Empowering Broadband Consumers Through Transparency, 76959-76980 [2022-26854]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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, [email protected] 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 
[email protected].

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 https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-requires-broadband-providers-display-labels-help-consumers. 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 [email protected] 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 https://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2021/2021-Fixed-Measuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf.
    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 
www.affordableconnectivity.gov.'' The text of the web address 
www.affordableconnectivity.gov must be an active link to the ACP web 
page, www.affordableconnectivity.gov. 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, https://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html. The American Printing House for the Blind's 
(APH) print guidelines are the most concise and relevant set of 
recommendations for readable design: https://www.aph.org/research/design-guidelines. 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