The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has begun taking steps toward dismantling an important consumer-protection regulation that compels internet service providers (ISPs) to publish comprehensive “nutrition labels” for their broadband offerings. This rule, which only recently took effect, was designed to help consumers easily identify the true costs associated with internet plans by itemizing every charge, including those often omitted from advertising. Just over a year after the mandate became active, the Commission is now advancing a proposal that could significantly reduce the level of transparency such labels provided—potentially making it far more difficult for consumers to understand what they will ultimately pay once all service fees, taxes, and surcharges are added to their bills.
In a narrow 2-1 decision reached on October 28th, the FCC voted to release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), signaling the agency’s intent to reconsider and possibly scale back key parts of the Broadband Facts label program. This labeling requirement, which ISPs have been subject to since April 2024, originated from an idea that had been circulating since 2016: a standardized breakdown similar to nutritional information on food packaging, offering clarity on pricing and service details. The label’s purpose was to provide a side-by-side comparison of internet plans so that consumers could easily discern what each dollar paid for—from basic monthly rates to obscure pass-through fees imposed at state and local levels, which many providers previously buried in fine print or neglected to mention altogether.
The underlying principle behind these transparency measures was simple yet essential: empower customers to make informed choices by ensuring all costs were presented in an accessible and uniform way. Given the persistent issue of affordability within the United States’ broadband landscape—especially following the expiration of the federally funded Affordable Connectivity Program due to budget shortfalls—the availability of honest and comprehensible information about internet pricing has become even more vital. From that perspective, any attempt to dilute or eliminate such disclosure requirements appears to undermine consumer interests by obstructing their ability to compare services or hold providers accountable for hidden expenses.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, however, has spearheaded a deregulatory initiative he refers to as “Delete, Delete, Delete,” aimed at systematically stripping away rules that he and supporters within the agency describe as outdated, excessively burdensome, or only marginally beneficial to end users. In keeping with this philosophy, Carr’s proposal targets six specific provisions within the broadband labeling framework. Among the elements under review are the mandates requiring ISPs to enumerate state and local pass-through fees line by line, to read out the Broadband Facts label verbally to consumers during phone-based sales interactions, and to ensure ongoing accessibility of these labels within each customer’s online account dashboard. The NPRM also seeks public comment on whether the Commission should remove the multilingual display requirement, currently obligating ISPs to present labels in every language used to advertise their services across the United States.
This potential rollback has drawn pointed criticism from advocates of consumer protection, most notably FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the sole Democrat on the partially staffed Commission. During the October 28th Open Commission Meeting, she labeled the current proposal “one of the most anti-consumer” measures she has encountered. Gomez stressed that the original intent of the Broadband Facts label was to empower households—to ensure that every customer, regardless of technical knowledge, could readily see what their monthly bill included. Her remarks underscored a broader concern that, by dismantling rules designed to deliver clarity, the agency effectively signals that consumers do not need straightforward explanations of their own costs. She further questioned the justification for rescinding these obligations, noting the absence of any coherent rationale in the proposal itself. Instead of retracting established disclosure tools, Gomez argued that the Commission should focus on enhancing their utility so consumers can fully benefit from transparency.
Carr, in response, defended the NPRM, asserting that prior iterations of the broadband label requirements imposed costly compliance obligations unrelated to the information consumers truly rely upon when choosing service plans. His Republican colleague, Commissioner Olivia Trusty, echoed his sentiments and added that she would closely evaluate whether any of the current rules inadvertently hinder the very transparency the Commission aims to protect. Trusty maintained that regulatory pruning can be valuable when the burden of compliance outweighs demonstrable benefits, but emphasized that such changes must advance—rather than contradict—the goal of informing the public.
Outside of the FCC itself, industry organizations have largely welcomed the Commission’s reconsideration of the labeling rules. Jilane Rodgers Petrie, assistant vice president for public affairs at CTIA—the wireless industry trade association—told The Verge that member companies remain committed to providing customers with clear and comprehensive information to help them select broadband services suited to their needs. Petrie expressed optimism about collaborating further with the FCC to refine the label format in ways that sustain industry transparency while ensuring alignment with existing statutory requirements. Notably, CTIA and several allied trade associations previously filed a joint petition in 2023 urging the Commission to reevaluate certain aspects of the Broadband Facts rule, particularly the obligation to list pass-through fees item by item and to track every instance when a label was provided via alternative sales channels such as retail storefronts or phone-based transactions.
Consumer advocates, however, view the issue from an entirely different vantage point. Alisa Valentin, broadband policy director at the nonprofit Public Knowledge, emphasized that fee disclosures are not mere regulatory technicalities but key tools for protecting economically vulnerable households. In comments also shared with The Verge, she argued that Americans—particularly those already operating on tight budgets—depend on clear and honest representations of what essential connectivity truly costs. According to Valentin, the FCC stands at a crossroads: it can either reinforce consumer empowerment by promoting transparency or tacitly condone exploitation by allowing hidden fees to persist behind opaque pricing structures. She concluded that the path of openness and accountability would not only preserve trust between customers and ISPs but also safeguard the public’s right to understand how vital digital services are priced and delivered.
Together, these sharply contrasting positions illustrate a fundamental tension within modern telecommunications regulation: whether the government should prioritize reducing corporate compliance burdens or maintaining rigorous consumer safeguards. The outcome of this ongoing FCC proceeding will therefore carry substantial implications—not just for internet service providers and policymakers, but also for millions of users trying to make sense of their monthly broadband bills.
Sourse: https://www.theverge.com/report/810928/fcc-broadband-information-labels-rollback
