Luján, Schiff, Colleagues Blast FCC Efforts to Strip Broadband Price Transparency Labels for Consumers, Demand Reversal

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Media, and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) led six senators to urge Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr to reverse the agency's decision to weaken broadband label rules that help consumers understand the type of broadband services they are buying before committing to a provider.

In a letter to Chairman Carr, the Senators expressed strong opposition to the FCC's proposed rulemaking that would scale back key broadband consumer label requirements adopted unanimously in 2022. Congress gave the Commission explicit instructions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to create these labels.

"The broadband label framework was designed to work like nutrition labels, giving consumers a clear, consistent way to understand what services they are buying before they commit. After years of development and a bipartisan vote to implement these protections, we are now at the point where providers have integrated these labels into their systems and consumers are beginning to rely on them. This is not the moment to reverse course," the Senators wrote.

"The entire purpose of the broadband label is to show consumers the real, total cost of service so that they can make informed choices. Allowing providers to bundle these fees into vague line items recreates exactly the kind of billing opaqueness that Congress sought to end. Families need to see what they are being charged and why," the Senators continued.

Under the FCC's proposal, internet service providers would be allowed to take actions such as bundling optional fees instead of listing them clearly and removing labels from customer account portals which consumers often use to compare and review their service terms. The proposal could also allow providers to not display labels in the same languages used to advertise their plans.

In addition to Senators Luján and Schiff, this letter is also signed by Senators Brian Schatz (D- Hawai'i), Ron Wyden (D-Ore,), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.).

This letter follows an earlier letter sent by Senators Lujan and Klobuchar on October 24, 2025.

The full text of the letter can be found hereand below:

Dear Chairman Carr:

We write to express strong opposition to the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would scale back key broadband consumer label requirements this Commission adopted unanimously in 2022. Congress gave the Commission explicit instructions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to create these labels, and we are concerned that the current proposal moves in the opposite direction from what the law requires and what consumers deserve. This letter is submitted as a follow-up to the letter sent by Senators Klobuchar and Lujan on October 24, 2025, prior to the Commission's 2-1 vote to advance the proposed changes.

The broadband label framework was designed to work like nutrition labels, giving consumers a clear, consistent way to understand what services they are buying before they commit. After years of development and a bipartisan vote to implement these protections, we are now at the point where providers have integrated these labels into their systems and consumers are beginning to rely on them. This is not the moment to reverse course.

The proposal to exclude telephone sales from point-of-sale disclosure requirements would eliminate transparency for some of the most vulnerable consumers in our country. Seniors, people with disabilities, rural residents, and households shopping for their first internet service frequently rely on phone conversations to compare plans and sign up for service. Under this proposal, those consumers would lose access to the very information that online shoppers take for granted. Instead of regulatory efficiency, this change would create a two-tier system that disadvantages the Americans who can least afford confusion about the services they are purchasing.

We are equally troubled by the Commission's proposal to let providers aggregate discretionary fees that companies choose to impose rather than itemize them. The entire purpose of the broadband label is to show consumers the real, total cost of service so that they can make informed choices. Allowing providers to bundle these fees into vague line items recreates exactly the kind of billing opaqueness that Congress sought to end. Families need to see what they are being charged and why. Comparison shopping becomes meaningless if the prices are not actually comparable.

The proposal to remove labels from customer account portals is also misguided. Right now, a consumer can log into their account months after signing up, pull up their label, and verify what they were promised at the initial point of sale. They can check whether their promotional rate is about to expire or compare their current plan to newer options. Eliminating that access would leave consumers with no reliable way to review their own service terms. At a time when internet service costs are rising and many families are managing tighter budgets, we should be making it easier for people to understand what they are paying for.

Public interest advocates have long emphasized that ongoing access to these labels is not merely a convenience but a core consumer protection. Broadband plans change frequently, promotional rates expire, and providers sometimes introduce new terms or fees long after the initial sale. Without a persistent label visible in customers' online accounts, consumers have no simple way to verify whether their service still matches what they were promised or to detect price increases and speed changes that may occur over time. Removing this requirement would make it easier for providers to bury bill changes in dense terms of service or scattered emails, and it would hinder consumers' ability to exercise their rights, switch plans, or challenge inaccurate billing. Continuous transparency is essential to preventing bait-and-switch tactics and to ensuring broadband markets function fairly for all people.

We also urge the Commission to reconsider eliminating multilingual label requirements. Providers actively market to non-English-speaking communities in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, and other languages. It is both reasonable and fair to require that the same consumers receive pricing and service term disclosures in the language they were sold in. Marketing in one language while providing key financial information only in English will only result in confusion and exploitation.

Furthermore, the proposed elimination of machine-readable formats and archiving requirements would undermine accountability across the board. These technical features allow consumer advocates, researchers, regulators, and journalists to analyze pricing trends, track harmful practices, and fuel tools that help families make fully informed financial decisions. They also support the Commission's own enforcement work. Removing these features would weaken oversight at a time when the broadband market needs more scrutiny.

The broadband label program represents bipartisan recognition that clear information is essential to a functioning market. The law Congress passed was not a suggestion. It was a directive, rooted in the straightforward principle that consumers deserve to know what they are purchasing in easy-to-understand terms and what it costs when they sign a contract.

We respectfully urge the Commission to withdraw or substantially revise this proposal and to maintain the comprehensive transparency protections that Congress mandated in IIJA. Families across the country are counting on the FCC to ensure that broadband providers compete in quality and price. That requires consumers to actually see and understand both.

Thank you for considering these views.

###