FCC Simplifies Its Broadband "Nutrition" Labels

On July 22, the Commission adopted a Report and Order modifying its broadband "nutrition" label rules. According to the News Release, these changes "mak[e] [the labels] a more useful tool for consumers and reduc[e] compliance burdens on providers." They also bring those rules into better alignment with their authorizing congressional language.

2021's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directed 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" (emphasis added).

"GFiber FCC Broadband Label" by Wikimedia Commons user JBoots07 is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.

But as I cautioned in a Perspectives from FSF Scholars published prior to the adoption of the original rules in November 2022, various commenters would have the agency ignore such statutory guardrails and instead "overload those labels with extraneous information intended to advance unrelated policy agendas rather than facilitate broadband comparison shopping."

Regrettably, the FCC at that time did not embrace my concerns.

The item adopted on July 22, however, addresses that overreach – and at the same time renders the labels more useful for consumers and less burdensome for ISPs. As the News Release underscores, the "initial broadband label rules … resulted in sometimes-confusing labels that strayed beyond the statutory framework Congress created, increasing compliance costs for providers in the process."

Among other things, the updated rules:

• Allow customer service representatives to communicate information contained in the labels conversationally rather than requiring them to read the labels word for word;

• Ensure "that consumers have … clear, accurate, and concise information about broadband plans, making the labels a more useful shopping tool";

• Eliminate obligations to provide outdated information, such as references to the since-discontinued Affordable Connectivity Program;

• Allow providers to "use links or icons at point-of-sale to avoid unwieldy amounts of information that can overwhelm consumers"; and, most saliently,

• Remove obligations that exceed the underlying statutory mandate.

In his Separate Statement, Chairman Brendan Carr assured that "[n]one of those changes come at the expense of transparency…. The result is a label that's easier for consumers to use, while reducing costs for providers. That's a win for everyone."

NTIA's "Call to Action" on 6G

Last week, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration issued a “Call to Action for 6G Leadership and Security.” So far 24 other countries, including all of our major strategic allies, have already agreed to participate. The timing is great. 6G technology is often portrayed as the Holy Grail of future technology, and there is a growing realization that AI depends on advanced telecommunications networks like 6G.

Policies relating to 6G technology are extremely important and NTIA's "Call to Action" under Administrator Arielle Roth's leadership displays all the right motivations and intentions. However, without the proper policy commitments and implementation, the effort may not be as successful as we would hope it to be.

Veterans of policymaking know that words are less important than intentions, which in turn are less important than resources. What is the depth of Congressional interest in 6G technology? Compromises will be needed there. Is the Administration willing to devote the necessary time and resources to get ahead of issues? Several points strengthen the Administration’s chances. First is the growing interest in both 6G and AI. Second is a better appreciation of both the economic and strategic aspects of next generation computing. The early support of allies is also encouraging. Finally, the 27th World Radiocommunication Conference in Shanghai during the fall of 2027 gives the Administration a hard deadline for making progress.

The "Call to Action" correctly emphasizes the importance of collective action. The U.S. and Europe have had long battles over the taxation of technology firms, data collection and storage, and the Digital Markets Act. To get significant allied agreement, the Administration needs to show a long-term commitment to achieving a united front.

The document also points out the critical role of the private sector. The draft timetable mentions many opportunities to involve private stakeholders in policy negotiations. This will be extremely important provided the negotiators are guided by the public interest. Partnerships with private parties are valuable because they often have more detailed knowledge than government officials and because their active involvement in carrying out any strategy is vital. Any successful advancement on 6G will require significant investment by private companies, which in turn depends on the wisdom of policy and the ability to start and complete projects quickly.

The "Call to Action" promises a “bias toward action.” That should provide the guidance necessary to encourage cooperation by the private sector without curtailing competition between different technologies. It also requires tradeoffs. The "Call to Action" contains an ambitious schedule of action.

All great accomplishments start with little more than an idea and intention. The "Call to Action" focuses on an issue vital to America’s economic and security strength, not to mention its tremendous value to individuals. In the right circumstances, significant progress can sometimes be made in a short period of time. Let’s hope that is the case here.

Yet Another Call to Get Permitting Reform Done

Believers in the need for permitting reform received another boost on July 29 when two prominent voices co-authored a letter in Route Fifty calling for significant improvements in obtaining the government permits needed to start virtually all infrastructure projects. Brandon Tatum, CEO of the National Governors Association, and Jonathan Spalter, CEO of USTelecom, correctly note that maintaining global technology leadership will require significant investments in many fields. However, much of the current debate has centered around projects to extend broadband coverage to all Americans. Although both Congress and the Administration have made important strides in this issue, it is not clear that their efforts will result in lower costs or significantly faster permits.

The authors do a good job of putting the problem in perspective. They correctly point out that:

America is entering a period of extraordinary infrastructure need — driven by artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing and data-intensive technologies. The country will need major expansions in electricity generation, transmission capacity, wireless infrastructure, fiber networks and more, simply to remain competitive, let alone to continue to lead the world and ensure future economic opportunities reach everyone. 

In a previous Perspectives from FSF Scholars, I pointed out the extraordinary demands that AI and related technologies will have on information networks. I also made a powerful argument for permit reform to allow contractors to shorten the time and costs of obtaining government approval to use rights-of-way. This is especially important for broadband projects. With the Administration’s Build America initiative and a $42.45 billion Broadband Equity and Access Deployment (BEAD) program, the pressure to complete projects extending broadband coverage to all Americans is likely to increase. Unjustified permitting costs and delays may well adversely affect the success of these projects. Broadband is part of a larger issue in which bureaucratic conservativism and lack of accountability result in long delays. In some cases, a lack of funds and/or expertise may also be part of the problem. Unfortunately, the cost of these delays is often hidden. Congress and the Administration have taken some positive steps: Senate leaders are discussing a broad bipartisan package for permitting. Most of the focus has been on streamlining the National Environmental Policy Act review process. The House of Representatives has passed reforms including the PERMIT Act and the SPEED Act aiming to set enforceable federal permitting timelines and address judicial review delays. In 2018, the FCC promulgated rules for Small Cells that set maximum time limits for deciding permit requests and restrictions on the fees agencies can charge contractors. It also proposed rules to speed both wireless and wireline deployments. Questions remain whether these good faith efforts will result in meaningful progress in obtaining broadband rights-of-way, let alone permission for other forms of infrastructure. The jury is still out on that. Each effort has been opposed by state and local governments arguing that neither the Communications Act nor the Constitution give Congress or the FCC the power to interfere with their permitting requirements. Although the BEAD program offers state and local governments the promise of broadband expansion, it also imposes a significant demand on local resources. Agencies with tight budgets may face a significant increase in workloads. The BEAD program currently contains $21 billion in unallocated funds. It would make sense to use at least some of that money to help agencies streamline their permitting processes. According to the Route Fifty letter, Massachusetts and West Virginia have implemented significant process improvements that could be extended to other jurisdictions. Most of "Build America’s future lies in its own hands. Subjecting projects to unnecessary costs and unreasonable delays frustrates the public will. As Tatum and Spalter say: “let’s build.”