from we are obviously fooling you Department
For much of the past decade, the FCC has been mulling the idea of requiring a type of “nutrition labeling” for broadband access. The goal is to make ISPs, which routinely mislead consumers about pricing, speeds, limits, usage caps, etc., more transparent with end users at the point of sale.
After much whining by the telecom giants, the FCC finally announced this week that starting today, ISPs must include such labels in marketing materials and websites that clearly disclose the type of connectivity consumers are purchasing. did. The FCC demo label looks like this:
Smaller ISPs may find compliance costs more onerous than larger ISPs, so they should implement these by October. According to the FCC, these new labels require transparency, which FCC Director Jessica Rosenworcel believes will encourage competition.
“These ‘nutrition label’ disclosures are designed to make it easier for consumers to know what they’re getting, help suppliers keep their promises, and benefit from increased competition.” means better service and prices for everyone.”
This is certainly an improvement and the transparency is good.
The problem: Most American consumers don’t have a choice in broadband providers because giant telecom monopolies have spent the past 45 years lobbying the government to a state of hopeless recklessness. and Crush your competitors beneath your feet. The result has been limited competition, high prices, spotty access (despite billions of dollars in subsidies), slow speeds, and comically bad customer service.
So while nutrition labels can make it more clear to these users that they are being abused and ripped off, they are far from stopping abuse and rip-offs. Especially when the FCC’s enforcement is inconsistent and its fines pathetic (which has been a problem for the agency for decades).
The Trump FCC directly represented the interests of telecom giants like Comcast and AT&T. While the Biden FCC is significantly better, it remains relatively reckless when it comes to directly challenging the big monopolies that are directly tied to domestic surveillance systems. You would be hard-pressed to find a public statement from the Rosenworcel FCC that acknowledged that monopoly and consolidation were a problem.
So what you get is these long-awaited half-measures and a kind of regulatory theater by politicians waiting for their next political opportunity or job in an industry think tank. While sometimes well-intentioned, it is generally a symptomatic or borderline performance that never addresses the real issue.
ISPs set haphazard usage caps, violate net neutrality, set misleading prices, consistently abuse consumer privacy, and overcharge their services. I won’t be making any charges With proper regulatory oversight on both sides. and meaningful market competition. Most US markets have neither. Very few people have both. And after decades of this, I think the end result is pretty clear.
There are many things the FCC can do. actually Tackle the problem. The main one is recognizing that concentration of monopoly power is a problem. And to vocally support a massive bipartisan grassroots movement of municipal utilities, cooperatives, and municipalities who are angry about decades of clear and disastrous market failures. is building its own networks in record numbers.
Sure, transparency labels are great in that they require clarity on how unchecked telecom monopolies are defrauding, but if that’s any sort of solution to the real problem? It should not be misunderstood. It takes political courage to actually solve problems, and this institution is not good at that.
Filed Under: broadband, broadband nutrition label, cap, FCC, high speed internet, Jessica Rosenworcel, nutrition label, communications
