federal communications commission

isps-say-their-“excellent-customer-service”-is-why-users-don’t-switch-providers

ISPs say their “excellent customer service” is why users don’t switch providers


Broadband customer service

ISPs tell FCC that mistreated users would switch to one of their many other options.

Credit: Getty Images | Thamrongpat Theerathammakorn

Lobby groups for Internet service providers claim that ISPs’ customer service is so good already that the government shouldn’t consider any new regulations to mandate improvements. They also claim ISPs face so much competition that market forces require providers to treat their customers well or lose them to competitors.

Cable lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association told the Federal Communications Commission in a filing that “providing high-quality products and services and a positive customer experience is a competitive necessity in today’s robust communications marketplace. To attract and retain customers, NCTA’s cable operator members continuously strive to ensure that the customer support they provide is effective and user-friendly. Given these strong marketplace imperatives, new regulations that would micromanage providers’ customer service operations are unnecessary.”

Lobby groups filed comments in response to an FCC review of customer service that was announced last month, before the presidential election. While the FCC’s current Democratic leadership is interested in regulating customer service practices, the Republicans who will soon take over opposed the inquiry.

USTelecom, which represents telcos such as AT&T and Verizon, said that “the competitive broadband marketplace leaves providers of broadband and other communications services no choice but to provide their customers with not only high-quality broadband, but also high-quality customer service.”

“If a provider fails to efficiently resolve an issue, they risk losing not only that customer—and not just for the one service, but potentially for all of the bundled services offered to that customer—but also any prospective customers that come across a negative review online. Because of this, broadband providers know that their success is dependent upon providing and maintaining excellent customer service,” USTelecom wrote.

While the FCC Notice of Inquiry said that providers should “offer live customer service representative support by phone within a reasonable timeframe,” USTelecom’s filing touted the customer service abilities of AI chatbots. “AI chat agents will only get better at addressing customers’ needs more quickly over time—and if providers fail to provide the customer service and engagement options that their customers expect and fail to resolve their customers’ concerns, they may soon find that the consumer is no longer a customer, having switched to another competitive offering,” the lobby group said.

Say what?

The lobby groups’ description may surprise the many Internet users suffering from little competition and poor customer service, such as CenturyLink users who had to go without service for over a month because of the ISP’s failure to fix outages. The FCC received very different takes on the state of ISP customer service from regulators in California and Oregon.

The Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission in northwest Oregon, where Comcast is the dominant provider, told the FCC that local residents complain about automated customer service representatives; spending hours on hold while attempting to navigate automated voice systems; billing problems including “getting charged after cancelling service, unexpected price increases, and being charged for equipment that was returned,” and service not being restored quickly after outages.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) told the FCC that it performed a recent analysis finding “that only a fraction of California households enjoy access to a highly competitive market for [broadband Internet service], with only 26 percent of households having a choice between two or more broadband providers utilizing either cable modem or fiber optic technologies.” The California agency said the result “suggests that competitive forces alone are insufficient to guarantee service quality for customers who depend upon these services.”

CPUC said its current rulemaking efforts for California “will establish standards for service outages, repair response time, and access to live representatives.” The agency told the FCC that if it adopts new customer service rules for the whole US, it should “permit state and local governments to set customer service standards that exceed the adopted standards.”

People with disabilities need more help, groups say

The FCC also received a filing from several advocacy groups focused on accessibility for people with disabilities. The groups asked for rules “establishing baseline standards to ensure high-quality DVC [direct video calling for American Sign Language users] across providers, requiring accommodations for consumers returning rental equipment, and ensuring accessible cancellation processes.” The groups said that “providers should be required to maintain dedicated, well-trained accessibility teams that are easily reachable via accessible communication channels, including ASL support.”

“We strongly caution against relying solely on emerging AI technologies without mandating live customer service support,” the groups said.

The FCC’s Notice of Inquiry on customer service was approved 3–2 in a party-line vote on October 10. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said that hundreds of thousands of customers file complaints each year “because they have run into issues cancelling their service, are saddled with unexpected charges, are upset by unexplained outages, and are frustrated with billing issues they have not been able to resolve on their own. Many describe being stuck in ‘doom loops’ that make it difficult to get a real person on the line to help with service that needs repair or to address charges they believe are a mistake.”

If the FCC leadership wasn’t changing hands, the Notice of Inquiry could be the first step toward a rulemaking. “We cannot ignore these complaints, especially not when we know that it is possible to do better… We want to help improve the customer experience, understand what tools we have to do so, and what gaps there may be in the law that prevent consumers from having the ability to resolve routine problems quickly, simply, and easily,” Rosenworcel said.

ISPs have a friend in Trump admin

But the proceeding won’t go any further under incoming Chairman Brendan Carr, a Republican chosen by President-elect Donald Trump. Carr dissented from the Notice of Inquiry, saying that the potential actions explored by the FCC exceed its authority and that the topic should be handled instead by the Federal Trade Commission.

Carr said the FCC should work instead on “freeing up spectrum and eliminating regulatory barriers to deployment” and that the Notice of Inquiry is part of “the Biden-Harris Administration’s efforts to deflect attention away from the necessary course correction.”

Carr has made it clear that he is interested in regulating broadcast media and social networks more than the telecom companies the FCC traditionally focuses on. Carr wrote a chapter for the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 in which he criticized the FCC for “impos[ing] heavy-handed regulation rather than relying on competition and market forces to produce optimal outcomes.”

With Carr at the helm, ISPs are likely to get what they’re asking for: No new regulations and elimination of at least some current rules. “Rather than saddling communications providers with unnecessary, unlawful, and potentially harmful regulation, the Commission should encourage the pro-consumer benefits of competition by reducing the regulatory burdens and disparities that are currently unfairly skewing the marketplace,” the NCTA told the FCC, arguing that cable companies face more onerous regulations than other communications providers.

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

ISPs say their “excellent customer service” is why users don’t switch providers Read More »

fcc-chair-rejects-call-to-impose-universal-service-fees-on-broadband

FCC chair rejects call to impose Universal Service fees on broadband

Ethernet cables connected to the ports in a wireless router

Getty Images | BernardaSv

The Federal Communications Commission chair decided not to impose Universal Service fees on Internet service, rejecting arguments for new assessments to shore up an FCC fund that subsidizes broadband network expansions and provides discounts to low-income consumers.

The $8 billion-a-year Universal Service Fund (USF) pays for FCC programs such as Lifeline discounts and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund deployment grants for ISPs. Phone companies must pay a percentage of their revenue into the fund, and telcos generally pass those fees on to consumers with a “Universal Service” line item on telephone bills.

Imposing similar assessments on broadband could increase the Universal Service Fund’s size and/or reduce the charges on phone service, spreading the burden more evenly across different types of telecommunications services. Some consumer advocates want the FCC to increase the fund in order to replace the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), a different government program that gives $30 monthly broadband discounts to people with low incomes but is about to run out of money because of inaction by Congress.

The Universal Service funding question is coming up now because, on April 25, the FCC is scheduled to vote on reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service in order to re-impose the net neutrality rules scrapped during the Trump era.

Chair fears “major upheaval”

Imposing Universal Service charges on broadband would likely result in ISPs adding those costs to monthly bills and would make the net neutrality proceeding even more of a political minefield than it already is. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel’s net neutrality proposal takes the same stance against requiring Universal Service contributions that the FCC took in 2015 when it first imposed the net neutrality rules.

“We conclude that forbearing from imposing new universal service contribution requirements on BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] is in the public interest,” Rosenworcel’s proposal says. “For one thing, we agree with commenters who warn that suddenly and unnecessarily imposing new fees on broadband service could pose ‘major upheaval in what is actually a stable and equitable contribution system.’ Rather than risk this upheaval, we believe it in the public interest to proceed cautiously and incrementally.”

The deferral of action on Universal Service funding is welcome news to cable lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, even though it opposes the net neutrality plan overall. The NCTA has urged the FCC “to resist calls for immediate action and instead defer to Congress on the complex and controversial issues surrounding contribution reform.” Assessments on broadband “would almost certainly result in new passed-through fees not previously assessed on these services” and “may harm broadband adoption,” the NCTA says.

Broadband industry lobby group USTelecom has called for Big Tech firms to pay into the Universal Service Fund, an argument that has also been made repeatedly by Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr.

Rosenworcel may be inclined to let Congress tackle broadband contributions to Universal Service. Her draft plan also raises the possibility of the FCC addressing the issue on its own in a separate proceeding:

Contrary to the assumption of some commenters, Commission efforts remain ongoing in this area. Congress has also been actively deliberating on legislative proposals to reform the USF contribution and funding mechanisms. USF contribution reform is an immensely complex and delicate undertaking with far-reaching consequences, and we believe that any decisions on whether and how to make BIAS providers contribute to USF funding are best addressed holistically in those ongoing discussions of USF contribution reform, on a full record and with robust input from all interested parties, rather than in this proceeding.

FCC chair rejects call to impose Universal Service fees on broadband Read More »

apple’s-imessage-is-not-a-“core-platform”-in-eu,-so-it-can-stay-walled-off

Apple’s iMessage is not a “core platform” in EU, so it can stay walled off

Too core to fail —

Microsoft’s Edge browser, Bing search, and ad business also avoid regulations.

Apple Messages in a Mac dock

Getty Images

Apple’s iMessage service is not a “gatekeeper” prone to unfair business practices and will thus not be required under the Fair Markets Act to open up to messages, files, and video calls from other services, the European Commission announced earlier today.

Apple was one of many companies, including Google, Amazon, Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Meta, and Microsoft to have its “gatekeeper” status investigated by the European Union. The iMessage service did meet the definition of a “core platform,” serving at least 45 million EU users monthly and being controlled by a firm with at least 75 billion euros in market capitalization. But after “a thorough assessment of all arguments” during a five-month investigation, the Commission found that iMessage and Microsoft’s Bing search, Edge browser, and ad platform “do not qualify as gatekeeper services.” The unlikelihood of EU demands on iMessage was apparent in early December when Bloomberg reported that the service didn’t have enough sway with business users to demand more regulation.

Had the Commission ruled otherwise, Apple would have had until August to open its service. It would have been interesting to see how the company would have complied, given that it provides end-to-end encryption and registers senders based on information from their registered Apple devices.

Google had pushed the Commission to force Apple into “gatekeeper status,” part of Google’s larger campaign to make Apple treat Android users better when they trade SMS messages with iPhone users. While Apple has agreed to take up RCS, an upgraded form of carrier messaging with typing indicators and better image and video quality, it will not provide encryption for Android-to-iPhone SMS, nor remove the harsh green coloring that particularly resonates with younger users.

Apple is still obligated to comply with the Digital Markets Act’s other implications on its iOS operating system, its App Store, and its Safari browser. The European Union version of iOS 17.4, due in March, will offer “alternative app marketplaces,” or sideloading, along with the tools so that those other app stores can provide updates and other services. Browsers on iOS will also be able to use their own rendering engines rather than providing features only on top of mobile Safari rendering. Microsoft, among other firms, will make similar concessions in certain areas of Europe with Windows 11 and other products.

While it’s unlikely to result in the same kind of action, Brendan Carr, a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, said at a conference yesterday that the FCC “has a role to play” in investigating whether Apple’s blocking of the Beeper Mini app violated Part 14 rules regarding accessibility and usability. “I think the FCC should launch an investigation to look at whether Apple’s decision to degrade the Beeper Mini functionality… was a step that violated the FCC’s rules in Part 14,” Carr said at the State of the Net policy conference in Washington, DC.

Beeper Mini launched with the ability for Android users to send fully encrypted iMessage messages to Apple users, based on reverse-engineering of its protocol and registration. Days after its launch, Apple blocked its users and issued a statement saying that it was working to stop exploits and spam. The blocking and workarounds continued until Beeper announced that it was shifting its focus away from iMessage and back to being a multi-service chat app, minus one particular service. Beeper’s experience had previously garnered recognition from Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).

Ars has reached out to Apple, Microsoft, and Google for comment and will update this post if we receive responses.

Apple’s iMessage is not a “core platform” in EU, so it can stay walled off Read More »

ted-cruz-wants-to-stop-the-fcc-from-updating-data-breach-notification-rules

Ted Cruz wants to stop the FCC from updating data-breach notification rules

Sen. Ted Cruz speaks at a Senate committee hearing while holding up three fingers.

Enlarge / Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, November 30, 2023.

Getty Images | Bill Clark

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and other Republican senators are fighting a Federal Communications Commission plan to impose new data-breach notification requirements on telecom providers. In a letter sent to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel today, the senators claim the pending FCC action would violate a congressional order.

The letter was sent by Cruz, Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). They say the proposed data-breach notification rules are preempted by an action Congress took in 2017 to kill an assortment of privacy and security rules issued by the FCC.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) was used in 2017 by Congress and then-President Donald Trump to throw out rules that would have required home Internet and mobile broadband providers to get consumers’ opt-in consent before using, sharing, or selling Web browsing history, app usage history, and other private information.

The invalidated FCC rules also included data-breach notification requirements that are similar to those the current FCC now plans to impose. The FCC already enforces data-breach notification requirements, but the pending proposal would expand the scope of those rules.

Rosenworcel’s data-breach proposal is scheduled for a vote at tomorrow’s commission meeting, and it may ultimately be up to the courts to decide whether it violates the 2017 congressional resolution. The Republican senators urged the FCC to rescind the draft plan and remove it from the meeting agenda.

Cruz also protested a recent FCC vote to enforce rules that prohibit discrimination in access to broadband services, calling it “government-mandated affirmative action and race-based pricing.”

Republicans: FCC plan “clearly unlawful”

When an agency-issued rule is nullified by a Congressional Review Act resolution, that rule “may not be reissued in substantially the same form” without authorization from Congress. The key legal question seems to be whether the FCC can re-implement one portion of the nullified rules as long as it doesn’t bring back the entire privacy order.

Cruz and fellow Republicans say that Rosenworcel’s plan would “resurrect a portion of the 2016 Broadband Privacy Order pertaining to data security.”

“This is clearly unlawful: the FCC’s proposed rules in the Report and Order are clearly ‘substantially similar’ to the nullified 2016 rules,” they wrote. “Specifically, the requirements in the Report and Order governing notification to the FCC, law enforcement, and consumers, as well as the recordkeeping requirements with respect to breaches and notifications, are substantially similar to the notification and recordkeeping requirements disapproved by Congress.”

The FCC proposal anticipates this argument but says the agency believes it can re-implement part of the Obama-era privacy order:

We conclude that it would be erroneous to construe the resolution of disapproval as applying to anything other than all of the rule revisions, as a whole, adopted as part of the 2016 Privacy Order. That resolution had the effect of nullifying each and every provision of the 2016 Privacy Order—each part being, under the APA [Administrative Procedure Act], “a rule”—but not “the rule” specified in the resolution of disapproval. By its terms, the CRA does not prohibit the adoption of a rule that is merely substantially similar to a limited portion of the disapproved rule or one that is the same as individual pieces of the disapproved rule.

Thus, according to the FCC proposal, the resolution “does not prohibit the Commission from revising its breach notification rules in ways that are similar to, or even the same as, some of the revisions that were adopted in the 2016 Privacy Order, unless the revisions adopted are the same, in substance, as the 2016 Privacy Order as a whole.”

Ted Cruz wants to stop the FCC from updating data-breach notification rules Read More »