[Bloat] FCC requires broadband "Nutritional Label"

[Bloat] FCC requires broadband "Nutritional Label"

[Rich Brown]

Forwarded from NANOG list:

> The effective date will be determined later, after publication in the 
> Federal Register and OMB review under PRA.
> 
> November 17, 2022?The Federal Communications Commission today
> unveiled new rules that will for the first time require broadband 
> providers to display easy-tounderstand labels to allow consumers to 
> comparison shop for broadband services. The Report and Order approved by 
> the Commission creates rules that require broadband providers to
> display, at the point of sale, labels that show key information consumers 
> want?prices, speeds,fees, data allowances, and other critical 
> information. The labels resemble the well-known nutrition labels that 
> appear on food products.
> 
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-requires-broadband-providers-display-labels-help-consumers-0

Even though the label only specifies "typical latency", I have a sense that this is a good step forward. If your ISP specifies 5 msec as "typical" and their crummy router is bloated, can you get a repair if you call them and say that it's averaging 150msec? 

At what point does the expense of handling all the tech support calls outweigh the expense of actually making (and deploying) good routers?

Re: [Bloat] FCC requires broadband "Nutritional Label"

[Dave Collier-Brown]

On 11/18/22 07:36, Rich Brown via Bloat wrote:
> Forwarded from NANOG list:
>
>> The effective date will be determined later, after publication in the
>> Federal Register and OMB review under PRA.
>>
>> November 17, 2022?The Federal Communications Commission today
>> unveiled new rules that will for the first time require broadband
>> providers to display easy-tounderstand labels to allow consumers to
>> comparison shop for broadband services. The Report and Order approved by
>> the Commission creates rules that require broadband providers to
>> display, at the point of sale, labels that show key information consumers
>> want?prices, speeds,fees, data allowances, and other critical
>> information. The labels resemble the well-known nutrition labels that
>> appear on food products.
>>
>> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-requires-broadband-providers-display-labels-help-consumers-0
> Even though the label only specifies "typical latency", I have a sense that this is a good step forward. If your ISP specifies 5 msec as "typical" and their crummy router is bloated, can you get a repair if you call them and say that it's averaging 150msec?
>
> At what point does the expense of handling all the tech support calls outweigh the expense of actually making (and deploying) good routers?

For small ISPs, pretty quickly (eg, the late UUNET Canada, where we all
fit in one room)

For the duopolists, not until the legal department says "We've just had
a class-action suit filed against us, is it cheaper to fight it or to
fix whatever they're talking about?"

--dave c-b (;-))

--
David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com |              -- Mark Twain


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER : This telecommunication, including any and all attachments, contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any dissemination, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of confidentiality. If you have received this telecommunication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail and delete the message from your inbox and deleted items folders. This telecommunication does not constitute an express or implied agreement to conduct transactions by electronic means, nor does it constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment or an acceptance of a contract offer. Contract terms contained in this telecommunication are subject to legal review and the completion of formal documentation and are not binding until same is confirmed in writing and has been signed by an authorized signatory.

Re: [Bloat] FCC requires broadband "Nutritional Label"

[Jan Ceuleers]

On 18/11/2022 13:36, Rich Brown via Bloat wrote:
> Even though the label only specifies "typical latency", I have a sense that this is a good step forward.

Shame that the latency has to be specified in Ms (megaseconds) though.
ISPs will feel justified in rounding it down to 0.

Re: [Bloat] FCC requires broadband "Nutritional Label"

[Livingood, Jason]

On 11/18/22, 07:36, "Bloat on behalf of Rich Brown via Bloat" <bloat-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net on behalf of bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> Even though the label only specifies "typical latency", I have a sense that this is a good step forward. If your ISP specifies 5 msec as "typical" and their crummy router is bloated, can you get a repair if you call them and say that it's averaging 150msec? 

FWIW I think there's now a further comment period open on the label. I am sure comments around (working) latency would be welcome...

Jason