Industry experts are largely supportive of the FCC’s Broadband “Nutrition Label,” an effort mandated in November for providers to make price comparison and data speed easier for consumers to see. The Commission is considering whether to add more requirements such as cybersecurity data and more comprehensive pricing information about bundled plans.
Further requirements could have negative impacts on both consumers and providers, argued Farhan Chughtai, senior policy counsel at broadband consulting company JSI, at a February 6 Federal Communications Bar Association event.
“You don’t want to make the labels too difficult—that’s going to lead to more consumer confusion,” Chughtai said, according to advocacy publication Broadband Breakfast. He pointed to metrics such as network management, network reliability and cybersecurity as topics that might be “too nuanced” for the labels.
Chughtai also pointed to point of sale disclosure requirements as a potential barrier for small providers. “For some of the larger providers, that documentation can be automated,” he said. “But when you’re talking about a small carrier that has two or three people that are working, that type of communication… could be troublesome. When it comes to implementation, I think there’s ways to continue to refine this.”
USTelecom VP Policy and Advocacy Diana Eisner agreed, adding that both small and large providers “agree that this point-of-sale documentation is problematic. I think the Commission really struck the right balance largely of making sure that consumers can see the information in a snapshot—they’re not overloaded with irrelevant information,” Eisner said.
Consumer Reports Senior Policy Counsel Jonathan Schwantes believes the Commission “gets it mostly right,” but voiced concerns about the label’s scope. “I’m concerned that existing consumers may never see the label unless you’re moving or you decide to change or maybe if you’re lucky enough to have a competing provider,” he said, noted Broadband Breakfast.
By Leslie Stimson, Inside Towers Washington Bureau Chief
Reader Interactions