By Ryan Johnston

Image credit: Axios

The updated Consumer Broadband Nutrition Label rules set to be released later this month have their roots in 2016 when the Federal Communications Commission (“the Commission”) unveiled the first iteration. The 2016 labels were intended to provide consumers with more information on their broadband plans’ service speed, reliability, and costs after the Commission received over 2,000 consumer complaints alleging that actual bills exceeded advertised prices by over 40%.

At the time, providers could use the labels to satisfy the disclosure requirements found in the 2015 Open Internet Order. The Order required providers to disclose specific information on promotional pricing, fees, and data caps. It also required disclosures related to wireline and mobile network performance characteristics and regional differences in network performance. 

With the repeal of the 2015 Open Internet Order and the Release of the 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order, plans for the nutrition label were abandoned. 

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included a directive from Congress for the Commission to revive the broadband nutrition label and, within one year, finalize new rules regarding its display requirements and contents. 

Consumers’ need for accurate information about their broadband plans is immediate. On May 5, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission released a proposed order, revealing that one provider offered far slower speeds than its rural California consumers paid for. Without accurate information about consumers’ services, it remains difficult to track discrepancies between advertised and actual services provided.

In addition to promulgating new rules, the Commission convened a working group consisting of Consumer Advisory Committee members. This working group, consisting of industry and public-interest groups, crafted a recommendation on how and where the label should be displayed and how to disclose promotional and standard pricing. 

The recommendation asserts that labels should be concise, accurate, and easy to understand. Notably, the recommendation does not require providers to place the label in whole at the point of sale. Rather, a link or icon connected to the label would suffice. Although it would also require a provider to list a consumer’s month-to-month rate, the recommended version of the label would not analyze the promotional plan the consumer may receive. Without the inclusion of the promotional rates in the broadband nutrition label consumers will still be subject to potential sticker shock as they are unaware of when a promotion may end. 

We’re now at a critical juncture, the time between the FCC’s comment period and the release of a report and order outlining the new rules for the broadband nutrition label. Unlike in 2016,  the FCC must deliver.  

Consumers deserve easy-to-understand information that enables them to comparison shop for service and hold their provider accountable for accurate billing. If the Commission wants the Consumer Broadband Nutrition Label to be the critical transparency tool that Congress intended it to be, there are several ways it can do it. 

Making the label as accessible as possible is a must. Consumers should not have to navigate hyperlinks or dig through pages at the point-of-sale and scrutinize fine print to find broadband nutrition label metrics. Placing a full label next to the advertised service maximizes transparency and promotes ease of use for consumers who may not be savvy enough to find a hidden information resource. Additionally, paper copies and a downloadable version of labels should be available for consumers in store. This allows consumers, including those who do not have reliable Internet access, to comparison-shop across providers and revisit and confirm service plan information as needed. 

After consumers have made their purchase, they should not lose access to the label. Requiring providers to include the label for a consumer’s plan on their monthly bill allows consumers to compare actual charges against charges advertised at the time of sale. Additionally, analysis on billing after promotional prices expire is critical for preventing bill shock when a consumer’s promotion comes to an end. 

None of these measures are useful if a consumer cannot read the label. For people who lack digital skills, having to navigate away from the CBNL using a series of hyperlinks makes it more difficult to find information that should be readily available. Importantly, for people living with disabilities, a machine-readable label is a critical accessibility tool. Screen readers and refreshable braille displays are just a few examples of the technologies requiring machine-readability to function. 

Requiring that the CBNL be created in a machine-readable format also promotes interoperability with assistive technologies, which is an essential resource for compiling, comparing, and editing data. Currently, the Commission does not include price information in the National Broadband Map. By enabling third parties to collect and collate broadband plan data, they could equip consumers to compare plans from a wide array of providers and identify the most cost-effective service options for their needs. 

While machine-readability offers assistance to the number of people a nutrition label can reach, it is imperative that consumers can understand its contents. The Commission should create a glossary or bank of key terms and definitions to support consumers without technical expertise in understanding CBNL content. Without this resource, the Commission runs the risk of offering a transparency tool that is itself opaque.

This list provides the basic ingredients that consumers need for impactful decision-making from the broadband nutrition label. Providing accessible, straightforward information is vital for furthering the Commission’s goals of connecting every resident with reliable, high-speed, affordable broadband service.