FCC Proposal Aims to Reduce Transparency in Broadband Billing
The Republican-led Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has voted to approve a proposal that would make it more difficult for consumers to receive itemized bills with accurate information from their internet service providers (ISPs). This move has sparked controversy, with critics arguing that it would reduce transparency and make it harder for consumers to understand what they are paying for. The proposal revises previous requirements, citing that a fact-based list of charges “may confuse customers.”
The changes would impact the so-called “nutrition labels” or Broadband Facts labels, which are simple itemized labels that provide consumers with a breakdown of their broadband plan costs. These labels have been required since April 2024 and are intended to help consumers make informed decisions when shopping for a broadband plan. However, the FCC claims that these labels are “unnecessary” and may cause confusion among customers.
Background and Implications
The FCC passed a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on October 28, which would significantly scale back the Broadband Facts label. All Republican commission members voted to approve the change, while the lone Democrat, Anna Gomez, dissented. Gomez called the proposal “one of the most anti-consumer items I have seen” and expressed disappointment with the results of the vote. The proposal is not yet final, but it is expected to pass given the political makeup of the commission.
Once passed, ISPs would no longer be required to read the labels over the phone to customers, make them available in account portals, or provide a complete accounting of fees to customers. The FCC claims that these transparency requirements are “unduly burdensome and provide minimal benefit to consumers.” However, consumer advocates argue that knowing what they are paying for is essential, especially given the high cost of internet services in the United States.
Consumer Impact and Reaction
The Broadband Facts labels were initially proposed in 2016 and implemented by the Biden administration in 2024. They offer a breakdown of every charge that goes into a bill for a service plan, including “hidden fees” that ISPs often don’t include in advertised plan prices. A 2024 study found that 85% of broadband customers were satisfied with the labels, contradicting the FCC’s claim that they are confusing or unnecessary.
Raza Panjwani, senior policy counsel at New America’s Open Technology Institute, refers to the FCC’s move as a “two-step” approach, where the agency makes the labels “less useful” and then claims they are not needed. Panjwani argues that this approach is designed to reduce transparency and make it harder for consumers to make informed decisions.
As the proposal moves forward, consumer advocates and Democrats are speaking out against the changes. Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the commission, has called for the FCC to explain why the proposal is necessary, saying “Make it make sense.” With the high cost of internet services in the United States, consumers need more transparency, not less.
