[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 155 (Thursday, August 13, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52251-52261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-16503]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 8
[CG Docket No. 22-2, GN Docket No. 25-133; FCC 26-48; FR ID 361584]
Empowering Broadband Consumers Through Transparency
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) eliminates or modifies certain broadband label
requirements to ensure that consumers have clear, accurate, and concise
information when shopping for broadband plans. Specifically, the
Commission enables providers to describe label information in a
natural, conversational style over the phone; simplify fee presentation
to avoid clutter; remove outdated information from the label; use links
or icons at point-of-sale to avoid unwieldy amounts of information that
can overwhelm consumers; and eliminate requirements that go beyond our
mandate. At the same time, the Commission ensures the labels remain
accessible to people with disabilities, and that labels are displayed
in the same language(s) used when marketing a service.
DATES: Effective September 14, 2026, except for instruction 3 (Sec.
8.1(a)), which is delayed indefinitely. The Commission will publish a
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about the
Report and Order (Order), contact Michelle Branigan of the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-1345 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order (Order) in CG Docket No. 22-2 and GN Docket No. 25-133,
document FCC 26-48, adopted on July 22, 2026 and released on July 23,
2026. The full text of this document is available online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-48A1.pdf.
Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis: The Order may contain proposed
new and revised information collection requirements. The Commission, as
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite
the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
comment on the information collection requirements described in this
document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we
previously sought specific comment on how we might further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees.
Congressional Review Act: The Commission has determined, and the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is ``non-
major'' under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
Commission will send a copy of this Report & Order to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Ex Parte Rules: The proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In
proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for
which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must, when feasible, be
filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that
proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml,
.ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should
familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Synopsis
I. Discussion
In this Order, we eliminate or modify certain broadband label
requirements to make the label clearer and more usable for consumers,
and as a result, also reduce compliance costs. Based on the record in
response to Empowering Broadband Consumers Through Transparency;
Delete, Delete, Delete, CG Docket No. 22-2, GN Docket No. 25-133,
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 25-74, 90 FR 55713
(Dec. 3, 2025) (Second Further Notice), we amend the rule to: (1)
enable providers to describe label information in a natural,
conversational style over the phone; (2) enable providers to simplify
fee presentation to avoid label clutter; (3) remove outdated
information from the label by eliminating the requirement that
providers display information about the now-concluded Affordable
Connectivity Program; (4)
[[Page 52252]]
clarify that providers may use hyperlinks or icons within account
portals to make the customer's label ``easily accessible''; (5) allow
providers to use a hyperlink or icon at the point of sale in lieu of
displaying the full label; (6) eliminate the requirement that providers
make label information available in machine readable database format;
and (7) eliminate the requirement that providers archive labels for at
least two years after a service is no longer offered to new customers.
We do so while retaining the requirements that labels be accessible to
people with disabilities and that providers display labels in any
language(s) in which they market their services. We also close open
inquiries from Empowering Broadband Consumers Through Transparency, CG
Docket No. 22-2, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 22-86, 87
FR 77048 (Dec. 16, 2022) (First Further Notice).
A. Improving Label Display and Content
1. Phone Sales
We enable providers' phone sales representatives to present label
information in natural, conversational style by eliminating the
requirement that they read the labels verbatim to customers. We agree
with commenters that a more conversational presentation of the labels
fits the unique nature of the telephone sale, which is time-limited and
requires the consumer to remember information, unlike written labels
that consumers can refer to at any point. By contrast, verbatim
recitation of a document that consumers cannot see serves neither
providers nor consumers well. Provider phone sales representatives must
orally summarize the following label fields during the sales
interaction: monthly price inclusive of any monthly fees, including the
introductory rate and its duration if applicable; typical download and
upload speeds; latency; data allowance; contract term duration if
applicable; and early termination fees if applicable.
We agree that consumers using the phone to shop for broadband
service may also want the opportunity to see the label. Some commenters
urge us to require provider phone sales representatives to offer to
transmit the full broadband consumer label to the consumer, if the
consumer so desires, via text message, email, or U.S. mail--consistent
with the consumer's preference. We decline to do so, but encourage
providers to direct consumers to the labels on the provider's website.
The approach we adopt ensures that consumers receive real-time
disclosure of the fields most material to a purchase decision and have
access to the full label for review without requiring providers to
recite a visual document verbatim in an oral format for which it was
not designed. It also addresses the concerns raised in the record by
more than a half dozen accessibility organizations: the verbal summary
requirement ensures consumers without internet access receive label
content during the call and labels will be easily accessible to
consumers with disabilities on providers' websites. For these reasons,
we decline to simply exclude telephone calls from the definition of
point of sale, which would restrict access to label information for the
significant segment of the population that engages in telephone
shopping for broadband service--including many consumers with
disabilities. To ensure providers retain the flexibility to adapt
verbal summaries to diverse customer interactions, we also decline to
adopt a mandatory script for phone label disclosures.
We conclude that the approach we adopt is within our statutory
authority. Although the provision of label information in a telephone
conversation may not literally constitute the ``display'' of a label,
such disclosure is an appropriate implementation of the Congressional
intent that the content of labels be disclosed to consumers, especially
in light of the record showing that the telephone is a frequently used
sales channel, especially for older adults, lower-income households,
and consumers with limited digital literacy. We find that in directing
the Commission to require the display of labels ``to disclose to
consumers information regarding broadband internet access service
plans,'' Congress intended to authorize the Commission to adopt closely
related measures to ensure such disclosure, and did not intend to
prevent the Commission from ensuring that label content is accessible
to consumers who use the telephone to purchase broadband service.
2. Passthrough Fees
Rather than continuing to require providers to itemize
``passthrough fees'' that can vary by location, we allow providers to
display such fees in the aggregate, either as a maximum or ``up to''
amount for the total fees applicable in any location where the service
plan is offered, or as the exact total of such fees assessed in a
particular location. To ensure that consumers understand the fees they
will pay, we also require that any provider choosing to use the ``up
to'' option must break out the total ``up to'' amount into two
categories: (1) the maximum amount of passthrough fees that recover
government-imposed costs, and (2) the maximum amount of passthrough
fees attributable to costs imposed by non-governmental third-party
entities. Thus, providers choosing the ``up to'' approach must include
a comprehensive ``up to'' amount, as well as an ``up to'' amount for
governmental passthrough fees and an ``up to'' amount for non-
governmental passthrough fees. For the governmental and third-party,
non-governmental breakdowns, the label also must provide the types of
passthrough fees that may be included in each category, but need not
identify separate ``up to'' amounts for each type of fee in each of the
two categories. The label must also direct consumers to a provider-
maintained web page with clear descriptions of each type of passthrough
fee listed.
The Infrastructure Act directs us to require the display of
broadband labels ``as described in'' a public notice issued by the
Commission in 2016, Consumer and Governmental Affairs, Wireline
Competition, and Wireless Communications Bureaus Approve Open internet
Broadband Consumer Labels, GN Docket No. 14-28, Public Notice, 31 FCC
Rcd 3358 (CGB, WCB,WTB 2016) (2016 Broadband Labels PN), which in turn
explains that labels should convey the information consumers need to
know ``in plain language that is easy to understand without
overwhelming consumers with too much information.'' As a commenter
points out, too much detail regarding fees could draw consumers'
attention away from more important label information, and research
suggests that ``excessive itemization creates cognitive burdens that
reduce consumer welfare.'' Commenters who advocate for retaining
mandatory itemization of all fees do not persuasively address these
concerns. Allowing providers to state a total ``up to'' amount, while
also clearly identifying the portions of that amount attributable to
governmental and non-governmental, third-party passthrough fees, will
ensure that consumers can access relevant information in an easily
digestible format without being overwhelmed with an exhaustive
itemization of all possible passthrough fees.
The record also shows that requiring full itemization imposes
burdens on providers. Itemizing fees often requires providers to
generate and maintain a large number of distinct labels to account for
state and local variation in fees across their service territories.
This creates ongoing administrative complexity, particularly for
providers operating across multiple jurisdictions.
[[Page 52253]]
By contrast, as demonstrated by the Broadband internet Technical
Advisory Group (BITAG) maximum value field approach, calculating a
maximum ``up to'' amount is technically achievable without requiring a
separate label for each jurisdiction.
We amend the rule to allow two additional alternatives for the
display of passthrough fees, rather than requiring full itemization of
each location-specific fee. First, drawing on the BITAG recommendation,
we permit providers to present passthrough fees on a single line
specifying the maximum passthrough fee that would be paid by any
subscriber across all jurisdictions where the service plan is offered--
that is, the highest ``up to'' amount applicable anywhere in the
provider's service territory for that plan. For purposes of this rule,
``service territory'' means the geographic area within which a provider
offers the specific broadband service plan to which the label applies.
Alternatively, providers may display, on a jurisdiction-specific basis,
the exact total of the passthrough fees that subscribers in that
jurisdiction will pay. Providers may also continue to itemize fees
individually as current rules permit. The displayed maximum or exact
total must be accurate, i.e., it must not understate the current fees
applicable to any consumer subscribing to that plan. If fees
subsequently increase above the disclosed maximum or exact total, the
provider must revise the label accordingly. Because fee disclosure must
not understate current fees, we decline to adopt NTCA's safe harbor
based on a historical 12-month average, because a backward-looking
average may not accurately reflect current fees.
We also disagree with commenters who argue that displaying an exact
total or maximum amount would undermine the effectiveness of the label,
increase consumer confusion, or recreate the bill shock the label was
designed to prevent. As described above, a single line totaling
multiple fees can help consumers compare plan prices without forcing
them to make additional calculations. Additionally, a separate
breakdown of that maximum amount between governmental and third-party,
non-governmental fees will provide useful context for consumers. This
approach will reduce consumer confusion, rather than increase it. And
because the ``up to'' amounts must be accurate, they will not cause
bill shock, which can occur when providers do not disclose the true
cost of service at point-of-sale. Including maximum passthrough fee
amounts will result in some consumers experiencing bills below what is
displayed on the label, the opposite of bill shock.
For similar reasons, we reject arguments that an ``up to'' amount
will allow providers to hide charges or impair consumers' ability to
understand the fees they may pay. Providers that display an ``up to''
amount will still clearly disclose the most that a consumer will pay
for passthrough fees in any jurisdiction where the plan is offered.
Further, requiring a breakdown of governmental fees in relation to
third-party, non-governmental fees will ensure that consumers are aware
of the types of fees they may be required to pay. Nothing in the record
supports the point that consumer decision-making suffers when multiple
fees are consolidated. As long as the exact total or maximum amount is
accurate, consumers have the information necessary to make informed
purchasing decisions. With respect to Public Knowledge's concern about
the absence of a principled limit on embedded fees, we note that the
accuracy requirement provides such a limit; a provider may not embed
fees that cause the consumers' bill to exceed the maximum stated in the
applicable label. Making clear to consumers the maximum aggregate
passthrough fee they will face satisfies the transparency objective of
the Infrastructure Act, while potentially reducing the burden of review
a consumer may experience with an itemized list that may vary slightly
across different provider labels.
While we anticipate that most providers will opt to present an ``up
to'' maximum or an exact, location-specific fee total, some may choose
to continue to itemize passthrough fees. We expect that over time,
competitive forces will encourage providers to adopt disclosure formats
consumers find most useful, and in all cases the accuracy requirements
ensure that consumers can reliably compare total recurring amounts
across providers. The approach we adopt preserves transparent,
comparable information for consumers while allowing providers
flexibility to avoid label proliferation. We also recognize this is a
change in course. The Commission declined to allow an ``up to''
approach in the Empowering Broadband Consumers Through Transparency, CG
Docket No. 22-2, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 23-68, 38 FCC Rcd 8238
(2023), stating that a single figure would not provide sufficient
transparency or facilitate comparison shopping. With the benefit of a
more robust record--including evidence that mandated itemization
impedes providers' flexibility, promotes unnecessary label
proliferation, and may undermine consumers' ability to comparison shop
and thereby frustrate the goals of the Infrastructure Act--we conclude
that permitting providers to display passthrough fees as a maximum or
``up to'' amount or exact total gives consumers sufficient disclosure
to enable comparison shopping and more effectively meets the objectives
of the Infrastructure Act.
3. Affordable Connectivity Program
We eliminate the requirement that providers include information
about the ACP in the broadband label. The program ended June 1, 2024.
We agree with commenters that retaining a reference to an expired
program offers no consumer benefit and risks confusing consumers who
may be led to believe the program remains available. We thus decline
suggestions that we maintain the requirement as a placeholder
obligation that would activate automatically upon establishment of a
successor federal broadband affordability program.
4. Customer Account Portal
We retain the requirement that providers that give their customers
access to their account information via an online portal must give
those customers easy access to the label of their current plan. And we
amend the rule to clarify that providers may satisfy the ``easily
accessible'' requirement for customer portals by prominently displaying
a hyperlink or icon in the customer's portal directing the customer to
the label for their current plan and thus providers need not display
the label itself in the customer's portal. We agree with commenters
that access to the label via their portal is important to enable
subscribers to verify their current plan terms, detect billing
discrepancies, and evaluate their current plan's suitability to their
needs. We believe that allowing providers to use a link or icon, rather
than displaying the label alongside all the other information in the
portal, will make it easier for consumers to focus on the portal
information they wish to read and benefit consumers accessing their
portal on mobile devices.
Display flexibility should also reduce provider compliance costs.
We agree with commenters that maintaining label display in customer
portals entails costly development work, and that a requirement for
full label display in customer portals ``imposes significant burdens
and costs without concomitant benefit to subscribers.'' While these
commenters do not specifically quantify the costs at issue, the record
nonetheless reflects that full-label display imposes
[[Page 52254]]
some compliance burden on providers, and the clarification we adopt
here is responsive to that concern.
We agree that a static label displayed in a customer's portal runs
the risk of becoming outdated, inaccurate, or misleading as plan terms
evolve over time. However, the label accessed in a portal should
reflect the terms of the customer's current plan, rather than the
original plan purchased if different, to, among other things, enable
market comparisons and better manage their existing plan. Thus,
consumers should not be confused or misled as long as their providers
meet their obligations under the rule of providing easy access to the
label of each consumer's current plan. While we recognize that labels
may not specify every charge or discount associated with a consumer's
current service plan, and thus may not serve as a comprehensive billing
reference document, labels that correspond to a consumer's current plan
clearly ``can assist in identifying billing inaccuracies and unexpected
fees,'' as the rule intends, as well as providing a baseline for future
comparison shopping. We also disagree with some commenters' claims that
the portal access requirement is ``divorced from the purpose of labels:
to facilitate shopping for broadband services.'' In adopting the rule,
as noted above, the Commission recognized that portal access to labels
``furthers our 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.''
Additionally, we are unpersuaded that the costs of providing access
via a link in the consumer's account portal outweigh any consumer
benefit to subscribers. No commenter attempts to quantify these claimed
costs. And, as described above, there is ample evidence that the portal
requirement benefits consumers. Therefore, we find insufficient basis
in the record to revisit the Empowering Broadband Consumers Through
Transparency, CG Docket No. 22-2, Report and Order and Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd 13686 (2022) (2022 Broadband Label
Order) assessment 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.'' We also disagree that
information on consumers' bills obviates the need for access to the
label. A label provides information (e.g., ``typical'' data speeds)
that is not included in bills and summarizes key information in a
recognizable format that supports comparison shopping, which bills
aren't usually designed to do.
5. Point-of-Sale Display
We give providers flexibility to use links or icons at the point of
sale instead of displaying the full label. We agree with commenters
that this change will better enable consumers viewing broadband plans
on their mobile phones to read and process relevant information. And it
will enable providers to avoid significant design and operational
challenges, especially in the mobile device context, where screen space
limitations make simultaneous display of marketing content and a full
label difficult to achieve without degrading the consumer experience
for either. An icon or link prominently displayed in close proximity to
the advertised plan and that links directly to the associated label can
resolve the operational challenges (e.g., by conserving limited display
space on mobile devices) while ensuring that consumers can easily
access relevant label information.
We recognize this is a change in course from the Commission's 2022
Broadband Label Order requiring full label display at the point of
sale. In previously declining to allow a link in place of the full
label, the Commission noted that ``commenters [did] not articulate any
particular challenges in displaying the actual label alongside a
provider's marketing materials.'' The record here, however, provides a
more specific and documented account of the operational challenges
involved in meeting the display requirement.
We find that these documented operational challenges support
modifying the full label display requirement to allow the use of an
icon or link, provided that any icon or link connect directly to the
customer's specific plan label and appear in close proximity to the
associated advertised plan. When a provider places an icon or link next
to the advertised plan and that icon or link connects directly to that
plan's label, the consumer is a mere single click away from the label,
and need not re-enter the address or engage in a time-consuming search
for information relevant to comparison shopping, as some comments
suggest. Our approach strikes an appropriate balance between
operational flexibility and consumer access.
To ensure consumers can easily compare plans at point-of-sale,
links must connect directly to the label for the advertised plan or to
a labels page on which the specific plan is immediately identifiable
and accessible without additional navigation, address entry, or search.
This requirement addresses concerns raised by commenters about
immediacy, minimum-click access, and visibility of labels, which
continue to guide our approach to point-of-sale display. Providers
using a link or icon in lieu of the full label must clearly identify it
as leading to the label so that consumers understand what the link or
icon represents and are not left to guess whether it leads to label
information.
6. Multilingual Requirement
We retain the requirement that providers display the label in
English and any other languages in which the provider markets its
services in the United States and its territories. Although the
Commission sought comment on whether to remove this requirement, we
agree with CTIA and other commenters supporting retaining the
requirement and find it is a commonsense way of ensuring the label is a
useful tool for consumers.
We find insufficient the arguments of two commenters urging us to
eliminate this requirement. We see no cost data or other evidence to
indicate that retaining the requirement will deter providers from
marketing in languages other than English. In the absence of such
evidence, it is reasonable to infer that a provider will not incur a
substantial incremental cost in translating the label to a language in
which the provider is already conducting marketing, and the consumer
benefit is concrete and immediate. If a provider has affirmatively
sought out and recruited customers in their native language, investing
in the research, outreach, and translation resources that multilingual
marketing entails, the record offers no persuasive evidence that
translating a standardized label into that same language would impose
an unreasonable burden. As CTIA acknowledges, the current requirement
reflects sound policy precisely because providers that market in a
given language already possess the translation resources necessary to
produce the label in that language.
B. Eliminating Burdensome Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
1. Machine-Readability and Data File Requirements
We eliminate the requirement that providers make the contents of
labels available separately in a machine readable spreadsheet file
format hosted at a dedicated URL, while emphasizing that providers
remain obligated to make
[[Page 52255]]
labels accessible to consumers with disabilities, including ensuring
such information is compatible with screen readers and other assistive
technologies used by people with disabilities. We agree with commenters
arguing that this action aligns the label requirements more closely
with the Infrastructure Act's purpose of disclosure to consumers, not
third parties, and alleviates a significant burden on providers. The
Infrastructure Act directs the Commission to require ``the display of
broadband consumer labels'' that provide consumers with information
about broadband plans. This requirement was modeled on nutrition
labels, which are focused on point-of-sale disclosure to consumers.
In requiring machine readability, the Commission appeared to
believe third-party access advances the statutory objective by
facilitating the creation of comparison-shopping tools for consumers,
as well as enabling more efficient data collection and compliance
monitoring by the Commission, and promoting marketplace research.
However, the Infrastructure Act's directive ``to disclose to consumers
information'' and the prior Commission-approved label referenced in the
Act do not appear to contemplate third-party data aggregation and
research. Section 60504 only directs us to require the display of
labels to disclose information about broadband plans to consumers. Nor
does the Commission's 2016 Broadband Labels PN, cited in section 60504
of the Infrastructure Act as a description of what we are directed to
require, indicate that the labels described in that public notice must
be in machine-readable data file formats for processing by computers.
To the contrary, the public notice found that the format of the
approved labels ``displays [the key factors consumers need to know] in
plain language that is easy to understand.'' For these reasons, we
reach a different conclusion than the Commission did in 2022.
We also conclude that the substantial compliance burdens imposed by
this requirement are not justified by the minimal, if any, likely
benefits for consumers. The current record offers a fuller description
of the relevant compliance burdens than was available to the Commission
in 2022. We also find insufficient evidence that the requirement is
needed to facilitate transparency and consumer decision-making, as some
commenters argue. The statute and our consumer-focused requirements
give consumers the transparency necessary to make good purchase
decisions. And there is no record evidence that any third parties have
used machine-readable label content to develop pro-consumer tools.
Some commenters raise concern that, without machine readability,
labels will not be easily accessible to consumers with disabilities. We
emphasize that our action in this Order does not affect providers'
obligation to make labels accessible to consumers with disabilities,
including ensuring such information is compatible with screen readers
and other assistive technologies used by people with disabilities. The
rules' requirement that labels be easily accessible to consumers with
disabilities is independent of the machine-readability provision
deleted by this Order. We remind broadband providers of the guidance on
accessibility offered by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
While machine readability in some form may be involved in ensuring that
labels are easily accessible to people with vision disabilities (e.g.,
by being compatible with screen readers, among other steps), the more
specific machine-readability requirement of Sec. 8.1(a)(3)--that label
content be provided separately in a spreadsheet file format via a
dedicated uniform resource locator (URL) that contains all of a
provider's labels--was not adopted to advance accessibility.
2. Archiving
We eliminate the requirement that providers archive all labels for
at least two years after a service plan is no longer available to new
customers and the provider has removed the plan's label from its
website or alternate sales channels. In adopting the archiving
requirement in 2022, the Commission assumed that archiving would not
impose a significant incremental burden on providers. However, the
current record indicates there are substantial compliance costs, while
supporters do not point to any demonstrated consumer benefit. According
to providers, archiving imposes ongoing costs that fall hardest on
small providers, diverting time and resources from core operations.
NTCA explains, for example, that the enforcement rationale for the rule
is ``based on speculative future utility in complaint proceedings.''
CTIA and ICLE further contend that requiring archiving of labels for
service plans that are no longer offered to new purchasers does not aid
comparison shopping for currently available services.
We emphasize that deleting this provision does not affect the
Commission's transparency rule, which requires a broadband provider to
``publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network
management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms
of its broadband internet access services sufficient to enable
consumers to make informed choices regarding the purchase and use of
such services.'' We believe the transparency rule and the requirement
that customers maintain access to their current plan label through
their account portal--as well as other sources of information such as
the customer's service agreement, monthly bills, and records of any
plan changes during a customer's subscription--sufficiently address
concerns that, absent archiving, subscribers whose service plans are no
longer offered to new customers would be deprived of access to key
information about their plans.
The 2022 Broadband Label Order explained that archived labels would
help the Commission and state authorities investigate potential
inaccuracies in labels, including in cases arising from consumer
complaints. Yet it did not point to any provision of the Infrastructure
Act, nor anything in the 2016 Broadband Labels PN, suggesting that an
archiving requirement is needed to achieve the Congressional purpose,
and we affirmatively conclude today that it is not needed. Further, the
2022 Broadband Label Order merely speculated that giving subscribers
the ability to request archived labels would help them, without
indicating why other customer records, including billing and service
agreements, would not do the same at lower marginal cost.
We disagree with commenters who say the archiving requirement is
essential for enforcement. We retain authority to obtain historical
plan data through investigative demands when needed to evaluate
potential noncompliance. Providers have other incentives to retain
records of their marketing materials in light of federal and state bans
on deceptive advertising. And we disagree that archiving is essential
for the customers themselves to check if they received the service they
signed up for. Service agreements, billing statements, and other
records already provide much of the information relevant to resolving
billing or service disputes.
C. The Label Template
1. Removing the Template From the CFR
We adopt our proposal to remove the label template from the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR). As we stated in the Second Further Notice,
our approach will allow us to more easily update the visual layout and
other formatting
[[Page 52256]]
elements of the label. No party objects to our proposal, and we agree
with the Accessibility Organizations that we should make sure to
maintain version control and that updates, including revision history,
remain publicly accessible. The template will be maintained at fcc.gov/broadbandlabels. We delegate to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau authority to make non-substantive changes to the visual layout
and other formatting elements of the label. The Bureau shall describe
any such update in a Public Notice before an update takes effect. This
delegation does not authorize the Bureau to make substantive changes to
the template's content except as authorized through Commission action.
Providers' underlying obligations remain governed by Sec. 8.1 of the
Commission's rules.
2. Updating the Template
We adopt our proposal to replace the ``fcc.gov/consumer'' reference
in the template with ``fcc.gov/broadbandlabels.'' This change, which is
unopposed, is necessary to enable consumers to access directly the
broadband label information maintained by the Commission.
D. Eliminating Outdated Rules
We adopt our proposal to remove Sec. 8.1(a)(7) from our rules.
That provision set forth implementation deadlines for the 2022
Broadband Label Order: April 10, 2024 for providers with more than
100,000 subscribers and October 10, 2024 for smaller providers. These
deadlines have passed, and providers are now subject to the label
requirements.
1. Issues From the First Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
We close the Commission's inquiry into the various proposals on
which the Commission sought comment in the First Further Notice.
Specifically, the Commission sought comment on whether to: specify
additional accessibility standards (such as ASL, Braille, and tactile
indicators); require the display of labels in additional languages;
require disclosure of discounts and other price variables in labels;
extend label requirements to bundled services; modify or supplement
required performance information; require specific disclosures in the
label regarding network management and privacy; require interactive
labels; employ focus groups, surveys, or subject matter experts to
provide feedback on future changes to the label; publish a style guide
and implementation tools to assist providers and enhance consistency in
label presentation; and permit ISPs to submit labels information
directly to the Commission, in lieu of providing labels directly at the
point of sale and archiving them. The record indicates that these
proposals would unduly complicate the display of labels, contrary to
the Commission's objective that labels convey the information consumers
need to know ``in plain language that is easy to understand without
overwhelming consumers with too much information,'' or would impose
unwarranted compliance burdens on providers.
Several commenters support the Commission's intention to close its
inquiry into the First Further Notice proposals, arguing that those
proposals would impose unnecessary burdens and undermine the
streamlining objective in this proceeding. Although one commenter urges
the Commission not to close its inquiry into defining `typical'
performance metrics, arguing that the current approach results in
disclosures that are not comparable between providers, we agree with
the commenters who argue that the current rule is sufficient.
Other commenters oppose closing the inquiry into additional
accessibility standards, specifically those relating to ASL-accessible
formats, Braille, and tactile indicators, arguing that text-based
accessibility alone does not adequately serve all consumers with
disabilities. They urge the Commission to acknowledge multimodal
accessibility as an open issue warranting further examination. We find
that the requirement that providers make the labels easily accessible
to people with disabilities sufficiently directs providers to ensure
accessibility while providing flexibility to meet the requirement. To
the extent accessibility concerns arise, providers will need to act to
ensure an individual has access to the provider's labels. While the
responsibility is on providers to ensure the labels are accessible for
consumers with disabilities, we also encourage consumers to utilize the
Commission's Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Center to apprise the
Commission of any accessibility concerns requiring additional
assistance.
2. Other Matters
We decline to exclude mass-market services that are marketed to
business customers from the label requirements, as CTIA asks. The
Infrastructure Act directs the Commission to require labels for
``broadband internet access service,'' as defined in Sec. 8.1(b) of
the Commission's rules or any successor regulation. Section 8.1(b)
defines ``broadband internet access service'' 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.'' Given the lack of evidence in the record regarding
the costs imposed by the labeling requirement on providers of mass-
market services used by business customers, we find no reason to pursue
a definitional change.
We also decline to exclude E-Rate and Rural Health Care (RHC)
services from the label requirements, as urged by DQE Communications
LLC (DQE), a broadband provider that exclusively serves enterprise and
business customers. Although DQE claims that the label requirement
imposes disproportionate costs and obligations, it does not describe
with specificity the costs and obligations it incurs with respect to E-
Rate and RHC customers. Given that the label requirement applies to all
mass-market broadband services, it would appear that, to the extent
such ``off-the-shelf'' services are requested by E-Rate or RHC
customers, the necessary labels should already be available from the
upstream providers of such mass-market broadband services, and thus can
be readily displayed, with minimal if any alteration, by any E-Rate or
RHC provider making use of such services. Therefore, in the absence of
any contrary evidence, we conclude that minimal, if any, cost would be
incurred by DQE or similarly situated providers in passing such labels
on to their E-Rate and RHC customers.
Further, the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition and
the Consortium for School Networking (SHLB/CoSN) list a variety of
benefits that they claim result from making labels for mass-market
services available to schools, libraries, and rural health care
facilities. They state that in a variety of circumstances, including
limited budgets, lack of competitive options, and insufficient
technical expertise to navigate complex proposals, a school, library,
or health care provider may choose to purchase a mass-market internet
service, rather than an individualized service offered in response to
an RFP. They add that by providing standardized, clear information
about services available in the mass market, labels also help
institutions evaluate bids, comply with program rules requiring cost-
effectiveness, and plan procurements. According to SHLB/CoSN, labels
also
[[Page 52257]]
assist with documentation for funding applications, which often require
details such as monthly price, contract length, and speeds--information
that labels present ``in a uniform and concise manner.''
E. Assessment of Consumer Benefit
We recognize the importance of assessing, over time, whether
broadband labels are achieving their intended consumer benefits.
Accordingly, we direct the Consumer Protection and Accessibility
Advisory Committee (CPAAC) to produce reports assessing the
effectiveness of broadband labels, the first to be completed no later
than two years after publication of this Order in the Federal Register,
and the following reports to be completed every four years thereafter.
Each report should address: (1) the extent to which broadband labels
reach consumers (i.e., are people aware the labels exist and are they
using them) and any challenges that remain to their use; (2)
recommendations for how the FCC, industry, and consumer groups can
better publicize broadband labels to ensure that consumers are aware of
them and understand how to use them; (3) the extent to which broadband
labels are accessible for consumers with disabilities and any
challenges that remain to full accessibility; (4) recommendations for
how the FCC and providers can address the challenges that remain in
ensuring broadband labels are accessible for consumers with
disabilities; and (5) other opportunities to better clarify and make
more useful to consumers the information on the label.
F. Legal Authority
We conclude that section 60504 of the Infrastructure Act provides
the Commission with the authority to modify the broadband label rules
as discussed herein. Section 60504 directs the Commission to
``promulgate regulations to require the display of broadband consumer
labels, as described in the 2016 Broadband Labels PN, to disclose to
consumers information regarding broadband internet access service
plans.'' The 2016 Broadband Labels PN described broadband consumer
labels as an implementation of the Commission's broadband transparency
rule. In approving a specific format and content for broadband labels,
the 2016 Broadband Labels PN characterized them as ``a simple-to-
understand format describing the key factors consumers need to know
when considering broadband service. . . .'' The changes we adopt today
better align the rules with section 60504 by removing or modifying a
number of requirements that do not appear to be needed to achieve the
core statutory objective. We conclude that the label display
requirements adopted herein raise no First Amendment concerns.
Sections 13 and 257 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
which the Commission has previously relied on as authority for the
broadband transparency rule, provide additional authority. To the
extent that broadband labels continue to be used for offerings through
the E-Rate and Rural Health Care universal service programs, Sec. 254
supplies authority. We also note the Commission's finding in the
Broadband Label Order that Title III of the Act provides additional
authority for the rules adopted here with respect to wireless
providers.
G. Costs and Benefits
This Order streamlines the existing broadband label requirements by
making minor changes to the information required to be presented and
the way in which the information is required to be presented. These
changes are expected to reduce costs for broadband providers, while
still providing consumers information to make informed broadband
purchases.
First, the Order modifies the requirement for presenting the
broadband label on a sale by phone so that customer service
representatives no longer have to read the label contents verbatim.
This change will allow representatives to communicate the contents of
the broadband label in a more natural and understandable way, which
should benefit consumers. Next, instead of requiring providers to
itemize all fees, which may vary by location, the rules set forth in
this Order allow providers to include either (1) the ``up to'' (i.e.,
maximum) total amount of passthrough fees that a subscriber would be
charged in any location where the service plan is offered, or (2) the
exact total amount the consumer would be charged for broadband fees in
a particular location. Under both options, the required label content
is simplified, enabling providers to convey the information consumers
need to know ``in plain language that is easy to understand without
overwhelming consumers with too much information.'' In addition, the
first alternative--displaying the maximum a consumer would be charged--
reduces compliance costs for providers because they are no longer
required to create multiple labels when fees vary by location.
Further, this Order allows providers to use hyperlinks to labels at
the point of sale and in customer account portals, rather than
displaying the full label. While using hyperlinks to broadband labels
instead of displaying the labels automatically may result in fewer
consumers reading the label, interested consumers still have the
opportunity to view the broadband label. The Order also eliminates the
requirement that providers provide the contents of labels separately,
in a machine-readable spreadsheet file format on their websites via a
dedicated uniform resource locator (URL). Because consumers themselves,
including consumers with disabilities, will still be able to read the
labels, we do not expect that eliminating this requirement will hurt
consumers, and doing so could potentially reduce providers' compliance
costs. Lastly, the Order eliminates the requirement that providers
retain labels for two years after they discontinue plans. This change
will not affect consumers' access to labels for plans currently offered
to the public and may lower costs of storage for providers.
Collectively, we expect the rule changes set forth in this Order to
reduce providers' costs while imposing no material harms on consumers.
II. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) incorporated
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Second Further
Notice released in November 2025. The Commission sought written public
comment on the proposals in the Notice, including comment on the IRFA.
The comments received are addressed below. This Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA and it (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules
The Commission adopted broadband label requirements in the 2022
Broadband Label Order to provide consumers with easy-to-understand and
accurate information about broadband service plans, as mandated by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Since the initial
implementation of these rules, for larger providers in April 2024 and
for smaller providers in October 2024, the Commission has received
feedback from industry stakeholders through the Delete, Delete, Delete
proceeding asserting that certain aspects of the current broadband
label requirements may be unnecessarily burdensome for providers while
not providing commensurate benefits to consumers.
[[Page 52258]]
The primary objective of the Order is to simplify regulatory
requirements while maintaining the transparency benefits that broadband
labels offer consumers. Specifically, the Order (1) enables providers
to describe labels in a natural, conversational style over the phone,
rather than requiring customer service representatives to read label
contents verbatim; (2) simplifies fee presentation by allowing
providers to include either the maximum or exact amount consumers would
be charged for fees that may vary by location, rather than requiring
itemization of all such fees; (3) removes outdated information about
the now concluded Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) from the label;
(4) allows use of hyperlinks or icons at the point of sale and in
customer account portals; (5) eliminates the requirement that providers
make label content machine readable; and (6) eliminates the requirement
that providers retain labels for two years after a service is no longer
offered to new customers. At the same time, the Order ensures that
labels remain accessible to people with disabilities and requires
providers to present them in English and in any other language a
provider uses in marketing.
The Order does not change the core label requirements to display a
broadband consumer label containing critical information about the
provider's service offerings, including information about pricing,
introductory rates, data allowances, and performance metrics.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
NTCA, WISPA, Breezeline, ACA Connects, and Joink filed comments
regarding the impact of the rule on small entities.
NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) was the only commenter
to include a section specifically responding to the IRFA. NTCA, which
represents small, rural local exchange carriers, supports the
Commission's proposals as burden-relieving for small entities, and
urged the Commission to avoid imposing any additional requirements
beyond those proposed in the FNRPM. NTCA identified a material
inconsistency between the 2023 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Worksheet
supporting this proceeding, which estimated zero capital, operation,
and maintenance costs for small companies, and the Commission's own
acknowledgement in the Broadband Label Order that certain label tasks
``may require more time for providers that are less likely to have in-
house attorneys and compliance departments to assist in the preparation
broadband labels, and thus will need to engage outside legal resources
to implement several proposed requirements.'' NTCA further argued that
even reliance on existing internal staff generates real opportunity
costs, as compliance draws resources away from network investment and
other operational priorities, concluding that elimination of the
identified requirements would provide meaningful economic benefits to
small providers.
WISPA, Breezeline, ACA Connects, and Joink also raised cost and
burden concerns to small entities in their comments on the Notice more
generally. These commenters supported the proposed eliminations as
measures that would reduce unnecessary compliance costs and
administrative burden for providers, including small entities, without
undermining the consumer transparency goals of the broadband label
requirements.
USTelecom and other commenters noted compliance costs and burdens
associated with the existing broadband label requirements but did not
specifically address the impacts of those requirements on small
entities.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for the Small Business
Administration Office of Advocacy
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 the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of
Advocacy, and also 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 and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the adopted rules. The RFA generally defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA
establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to
use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses;
agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such
programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing
so.
Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups
of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In
general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than
500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all
businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number
of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits
have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental
jurisdictions'' are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of
less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments
data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
The rules adopted in the Order will apply to small entities in the
industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding
SBA size standard. Where available, we also provide additional
information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in
the identified industries below.
Table 1--Census Bureau Data by NAICS Code Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated industry (NAICS SBA size % Small firms
classification) NAICS code standard Total firms Small firms in industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wired Telecommunications 517111 1,500 employees. 3,054 2,964 97.05
Carriers.
[[Page 52259]]
Wireless Telecommunications 517112 1,500 employees. 2,893 2,837 98.06
Carriers (except Satellite).
Telecommunications Resellers.. 517121 1,500 employees. 1,386 1,375 99.21
Satellite Telecommunications.. 517410 $47 million..... 275 242 88.00
All Other Telecommunications.. 517810 $40 million..... 1,079 1,039 96.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Telecommunications Service Provider Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 Universal service monitoring report telecommunications SBA size standard (1,500 employees)
service provider data (data as of December 2023) -----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------- Total # FCC
Form 499A Small firms % Small
Affected entity filers entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs).............. 1,175 917 78.04
Interexchange Carriers (IXCs)................................... 113 95 84.07
Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).................................. 4,904 4,493 91.62
Local Resellers................................................. 222 217 97.75
Toll Resellers.................................................. 411 398 96.84
Telecommunications Resellers.................................... 633 615 97.16
Wired Telecommunications Carriers............................... 4,682 4,276 91.33
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)......... 585 498 85.13
Wireless Telephony.............................................. 326 247 75.77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of adopted
rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping
and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes
of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type
of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or
record.
The Order streamlines existing broadband label requirements by
making targeted changes to the information providers are required to
provide and to the manner in which it must be displayed. The Commission
expects these changes to reduce costs for providers, including small
entities, while continuing to provide consumers with information needed
to make informed broadband purchasing decisions. The Commission expects
the rule changes set forth in this Order to reduce provider costs while
imposing no material harm on consumers.
The Order's changes reduce compliance obligations in the following
respects, each of which is particularly beneficial to small entities
that are less likely than large providers to maintain dedicated in-
house legal and technical compliance staff. First, the fee presentation
change allows providers to disclose the maximum or exact amount
consumers would be charged for location-variable fees, eliminating the
need to create and maintain multiple location-specific labels. Second,
the point of sale and account portal changes allow providers to use
hyperlinks or icons in lieu of the full label display, reducing the
technical burden of full label display systems. Third, elimination of
the machine readability requirement removes a technical backend
obligation that imposed costs without commensurate consumer benefit.
Fourth, the telephone sales modification allows customer service
representatives to describe label contents conversationally rather than
verbatim, reducing training and scripting burdens. Fifth, elimination
of the two-year archiving requirement may lower storage costs. Sixth,
removal of the outdated ACP information (ACP) eliminates the need to
maintain a label element that no longer serves any consumer information
purpose.
The core broadband label requirements remain in effect for all
providers, including small entities. Providers must continue to display
a label containing critical information pricing, introductory rates,
data allowances, and performance metrics. Compliance will continue to
require professional skills in legal compliance, marketing, and
broadband technology. Small entities that lack in-house compliance
staff may continue to require professional assistance, although we
expect that the elimination of several requirements will substantially
reduce the scope and cost of such assistance.
The Order does not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or
other compliance obligations on small entities. All adopted changes
reduce burdens relative to existing requirements.
F. Discussion of Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic
Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to provide ``a description of the steps
the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on
small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and
legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule
and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule
considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was
rejected.''
Elimination of six compliance requirements. The most significant
step taken to minimize economic impact on small entities is the
elimination of six compliance requirements that generated
disproportionate administrative, technical and financial burden,
particularly for smaller providers, without commensurate consumer
benefit. The legal and policy basis for each elimination is grounded in
the Commission's finding that these requirements were not mandated by
the Infrastructure Act or the 2016 Broadband Labels PN and thus
[[Page 52260]]
exceeded the Commission's statutory mandate. Eliminating requirements
that lack statutory grounding and imposed real costs on small entities
directly advances the RFA's objectives.
Fee Presentation Flexibility. Rather than requiring itemization of
all location-variable fees, which entailed creating multiple label
versions for different service areas, the Order allows providers to
disclose either the maximum or exact amount a consumer will be charged
for these fees. This approach achieves the transparency goal while
substantially reducing administrative complexity, especially for small
entities serving multiple geographic markets.
Hyperlink and Icon Alternative. The Order allows providers to
satisfy point of sale and customer portal display requirements through
hyperlinks or icons linking to broadband labels rather than full-label
display at the point of sale. This reduces the technical burden of
label display systems while preserving consumer access to label
information.
Implementation Timing. The Commission notes that the Broadband
Label Order provided differential implementation timelines, giving
smaller providers (those with 100,000 or fewer subscribers) a six-month
extension beyond the deadline applicable to large providers. Because
the changes adopted in this Order exclusively reduce compliance
obligations, no additional differential implantation schedule for small
entities is necessary. The Commission also removes the now-moot
deadline provision at Sec. 8.1(a)(7) to streamline the rules.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 8
Communications, Consumer protection, Labeling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Aleta Bowers,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, 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 TRANSPARENCY FOR CONSUMERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 8 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201(b), 257, 302a, 303(r),
312, 333, 503 and 1753.
Subpart A--Broadband Transparency
0
2. Amend Sec. 8.1 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 8.1 Transparency.
* * * * *
(b)(1) Broadband internet access service is 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. This term also encompasses any service that the
Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of the service
described in the previous sentence or that is used to evade the
protections set forth in this part. For purposes of paragraphs (a)(1)
through (6) of this section, ``mass-market'' services exclude service
offerings customized for the customer through individually negotiated
agreements even when the services are supported by Federal universal
service support.
(2) In this section, ``passthrough fee'' means a monthly charge
that:
(i) Is imposed by a government entity or third-party infrastructure
owner rather than set by the provider itself;
(ii) Represents costs that the provider chooses to recover from
consumers as a separate charge rather than incorporating them into the
base monthly price; and
(iii) Varies by consumer location.
* * * * *
0
3. Delayed indefinitely, further amend Sec. 8.1 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2); and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(3), (5), and (7).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 8.1 Transparency.
(a) * * *
(1)(i) 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 Commission in ``[Fixed or Mobile] Broadband Consumer
Disclosure Label,'' located at www.fcc.gov/broadbandlabels labels.
(ii) A label shall itemize any monthly fees not included in the
monthly price, except that passthrough fees may be presented in the
aggregate, as either the maximum monthly total or the exact monthly
total of such fees assessed on subscribers in the geographic area to
which the label applies. Providers opting to display passthrough fees
as a maximum ``up to'' amount must additionally provide on the label a
breakdown of this amount into a maximum ``up to'' amount for
passthrough fees that recover government-imposed costs and a maximum
``up to'' amount for passthrough fees that recover costs imposed by
non-governmental, third-party infrastructure owners, and the types of
fees included in each of the two categories.
(2)(i) Broadband internet access service providers shall display
the label required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section at each point
of sale. Point of 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 provider-owned retail
locations, third-party retail locations, and telephone sales channels.
For labels displayed on provider websites, the label (or an icon or
link that connects directly to the label and is clearly identified as a
way to access the label for the advertised plan) 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. For
alternate sales channels, providers must document each instance when it
directs a consumer to a label and retain such documentation for two
years. This requirement will be deemed satisfied if, instead, the
provider: establishes the business practices and processes it will
follow in distributing the label through alternative sales channels;
retains training materials and related business practice documentation
for two years; and provides such information to the Commission upon
request, within thirty days. 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.
(ii) Broadband internet access service providers that offer online
account portals to their customers shall also make each customer's
current plan label easily accessible to the customer in such portals,
by displaying the label (or an
[[Page 52261]]
icon or link that connects directly to the label).
(iii) At telephone points of sale, a provider satisfies the display
requirement of this paragraph (a)(2) by orally summarizing the
following label fields during the sales interaction: monthly price
inclusive of monthly fees, including the introductory rate and its
duration if applicable; typical download and upload speeds; latency;
data allowance; contract term duration if applicable; and early
termination fees if applicable. Verbatim recitation of the label is not
required to satisfy this obligation.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-16503 Filed 8-12-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P