Nutrition Labels For Broadband Internet Are Finally Nearly Here (theverge.com) 23
Six years after we saw the FCC formally propose "nutrition labels" for your carrier's potentially confusing array of plans, the agency says it's finally happening. The Verge reports: This week, it's ordering US internet service providers to adopt the label format you're looking at [here] -- or it will, as soon as some last bureaucratic elements get worked out. They've changed a bit since 2016 -- now, each plan will apparently have its own label rather than ISPs trying to cram all of them into a single sheet, they don't warn you about coverage, and apparently, ISPs will be able to point you to their network management policy legalese instead of having to ding themselves for throttling data or giving some apps a fast lane. They won't have to report packet loss, either, it seems. Thankfully, ISPs will still need to report their typical speeds and latency, not just reiterate their advertised speed. Hopefully, someone will audit that.
Most big ISPs will have six months to slap the new labels onto their websites and distribute them in stores, though the FCC's giving ones with less than 100,000 subscribers a full year to comply. But none of those shot clocks start until the Office of Management and Budget reviews the order to make sure it complies with the Paperwork Reduction Act and similar statutes, the FCC notes, so it might be a bit longer. In the meanwhile, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel suggests that ISPs might want to get ahead of things and adopt them on their own. The FCC also says it hopes these labels will evolve from here [...].
Most big ISPs will have six months to slap the new labels onto their websites and distribute them in stores, though the FCC's giving ones with less than 100,000 subscribers a full year to comply. But none of those shot clocks start until the Office of Management and Budget reviews the order to make sure it complies with the Paperwork Reduction Act and similar statutes, the FCC notes, so it might be a bit longer. In the meanwhile, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel suggests that ISPs might want to get ahead of things and adopt them on their own. The FCC also says it hopes these labels will evolve from here [...].
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24210250/broadband_facts.jpg){kind=link}
It's called - 'Specs' (Score:2)
Re:It's called - 'Specs' (Score:4, Funny)
You take exception with that and I'm annoyed by the phrase "Finally Nearly Here"...
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. "Nearly Finally Here" would actually be better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's called - 'Specs' (Score:1)
No it's not. A spec is a more generic concept. This dictates what metrics are displayed and how they are presented. It's a "label", certainly.
Re: (Score:2)
It also makes me think it's a rather pointless waste of time. If you've looked around recently you may have noticed that a sizable portion of Americans clearly either don't read or don't give a damn about nutrition labels.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the way certain "apps" "eat" broadband, label naming becomes weirdly appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but it's less a spec sheet and more a label.
A label has certain defined items on it - a spec list only has the specs that the supplier wants to call out to you.
Take your mattress label - it has a bunch of things on it mandated by law that need to be communicated to you the end user. It's not a spec sheet for the mattress - it's a label.
Likewise, ISPs have been
Fiber (Score:4)
It's what the doctor ordered.
Re: (Score:2)
Burp. I ate the internet.
Re: Fiber (Score:2)
I logged into the FCC map and saw that my ISP claimed Fiber to the Premises at 1G/1G so I called them up to switch over to this plan that I knew didn't exist. Also bonus points that nowhere on their website could I even find upload speeds. They were completely hidden.
I would like to switch to fiber.
You are on Fiber.
No I'm on copper coax cable.
There is a box in your building which converts it to cable.
I'm on the HOA, there is no fiber termination in our building. I would know about it. There is just a splitt
"Finally Nearly Here" == "Still Not Here", Right? (Score:2)
WTF with us?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it used to be "Finally Farly There" and now it's "Finally Nearly Here" :)
As if (Score:2)
Have you seen Americans recently? Clearly they're not looking at nutrition labels. What makes you think this will be any different?
Is it gonna have the same ridiculous loopholes? (Score:2)
Like "servings", where fatty potato chips only have nonsensically low calories per "serving"? I.e. per chip.
Because otherwise, why give it such a ridiculous format if not to ensure that the customer can't really compare prices and instead we just pretend to "do something"?
Re: (Score:2)
Basically Useless (Score:3)
Not helpful since it doesn't include information about throttling or prioritization. So many plans are already unlimited, but not really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
questionably helpful (Score:2)
All the deals I have from telecom companies have been obtained over the phone. In some cases they have lied. How is this going to help?
Re: questionably helpful (Score:2)
Well, before you commit to a contract, ask to see it "in writing" (paper or online).
Excellent advice -not. (Score:2)
In the meanwhile, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel suggests that ISPs might want to get ahead of things and adopt them on their own. The FCC also says it hopes these labels will evolve from here [...].
If she can guarantee the requirements to comply won't change, then maybe telcos would consider it (they have more than a handful of consumer plans (likely dozens per state)), maybe they would consider it. They have no interest trying to chase a moving target, esp when there are financial penalties for getting it wrong.