the MBA program to measure actual performance,
or may disclose actual performance based on internal testing, consumer
speed test data, or other data regarding network performance, including
reliable, relevant data from third-party sources.
32. Mobile broadband service providers that have access to reliable
information on network performance may disclose the results of their
own or third-party testing. Those mobile broadband service providers
that do not have reasonable access to such network performance data may
disclose a Typical Speed Range (TSR) representing the range of speeds
and latency that most of their consumers can expect, for each
technology and service tier offered.
33. The Commission also agrees with those commenters that believe
that low delay or latency is important to any application involving
users interacting with each other, a device, or an application. Persons
who utilize video conferencing--including persons with disabilities--
may find latency metric information to be especially useful when
selecting a broadband provider and plan. The Commission therefore
requires providers to display their typical latency for that particular
speed tier, either based on MBA methodology or other relevant testing
data.
34. The Commission does not believe the current record supports
commenters' proposed deviations from this approach, especially where
such changes could mean potentially material changes to how providers
track and collect speed and latency data. The Commission does, however,
seek additional comment in the FNPRM, published elsewhere in this issue
of the Federal Register, on alternative speed and latency measurements
for the label going forward. And providers may give prospective
customers more information about their broadband speeds and latency in
their advertising materials or elsewhere on their websites.
35. Peak Usage Data. The Commission declines to adopt a requirement
that providers tie their actual speed reporting to ``peak usage
periods,'' as we proposed in the NPRM and as the Commission's Consumer
Advisory Committee (CAC) recommended for the 2016 labels. First, the
Commission agrees with AT&T that ``peak usage'' periods in mobile
networks vary substantially from location to location, e.g., downtown
areas may have one peak usage time and residential areas another, and
all of this may have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. And, as AT&T
has explained, it might be burdensome for mobile providers to determine
what the peak usage times are for any given area because providers
would have to undertake studies of every geographic area to determine
peak usage times for each area, and then perform drive testing to
collect sufficient information to develop average speed and latency
during those times.
36. Nor does the record reflect that deviating from the current
transparency rule requirements to require peak period disclosures for
fixed providers outweigh the potential costs of gathering and reporting
that data. The Commission nevertheless notes that fixed broadband
participants in the MBA program who choose to use MBA results and
providers who choose to use the MBA methodology are required to
disclose data by speed tier showing mean upload and download speeds in
megabits per second during the ``busy hour.'' Nothing here should be
construed to alter MBA requirements. Some commenters offer various
definitions of peak usage, and others recommend against using peak
usage as a metric on the label. The Commission finds there is no
consensus on how to define peak at this point and the Commission
recognizes that today, with many working from home, peak usage hours
may vary for fixed and mobile broadband. The Commission also finds that
the use of a single label for both fixed and broadband, without the
nuance of peak usage for one and not the other, promotes ease of
understanding for consumers.
37. Packet Loss. The Commission declines, at this time, to require
providers to include information on packet loss in the label. Packet
loss is generally defined to mean occurrences when packets of data
traveling over the internet fail to reach their intended destination.
The 2016 labels instructed ISPs to provide the typical packet loss
associated with the offered broadband service. In the NPRM, the
Commission proposed to include packet loss information as part of the
performance disclosures in the new broadband labels, although we also
asked whether any information on the proposed label was no longer
necessary to serve the goals of the Infrastructure Act. The NPRM noted
that in 2016, OMB concluded that packet loss would not be a required
performance metric for the mobile broadband label.
38. The vast majority of commenters observe that, today, consumers
have little understanding of what packet loss involves and argue that
such information should not be included in the label as it provides
little benefit to the average consumer shopping for broadband service.
The Commission agrees that, although this metric may provide useful
information to certain consumers, packet loss is less important than
upload and download speeds and latency, and may actually lead to more
confusion for most consumers. The Commission therefore does not require
packet loss measurements in the new label at this time. The Commission
does, however, seek additional comment in the FNPRM about whether there
are other service characteristics, beyond speed and latency, that ISPs
should display on the label.
c. Network Management Practices
39. The Commission requires that ISPs include in the label a link
to their network management practices. The 2016 labels required
providers to disclose their ``application-specific network management
practices'' and their ``subscriber-triggered network management
practices'' with ``yes'' or ``no'' answers on the label, and to provide
links to more details about such practices.
40. The Commission is not persuaded that the label should include
detailed information about network management practices, specifically
those related to blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. The
Commission agrees
[[Page 76966]]
with those commenters that contend such information may be confusing
for the average consumer when shopping for broadband service while
using a tool like a label, which is designed to enable simple
comparisons of key information. The Commission disagrees with those
commenters that maintain that the Commission should require more
detailed network management disclosures on the label, and therefore
declines at this time to add content to the label about network
management practices such as tables that identify when a particular
practice is triggered and the likely effect of the practice on network
performance.
41. After reviewing the record, the Commission concludes that a
link to an ISP's network management practices is sufficient and that
any more detailed information in the label is unlikely to benefit
consumers comparison shopping for broadband internet access service
offerings. Including such information on the face of the label may
overwhelm consumers during the purchasing process and might impose
additional costs on providers. The Commission agrees that, at this
time, requiring a link to the broadband service provider's website as a
source for more information on its network management practices, rather
than expanding the label to address network management practices in
detail, best meets the needs of consumers and fulfills Congress'
directive in requiring the Commission to mandate display of a label.
Providers must, however, either include necessary information on their
websites about blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization or
transmit such information to the Commission to comply with the current
transparency rule requirements. See 2017 Restoring internet Freedom
Order, 83 FR 7852 (Feb. 22, 2018).
42. The Commission also seeks comment in the FNPRM on whether, in
the future, the label should include more granular data about a
provider's network management practices and additional specifics about
how such information should be conveyed to the public in the label or
the provider's website.
d. Affordable Connectivity Program
43. The Infrastructure Act recognizes that the Commission and
participating providers, among other stakeholders, have an important
role in promoting the ACP. For example, the Infrastructure Act requires
providers to notify consumers about the existence of the ACP and how to
enroll in the program ``when a customer subscribes to, or renews a
subscription to, an internet service offering of a participating
provider.'' See 47 U.S.C. 1752(b)(10)(A). To ensure that the Commission
is using every tool available to promote the availability of the ACP,
the Commission requires all providers to include a link in their labels
to information about the ACP and to indicate whether the provider is
participating in the ACP.
44. Many commenters believe the broadband label is an appropriate
vehicle for educating potential broadband customers about the existence
of, and eligibility for participation in, the ACP. The Commission
agrees that including information about the ACP in the label will help
increase awareness of the program's existence, further expanding the
reach of information about the program to eligible consumers. This
expanded outreach about the ACP to eligible consumers, including people
of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural or
Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically underserved,
marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality
can promote advances in diversity, equity, and inclusion. The
Commission therefore concludes that, throughout the duration of the
ACP, at a minimum, the label should highlight the ACP and provide a
link to additional qualification requirements.
45. The Commission is cognizant of concerns raised by some
commenters that including too much detail about the ACP in the label
could overshadow the key information consumers need to make broadband
service purchasing decisions. Yet the Commission also believes strongly
that the ACP is a valuable program to help consumers afford the
broadband they need for work, school, and healthcare, and that
information about the ACP may be a relevant factor in a consumer's
decision to purchase a particular broadband service. The Infrastructure
Act does not require this information to be included on the label, but
the Commission agrees with CTIA-The Wireless Association (CTIA) and
other commenters that including a link in the broadband label to more
detailed information about the ACP and how to qualify for the program
is appropriate and sufficient.
46. Thus, each provider must disclose in its labels whether it
participates in the ACP and include the following statement: ``The
Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) is a government program to help
lower the monthly cost of internet service. To learn more about the
ACP, including to find out whether you qualify, visit
<a href="http://www.affordableconnectivity.gov">www.affordableconnectivity.gov</a>.'' The text of the web address
<a href="http://www.affordableconnectivity.gov">www.affordableconnectivity.gov</a> must be an active link to the ACP web
page, <a href="http://www.affordableconnectivity.gov">www.affordableconnectivity.gov</a>. The Commission emphasizes that
the requirements we establish in this final rule do not impact an ACP
provider's obligation to comply with the Commission's ACP rules,
including any requirements related to advertisement, promotion, and
notification to subscribers of the ACP. See 47 CFR 54.1804 of the
Commission's rules.
47. The Commission also recognizes that because the ACP has not
been made permanent by Congress, the ACP may end when the appropriated
funding is exhausted. Including language on the labels directing
consumers to learn about the ACP in the event that the ACP has ended or
is no longer accepting new enrollments could cause customer confusion
and frustration. The Commission therefore directs the Wireline
Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau to
ensure that any wind-down procedures for the ACP developed as directed
by the ACP Order, FCC 22-87, adopted on November 15, 2022 and released
on November 23, 2022, address the need for providers to remove or
modify the ACP-specific language on the broadband label.
e. Privacy Policy
48. Consistent with the 2016 labels, the Commission requires
providers to include a link in the label to the service provider's
privacy policy on its website. The Commission concludes that a link to
such a policy is appropriate and that more detailed information in the
label would likely overwhelm consumers and not benefit them at the
point of sale. The Commission agrees with those commenters opposed to
including expansive privacy disclosures in the label and point to the
limitations of a label to adequately disclose privacy information to
consumers in a meaningful way. The Commission is persuaded that privacy
policies are often complicated and that requiring providers to disclose
granular, detailed information on privacy practices on the face of the
label would likely make the label unwieldy.
49. The Commission nevertheless recognizes that privacy policies
and practices, such as whether a provider discloses data to third
parties, whether providers collect and retain data about consumers that
may not be essential to providing the consumer with broadband service
(e.g., the websites the consumer visits), and whether customers can opt
out of each data practice, are important. The Commission therefore
requires providers to include a link in the label
[[Page 76967]]
to their privacy policies, but determine that such information is more
accurately and completely explained elsewhere on the provider's website
rather than in the limited space on the label. The Commission also
believes that, without going beyond the scope of the charge given to us
by Congress in section 60504 of the Infrastructure Act and considering
in depth the type of privacy information that is most valuable to
consumers at the point of sale for stand-alone broadband service and
other services, it is premature to revise the 2016 labels' privacy
disclosure.
50. The Commission does, however, seek additional comment on issues
related to privacy disclosures in the FNPRM, published elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register. A more informed record is essential
to determining what, if any, additional privacy information should be
included in the label. We also emphasize that providers must continue
to comply with the Commission's current directives regarding privacy
policy disclosures. See 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order.
f. Consumer Education/FCC Glossary
51. The Commission requires that providers include at the bottom of
all broadband labels a link to the Commission's website, where the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) will post a web page
with a glossary of terms used on the label. The 2016 labels included a
link to the Commission's website with information about specific terms
used on the labels and other relevant information about broadband
service. No commenter opposed including such a link in the label to a
``glossary'' of relevant terms, and several commenters from both
industry and consumer groups agree that it may be beneficial to have a
glossary on our website.
52. The Commission agrees that a glossary would be helpful for both
consumers and providers and therefore requires that the label include a
link to the Commission's website, where such information will be
maintained. The Commission directs CGB, in consultation with other
relevant FCC bureaus and offices, to add content to the website, to
update the page as necessary, and to ensure that the information is
accessible and understandable for consumers. The Commission also
directs CGB to make available on the website resources to guide the
creation of a uniform label, including templates and other examples.
The Commission believes such templates will reduce any burdens on
providers, particularly smaller providers, of creating labels, and will
facilitate their displaying them within the implementation timelines
discussed below. CGB should complete work on the initial website no
later than thirty days before the label display requirement becomes
effective so that providers can include the appropriate FCC link in
their labels and use the templates if desired.
53. Some commenters urge the Commission to require providers to
explain in the label itself what broadband speeds consumers will need
to perform certain tasks. The Commission concludes that requiring
providers to display such information in the label is outside the scope
of what the Infrastructure Act requires. Nevertheless, the Commission
believes some providers currently do so and agrees that such
information may be useful to certain consumers. Thus, the Commission
will consider, as part of its consumer education materials, providing
examples of what speeds of service are normally required for typical
activities such as web surfing, streaming, messaging, and video
conferencing to assist consumers in understanding broadband service
offerings.
g. Additional Content
54. The Commission declines at this time to require providers to
include additional content in the label. In the NPRM, the Commission
asked whether there is additional content to consider, given changes in
the broadband marketplace, that providers were not required to include
in the 2016 labels. Several commenters suggest that the Commission
include information about service reliability in the broadband label.
INCOMPAS specifically asks that providers have the option to include in
the label information about symmetrical speeds and guarantees of
reliability. The City of New York supports including information on an
ISP's network resiliency, the ability to substantially withstand
disaster conditions, the prevalence and scope of service disruptions,
and the time to restore service in areas affected by disruptions. The
Commission declines to adopt additional requirements at this time
because commenters did not identify a reliability metric that was
uniformly applicable across ISPs or that was readily comprehensible for
consumers. In the FNPRM, however, the Commission seeks comment on
whether to include a reliability metric in the label that is uniformly
applicable and easily comprehensible, and we seek comment on the
details of its implementation.
2. Format of Labels
55. The Commission adopts the proposed format of the 2016 labels so
that they resemble the well-known food nutrition label. In adopting the
2016 labels, the Commission consulted with the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) because of its expertise in consumer
disclosures in the financial industry (e.g., credit cards, mortgages,
prepaid cards). The labels incorporated CFPB recommendations on
typeface, font size, and ample white space. As those labels have shown,
uniform formats best enable consumers to compare services and products.
Commenters support this approach. As many note, requiring providers to
display information about their service offerings in a uniform format
will best assist consumers in comparing pricing, fees, performance
characteristics, and data allowances across different providers.
56. The Commission thus disagrees with commenters that argue
providers should be able to customize the label. The Commission
believes such customization undermines the central function of the
label--to facilitate comparison shopping between providers and
services. Nor is the Commission persuaded by arguments that a standard
format will be burdensome for providers. Commenters fail to specify the
burdens on providers of following a standard format, making bare
assertions along the lines that ``rigid design requirements for
broadband labels may impede a provider's ability to communicate
important information to its customers.''
57. This conclusion does not mean the Commission thinks the labels
should be static. Government agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
have adjusted their label formats over time to respond to consumer
feedback and changing consumer needs. The FDA is seeking information
from consumers about the online grocery shopping experience and how
food nutrition information is presented online. The EPA has similarly
redesigned its fuel economy labels over the years to reflect changes in
how vehicles are purchased and changes in consumer driving experiences
and preferences. The Commission therefore seeks comment in the FNPRM on
whether to consider any updates to the label format to ensure that
information about broadband service offerings is conveyed effectively.
58. Machine-Readable Format. The Commission requires providers to
make the information included in the label
[[Page 76968]]
available to the public in machine-readable format. By ``machine
readable,'' the Commission means providing ``data in a format that can
be easily processed by a computer without human intervention while
ensuring no semantic meaning is lost.'' See 44 U.S.C. 3502(18).
Providers should make each label's information available by providing
the information separately in a spreadsheet file format such as .csv.
These files should be made available on a provider's website via a
dedicated uniform resource locator (URL) that contains all of a
provider's given labels. The Commission requires providers to publicize
the URL with the label data in the transparency disclosures required
under 47 CFR 8.1(a) of the Commission's rules. These machine-readable
files must provide the same categories of information as those
presented in each label, including the unique identifier described
below. The Commission directs CGB, in consultation with other relevant
bureaus, to make available on the Commission's website resources that
may help providers satisfy the machine-readability requirement, such as
sample machine-readable spreadsheet files. Further, given the
importance of this requirement, the Commission will monitor providers'
implementation of machine readability to ensure providers'
implementation of this requirement is useful to third parties and the
Commission in its data collection efforts.
59. Although section 60504 of the Infrastructure Act does not
expressly address the format requirements for broadband labels,
implementing broadband labels with a machine-readability requirement
advances the statutory objective of providing consumers with sufficient
key information needed to evaluate broadband internet access service
plans in a manner that is available when they need it and most
effective for them. The Commission agrees with commenters that making
the label information machine readable will yield a number of benefits
to consumers. For example, machine readability will enable third
parties to more easily collect and aggregate data for the purpose of
creating comparison-shopping tools for consumers. These tools may
include browser add-ons or websites that compare plans offered by
different providers. Making the information machine readable also helps
ensure that the data third parties use is both accurate and up to date.
Because providers often ``adjust . . . [their] business offerings,'' we
believe it may be simpler for them to ``re-enter the new information
and re-upload [their] labels'' in a machine-readable format.
60. Machine readability also promotes both competition as well as
transparency and accountability. Consumers may use the data collected
in this manner to compare typical speeds reported by subscribers versus
those reported on a broadband label. And, as AARP explains, the
generation of shopping tools like these helps promote ``digital
equity'' for groups lacking the necessary expertise to parse what is
often complicated language contained in service agreements. These tools
can assist such groups, including older Americans, to more easily
obtain the information they need to select the service plan that best
meets their needs.
61. Further, requiring ISPs to post machine-readable label
information will allow the Commission to more easily collect data about
broadband markets. Information collected via machine-readable labels
may also make monitoring for compliance with Commission rules and
enforcement more efficient as well. A machine-readable label could, for
instance, help determine if ``a provider has published [a] properly
formatted label . . . online.''
62. While each of the foregoing benefits would be sufficient to
persuade the Commission to adopt this requirement, the Commission
further observes that a machine-readability requirement will make data
more easily available for research as well. As New America's Open
Technology Institute (OTI) explains, broadband affordability research
that is reliant on manual review of existing provider advertising can
be a ``time-consuming and laborious process that many organizations are
unable to undertake.'' The Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which
itself has ``been forced to abandon research projects because of the
industry's information gaps,'' observes that the broadband consumer
label provides ``an excellent opportunity to facilitate research
efforts'' by ``allow[ing] researchers to aggregate data at a large
scale and analyze this data.'' Such research can serve industry,
policymakers, consumers, and advocacy groups by providing a clearer
picture of the marketplace.
63. The record shows that these benefits can be achieved at a low
cost to providers, with no commenters providing cost data to suggest
otherwise. The Commission agrees with AARP that making the broadband
consumer label data machine readable does not impose a high burden or
require special technical expertise. The Commission finds ACA Connect's
argument that such a requirement would ``tax the resources of small
providers with limited in-house technical resources'' unpersuasive, as
they fail to elaborate why or substantiate their claim with any
evidence. Further, the Commission does not believe that publishing the
label information in a spreadsheet file would impose a high technical
burden. And as noted above, the Commission will offer resources to ease
compliance with this requirement.
64. The Commission disagrees with commenters that argue that
requiring the label to be machine readable creates difficulties for
providers because of ``information on the label [that] cannot be boiled
down to a binary response.'' First, commenters opposed to machine
readability fail to describe what kind of information is lost and how
that may impact consumer choice. NCTA-The Internet & Television
Association (NCTA) only cites descriptions of one-time fees as an
example where oversimplification may be required. However, NCTA does
not explain how ``semantic meaning is lost'' or what inaccuracies might
be introduced. To the extent that providers request ``flexibility'' to
provide additional information in the label not required by the
Commission, information that may not be easily reducible to binary
responses, we note that this is not the label's purpose. Indeed, to the
extent that machine readability promotes ``apples-to-apples''
comparisons that do not reflect every nuance that differentiates plans,
the Commission agrees with AARP that this does not necessarily
represent a flaw. One of the goals of the broadband consumer label is
to simplify the process of comparison shopping and make the most
critical information readily available to consumers. Thus, the
Commission agrees with AARP that conveying the type of information
opponents argue may not be picked up by a program ``is secondary to
label data needed to make apples-to-apples comparisons.'' The
Commission also agrees with commenters that the benefits outlined above
outweigh these concerns over flexibility.
65. NTCA and Wireless internet Service Providers Association's
(WISPA) invocation of the nutrition label model, which they argue ``is
not designed to serve as [an] on-ramp to electronic comparison
shopping,'' to oppose a machine-readability requirement also proves
unconvincing. Nothing about a machine-readability requirement
undermines the broadband consumer label's ability to provide ``rapid
and comprehensible comparison
[[Page 76969]]
among products.'' Simultaneously, shopping for broadband is a more
involved process than purchasing a food product. It involves selection
of a service that normally requires ongoing, periodic payments, that
may involve a contract, and that impacts various facets of an
individual's life. Such a choice reasonably takes more time and
research than that spent in a food aisle, making NTCA and WISPA's
comparison in this regard inapt.
66. The Commission also disagrees with AT&T's assertion that
machine readability is not ``designed to help the consumer at the point
of sale but rather to facilitate third parties' desire to conduct
various forms of research or analysis,'' which AT&T claims is ``not the
purpose of the labels.'' As described above, machine readability
enhances the point-of-sale experience in a variety of ways, including
in the form of third-party shopping comparison tools. While AT&T claims
that machine readability ``could fatally compromise broadband
providers' ability to . . . convey accurate information on the
labels,'' AT&T does not elaborate as to how. To the extent that machine
readability fails to capture all the benefits of a given plan, the
Commission agrees with Consumer Reports that the Commission can expect
``the creativity of ISPs'' will lead to solutions for ``further
explain[ing] the details of their service offerings to appeal to a wide
range of audiences.''
67. We recognize, however, that the Commission did not include a
machine-readability requirement in 2016 and that this will take some
additional effort. The Commission therefore delays compliance with this
requirement until one year after OMB completes its review of this new
information collection.
68. Unique Plan Identifiers. The Commission requires ISPs to
develop unique identifiers for each of their plans and attach them to
the broadband label. The unique identifier should consist of a unique
ID for fixed plan or mobile plan (``F'' for fixed plans and ``M'' for
mobile plans), followed by the broadband provider's FCC Registration
Number, and ending with a provider-chosen string of precisely 15
alphanumeric characters uniquely identifying the specific plan within
the broadband provider's offerings. Providers must use the FCC
Registration Number that is used when submitting data to the Broadband
Data Collection. The Unique Plan Identifier shall not include special
characters such as, &, *, and %. For example, AT&T could specify a
fixed broadband offering as F + 0005937974 + 123ABC456DEF789. This
would appear on the label as F0005937974123ABC456DEF789. Unique
identifiers should be sufficiently distinctive so that third parties
and the Commission can identify the specific plan identified by the
unique identifier. ISPs might consider use of other indicators, such as
ZIP Code of where the plan is offered, to set their identifiers
apparat. Additionally, reuse of identifiers must not occur; even if a
given plan is no longer offered, its string should not be repurposed
for a new or different plan.
69. Unique identifiers are useful for a variety of purposes. For
example, use of a unique identifier would enable ISPs, which often
change their plan offerings, to reuse a given plan's name without
creating confusion. While NCTA argues that unique identifiers are
unnecessary for this purpose, they do not describe the ``significant
burdens'' they claim would be imposed. USTelecom notes that requiring
provider-created unique identifiers would not ``creat[e] undue burden
on providers or increas[e] administrative costs.''
70. Additionally, unique identifiers may be helpful in reducing
ambiguity in other contexts as well. Third-party shopping tools might
benefit from ISPs' use of unique identifiers. And researchers may find
it helpful having a shared, consistent means of identifying ISPs' plans
as opposed to use of descriptive language that could result in
confusion about which plan is being discussed.
71. Accessibility for People with Disabilities. The Commission
requires that the label be accessible to people with disabilities at
all points of sale. In so doing, we emphasize our continued commitment
to ensuring that broadband networks are accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities. As the Commission noted in the NPRM, in
proposing the 2016 labels, the CAC determined that ISPs could best
ensure accessibility to printed and online broadband information by
relying on well-established legal requirements included in the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and by following the guidance
developed by the Web Accessibility Initiative.
72. Based on the record, the Commission strongly encourages ISPs to
comply with the well-established legal requirements included in the ADA
and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). The WCAG are
routinely updated; therefore, providers' websites would be modified
over time consistent with such updates. When providing the labels, ISPs
must follow the ADA and associated guidance provided by the Department
of Justice, including giving primary consideration to the individual's
choice of alternate format, including ``qualified readers, taped texts,
audio recordings, braille materials, large print materials, or other
effective methods of making visually delivered materials available to
individuals with visual impairments.'' See 28 CFR 36.303, <a href="https://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html">https://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html</a>. The American Printing House for the Blind's
(APH) print guidelines are the most concise and relevant set of
recommendations for readable design: <a href="https://www.aph.org/research/design-guidelines">https://www.aph.org/research/design-guidelines</a>. The APH Guidelines cover the effective usage of
whitespace, heading elements, tables, and more.
73. The Commission agrees with the CAC and the American Council of
the Blind (ACB) that relying on current accessibility technologies
provides an ISP the best likelihood of ensuring that consumers with
disabilities have equivalent access to information about, and the
opportunity to compare, broadband services.
74. Some commenters advocate for additional requirements. In the
FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on ACB's proposal that direct video
assistance be provided for broadband labelling. The City of New York
proposes to require Braille or a Quick Response (QR) code with a
tactile indicator for blind or visually impaired consumers at the point
of sale. The Commission also seeks comment on the WCAG 2.1 standard
that 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 more simple language.
75. Display in Languages Other Than English. The Commission
requires that providers display online and printed labels in English.
The Commission also requires providers to make labels available in any
other languages in which the ISP markets its services in the United
States. For example, if the ISP's marketing materials on its website
are available in Spanish, the Spanish version of the website must
display the associated broadband labels in Spanish as well. This
requirement does not apply to the provider's machine-readable
spreadsheet files, which should also be displayed in English. The
Commission notes that AT&T provides internet materials in English and
Spanish because those are the languages in which it advertises. Under
the labeling requirements, AT&T, and any other provider advertising in
Spanish, must include a Spanish version of the broadband label. The
Commission agrees with commenters that believe it is critical that the
broadband label be
[[Page 76970]]
accessible to all consumers, including those whose primary language is
not English, and applauds those providers who currently make
information available on their websites in multiple languages. The
Commission also encourages providers to reach out to trade associations
and other organizations for assistance in translating the label into
other languages if doing so would assist certain consumers in shopping
for broadband service.
76. The Commission agrees with the many commenters that argue that
this requirement promotes digital equity. Some Members of Congress
observe that, out of the 53 million Hispanic people living in the
United States, or 17% of the population, more than 38 million people
speak Spanish as a primary language at home, and that Asian Americans
are among the fastest-growing ethnic population in the United States,
estimated to reach 46 million by 2060. They point out that the nearly
22 million Asian Americans represent over 48 different subethnicities
that include a diverse and rich spectrum of spoken languages and
dialects. They explain that it is therefore important to ensure that
consumer-friendly labels ``leave no one feeling lost or uninformed
because of a language barrier.'' The Commission also notes OTI's point
that translations are particularly important for historically
marginalized communities that already face higher barriers to internet
adoption and may be more proficient in other languages.
77. The Commission recognizes that the need for multi-language
accessibility goes beyond translating labels directly from English. The
Commission therefore encourages providers to review their translations
for context and vernacular language by native-level speakers who work
directly with community members to ensure the language is not only
accurate, but also easily accessible and understandable to target
audiences.
78. At the same time, the Commission does not have a sufficient
record on which to require providers to display labels in languages in
which they do not market their services. In this regard, the Commission
notes that some commenters oppose such requirements, asserting that it
would be extremely cumbersome and expensive for ISPs to do so. The
Commission therefore seeks comment to build a more detailed record on
additional language requirements in the accompanying FNPRM, published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
3. Point of Sale and Label Display Location
79. The Commission requires ISPs to display the label at the
``point of sale,'' which is defined in the revised rule both in terms
of time and location. As for time, the Commission defines point of sale
as the moment a consumer begins to investigate and compare broadband
service plans available to them at their location. As for location, the
Commission defines ``point of sale'' as both ISP websites and any other
channels through which their service is sold, including ISP-owned
retail locations, third-party owned retail locations, and over the
phone.
80. The rule the Commission adopts builds on the CAC's point of
sale recommendation; however, the Commission refines the CAC's
definition of point of sale to make clear that the time the consumer
seeks to determine the best broadband internet access service product
for their needs is the time at which the consumer views specific
broadband plans available to them at their service location (often
after the consumer enters address information on the provider's website
or conveys it to a sales representative). Broadband labels do not need
to be included on mass marketing channels or prior to customers
specifying their service location. The Commission believes this
approach avoids saddling ISPs with the burden of displaying a
potentially unwieldy number of labels, most of which would not be of
value to the consumer if they cannot receive the particular service at
their location.
81. Websites. The Commission agrees with the majority of commenters
that support requiring ISPs to display labels on their websites. As
discussed above, providers must display the labels after the consumer
enters any required location information. Once the consumer has done
so, the label must appear on the provider's primary advertising web
page that identifies the plans available to the consumer. Location
information may be necessary to determine if the service or particular
plan is offered in the consumer's location. Other than providing
location information, the labels must be readily available to all
consumers without requiring them to create an account or log into an
existing account. We consider such primary web page to be the point of
sale--where consumers begin to shop for and compare broadband service
offerings available at their location. In addition to this requirement
to display the label at the time the consumer views the specific plans
available to them, providers may also display the label on their
website's homepage or elsewhere on the website during the shopping
period.
82. Providers must display the actual label--not simply an icon or
a link to the label--in close proximity to the associated plan
advertisement. By requiring providers to place the label close to their
advertising, the Commission expects consumers will more easily be able
to make a side-by-side comparison of the advertised plan's cost and
features with the information required in the label.
83. This approach contrasts with allowing providers to merely
display an icon or link to the label from their main website in that it
connects the consumer to the relevant label and better meets Congress'
goal of ensuring that consumers have easy access to vital information
about the advertised plan. The Commission agrees with OTI that
``[p]roviders must be required to prominently display the label . . .
[t]his means it has to be more than just a hyperlink to a separate page
or pop-up window.'' Consumers should not be forced to further navigate
a provider's website to find the label or toggle back and forth to
compare the advertisement with the label. The Commission believes all
the information a consumer needs to make a purchase decision should be
visible to the consumer when they are interacting with the provider's
marketing materials. Such information should be presented in one
location to simplify the comparison shopping process and should be
readily available. As with the FDA's nutrition label, consumers should
have access to broadband label information at the same time the product
is offered for sale. For similar reasons, the Commission concludes that
displaying the label via an icon that must be opened or expanded does
not afford consumers the opportunity to easily view the label alongside
the provider's advertisement. While some commenters assert that
displaying the actual label may lead to a crowded web page, the
Commission believes that providers can design their websites in ways
that permit them to display their marketing information in close
proximity to the label information.
84. The Commission nevertheless aims to give providers flexibility
in how they display labels, e.g., the Commission does not require any
particular font size for the label information at this time; however,
providers should ensure that the labels are prominently displayed on
any device on which the consumer accesses and views the labels,
including mobile devices. In the accompanying FNPRM, published
elsewhere in this issue of the
[[Page 76971]]
Federal Register, the Commission seeks comment on whether compliance
tools such as style guides might be useful to providers in creating
their labels and ensuring they are prominently displayed and easily
accessible to consumers at all points of sale.
85. The Commission thus disagrees with commenters that advocate for
a web link to the label and find that such commenters do not articulate
any particular challenges in displaying the actual label alongside a
provider's marketing materials. The Commission concludes that the
benefits of a label displayed prominently and immediately when the
consumer accesses the provider's broadband offerings available to them
outweigh any potential additional costs to providers.
86. Alternate Sales Channels. Based on the record, the Commission
also requires ISPs that use alternate sales channels (e.g., company
retail locations, third-party owned retail locations, or over the
phone) to make the label available to consumers at each point of sale.
In such situations, the Commission agrees with those commenters that
contend that providers should not necessarily be required to provide a
hard copy of the label. The Commission finds that requiring providers
to make the label available in hard copy may be unnecessarily
burdensome to some providers. If, however, the provider cannot ensure
the consumer will be able to access the label either with an internet
connection at home or in the retail location, it must make the label
available in hard copy. Thus, in the case of alternate sales channels,
while a provider may satisfy the label requirement by providing a hard
copy of the label, we find it may do so through other means. This could
include directing the consumer to the specific web page on which the
label appears by, for example, providing internet access in the retail
location or giving the customer a card with the printed URL or a QR
code. If, however, the consumer does not have internet access at home
or elsewhere, the ISP must ensure that the consumer can use the printed
URL or QR code in its retail location. Or this could include orally
providing information from the label to the consumer over the phone. In
such circumstances, the provider must read the entire label to the
consumer over the phone. Providers shall document each instance when it
directs a consumer to a label at an alternate sales channel and retain
such documentation for two years.
87. E-Rate and Rural Health Care Providers. The Commission finds
that ``point of sale'' for purposes of the E-Rate and RHC programs is
the time when a service provider submits its bid to a program
participant. Thus, the Commission requires E-Rate and RHC providers to
provide a label along with any competitive bids submitted pursuant to
the E-Rate or RHC Program competitive bidding process. In the limited
instances in which a service provider provides services without
submitting a bid and has not yet provided a label to the E-Rate or RHC
applicant, it must provide the label with the first invoice it submits
to the applicant.
88. Label Display on Customer Online Accounts. The Commission
requires ISPs that offer online account portals to their customers to
make each customer's label easily accessible to the customer in such
portals, and conclude that doing so will benefit consumers following
the conclusion of their initial shopping experience. After purchasing
broadband service, consumers should be able to easily access and review
the terms of their existing plans to ensure they are receiving the
services and price they agreed to at the time of purchase. By being
accessible at the consumer's online account page, the label also
assists consumers in identifying billing inaccuracies and unexpected
fees. Additionally, this requirement furthers the goal of assisting
consumers with comparison shopping by allowing consumers to more easily
compare their current plans to alternative plans when shopping for
broadband service in the future. Finally, the Commission believes that
associating a label that is already displayed on a provider's primary
advertising web page with a customer's online account should not be
overly burdensome, and that the benefits to consumers far outweigh any
costs to providers. In order to allow ISPs sufficient time to make any
necessary system changes, the Commission sets compliance with this
requirement at one year after the Office of Management and Budget
completes its review of this new information collection.
89. The Commission declines, however, to require ISPs to display
the label on a consumer's monthly bill. The Commission is cognizant of
providers' concerns that adding a graphic, or photo file such as a
jpeg, of the label to printed bills or enclosing an insert of the label
with billing statements may be costly and potentially burdensome.
Providers also assert that any necessary changes to billing systems
could take months for ISPs to complete. The Commission believes that
adopting a requirement that the broadband label be made easily
accessible to consumers in their online account portal best balances
the consumer transparency goals while minimizing the burden to
providers. The Commission therefore concludes that, at this time, the
burdens on ISPs of a requirement to display the label on a consumer's
monthly bill outweigh the benefits to consumers who can access the
labels in alternative ways.
90. The Commission emphasizes that consumers have multiple avenues
with which to access and review the label information associated with
their existing plans after purchasing service. As discussed in detail
above, labels for current offerings must be prominently displayed and
readily available on ISP websites, at alternate sales channels, and in
customers' online account pages. In addition, as discussed below,
providers will be required to archive all labels for two years once a
plan is no longer available for purchase by new customers. They must
also provide the archived labels to existing customers, upon request,
within 30 days. Thus, the Commission finds that the rules adopted
provide consumers with accessible means of obtaining the broadband
label after purchase. While the Commission concludes at this time that
the burdens associated with displaying or enclosing the broadband label
on monthly billing statements outweigh the associated benefit to
consumers, the Commission will continue to monitor the effectiveness of
the current display requirements.
C. Grandfathered Plans and Archive of Labels
91. The Commission requires that ISPs display labels for plans
currently offered to new customers, but ISPs are not required to create
and display labels for services used by current customers that are no
longer available to new customers. The Commission also requires ISPs to
archive all labels for two years, as discussed below. The Commission
notes that providers participating in the Affordable Connectivity
Program may be subject to different reporting and retention
requirements for plans where subscribers are receiving the ACP benefit.
92. The Commission is persuaded that the broadband labels displayed
at the point of sale should be only for services that are currently
offered to new customers. A principal goal of the label is to allow
consumers to comparison shop among services. Requiring such labeling
for services no longer available to new customers has a substantially
diminished benefit for purposes of comparison shopping. And such labels
may even confuse consumers if those plans are not actually available to
them.
[[Page 76972]]
Further, ISPs persuade the Commission that the burden of creating
labels for grandfathered plans is substantial. For example, AT&T notes
that ``approximately half of [the company's] hundreds of grandfathered
fixed broadband plans have ten or fewer customers.'' In addition,
``AT&T has thousands of mobile broadband plans that have been
grandfathered for years, and of those old plans, there are more than
5,000 plans that have a combined total of approximately 19,000
customers remaining (i.e., approximately four customers per plan).''
The Commission thus sees a potential significant burden to displaying
labels for such plans without a countervailing benefit. Therefore, in
balancing these disadvantages against any potential consumer benefit,
we decline to require labels for grandfathered plans.
93. While the Commission rejects requiring ISPs to create labels
for older plans or to continue to display labels for plans no longer
available to new customers, the Commission is persuaded that they
should maintain an archive of all labels that have been removed from
their websites or alternate sales channels. The Commission requires
ISPs to archive labels for at least two years after the service plan is
no longer offered to new customers and the label is no longer displayed
at the point of sale. The provider must provide any archived label to
the Commission, upon request, within thirty days. It must similarly
provide any archived label to an existing customer whose service plan
is associated with the particular label, upon request and within thirty
days. In other contexts, the Commission similarly requires regulated
entities to retain documentation for a two-year period and to provide
such information upon request. This requirement will aid enforcement of
labeling requirements, which might arise if consumers file informal
complaints or if the Commission or any state public service commission
requires access to the archived labels to investigate potential
inaccuracies in the labels. The archive would include each label for no
less than two years from the time the label is removed from the
provider's website or alternate sales channel and, thus, no longer
displayed at the point of sale.
94. ISPs must therefore archive all labels required by this final
rule. This includes evidence sufficient to support the accuracy of the
labels' content, such as the data that supported the performance
information that appeared on the label, along with any links to
relevant network management practices and privacy policies. Such
information will assist the Commission in any enforcement action. The
Commission expects that providers already keep such information in the
event they are asked to support their marketing and transparency rule
disclosures, and that this will therefore not represent a significant
incremental burden.
95. Providers are not required to make the archived labels
available to the general public, but as discussed above, they must
provide any archived label to the Commission or a current customer upon
request. As an alternative to providing the actual label, the ISP could
provide a URL or QR code if that was how the customer accessed the
label at the time of purchase. Specifically, a provider must allow an
existing customer to request and obtain a copy of the archived label
for the plan to which they currently subscribe once the label is no
longer displayed at the point of sale. This will assist consumers in
determining whether they are getting the service expected based on the
price and quality that was offered. It will also give consumers the
information they need to complain to the provider or to cancel service
or switch to another provider if necessary. Further, the Commission
concludes that, without such an archive of older labels, the Commission
would be unable to fully investigate consumer complaints alleging, for
example, that a service provider failed to comply with the broadband
label requirements or that a particular label was inaccurate.
D. Direct Notification of Changes to Terms
96. The Commission declines to adopt a requirement that ISPs
directly notify consumers about changes to the terms and conditions in
the displayed labels. Most commenters that addressed the issue urge the
Commission not to adopt such a requirement, arguing that such
notification is unnecessary. After considering all the record evidence,
the Commission concludes that requiring providers to notify enrolled
consumers each time a service offering displayed in a label changes
could be burdensome for providers with minimal benefits for consumers.
Consumers who already are notified about rate changes or speed upgrades
through their bills or other mailings will likely be overwhelmed or
even confused by additional notices about changes in label information.
And while the record is unclear as to how many providers routinely
notify their customers of changes to rates and other terms, the
Commission believes the labels are primarily intended to educate
consumers at the time of purchase. Further, the Infrastructure Act does
not seem to contemplate such notifications, and therefore the
Commission declines to adopt them at this time. This finding, however,
does not relieve an ISP from any other related consumer notification
requirement agreed to in its terms of service, or compliance with other
rules or regulations.
E. Interplay of New Label Requirement With Transparency Rule
97. The Commission emphasizes that where this final rule does not
modify or eliminate a transparency rule requirement which was
previously established, that requirement is still in place. See
generally 2017 Restoring internet Freedom Order. While the new label
requirement and the existing broadband transparency rule are
interrelated, an ISP's display of the label alone will not satisfy its
transparency rule obligations under 47 CFR 8.1(a) of the Commission's
rules to publicly disclose certain information on its website or
through transmittal to the Commission. Although there is overlap
between the purpose of broadband labels and that of the transparency
rule, those purposes are not identical. The fact that the two
requirements are not coextensive should come as no surprise given the
different--albeit overlapping--purposes served by the two requirements.
For example, helping consumers make informed choices regarding
broadband internet access service plans is a goal of both broadband
labels and the transparency rule. Broadband labels, however, are
designed to play a unique role in that regard by providing a quick
reference tool enabling easy comparisons among different service plans
at the time of purchase. By contrast, the transparency rule seeks to
enable a deeper dive into details of broadband internet service
offerings, which could be relevant not only for consumers as a whole,
but also for consumers with particularized interests or needs, as well
as a broader range of participants in the internet community--notably
including the Commission itself.
98. ISPs argue that the Commission should eliminate the
requirements in Sec. 8.1(a), maintaining that the problems of a
potentially burdensome broadband label would be compounded if the
Commission also retained the requirements in the current transparency
rule. They contend that it would be duplicative and unnecessary to
require, going forward, that providers maintain transparency
disclosures that include information reported separately in broadband
labels.
99. The Commission concludes that compliance with the transparency
rule does not satisfy the label's content,
[[Page 76973]]
format, and display location requirements. For example, the
transparency rule does not require disclosures about the ACP; the
label, on the other hand, must identify whether the provider
participates in the ACP and display a link to information about the
ACP. Similarly, the transparency rule does not require specific
information about introductory and post-introductory rates and
introductory periods. The Commission notes, however, that compliance
with the broadband label requirements may satisfy a provider's
obligations under Sec. 8.1 of the Commission's rules with respect to
specific sections of the transparency rule that are also incorporated
into the label.
100. The Commission also concludes that displaying a compliant
label cannot by itself satisfy the transparency rule. For example, the
link in the label to certain information about a provider's network
management practices alone may not satisfy the transparency rule
requirement. The provider's transparency rule disclosures via its
website or transmittal to the Commission must still disclose all
information required by the rule. Similarly, the label does not include
the transparency rule's requirement to disclose packet loss
information. Providers must therefore take steps to comply with the
labeling and transparency rules independently to the extent that the
details of the requirements diverge. Accordingly, compliance with the
labeling requirements is not a safe harbor from compliance with the
transparency rule.
F. Enforcement Issues and Consumer Complaints
101. Aside from the issues discussed below, the Commission declines
to adopt new rules, practices, or procedures specifically for
enforcement of the label adopted in this final rule. Based on the
record, the Commission finds that its existing enforcement mechanisms
should enable the Commission to enforce the new label requirements,
including the accuracy of the label's content and the sufficiency of
its format and display location. The Commission thus will use the
identical procedures to enforce the broadband label requirements
adopted here.
102. The Commission is persuaded that the Commission's current
transparency enforcement procedures are appropriate, and that the
Commission's existing forfeiture authority and other remedies are
sufficient to deter noncompliance and to hold accountable those
providers that do not comply with the label requirements. In addition,
as discussed above, the Commission requires providers to archive all
labels that they display, which will allow the Commission to obtain
labels and investigate the accuracy of the labels faster and more
efficiently.
103. Finally, the Commission rejects calls for a type of
``education'' period during which it puts on hold any enforcement
related to the label. The Commission believes providers will have
sufficient time during the implementation periods discussed below to
create and display complete and accurate labels for all of their
offered plans. In addition, the Commission intends to develop resources
for providers and consumers about the new disclosure requirements,
including education on broadband terminology, compliance guides, and
label templates.
104. The Commission thus disagrees with commenters that advocate
for unique enforcement of the broadband label and dedicating specific
agency resources toward enforcing the label requirements, rather than
relying on the Commission's existing enforcement procedures. The
Commission intends to process and serve informal consumer complaints
regarding broadband labels as vigorously as we do other informal
complaints, and we are confident that the existing processes are
sufficient for that purpose.
G. Implementation Timelines
105. The Commission requires that all ISPs comply with the rules
adopted within six-month and one-year compliance periods (following
publication in the Federal Register of notification that OMB has
completed review of the adopted rules). In the NPRM, the Commission
sought comment on the best ways for providers to implement the proposed
labels, including the timelines within which they should implement
them. The Commission proposed to make the rules effective six months
following publication in the Federal Register of OMB's approval of the
adopted rules, asking whether this would allow sufficient time for
providers to comply with the new requirements. The Commission asked
whether it should consider a different implementation timeline or
temporary exemption for smaller providers to allow them more time to
come into compliance with the label requirements.
106. Based on the record, the Commission declines to adopt an
exemption from the label requirements for smaller providers. The
Commission agrees with OTI that we must ensure that every consumer
benefits from the labels, not just those who are served by the largest
providers. Rural Americans, who often receive their broadband service
from smaller ISPs, also deserve transparency about broadband services
and to be given access to information necessary to shop for such
services. Moreover, as some commenters point out, the Infrastructure
Act directs the Commission to adopt labels for all ISPs and does not
distinguish between larger and smaller providers. The Commission also
believes it is critical that labels across all providers be uniform in
content and format and that they be accurate. Thus, the Commission
declines to limit the amount of information smaller providers must
display on the labels or to, for example, exclude such providers from
the Commission's informal complaint processes.
107. The Commission nevertheless recognizes that implementing the
label requirements may require some additional time, and therefore
establishes a six-month period for most providers to come into
compliance before the new requirements take effect. The Commission
agrees with those commenters that argue that allowing providers an
additional six months following announcement in the Federal Register
that OMB has completed its review of the rules will ensure that most
ISPs can implement necessary changes in a cost-effective way that makes
sense for their individual business models and potential customers.
Commenters that advocate for a longer implementation period do not
specify why an additional three or six months beyond the proposed six-
month period is necessary for most providers to create and display the
required labels. And the Commission believes consumers should not have
to wait for as long as a year before they enjoy the benefits the labels
will provide. The Commission therefore finds that six months represents
a reasonable timeframe for most providers to take steps to ensure that
labels are adequately displayed on websites, that links to additional
information are effective, and that the required information is
provided in accessible formats.
108. The Commission, however, adopts a one-year implementation
period for providers with 100,000 or fewer subscriber lines. Some
commenters contend that affording smaller providers at least one year
to comply allows them to budget for any additional expenses associated
with the labels. The Commission is persuaded that implementing
broadband labels may require providers to complete
[[Page 76974]]
certain tasks, including compiling the information that must be
presented in the label; incorporating the information into the label
format; posting labels on their websites; developing and implementing
procedures for making any necessary changes to the labels, including
website updates; and training customer service representatives, sales
agents, and other personnel. Such tasks may require more time for
providers that are less likely to have in-house attorneys and
compliance departments to assist in preparing their broadband labels,
and thus will need to engage outside legal resources to implement
several proposed requirements. Commenters generally did not challenge
allowing some additional time for such providers to come into
compliance.
109. The record provided little information on how best to define
which providers should benefit from any longer implementation period.
In similar contexts, the Commission has defined the relevant entities
in various ways. For instance, in its 2013 Rural Call Completion Order,
78 FR 76218 (Dec. 17, 2013), the Commission excepted providers with
100,000 or fewer subscriber lines, aggregated across all affiliates,
from certain recordkeeping, retention, and reporting rules. The
Commission subsequently adopted this definition for purposes of the
temporary exemption from the enhanced transparency rule. Accordingly,
the Commission similarly adopts an implementation period of one year
(from the announcement that OMB has completed its review of the new
rules) for those providers of broadband internet access service
(whether fixed or mobile) with 100,000 or fewer broadband subscribers
as per their most recent Form 477, aggregated over all the provider's
affiliates. The Commission believes the additional six months will
allow these providers the necessary time to comply with the label
requirements. These providers must still comply with the requirement to
make the contents of the labels machine readable within one year of
OMB's completion of review of the new information collection.
H. Legal Authority
110. As the Commission explained in the NPRM, we believe the
Infrastructure Act grants us authority to adopt the label requirements
for ISPs. No commenter disagrees with this conclusion. In addition, the
Commission also explains above how displaying the required broadband
label enables providers to satisfy aspects of their disclosure
obligations under the transparency rule. The Commission thus also finds
that the authority the Commission historically has invoked in support
of a transparency rule for broadband internet access service
providers--in particular, sections 13 and 257 of the Act and the
Commission's Title III licensing authority in the case of mobile
broadband providers--provides additional authority for our broadband
label requirements. In the 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order, the
Commission relied on section 257 of the Act as authority for the
transparency rule. Although section 257 subsequently was amended to
shift aspects of that provision to the new reporting requirement
enacted in section 13 of the Act, ``it was not altered in any material
respect for purposes of the Commission's authority in this regard.'' In
addition, the 2015 Open Internet Order, 80 FR 19737 (Apr. 13, 2015),
relied on Title III licensing authority over mobile broadband providers
for authority for its rules in that respect, including the transparency
rule. Although the 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order explained that
the Commission chose not to rely on that Title III authority for
conduct rules governing mobile providers insofar as it did not find
sufficient authority for conduct rules governing other providers, that
Order did not provide reasons not to rely on Title III authority for
the transparency rule adopted there (or for disclosure requirements
like the broadband label requirements adopted here). Since the
broadband label requirements will apply to all ISPs, the Commission
thus finds no reason to forgo relying on Title III authority for the
broadband label requirement for mobile broadband providers here.
111. Further, the required broadband labels will serve as a source
of information required to be collected under the ACP program. The
Commission thus finds the broadband label requirements further
supported by our ACP authority. Similarly, insofar as the broadband
labels will be tools to advance the E-Rate and Rural Health Care
universal service programs, authority for the broadband label
requirements comes from section 254 as well.
112. Similarly, the majority of commenters either do not raise any
First Amendment concerns or argue that mandatory broadband labels
similar to those approved in 2016 would not violate providers' First
Amendment rights. Some commenters, however, argue that the proposed
label requirements could raise First Amendment concerns, and we address
those arguments.
113. The Commission concludes that the rules adopted are disclosure
rules implicating commercial speech, and that they do not
unconstitutionally burden broadband internet service provider speech.
As shown below, the Commission believes that the more lenient Zauderer
(Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985))
standard, rather than the intermediate Central Hudson (Cent. Hudson Gas
& Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980))
standard, applies to the rules adopted herein. However, even assuming
arguendo that the Central Hudson standard applied, the Commission
concludes the rules would satisfy that standard as well.
114. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the government
``has substantial leeway in determining appropriate information
disclosure requirements for business corporations.'' See Pac. Gas &
Elec. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Calif., 475 U.S. 1, 15 n.12 (1986).
Thus, ``regulations that compel `purely factual and uncontroversial'
commercial speech are subject to more lenient review than regulations
that restrict accurate commercial speech.'' See, e.g., New York State
Rest. Ass'n. v. New York City Bd. of Health, 556 F.3d 114, 132 (2nd
Cir. 2009) (NY State Rest. Ass'n.); Nat'l. Elec. Mfrs. Ass'n v.
Sorrell, 272 F.3d 104, 113 (2d Cir. 2001) (Nat'l Elec). That latitude
stems from the ``material differences between disclosure requirements
and outright prohibitions on speech.'' See Zauderer, 471 U.S at 650.
See Int'l Dairy Foods Ass'n v. Boggs, 622 F.3d 628, 641 (6th Cir.
2010).
115. Disclosure requirements, unlike speech bans, are not designed
to prevent anyone from ``conveying information.'' See Zauderer, 471 U.S
at 650. Instead, those requirements ``only require [persons] to provide
somewhat more information than they might otherwise be inclined to
present.'' Where the required disclosure involves ``only factual and
uncontroversial information,'' the required disclosure ``does not
offend the core First Amendment values of promoting efficient exchange
of information or protecting individual liberty interests.'' See Nat'l
Elec., 272 F.3d at 113. NY State Rest. Ass'n., 556 F.3d at 132.
116. To the contrary, because ``the extension of First Amendment
protection to commercial speech is justified principally by the value
to consumers of the information such speech provides,'' a person's
``constitutionally protected interest in not providing any particular
[noncontroversial] factual information
[[Page 76975]]
. . . is minimal.'' Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 651 (emphasis in original).
See Milavetz, Gallop, & Milavetz v. U.S., 130 S.Ct. 1324, 1339-40
(2010) (Milavetz). The Supreme Court thus has held that the Zauderer
standard, and not the intermediate Central Hudson standard, applies to
the required disclosure of purely factual, non-controversial
information that does not suppress speech.
117. A few commenters suggest that label requirements might not
satisfy the Zauderer standard if they ``forc[e] providers to publish
specified information in pre-determined formats.'' We disagree. The new
rules requiring ISPs to display, at the point of sale, labels
containing factual information about their service options are, on
their face, a disclosure requirement. Although there is a specific
format for the label, the purpose and effect of rules requiring
providers to identify their prices, performance metrics, data
allowances, and links to their privacy policies amount to the
disclosure of broadband service offerings. All the disclosures
compelled by the rules involve ``only factual and uncontroversial
information.'' Zauderer, 471 U.S. at 650.
118. The Commission finds that the rules adopted easily satisfy the
Zauderer standard. The purpose of the rules is to ensure that consumers
have the information necessary to understand the broadband services
offered by providers, to easily determine the prices for those
services, and to comparison shop among different providers. As
explained elsewhere in this final rule, the means directed by Congress
to achieve that objective, i.e., labels at the point of sale, simply
enhances consumers' ability to purchase services that meet their needs
and budgets. By giving consumers an easier way to shop for and purchase
the broadband services they need, the rules are ``reasonably related to
the [governmental] interest'' in making sure consumers have the
information they need to make informed choices in the broadband
marketplace. The First Amendment is satisfied, therefore, because there
is a ``rational connection'' between the purpose of these commercial
disclosure requirements and ``the means employed to realize that
purpose.'' See Nat'l Elec., 272 F.3d at 114-15; Zauderer, 471 U.S. at
651.
119. Even if the intermediate three-part Central Hudson standard
applies, however, the Commission finds that the rules pass
constitutional muster. Central Hudson sets forth an intermediate
scrutiny standard that provides that a regulation of commercial speech
will be found compatible with the First Amendment if: (1) there is a
substantial Government interest; (2) the regulation directly advances
the substantial Government interest; and (3) the proposed regulation is
not more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. See Central
Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566. Commercial speech that is potentially
misleading has less First Amendment protection, and misleading
commercial speech is not protected at all and may be prohibited. As the
Commission previously concluded in the Truth-in-Billing First Report
and Order, 64 FR 34488 (June 25, 1999), the Government has a
substantial interest in ensuring that consumers are able to make
intelligent and well-informed commercial decisions. The 2017 Restoring
Internet Freedom Order similarly identified a substantial government
interest in ``encouraging competition and innovation.''
120. The Infrastructure Act directs the Commission to promulgate
rules to require the display of broadband consumer labels tailored in a
manner designed to effectively provide consumers information they need
to evaluate broadband internet access service plans through the tool of
broadband labels. And the Commission's other statutory obligations
include promoting the justness, reasonableness, and affordability for
consumers of service charges and practices and promoting marketplace
competition. The Commission believes the regulations adopted are
designed to directly advance the government's substantial interest by
providing consumers with the basic tools necessary to understand the
broadband services they are purchasing and the prices for those
services through broadband labels carefully calibrated to include
certain essential information presented in a manner that makes it most
likely to be usable and useful. In addition, they are designed to
protect consumers from contracting for service where the terms of
service are either unexplained or presented in a confusing manner.
121. Under the first part of the Central Hudson test, the
Commission finds that we have a substantial interest in assisting
consumers in making informed decisions when purchasing broadband
service, and in encouraging competition and innovation. The record is
clear that point-of-sale labels support the objective of helping
consumers make informed choices based on accurate disclosures about
broadband internet service offerings tailored to focus on the
information likely to be key to comparisons using those labels.
Commenters overwhelmingly support a label that provides key information
in an accessible and understandable format, with flexibility to provide
additional information, such as links to other resources. In an effort
to increase accessibility to broadband service for Americans, Congress
also concluded that consumers needed better access to information about
available services, i.e., simpler and easy to understand.
122. The Commission finds that the rules adopted also satisfy
Central Hudson's second prong by advancing the government's substantial
interest. The Commission, through the Truth-in-Billing regulations, has
a longstanding practice of regulating the format and organization of
carrier invoices in order to ``aid customers in understanding their
telecommunications bills.'' See 47 CFR 64.2400(a). As discussed above,
the record persuades us that these new rules, i.e., requiring ISPs to
disclose information about their services in a consistent format at the
point of sale, are needed to advance our interest in assisting
consumers in fully understanding the available broadband offerings and
to make informed decisions about what services to purchase. If
consumers can readily identify and understand key information about the
specific services offered by each provider, they can take action using
those broadband labels to compare different offerings and avoid
purchasing services that do not serve their needs. Similarly, labels
that include the same information in a conspicuous location and that
are presented in the same format across providers will enable consumers
to hold those providers accountable by making inquiries and filing
complaints should the services they receive or the prices they pay not
match what ISPs display in the labels. Tailored disclosures promise to
provide a metric against which these customers can judge whether their
broadband services satisfy the speeds, data usage, and other terms
advertised by broadband providers. That these new rules advance our
stated interest is further confirmed by information in the record that
consumers have difficulty understanding the broadband services
available to them, what those services will allow them to do, and the
prices they will ultimately pay. And given the interplay between the
broadband label requirements and the transparency rule, it also
advances the governmental interest in encouraging competition and
innovation consistent with the analysis of the 2017 Restoring Internet
Freedom Order.
123. With respect to the third prong of Central Hudson, the rules
adopted are no broader than necessary to serve our substantial
interests. To satisfy this
[[Page 76976]]
prong of the test, the Commission does not have to demonstrate that it
has adopted the least restrictive means of achieving our objective,
that the rules perfectly fit our stated interest, or that the
Commission has adopted the best of all conceivable means for achieving
our objective. See Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of New York v. Fox, 492
U.S. 469, 477 (1989); Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. FCC, 555 F.3d
996, 1002 (DC Cir. 2009) (Nat'l Cable). Instead, this prong of the
Central Hudson test requires only that the rules be proportionate to
the substantial interest we intend to advance. Given the magnitude of
the problem reflected in the record, the rules adopted represent an
incremental, moderate approach to giving consumers critical information
about broadband services. For example, the requirement to identify the
monthly price, performance information, and terms and conditions for
broadband services in a format that consumers are familiar with--a
nutrition-like label--is less intrusive than the alternative of, for
example, requiring that all the information be listed in a consumer's
bill for service or prohibiting the use of any line items that describe
the fees that make up the monthly price. And the rules still permit
providers to advertise their services independent of the information
they must present in the labels. The rules are narrowly crafted so that
they are no more extensive than necessary to further our objective of
enhancing the ability of consumers to make informed decisions when
purchasing broadband service, and thus they satisfy the third prong of
Central Hudson.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
124. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated into the NPRM released in January 2022 in this proceeding.
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the
NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. Comments filed addressing the IRFA
are discussed below. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules
125. The Report and Order adopts rules to implement section 60504
of the Infrastructure Act), to ensure that consumers have an easy way
to understand broadband internet access service providers' (ISPs' or
providers') prices, data allowances, and performance in a simple-to-
understand format that does not overwhelm consumers with too much
information. The ability to make side-by-side comparisons of various
broadband service offerings of an individual provider or the service
offerings of alternative providers is essential for consumers to make
informed decisions.
126. The Infrastructure Act directs the Commission ``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.'' Further, the Infrastructure
Act requires that any broadband consumer label adopted by the
Commission ``shall include information regarding whether the offered
price is an introductory rate and, if so, the price the consumer will
be required to pay following the introductory period.''
127. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopts rules to meet
its statutory obligations under section 60504 of the Infrastructure
Act. Specifically, the Report and Order requires ISPs to display, at
the point of sale, broadband consumer labels with critical information
about their service offerings, including about pricing, introductory
rates, data allowances, performance metrics, and the ACP). For each of
their current broadband service offerings, ISPs must display at the
point of sale a label disclosing the charges and terms for the service
and the broadband speeds associated with each plan, along with links to
information about the ACP, network management practices, privacy
policies, and other educational materials.
128. The Report and Order approves the overall format of the
Commission's 2016 voluntary labels. The labels must be provided in a
clear and simple-to-read uniform format--much like a nutrition label
required on food products--that will enable consumers to easily compare
the services of alternative providers. In addition, the information
contained in the labels must be provided in a machine-readable format,
and the labels must include unique plan identifiers and must be
accessible to all consumers, including people with disabilities. The
labels are designed to assist consumers specifically during the
shopping period--the time when consumers are comparing different
service offerings and selecting a provider and plan that best meet
their needs. Thus, ISPs must display the labels at the point of sale,
both online and through alternate sales channels (e.g., company retail
locations, retail seller locations, or over the phone). On the
provider's website, the label must be displayed in close proximity to
the advertised service plan that is available to the consumer at their
location. In addition, ISPs that offer online account portals to their
customers must make each customer's label easily accessible to the
customer in such portals. Finally, ISPs must archive labels that have
been removed from their websites and alternate sales channels for a
period of two years and must provide such labels to the Commission or
to an existing customer, upon request. In taking these actions, the
Report and Order implements the requirements of the Infrastructure Act
and, at the same time, minimizes any compliance burdens for both small
and large entities.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
129. In the NPRM, the Commission solicited comments on how to
minimize the economic impact of the new rules on small businesses. One
commenter specifically addressed the RFA requirements, arguing that
``government agencies must consider the effects of their regulatory
actions on small entities and mitigate them where possible.'' To
minimize the burdens and economic impact of the proposed broadband
labels on smaller providers, NTCA urges the Commission to exempt small
broadband providers from the Commission's formal complaint process.
NTCA says that complying with onerous and time-consuming complaint,
discovery and hearing processes will seriously disrupt a small
provider's ability to serve its customers, maintain its network, and
expand to new service areas.
130. Several other commenters argued that smaller entities would
face similar challenges in complying with the proposed label
requirements given their small staffs and limited resources. They
propose certain measures such as an exemption for smaller providers
from the label requirements or, in the alternative, granting smaller
providers an extended implementation timeframe, e.g., one additional
year, to achieve compliance with the label requirements. They assert
the additional time will allow smaller providers to compile the
information that must be presented in the label; incorporate the
information into the label format; post the labels on their websites;
and train customer service representatives, sales agents, and other
personnel.
131. In addition, some commenters urged the Commission to assist
smaller providers by developing and making
[[Page 76977]]
available to them broadband label templates in the form of ``fillable
PDFs.'' Others argue that the Commission should not require providers
to develop and maintain labels that are ``machine readable,'' asserting
that such a requirement will tax the resources of smaller providers
with limited in-house technical resources. They also state that the
Commission should not require providers to submit broadband labels
``via an application programming interface (API)'' and should instead
provide alternative submission options that are less complicated to
implement.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration
132. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the
proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not
file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
133. The Report and Order adopts rules requiring all ISPs to
display, at the point of sale, labels that disclose to consumers
certain information about their broadband service offerings including
pricing, introductory rates, data allowances, and broadband speeds, and
include links to other information on their websites about network
management practices, privacy policies, the ACP, and other educational
materials.
134. To meet the label requirements, ISPs must create a label for
each of their stand-alone broadband service offerings in the format
described and displayed in the Report and Order--one resembling the
format adopted by the FDA for nutrition labels on food products. Most
of the required information that ISPs must compile and display (price,
performance, speed and latency, and data allowances) should already be
included as part of any ISP's advertising materials or readily
available to them from the broadband data they maintain internally. In
addition, ISPs must take steps to ensure that the information contained
in the labels is publicly available via a dedicated URL in a machine-
readable format, and that the labels include a unique identification
code to assist third parties and researchers in compiling broadband
data to help consumers compare service offerings amongst providers.
135. ISPs are required to display the labels at each point of sale.
For purposes of displaying the required broadband labels, ``point of
sale'' is defined as the time a consumer begins investigating and
comparing broadband service offerings available at their location.
Thus, the rules require ISPs to display the labels both online and
through alternate sales channels (e.g., company retail locations,
retail seller locations, or over the phone) and to make the labels
available to consumers at each point of sale. On the provider's
website, providers must display the actual label in close proximity to
the associated advertised service plan.
136. The provider must also make the label available at alternate
sales channels. This could include directing the consumer to the
specific website on which the label appears by, for example, providing
internet access in the retail location or giving the customer a card
with the printed URL or a QR code, or orally providing information from
the label to the consumer over the phone. If the consumer is shopping
for broadband service on the phone, the provider must read the label in
its entirety to the consumer on the phone. If the consumer does not
have internet access at home or elsewhere, the provider must provide a
hard copy of the label. The provider shall document each instance when
it directs a consumer to a label at an alternate sales channel and
retain such documentation for two years. ISPs must also ensure that the
required labels are accessible to all consumers, including people with
disabilities. In addition, ISPs that offer online account portals to
their customers must make each customer's label easily accessible to
the customer in such portals.
137. The rules also require ISPs to maintain an archive for a
period of two years of all labels in the event consumers file
complaints related to the information displayed in the labels or if the
Commission or other state/local regulatory authority needs to access
the archived labels for other enforcement purposes. This archive must
include all labels that are no longer available on the provider's
website and alternate sales channels. The archive must also include any
information that evidences the accuracy of the labels' content, such as
pricing and performance data. Providers are not required to make the
archived labels available to the public, but they must provide any
label to the Commission or to a current customer upon request, within
thirty days.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
138. 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.
139. The Commission considered feedback from commenters about how
to minimize burdens on smaller ISPs when implementing the
Infrastructure Act. Some commenters recommended that ISPs be required
to aggregate the monthly cost identified on the label with any other
discretionary fees and government taxes--creating an ``all-in'' price.
The Commission considered this option and determined that providing an
``all-in'' cost may be difficult for ISPs because applicable government
taxes often vary according to the consumer's geographic location, and
equipment rentals and installation charges may also vary. Thus, the
Commission rejected an all-in cost requirement, stating that permitting
ISPs to display the monthly price without taxes and other fees may
lessen their administrative burdens.
140. In addition, the Commission evaluated all of the content
displayed on the 2016 voluntary labels and determined that certain
information either did not benefit consumers at the point of sale or
could be burdensome for providers to include in the labels. The 2016
fixed broadband labels, for instance, required providers to disclose
speed, latency and packet loss metrics. In the Report and Order, the
Commission determined alternatively to eliminate the requirement to
display packet loss measurements.
141. Several commenters supported requiring providers to disclose
in the labels specific information related to blocking, throttling, and
paid prioritization. Some argued that the network management
disclosures in the 2016 labels were inadequate and urged the Commission
to add content related to blocking, throttling, and paid
prioritization. The Commission concluded alternatively that requiring a
link to the broadband service provider's website as a source for more
information
[[Page 76978]]
on its practices, rather than expanding the labels to address network
management practices in detail, is the best approach. Similarly, some
commenters asserted that the labels should include more detailed
information about ISPs' privacy practices than the 2016 labels did. The
Commission determined instead that it was appropriate to adopt the 2016
label language regarding privacy and to simply require a link on the
label to the service provider's privacy policy.
142. In the Report and Order, the Commission considered whether the
labels should be available in languages other than English. Several
commenters opposed requiring providers to make labels available in
multiple languages, asserting that it would be extremely cumbersome and
expensive, particularly for smaller providers. While emphasizing the
importance that the labels be accessible to all consumers, the
Commission recognized the potential burdens on providers of translating
labels into multiple languages at this time. Thus, it required
providers to alternatively post the labels on websites and in any
printed materials in English, as well as in any other languages in
which they market their services.
143. Some commenters asked that the Commission make ``fillable''
PDF templates of the label available to providers to minimize the
burdens on smaller providers in particular. The Commission determined
to make label templates available to providers on its website and
directed the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau to complete work
on the initial website no later than thirty days before the new label
requirement becomes effective. Other commenters asked that small
providers not be subject to any requirement that the label be machine
readable. The record showed that the benefits of requiring that the
label content be machine readable can be achieved at a low cost to
providers, with no commenters providing cost data to suggest otherwise.
Nevertheless, to address such concerns, the Commission determined that
allowing providers to use spreadsheets to make the information
available in a machine-readable format greatly minimizes any burden
that a small provider might have to bear, and will be lessened even
further by the fact that the Commission will provide a template of the
label. The Commission also determined that the machine-readable
requirement should not become effective until one year after OMB
completes its review of the new information collection requirements.
144. In addition, the Commission considered whether to require ISPs
to display the labels on their customers' monthly bills. It declined to
do so, however, noting that the burdens on ISPs of doing so appear to
outweigh the benefits to consumers. Instead, the Commission determined
to require ISPs to display labels on customers' online account portals,
finding that associating a label that is already displayed on the
provider's primary advertising web page would not be overly burdensome.
The Commission nevertheless determined that in order to allow ISPs
sufficient time to make any necessary system changes, the customer
online account requirement should not become effective for all
providers until one year after OMB completes its review of the new
information collection.
145. Finally, the Commission considered whether to exempt smaller
providers from the label requirements. While it rejected such an
exemption, stating that it was important to ensure that every consumer
benefits from the labels, not just those who are served by the largest
providers, it did adopt a different implementation period for providers
with 100,000 or fewer subscriber lines, which will likely include
substantially all small entities. Specifically, the Commission
determined that these providers should have a longer time within which
to come into compliance with the new label requirements and adopted a
one-year implementation period for these providers. The Commission was
persuaded that implementing broadband labels may require providers to
complete certain tasks such as compiling the information that must be
presented in the label and posting labels on their websites. Thus, the
Commission concluded that additional time was warranted for these
providers that are less likely to have in-house attorneys and
compliance departments to assist in preparing their broadband labels
and will need to engage outside legal resources to implement several
proposed requirements. Finally, one commenter asked that the Commission
exempt small broadband providers from the Commission's formal complaint
process. The Commission stated that the formal complaint process does
not apply in this context given the current classification of broadband
internet access service.
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.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 8 as follows:
PART 8--INTERNET FREEDOM
0
1. The authority citation for part 8 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201(b), 257, 303(r), and 1753.
0
2. Section 8.1 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) to
read as follows:
Sec. 8.1 Transparency.
(a) * * *
(1) Any person providing broadband internet access service shall
create and display an accurate broadband consumer label for each stand-
alone broadband internet access service it currently offers for
purchase. The label must be prominently displayed, publicly available,
and easily accessible to consumers, including consumers with
disabilities, at the point of sale with the content and in the format
prescribed by the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) in
figure 1 to this paragraph (a)(1).
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Figure 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)--[Fixed or Mobile] Broadband Consumer
Disclosure Label
[[Page 76979]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE22.036
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
(2) Broadband internet access service providers shall display the
label required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section at each point of
sale. ``Point of
[[Page 76980]]
sale'' is defined to mean a provider's website and any alternate sales
channels through which the provider's broadband internet access service
is sold, including a provider-owned retail location, third-party retail
location, and over the phone. For labels displayed on provider
websites, the label must be displayed in close proximity to the
associated advertised service plan. ``Point of sale'' also means the
time a consumer begins investigating and comparing broadband service
offerings available to them at their location. ``Point of sale'' for
purposes of the E-Rate and Rural Health Care programs is defined as the
time a service provider submits its bid to a program participant.
Providers participating in the E-Rate and Rural Health Care programs
must provide their labels to program participants when they submit
their bids to participants. Broadband internet access service providers
that offer online account portals to their customers shall also make
each customer's label easily accessible to the customer in such
portals.
(3) The content of the label required under paragraph (a)(1) of
this section must be displayed on the broadband internet access service
provider's website in a machine-readable format. Broadband internet
access service providers must provide the information in any label
separately in a spreadsheet file format on their websites via a
dedicated uniform resource locator (URL) that contains all of their
labels. Providers must publicize the URL with the label data in the
transparency disclosures required under this paragraph (a).
(4) The label required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section must
be provided in English and in any other languages in which the
broadband internet access service provider markets its services in the
United States.
(5) Broadband internet access service providers shall maintain an
archive of all labels required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section
for a period of no less than two years from the time the service plan
reflected in the label is no longer available for purchase by a new
subscriber and the provider has removed the label from its website or
alternate sales channels. Providers must provide any archived label to
the Commission, upon request, within thirty days. Providers must
provide an archived label, upon request and within thirty days, to an
existing customer whose service plan is associated with the particular
label. A provider is not required to display a label once the
associated service plan is no longer offered to new subscribers.
(6) Broadband consumer label requirements and the transparency rule
in paragraph (a) of this section are subject to enforcement using the
same processes and procedures. The label required under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section is not a safe harbor from the transparency rule
or any other requirements established by the Commission.
(7) Paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section may contain an
information-collection and/or recordkeeping requirement. Compliance
with paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section will not be required
until this paragraph (a)(7) is removed or contains a compliance date,
which will not occur until after the Office of Management and Budget
completes review of such requirements pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act or until after the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau determines that such review is not required. The compliance date
will be one year after the removal or amendment of this paragraph
(a)(7) for providers with 100,000 or fewer subscriber lines and six
months after the removal or amendment of this paragraph (a)(7) for all
other providers, except that the compliance date for paragraph (a)(3)
of this section will be one year after the removal or amendment of this
paragraph (a)(7) for all providers. The compliance date for the
requirement in paragraph (a)(2) of this section to make labels
accessible in online account portals will be one year after the removal
or amendment of this paragraph (a)(7) for all providers. The Commission
directs the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau to announce
compliance dates for paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section by
subsequent Public Notice and notification in the Federal Register and
to cause this section to be revised accordingly.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-26854 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.