WASHINGTON, July 28, 2023 – Experts disagreed on whether the Federal Communications Commission should require more data from internet service providers for broadband “nutrition” labels at a Broadband Breakfast Live Online event Wednesday.

The broadband nutrition label, as mandated by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, requires broadband providers to display at the point of sale a label that shows prices, introductory rates, speeds, data allowances, and other critical broadband service information. 

The FCC released proposed rules on July 18 that would add additional requirements to the nutrition labels, to which several providers and associations expressed that the additional rules would place undue burden on small providers and would not improve data, said Steve Coran, chair of Lerman Senter’s broadband at the Spectrum and Communications Infrastructure practice group. 

Data requirements as currently outlined by the FCC are balanced, clear and easy and will promote transparency, said Coran. In response to responses from providers, the FCC increased its estimation that the proposed rulemaking would create between 1 and 9 hours of annual burden on providers to a range of 1.5 to 65 hours, he said. 

However, Ryan Johnston, senior policy counsel at municipality public interest nonprofit Next Century Cities, warned that the label requirements will not provide data as comprehensive as is necessary. As currently written, providers are allowed to report the “typical” speeds that each location receives. These ranges provide no certainty and is “more ethereal than the maximum advertised speed,” said Johnston. 

Additionally, the FCC failed to include the measurements that consumers want to see, include more precise pricing models, promotion lengths, and expected bill after promotions are done, said Johnston. He urged the FCC to require providers to report the average speed. 

Joshua Stager, policy director at Free Press, agreed, saying that the core issue for consumers is to address bill shock, referring to the uncertainty around internet bills and the detrimental effect it has on low-income households. For this reason, he urged the FCC to ensure that consumers will be able to access the label. 

Stager said that the FCC declined to require that the label be put on the monthly bill. He warned that providers can hide the label from consumers which will result in a lack of market response simply because consumers are not aware that the label exists. 

Discriminatory pricing in the industry is blatantly obvious, said Sascha Meinrath, Palmer Chair in telecommunications at Penn State University. “The FCC consistently refuses to collect the kind of information that would exonerate ISPs or condemn them,” he stated.  

Sascha Meinrath

He warned that this lack of appropriate data collection will be to the detriment of consumers. He accused the FCC of refusing to act against discriminatory and predatory pricing, claiming that it is a prime example of “American corruption.” 

Meinrath, who assisted in the initial proposal for the nutrition labels, said that the goal of the labels was to provide customers with information on the minimum services they will expect to see. He claimed that the current nutrition labels are insufficient and do not achieve those goals. 

Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. Watch the event on Broadband Breakfast, or REGISTER HERE to join the conversation.

Wednesday, July 26, 2023 – Broadband Nutrition Labels: Have They Improved?

In late 2022, the Federal Communications Commission required internet service providers to display broadband “nutrition” labels including speeds, service reliability, ACP participation and other relevant metrics at every point of sale. While there is consensus on the need for an informative and consumer-friendly label, some believe the requirements go too far or don’t go far enough. With federal broadband funding making its way to each state and the implementation phase just around the corner, the “nutrition labels” will soon become a reality. What might be the FCC’s next steps? How will the requirements affect broadband providers? How can consumers make sure they order from the right broadband “menu”?

Panelists

• Ryan Johnson, Senior Policy Counsel, Next Century Cities
• Steve Coran, Chair, Lerman Senter’s Broadband, Spectrum and Communications Infrastructure practice group
• Joshua Stager, Policy Director, Free Press
• Sascha Meinrath, Palmer Chair in Telecommunications, Penn State University; Founder, X-Lab
• Drew Clark (moderator), Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast

Ryan Johnson is responsible for NCC’s federal policy portfolio, building and maintaining relationships with Federal Commissions Commission officials, members of Congress and staff, and public interest allies. Working with various federal agencies, Ryan submits filings on behalf of NCC members on technology and telecommunications related issues that impact the digital divide such as broadband data mapping, benchmark speeds, spectrum policy, content moderation, privacy, and others.

Steve Coran is chair of Lerman Senter’s Broadband, Spectrum and Communications Infrastructure practice group. He represents broadband providers, private equity firms, equipment and technology companies, and new technology firms, serving their policy, transactional, compliance, and licensing needs. He also actively represents a trade association before the FCC, Congress, and other federal agencies in matters involving spectrum policy, Internet regulation, the Universal Service Fund, and other proceedings affecting wireless broadband service providers and other wireless technology interests.

Joshua Stager is the policy director at Free Press, where he advances policies to close the digital divide, protect consumers, and make the broadband market competitive and affordable. As a public interest advocate and attorney, he works closely with industry, Congress, the FCC and other federal agencies. He previously was deputy director of the Open Technology Institute.

Drew Clark is CEO of Breakfast Media LLC. He has led the Broadband Breakfast community since 2008. An early proponent of better broadband, better lives, he initially founded the Broadband Census crowdsourcing campaign for broadband data. As Editor and Publisher, Clark presides over the leading media company advocating for higher-capacity internet everywhere through topical, timely and intelligent coverage. Clark also served as head of the Partnership for a Connected Illinois, a state broadband initiative.

As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.

SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTube channel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

See a complete list of upcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Online events.

WASHINGTON, June 26, 2023 – Federal Communications Commission nominee Anna Gomez leaned toward a preference for Congress to adopt legislation on net neutrality as the policy takes center stage during a committee hearing on Thursday.

When asked if the FCC should seek direction from Congress before addressing net neutrality, a rule barring service providers from speeding up or throttling internet traffic or giving preference to certain services, Biden-backed nominee Anna Gomez said she would like to “help, if confirmed, with efforts towards legislation.” However, she emphasized that the FCC should still have “robust” oversight over broadband internet.

Her response marks a subtle departure from the commonly held viewpoint among Democrats, including Gigi Sohn, a former FCC nominee also endorsed by President Biden, who unequivocally advocated for the FCC’s progression in rolling back net neutrality.

Responses from other FCC incumbents Brendan Carr and Geoffrey Starks remain divided along the party line, with Carr supporting more guidance from Congress while Starks said the FCC currently has the authority to proceed with net neutrality.

Since the FCC’s decision to reverse net neutrality in 2017, heated discussions have taken place on whether or not to reinstate the policy. The primary determinant right now is for Congress to place broadband services back under Title II, which would define broadband as “internet service” and give the FCC authority to enforce net neutrality rules.

Many have been advocating for the return of net neutrality, including FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. Last year, a group of Democrat senators also introduced the Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act to codify net neutrality.

South Korea is recognized as a leading broadband nation for network access, use and skills by the International Telecommunications Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

South Korea exports content and produces platforms which compete with leading tech platforms from the US and China. Yet few know and understand the important elements of South Korean broadband policy, particularly its unique interconnection and cost recovery regime.

For example, most Western observers mischaracterize the relationship between broadband providers and content providers as a termination regime. There is no such concept in the South Korean broadband market. Content providers which want to connect to a broadband network pay an “access fee” like any other user.

International policy observers are paying attention to the IP interconnection system of IP powerhouse Korea and the lawsuit between SK Broadband (SKB) and Netflix. There are two important subjects. The first is the history and major regulations relating to internet protocol interconnection in South Korea. Regulating IP interconnection between internet service providers is considered a rare case overseas, and I explain why the Korean government adopted such a policy and how the policy has been developed and what it has accomplished.

The second subject is the issues over network usage fees between ISPs and content providers and the pros and cons. The author discusses issues that came to the surface during the legal proceedings between SKB and Netflix in the form of questions and answers. The following issues were identified during the process.

First, what Korean ISPs demand from global big tech companies is an access fee, not a termination fee. The termination fee does not exist in the broadband market, only in the market between ISPs.

In South Korea, content providers only pay for access, not termination

For example, Netflix’s Open Connect Appliance is a content delivery network. To deliver its content to end users in Korea, Netflix must purchase connectivity from a Korean ISP. The dispute arises because Netflix refuses to pay this connectivity fee. Charging CPs in the sending party network pay method, as discussed in Europe, suggests that the CPs already paid access fees to the originating ISPs and should thus pay the termination fee for their traffic delivery to the terminating ISPs. However in Korea, it is only access fees that CPs (also CDNs) pay ISPs.

In South Korea, IP interconnection between content providers and internet service providers is subject to negotiation

Second, although the IP interconnection between Korean ISPs is included in regulations, transactions between CPs and ISPs are still subject to negotiation. In Korea, a CP (including CDN) is a purchaser which pays a fee to a telecommunications service provider called an ISP and purchases a public internet network connection service, because the CP’s legal status is a “user” under the Telecommunications Business Act. Currently, a CP negotiates with an ISP and signs a contract setting out connection conditions and rates.

Access fees do not violate net neutrality

South Korean courts have rejected attempts to mix net neutrality arguments into payment disputes. The principle of net neutrality applies between the ISP and the consumer, e.g. the practice of blocking, throttling and paid prioritization (fast lane).

In South Korea, ISPs do not prioritize a specific CP’s traffic over other CP’s because they receive fees from the specific CP. To comply with the net neutrality principle, all ISPs in South Korea act on a first-in, first-out basis. That is, the ISP does not perform traffic management for specific CP traffic for various reasons (such as competition, money etc.). The Korean court did not accept the Netflix’s argument about net neutrality because SKB did not engage in traffic management.

There is no violation of net neutrality in the transaction between Netflix and SKB. There is no action by SKB to block or throttle the CP’s traffic (in this case, Netflix). In addition, SKB does not undertake any traffic management action to deliver the traffic of Netflix to the end user faster than other CPs in exchange for an additional fee from Netflix.

Therefore, the access fee that Korean ISPs request from CPs does not create a net neutrality problem.

Why the Korean model is not double billing

Korean law allows for access to broadband networks for all parties provided an access fee is paid. Foreign content providers incorrectly describe this as a double payment. That would mean that an end user is paying for the access of another party. There is no such notion. Each party pays for the requisite connectivity of the individual connection, nothing more. Each user pays for its own purpose, whether it is a human subscriber, a CP, or a CDN. No one user pays for the connectivity of another.

Dae-Keun Cho, PhD is is a member of the Telecom, Media and Technology practice team at Lee & Ko. He is a regulatory policy expert with more than 20 years of experience in telecommunications and ICT regulatory policies who also advises clients on online platform regulation policies, telecommunications competition policies, ICT user protection policies, and personal information protection. He earned a Ph.D. in Public Administration from the Graduate School of Public Administration in Seoul National University. This piece is reprinted with permission.

Request the FREE 58 page English language summary of Dr. Dae-Keun Cho’s book Nothing Is Free: An In-depth report to understand network usage disputes with Google and Netflix. Additionally see Strand Consult’s library of reports and research notes on the South Korea.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.