FCC's Gomez Slams Move To Revise Broadband Labels as 'Anti-Consumer' (lightreading.com) 21
An anonymous reader shares a report: The FCC adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to rescind and revise certain rules attached to consumer broadband labels. The measure passed on a two-to-one vote, with Commissioner Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on the FCC, voting no and calling the notice "one of the most anti-consumer items I have seen."
The vote was held at the Commission's open meeting for the month of October. As per a draft notice circulated earlier this month, the FCC is looking to roll back several rules, including requirements that service providers read the label to consumers via phone, itemize state and local pass-through fees, and display labels in consumer account portals, among others. Advocates at Public Knowledge urged the Commission to reconsider, saying in a recent filing that "the Commission could create a permission structure for ISPs to continue to act without accountability."
In her remarks during Tuesday's open meeting, Commissioner Gomez appeared to concur, depicting the move as "anti-consumer" and counter to the goals of Congress. The FCC was mandated via the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to create rules for implementing consumer broadband labels. After a lengthy rulemaking process and discussions with industry and consumer groups, ISPs were required to start displaying labels in 2024.
"I typically vote in favor of notices of proposed rulemaking because I believe in asking balanced questions, even on proposals that I dislike, so that we can encourage fruitful and helpful public comment. Answers to tough questions help us strike the right balance so that our rules can both encourage competition and serve consumers. However, the questions posed in this NPRM are so anti-consumer that I could not bring myself to even agree to them," said Gomez.
Gomez stressed that the notice will harm consumers by enabling ISPs to hide add-on fees and stripping people of their ability to access information in their own language. Moreover, added Gomez, it's unclear why the FCC is doing this. "What adds insult to injury is that the FCC does not even explain why this proposal is necessary. Make it make sense," she added.
The vote was held at the Commission's open meeting for the month of October. As per a draft notice circulated earlier this month, the FCC is looking to roll back several rules, including requirements that service providers read the label to consumers via phone, itemize state and local pass-through fees, and display labels in consumer account portals, among others. Advocates at Public Knowledge urged the Commission to reconsider, saying in a recent filing that "the Commission could create a permission structure for ISPs to continue to act without accountability."
In her remarks during Tuesday's open meeting, Commissioner Gomez appeared to concur, depicting the move as "anti-consumer" and counter to the goals of Congress. The FCC was mandated via the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to create rules for implementing consumer broadband labels. After a lengthy rulemaking process and discussions with industry and consumer groups, ISPs were required to start displaying labels in 2024.
"I typically vote in favor of notices of proposed rulemaking because I believe in asking balanced questions, even on proposals that I dislike, so that we can encourage fruitful and helpful public comment. Answers to tough questions help us strike the right balance so that our rules can both encourage competition and serve consumers. However, the questions posed in this NPRM are so anti-consumer that I could not bring myself to even agree to them," said Gomez.
Gomez stressed that the notice will harm consumers by enabling ISPs to hide add-on fees and stripping people of their ability to access information in their own language. Moreover, added Gomez, it's unclear why the FCC is doing this. "What adds insult to injury is that the FCC does not even explain why this proposal is necessary. Make it make sense," she added.
MAGA Deregulation (Score:2)
Fuck the proles!
Serve the rich!
Re:Labels ? Languages ? (Score:5, Informative)
The laws were created to stop idiots like you from getting screwed by breaking everything down in easy to understand terms, do you know what you're buying.
But if you enjoy being told what to pay without knowing what you're getting...contact me. I can boost your speed and productivity at great profit to me.
Re: (Score:1)
> The laws were created to stop idiots like you from getting screwed by breaking everything down in easy to understand terms, do you know what you're buying.
Dude, if you need a label to know what you're buying, you're the fucking problem.
The law is dumb. More red tape and bureaucracy increasing costs to business and thus cost to consumers, for something that will have no effect.
> But if you enjoy being told what to pay without knowing what you're getting
Ah yes, the dark days of pre-2021, when no one
Re: (Score:2)
Let me get this straight: you're actually, for real, in favor of hidden fees, so a business can tell you that you owe them $x more than you agreed to pay for, and now you're obliged to pay?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't need a label...but I also work in IT and understand technical terms. The Average Joe....does not; not to mention the ISPs don't want to give you a list of what you're paying for. They want to oversubscribe and not meet requirements while figuring out what fee to make up. Oh, your bill went up $55. What for? They won't tell you.
The sheer fact is the same deregulation you love will be used to fuck you over. Wait until bait & switch is allowed and they will be blatenly deceiving you. They wanted to
Re: (Score:2)
The laws were created to stop idiots like you from getting screwed by breaking everything down in easy to understand terms, do you know what you're buying.
But if you enjoy being told what to pay without knowing what you're getting...contact me. I can boost your speed and productivity at great profit to me.
Thats why the laws are "anit-consumer", you're a consumer, consume, mindlessly, DO NOT QUESTION.
What you're talking about is a customer, something that is definitely not wanted by today's business (and the governments that are merging with it).
Re: (Score:1)
> How ironic that you complain about using English but your grammar violates at least three rules.
The only irony would be if I were a native English speaker or American.
America = English. Just like if you come to my country, you speak my language.
> Following your logic Americans wouldn't be allowed to travel to Italy unless they speak Italian or Japan unless they speak Japanese?
Exactly. We're not talking about tourism here either, we're talking about regulations that impact business. If I got to I
Re: (Score:2)
America = English. Just like if you come to my country, you speak my language.
Kinda. The US had no officially designed language from July 4th, 1776, to February 28, 2025. English was the most used language, but not a legal requirement.
Since March 1st, 2025, there's an Executive Order signed by Trump determining that English is the official language of the United States. Executive Orders are valid until a President cancels them, so we can presume that at least in the period from March 1st, 2025, to January 20th, 2029, the US will indeed have an official language. Coming January 21st,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
english or go home? (Score:3)
And what's this thing about "their own language".
It stems from the simple idea that contracts are unenforceable unless both parties give informed consent. Emphasis on "informed".
what? (Score:1)
Commissioner Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on the FCC
There is a Democrat at the FCC? I'm surprised!
Re:what? (Score:4, Informative)
There are supposed to be 2. There are 5 commissioners, two from each party and the chairman (from the party in power).
You can guess what happened to the other commissioner.
Re: (Score:1)
Eaten by a grue?