Empowering Broadband Consumers Through Transparency, 6827-6838 [2022-02483]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6827-6838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02483]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 8

[CG Docket No. 22-2; FCC 22-7; FR ID 69891]


Empowering Broadband Consumers Through Transparency

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes measures to 
implement certain provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act (Infrastructure Act). Specifically, the Commission proposes to 
require that broadband internet access service providers (ISPs) 
display, at the point of sale, labels to disclose to consumers certain 
information about prices, introductory rates, data allowances, 
broadband speeds, and management practices, among other things.

DATES: Comments are due on or before March 9, 2022, and reply comments 
are due on or before March 24, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 22-2, 
by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further 
notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger 
delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect 
the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission 
of COVID-19. In the event that the Commission announces the lifting of 
COVID-19 restrictions, a filing window will be opened at the 
Commission's office located at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis, MD 
20701. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and 
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 
2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erica H. McMahon of the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0346 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in CG Docket No. 22-2, FCC 22-7, adopted 
and released on January 27, 2022. The full text of the document is 
available for public inspection and copying via the Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice).
    This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 
1.1200 through 1.1216. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are 
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain 
summaries of the substances of the presentations and not merely a 
listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence 
description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. 
See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex 
parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in 
Sec.  1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The NPRM proposes rule amendments that may result in modified 
information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any 
modified information collection requirements, the Commission will 
publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment 
on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Public 
Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks comment on 
how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. Public Law 107-198; 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

    1. In 2021, Congress enacted and the President signed the 
Infrastructure Act, which, in relevant part, directs the Commission 
``[n]ot later than 1 year after the date of enactment of th[e] Act, to 
promulgate regulations to require the display of broadband consumer 
labels, as described in the Public Notice of the Commission issued on 
April 4, 2016 (DA 16-357), to disclose to consumers information 
regarding broadband internet access service plans.'' See Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat. 429, section 
60504(a) (2021) (Infrastructure Act). Further, the Infrastructure Act 
requires that any broadband consumer label adopted by the Commission 
``shall include information regarding whether

[[Page 6828]]

the offered price is an introductory rate and, if so, the price the 
consumer will be required to pay following the introductory period.''
    2. The Infrastructure Act also directs the Commission to conduct a 
series of public hearings to assess: (1) How consumers evaluate 
broadband internet access service plans; and (2) whether disclosures to 
consumers of information regarding broadband internet access service 
plans, including the disclosures required under 47 CFR 8.1, are 
available, effective, and sufficient. The Commission will announce the 
dates of such hearings, which will inform the Commission's conclusions 
in this proceeding, in a forthcoming Public Notice and will provide 
notice of the hearings separately in the Federal Register as soon as 
such dates are determined.
    3. In this NPRM, the Commission initiates a proceeding to implement 
section 60504 of the Infrastructure Act, and proposes to require ISPs 
to display the labels approved in 2016 as part of a safe harbor, with 
any necessary modifications. The Commission seeks comment on the extent 
to which the Infrastructure Act requires or permits the Commission to 
depart from the labels described in its 2016 Public Notice. See 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs, Wireline Competition, and Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureaus Approve Open Internet Broadband Consumer 
Labels, GN Docket No. 14-28, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 3358 (CGB/WCB/
WTB 2016).

A. Proposed Broadband Consumer Labels

    4. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to adopt the 2016 labels 
subject to appropriate modifications and asks whether anything has 
changed since the Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC) developed the 
labels in 2016 that suggests the Commission should consider updating 
the labels in terms of content and format, and providing new guidance 
about where ISPs must display such labels. The Commission also seeks 
comment on how consumers evaluate broadband service plans and whether 
the 2016 labels will assist consumers with the purchase process. Should 
the Commission consider updating the labels to assist consumers with: 
(1) Selecting a broadband provider; (2) selecting a broadband service 
plan; (3) managing use of a broadband service plan; and (4) deciding 
whether and when to switch an existing broadband provider or plan? The 
Commission also seeks comment on how ISPs currently disclose 
information about their broadband services. How should their current 
practices inform the Commission's decisions about the labels adopted 
going forward? Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on the scope 
of broadband service plans to which the labels requirement should 
apply. For example, how should providers treat plans that are not 
currently available for purchase by consumers, such as legacy or 
grandfathered plans?
Content
    5. The Commission proposes to adopt the content of the 2016 labels, 
both for fixed and mobile broadband services, with appropriate 
modifications. As reflected below, the 2016 labels for fixed broadband 
service include the following content: (1) Pricing; (2) monthly data 
allowance; (3) overage charges; (4) equipment fees; (5) other monthly 
fees; (6) one-time fees; and (7) early termination fees. The 2016 
labels also include information on performance (speed, latency, and 
packet loss) and on network management practices. The 2016 labels for 
mobile broadband service include information on: (1) Pricing; (2) when 
you exceed data allowance; (3) other included services/features; (4) 
other monthly fees; (5) one-time fees; (6) service contract terms; (7) 
early termination fees; and (8) ``bring your own device'' information. 
The mobile broadband labels also include performance information 
(speed, latency, and other services on the network) and network 
management practices. Both the fixed and mobile broadband labels 
include a link to the provider's privacy policy and a link to how to 
file complaints and inquiries. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
the 2016 labels' content sufficiently includes all the information 
consumers need to make informed decisions. Conversely, is there 
information contained in the 2016 labels that is no longer necessary to 
serve the goals of the Infrastructure Act or the Commission, or might 
overwhelm consumers with too much information? For example, in regard 
to mobile broadband, do reporting obligations related to packet loss 
provide enough consumer benefit relative to any reporting costs?
    6. Introductory Rates. The Commission seeks comment on whether the 
2016 labels satisfy the Infrastructure Act's requirement that any label 
make clear whether the price offered is an introductory rate and what 
the price will be when the introductory period ends. Further, is the 
information related to introductory rates and subscription rates 
contained in the labels readily available to consumers and easy to 
understand?
    7. Service Levels and Bundles. The Commission recognizes that 
broadband service offerings can include numerous characteristics based 
on differing service levels, features, add-ons, consumer location, and 
other factors. Is flexibility in the labels' content necessary or wise 
to avoid the possibility that consumers could be overwhelmed with 
information? Should labels include services bundled with broadband such 
as video, telephony, or mobile services? Should such information 
include any information about the quality of the bundled services, 
e.g., whether video is limited to 480i or allows 1080p or 4K quality?
    8. Additional Content. Is there additional content the Commission 
should consider, given changes in the broadband marketplace, that 
providers were not required to include in the 2016 labels? For example, 
in 2017, the Commission required broadband providers to disclose 
whether they engage in blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization. 
Should the labels include information about whether there are any 
limitations when consumers use multiple devices on the same broadband 
plan? Should the labels make clear when the offered rate is contingent 
on consumer consent to particular restrictions, e.g., paperless 
billing, electronic payment, rental of equipment, and/or enrollment in 
related services? The Commission seeks comment on whether such 
information or other content should be added to the broadband consumer 
labels and, if so, how and where it should be presented.
    9. Affordable Connectivity Program. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether and how to include information about the Affordable 
Connectivity Program (ACP) in the broadband labels. 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.'' In the ACP Public Notice, the Wireline 
Competition Bureau asked for comment on the type of disclosures the 
Commission should require providers to make regarding the ACP to 
consumers. See FCC Seeks Comment on the New Affordable Connectivity 
Program, WC Docket No. 21-450, Public Notice, DA 21-1453 (WCB 2021). 
Should the Commission require that the broadband labels include 
information about the ACP? To what extent can broadband labels be used 
to promote awareness of

[[Page 6829]]

the ACP and how to enroll? How might those disclosures be presented on 
the labels?
    10. Direct Notification of Term Changes. Should the Commission 
adopt a ``direct notification'' requirement for changes to terms in the 
labels? If so, how should providers notify consumers directly of any 
changes in terms of service or of any other changes to the information 
contained in the labels displayed to consumers when they purchased 
service? Should the Commission adopt a timeframe within which providers 
must make such notifications? Should the Commission require that the 
notifications be sent in advance of the changes taking affect? If so, 
how far in advance? The Commission also seeks comment on the costs and 
benefits of a direct notification requirement and any alternative 
approaches that should be considered.
Format
    11. The Commission also proposes to adopt the format of the 2016 
labels, which resemble the nutrition labels the United States Food and 
Drug Administration (FDA) has prescribed for food products, and seeks 
comment on whether the format sufficiently displays information to 
consumers in an effective and helpful way. The Commission seeks comment 
on this proposal. Are there any changes the Commission should consider 
to the format? Should the Commission allow ISPs any flexibility in 
displaying the label contents to reflect the variety of formats 
consumers use to learn about and subscribe to broadband services? How 
can the Commission provide this flexibility without weakening the 
effectiveness of the preferred format of the 2016 labels? How can the 
Commission ensure that any such flexibility would not undermine 
consumers' ability to comparison shop between services and providers? 
Should the Commission require that the labels be provided in a machine-
readable format with standard, labeled fields to ensure that third 
parties and consumers can more readily compare across multiple 
providers? The term ``machine-readable,'' when used with respect to 
data, means ``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).
    12. The Commission will be undertaking a separate rulemaking to 
implement section 60502(c) of the Infrastructure Act, which requires 
the Commission to conduct an ``annual collection . . . of data relating 
to the price and subscription rates of each internet service offering 
of a participating provider under the Affordable Connectivity 
Program.'' See Infrastructure Act, section 60502(c)(1). The 
Infrastructure Act further requires that the Commission ``shall rely on 
the price information displayed on the broadband consumer label . . . 
for any collection of data . . . under section 60502(c)'' See 
Infrastructure Act, section 60504(b)(2). In order to rely on such data, 
the Commission will need a means by which to associate the broadband-
label information with the data collected under section 60502(c). One 
means of making that association would be for the Commission to collect 
all the broadband-label data, with each plan having a unique identifier 
that could be referenced in the section 60502(c) data collection. 
Another approach would be for the Commission to require all ISPs to 
make information about each plan available in a machine-readable format 
via an Application Program Interface (API) so that the Commission could 
access the broadband-label information for any plan included in the 
ISP's submission to the section 60502(c) collection. The Commission 
seeks comment on these two alternative approaches and their relative 
burdens on ISPs. The Commission also seeks comment on other approaches 
that should be considered to fulfill the statutory requirements of 
section 60502(c).
Display Location
    13. The Commission proposes to require ISPs to display the labels 
at the point of sale. Specifically, the Commission proposes to require 
providers to prominently display the labels in a manner that is easily 
accessible to consumers and in the format prescribed by the Commission. 
The Commission proposes to require providers, at a minimum, to disclose 
the labels of any broadband service presented to consumers on an ISP's 
website when a consumer browses service options. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal. In addition, the Commission asks for comments 
on exactly how the labels should be disclosed on ISPs' websites. For 
instance, is including a link to the label sufficient? If so, how 
should the link be presented to consumers? Where else on the ISP's 
website should the labels be displayed and/or disclosed and how should 
ISPs' websites be configured for search engine optimization? The 
Commission also seeks comment on how the labels should be displayed at 
other points of sale, such as at retail locations, on apps, on online 
platforms, on other digital locations, and on telemarketing calls. 
Should ISPs provide hardcopies of the labels in retail locations? 
Should their telemarketing representatives email, or otherwise make 
available to, consumers labels before consumers make a purchase? Are 
there other marketing channels the Commission should consider in 
developing this requirement? Should these be included in bills or other 
communications about changes in service?
Accessibility
    14. In 2015, the Commission stipulated that ISPs that wished to 
avail themselves of the transparency safe harbor needed to ensure that 
the broadband consumer label was accessible to persons with 
disabilities. The CAC determined that participating ISPs can best 
ensure accessibility to printed and online information by relying on 
well-established legal requirements included in the Americans with 
Disabilities Act and by following the guidance developed by the Web 
Accessibility Initiative. The CAC found that relying on these 
guidelines provides the best likelihood of ensuring that consumers with 
disabilities will be able to access necessary information about 
broadband services. The Commission seeks comment on whether such 
guidelines remain accurate today and how best to ensure that any 
required labels are accessible to persons with disabilities.

B. Relationship to Transparency Rule

    15. The Commission seeks comment on the interplay between the 
existing transparency rule and the proposed broadband labels. See 47 
CFR 8.1. There may be differences between the information required by 
the transparency rule and the proposed broadband labels. The Commission 
therefore seeks comment on the interplay between the two. Should 
display of the proposed labels fully satisfy the current transparency 
rule? In what ways does the transparency rule require disclosures 
beyond those in the proposed labels? Alternatively, do the broadband 
consumer labels require disclosures beyond the scope of the existing 
transparency rule? Will the broadband consumer labels' requirements 
necessitate further changes to the Commission's transparency rule? If 
so, how should the Commission resolve potential inconsistencies? The 
draft proposed rule reflects the view that display of the broadband 
labels would be necessary for compliance with the general transparency 
rule. The Commission nevertheless seeks comment on alternative rule 
formulations that would

[[Page 6830]]

reflect different possible approaches to the relationship between the 
two and that sufficiently satisfy the objectives outlined in this NPRM.

C. Enforcement Issues

    16. The Commission seeks comment on issues related to enforcement 
of the proposed broadband labels. What is the extent of the 
Commission's authority under the Infrastructure Act to enforce the 
broadband consumer labels as an entirely separate requirement from the 
transparency rule, or as an adjunct of the transparency rule, which was 
promulgated pursuant to the Commission's authority under the 
Communications Act? The Commission asks that commenters address the 
scope of the Commission's enforcement authority, particularly in light 
of Commission precedent in this area. Should the Commission adopt rules 
specifically governing enforcement of the broadband label requirement, 
or should the Commission employ the same enforcement rules and 
requirements that it relies on in other contexts?
    17. The Commission seeks comment on how to evaluate and enforce the 
accuracy of the information presented in the broadband consumer labels. 
How can the Commission verify the accuracy of the information that a 
broadband provider uses in a broadband consumer label? How best can the 
Commission confirm that any variance between the disclosed performance 
metrics and actual performance as experienced by individual consumers 
is or is not consistent with normal network variation? How should the 
Commission enforce against inaccuracies in the provided information?

D. Implementation and Other Issues

    18. The Commission seeks comment on the best ways for providers to 
implement the proposed labels, including the timelines within which 
they should implement them. The Commission expects providers to develop 
and implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with 
the proposed labels' requirements and, as part of that process, to 
notify employees, sub-contractors, agents or other persons acting on 
behalf of the provider in marketing the provider's services of these 
disclosure requirements. The Commission proposes to adopt rules in that 
regard, including specifying that the provider will bear the burden to 
demonstrate that it has made all reasonable efforts to ensure 
compliance should a complaint arise or other information is brought to 
the Commission's attention regarding the label disclosure practices of 
a third party acting on the provider's behalf. The Commission seeks 
comment on that proposal and on any alternatives.
    19. In order to allow sufficient time for providers to implement 
the measures necessary to comply with these requirements, the 
Commission proposes to make these rules effective six months following 
publication in the Federal Register of the Office of Management and 
Budget's (OMB's) approval of the adopted rules. Is six months 
sufficient for both large and smaller providers? Should the Commission 
adopt a different implementation timeline or temporary exemption for 
smaller providers to allow them more time to come into compliance with 
the labels' requirements, and does the Commission have the discretion 
to do so? The Commission seeks comment on the proposed implementation 
period(s) generally. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
there are alternative ways, other than different implementation 
timeframes, to minimize the economic impact on smaller service 
providers while achieving the Commission's transparency objectives.
    20. As part of the Commission's continuing effort to advance 
digital equity for all, 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, the Commission invites 
comment on how any broadband consumer labels can advance equity in the 
provision of and access to digital communications services and products 
for all people of the United States, without discrimination on the 
basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability. 
See 47 U.S.C. 151. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how 
the NPRM's proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, 
equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the 
Commission's relevant legal authority.
    21. The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how the 
broadband consumer labels can be used to facilitate equal access to 
broadband internet access services. Are there particular label 
requirements that would support Commission efforts in this regard? In 
implementing the broadband consumer labels requirement, the Commission 
seeks comment on the cost effectiveness of the proposals viewed as a 
whole. Are the costs to ISPs of adding extra information to labels at 
the point of sale relatively small, when considered against the 
benefits additional labeling would provide consumers? What are the most 
cost-effective ways of making labels available to consumers?

E. Legal Authority

    22. The Commission believes the Infrastructure Act affords the 
Commission legal authority to adopt the proposed labels' requirements 
for ISPs. In addition, the Commission notes that the D.C. Circuit 
severed and upheld the Commission's 2010 transparency rule in Verizon 
v. FCC. See Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014). While the 
majority did not expressly opine on the legal authority for the 
Commission's prior transparency rule, the Commission believes that, 
like the 2010 transparency rule, the labels proposed fall well within 
multiple, independent sources of the Commission's authority. The D.C. 
Circuit also affirmed the Commission's reliance on statutory authority 
under prior section 257 of the Communications Act (now moved in part to 
section 13 of the Act) for the transparency rule adopted there. The 
Commission also seeks comment on the use of Title III authority, 
insofar as the broadband label requirements apply to wireless 
licensees. Do the proposed broadband labeling requirements also advance 
other statutory goals? If so, what are those?
    23. When the Commission has adopted disclosure requirements in the 
past, such as the transparency rule and its truth-in-billing 
requirements, it has evaluated its approach to ensure it was consistent 
with the First Amendment. The Commission thus likewise seeks comment on 
any First Amendment considerations relevant here. The Infrastructure 
Act directs the Commission to promulgate rules to require the display 
of broadband consumer labels, and the Commission's other statutory 
obligations include protecting consumers from unjust or unreasonable 
charges and practices. See 47 U.S.C. 201(b). The Commission believes 
the proposed regulations 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. 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. The Commission encourages parties to address First Amendment 
issues in their comments, particularly with respect to the specific 
labels proposed. Parties are asked to address

[[Page 6831]]

how the proposed regulation in the area of consumer disclosures meets 
the requirements of Zauderer and the three prongs of the Central Hudson 
test. See Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 
(1985); Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of New 
York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). Parties should address specifically how the 
proposals harmonize with Commission precedent in this area and relevant 
case law.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    24. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on the 
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be 
filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM provided.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    25. The NPRM proposes rules to implement section 60504 of the 
Infrastructure Act to ensure that consumers have an easy way to 
understand ISPs' prices, performance, and network practices in a 
simple-to-understand format that does not overwhelm consumers with too 
much information.
    26. The NPRM proposes rules to meet its statutory obligations under 
section 60504 of the Infrastructure Act. Specifically, the NPRM 
proposes to amend 47 CFR 8.1(a) of the Commission's rules to require 
ISPs to display labels at the point of sale to disclose to consumers 
certain information about prices, introductory rates, data allowances, 
broadband speeds, and management practices, among other things. The 
labels proposed are modified versions of those recommended by the 
Commission's Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC) in 2015, which are 
similar to the nutrition labels required by the United States Food and 
Drug Administration (FDA) on food products, and which the Commission 
incorporated as part of a safe harbor from the transparency 
requirements in 2016.
    27. The NPRM proposes broadband consumer labels that contain, at a 
minimum, the same content contained in the 2016 labels, both for fixed 
and mobile broadband services. To ensure that broadband consumers have 
the information they need to make informed decisions, the NPRM proposes 
to adopt the content of the 2016 labels, both for fixed and mobile 
broadband services, with appropriate modifications. The 2016 labels for 
fixed broadband service include the following content: (1) Pricing; (2) 
monthly data allowance; (3) overage charges; (4) equipment fees; (5) 
other monthly fees; (6) one-time fees; and 7) early termination fees. 
In addition, the 2016 labels also include information on performance 
(speed, latency, and packet loss) and on network management practices. 
The 2016 labels for mobile broadband service include information on: 
(1) Pricing; (2) when you exceed data allowance; (3) other included 
services/features; (4) other monthly fees; (5) one-time fees; 6) 
service contract terms; (7) early termination fees; and (8) ``bring 
your own device'' information. The mobile broadband labels also include 
performance information (speed, latency, and other services on the 
network) and network management practices. Both the fixed and mobile 
broadband labels include a link to the provider's privacy policy and a 
link to how to file complaints and inquiries.
    28. The NPRM seeks comment on whether there is other content beyond 
what is in the 2016 labels that should be considered. For example, 
should the labels include information about whether there are any 
limitations when consumers use multiple devices on the same broadband 
plan? Should the labels make clear when the offered rate is contingent 
on consumer consent to particular restrictions, e.g., paperless 
billing, electronic payment, rental of equipment, and/or enrollment in 
related services?
    29. The NPRM proposes to adopt the format of the 2016 labels and 
require it for broadband consumer labels based on its success as a 
nutrition label format and the considerable work the CAC did in 
adapting the format to broadband service. In addition, the NPRM 
proposes to require ISPs to display the labels at the point of sale. 
This means disclosing the labels of any broadband service presented to 
consumers on an ISP's website when a consumer browses service options. 
Finally, the NPRM proposes to ensure that any required labels are 
accessible to persons with disabilities and that any broadband consumer 
label advances equity in the provision of and access to digital 
communications services and products for all people of the United 
States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, 
national origin, sex, or disability.

B. Legal Basis

    30. The proposed rules are authorized under sections 4(i), 4(j), 
13, 201(b), 257, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 163, 201(b), 257, 303(r), and 
section 60504 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 
117-58, 135 Stat. 429.

C. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    31. The NPRM proposes to require ISPs to disclose, through a label 
similar in format to the required FDA-approved nutrition labels, 
certain information about the provider's performance characteristics, 
network practices, and commercial terms.
    32. The NPRM proposes to adopt the content of the Commission's 2016 
safe harbor labels, both for fixed and mobile broadband services, and 
to make any appropriate modifications to the labels so that they 
``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,'' as required by the 
Infrastructure Act.
    33. The Commission proposes that the labels be provided at the 
point of sale and that, at a minimum, the ISPs should disclose the 
label on any website an ISP uses to market broadband internet access 
services. The NPRM also seeks comment on how the labels should be 
displayed at other points of sale, such as retail locations, on apps, 
on online platforms, on other digital locations, and on telemarketing 
calls and asks whether providers should provide hardcopies of the 
labels in retail locations. In addition, the NPRM considers whether a 
provider's telemarketing representative should email, or otherwise make 
available to, consumers labels before consumers make a purchase and 
whether there are other marketing channels to consider in developing 
this point-of-sale requirement. The Commission also considers whether 
the labels should be provided in a machine-readable format with 
standard, labeled fields to ensure that third parties and consumers can 
more readily compare across multiple providers. Further, the NPRM seeks 
comment on whether ISPs should be required to make direct notifications 
to consumers if any terms of service change after the labels are 
provided to consumers at the time of purchase.

[[Page 6832]]

D. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    34. 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.
    35. The NPRM specifically considers the impact of the proposed 
label requirements on smaller broadband service providers. To address 
any concerns about compliance with the proposed rules by smaller 
broadband providers, the NPRM seeks comment on appropriate timeframes 
for smaller providers to implement the new requirements and asks 
whether there are any alternative ways, other than different 
implementation timeframes, to minimize the economic impact on smaller 
service providers while achieving the objectives set forth in the NPRM.
    36. The Commission will evaluate the economic impact on small 
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the NPRM and 
this IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this 
proceeding.

E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    37. None.

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.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 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 the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. 117-58 (2021).

0
2. Amend Sec.  8.1 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  8.1   Transparency.

    (a) Any person providing broadband internet access service shall 
publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management 
practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of its 
broadband internet access services sufficient to enable consumers to 
make informed choices regarding the purchase and use of such services 
and entrepreneurs and other small businesses to develop, market, and 
maintain internet offerings. Such disclosure shall be made via a 
broadband consumer label that is prominently displayed, publicly 
available, and easily accessible at the point of sale in the format 
prescribed by the Commission:
    (1) For fixed broadband, as described in ``Fixed Broadband Consumer 
Disclosure Label'';
    (2) For mobile broadband, as described in ``Mobile Broadband 
Consumer Disclosure Label.''
BILLING CODE 67112-01-P

[[Page 6833]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07FE22.000


[[Page 6834]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07FE22.001


[[Page 6835]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07FE22.002


[[Page 6836]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07FE22.003


[[Page 6837]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07FE22.004


[[Page 6838]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07FE22.005

[FR Doc. 2022-02483 Filed 2-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C