Tag Archives: broadband labels

Simplifying the Broadband Labels

The FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to simplify the rules for broadband labels. This effort demonstrates the need to simplify regulations while also highlighting the absurdity of many regulations.

The Rulemaking is specifically recommending to eliminate the following requirements:

  • Read the label to consumers over the phone
  • Itemize state and local pass-through fees that vary depending on the location of the consumer
  • Provide information about the now-concluded Affordable Connectivity Program
  • Display labels in customer account portals
  • Make labels available in machine-readable format
  • Archive labels for at least two years after a service is no longer offered to new customers

The Rulemaking also seeks comments on several issues:

  • Whether to eliminate the multilingual display requirement.
  • Are there other requirements that are unduly burdensome and provide minimal benefit to consumers.
  • Removing the label template from the CFR.

The fact that the FCC is proposing these changes highlights the absurdity of some regulations. The original label rules were too specific and burdensome. For example, requiring an ISP to somehow show the right local taxes for each customer based on address is absurd. Many taxes change regularly and it was never practical for a company operating in multiple states to do this. The rule that a company had to read a label over the phone was ridiculous. Go try to do that – it takes a long time to read through a single label, and much of the language ISPs put on labels is written in legalese and not easy for consumers to understand.

The real issue that is not being addressed is that the labels are not meeting the original intended purpose. The main reason the label rules were created was to provide consumers with an easy way to comparison-shop between different ISPs in a market. The labels have failed to meet the original goal.

Many ISPs make labels hard to find on a website. When you find the labels, a consumer often has to provide a specific street address, which many people are not willing to do to avoid being pestered by marketing material. It’s largely impossible to compare ISP speeds and performance because ISPs are allowed to claim marketing ‘up to’ speeds on the labels, which often have no similarity to the actual speeds that can be delivered.

The labels are also supposed to explain the technology used in plain English. I defy anybody who is not a technical industry insider to understand this portion of the labels. I’ve read some that were so nebulous that I was not sure what technology was being deployed.

The only good feature of the labels that I can see is that ISPs have to disclose the list prices that customers are charged at the end of any special or promotional pricing.

It also doesn’t look like the FCC is monitoring to see that ISPs have labels. I’ve found a lot of smaller ISPs that either don’t have labels or have hidden them so well they can’t be found. The bottom line of this rulemaking is that the FCC wants to make the labels a little easier for ISPs, but not any more usable for consumers.

Broadband Labels are Here

On October 10, all ISPs in the country were supposed to have implemented and posted broadband labels. The labels were required as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Large ISPs had to post labels six months ago, and now the requirement is for all ISPs.

I looked at the ISPs in a few counties I’m very familiar with and I found a few ISPs in each county that have not posted labels that I can find on their website. I expect that a few ISPs simply haven’t done this but that others are trying to game the system. Most of the ISPs with no link to labels tell customers they need to call to see if they are eligible for service. The purpose of the labels is to let prospective customers comparison shop, and the labels must be posted on the website for anybody to find. I’m pretty sure the FCC will find this practice violates the label rules. The FCC implies in its published guidelines for the labels that it is serious about the labels and threatens fines for ISPs that don’t create labels or who create labels that don’t comply with the rules. The FCC has recently fined some small ISPs for not reporting to the FCC maps, and I highly recommend creating and posting the label rather than becoming the poster child for the FCC.

While the labels seem simple, there is a lot of information that must be disclosed to the public, so ISPs should read the guidelines. I wrote a blog earlier this year that explains the label requirements in more detail. I didn’t write this blog to drum up business, but if somebody needs advice on creating the labels, please contact me.

ISPs face an interesting challenge in creating the labels, in that they must balance what is on the labels to what is reported to the FCC maps. That automatically causes a dilemma. The FCC allows ISPs to report ‘marketing speeds’ to the FCC maps. However, the labels require ISPs to list an approximation of ‘typical’ broadband speeds that is based on internal and documented network testing. I won’t be surprised if the FCC or State broadband offices start reaching out to ISPs asking for the data to back up the speeds reported on labels.

ISPs know that the public will likely never see what they report to the FCC maps, but a lot of people are going to see broadband labels that must be prominently displayed on ISP websites. My guess is that most ISPs will claim the same speeds in both places. An ISP that is greatly exaggerating speeds should feel nervous about doing so on the labels. I expect that some customers will complain to the FCC if an ISP advertises a speed or price on the labels but delivers something different.

The new labels look a lot like the nutrition labels that are on processed foods. The label requires basic information like the monthly price for standalone broadband, any special pricing that is in place currently and when that special pricing expires, a description of other monthly and one-time fees associated with the broadband, and the typical broadband speeds and latency. This means ISPs must prominently disclose hidden fees that are not part of any advertised price. It also means disclosing the specific details of special offers.

I’m really curious about what ISPs are going to report for upload speeds. There are a lot of ISPs claiming 100/20 Mbps on the FCC maps, but which speed tests show upload speeds significantly below 20 Mbps. How many ISPs are going to honestly disclose upload speeds under 20 Mbps, which would be an admission that their product is not broadband?

From the day I heard about the labels I wondered how ISPs using  DSL, fixed wireless, or FWA cellular broadband are going to report speeds. There are numerous factors for these technologies that mean that speeds vary significantly by customer.

I think the labels are a great marketing tool for ISPs that advertise honest speeds at a good price. These ISPs should make the labels prominent on their websites and challenge customers to compare to the competition.

FCC Maps versus Broadband Labels

I have been complaining for years about the FCC mapping rule that allow ISPs to claim marketing speeds instead of something closer to actual speeds. That allows ISPs to report speeds that benefit them in some manner rather than being truthful to the public. There have been big consequences as a result of this FCC decision.

Historically, ISPs didn’t pay much attention to the FCC broadband maps. ISPs had to report speeds and coverage to the FCC, but since the maps weren’t used for much more than the FCC’s reports on broadband coverage to Congress, it didn’t matter what speeds ISPs claimed. The FCC certainly didn’t put any effort into verifying the maps, and the FCC got a lot of benefit out of FCC speed exaggerations since it allowed them to tell Congress that a lot more homes had good broadband than actually did.

But suddenly, the maps started to mean something. The USDA used the FCC maps in determining eligible locations for ReConnect grants – and in doing so made some colossal mistakes in denying some grant applications because of map errors. The first massive use of the maps came when the FCC used its own mapping data to determine the areas eligible for the CAF II reverse auction and RDOF. The crappy data in the maps created the disaster or the RDOF serving areas, which in many counties is best compared to Swiss cheese. Since the underlying speed data was bad, RDOF didn’t include Census blocks immediately adjacent to RDOF Census blocks which shared exactly the same ISPs and speed capabilities. If an ISP claimed that one customer in a Census block could receive 25/3 Mbps speeds – regardless of whether that speed was actually available – the Census block was excluded from RDOF.

The FCC had a great chance to fix this faulty rule when it decided to migrate to the new Broadband Data Collection (BDC) system of broadband mapping. Unfortunately, the FCC kept this same old horrible rule that let ISPs claim any marketing speed that benefits them. There is an uncanny number of rural ISPs today that are claiming a speed capability of exactly 100/20 Mbps – the exact speed needed to keep others from getting a BEAD grant in an area.

The FCC recently instituted the new Broadband Labels. ISPs with more than 100,000 customers were required to publish a label by April 10, 2024. All other ISPs have until October 10, 2024. The labels require an ISP to disclose its ‘typical’ download and upload speed and latency for each broadband product. If ISPs participate in the FCC’s Measuring Broadband America (MBA) program, they can disclose the speeds determined in that process. ISPs not participating in that program are supposed to report speeds based on actual internal network testing – not marketing speeds.

With this new rule for the labels, the FCC finally got it right. However, for this to mean anything, the FCC needs to audit the speed test data underlying the claims on the broadband labels. If ISPs know that the FCC is serious about the labels, then ISPs should become more truthful. In looking at the broadband labels published by big ISPs so far, I venture to say that almost none of them are reporting speeds accurately. Some are reporting the identical marketing speeds listed in the FCC maps (such as exactly 100/20 Mbps or exactly 1/1 gigabit). Many big ISPs are claiming on their labels that actual speeds are faster than marketing speeds – something that probably would be a huge surprise t0 most customers.

Now that the labels are in place for the big ISPS and will soon be in place for other ISPs, the FCC has a perfect opportunity to get this right in the labels and the maps. ISPs should be required to report the same speeds for the FCC maps that it puts on the broadband labels. The speeds on the labels should be based on actual speed testing and not on a speed cooked up by a marketing or regulatory department. ISPs will only be serious about getting this right if the FCC periodically audits ISPs and asks to see the underlying speed testing data – and fines ISPs that have exaggerated speeds.

I don’t have much hope that the FCC will do the right thing. If rural ISPs suddenly start to tell the truth about speeds on the FCC maps, we’d instantly see all of the places that the BEAD grants will not be covering. I’m sure the FCC understands this, and it has never wanted to see a story from ISPs that shows a greater number of unserved locations.

Broadband Labels for Small ISPs

The FCC recently issued a detailed Compliance Guide that describes the rules associated with the creation of broadband consumer labels. ISPs with more than 100,000 customers were required to publish a label by April 10, 2024. All other ISPs have until October 10, 2024.

The FCC implies in the guide introduction that it is serious about the labels and threatens fines for ISPs that don’t create labels or who create labels that don’t comply with the rules. While the labels seem simple, there is a lot of information that must be disclosed to the public, so ISPs should read the guidelines.

Here are a few of the key requirements – but there are others:

  • Use the FCC Format. You can’t customize the label and must follow the FCC format – which has been standardized to be the same everywhere.
  • Machine Readable. The labels must be machine-readable on a website – don’t post a picture of a label.
  • What Products are Covered? You need a separate label for each broadband product. There are no exclusions in the rules for small business broadband. A huge number of ISPs of all sizes don’t quote business rates on their website since they negotiate rates with customers. The new labels are going to force ISPs to somehow show business rates, and it won’t be easy for ISPs that charge unique rates to each business customer.
  • Where to Show the Label. On a website, the labels can be displayed upfront or can become available after a customer lists the service address. Labels have to also be made available on any alternative websites where you advertise your products. Labels must be made available for those with disabilities. If you advertise in multiple languages, there must be a label in each language. You have to make labels easily available at retail outlets or other places where customers can buy your broadband.
  • Service Plans. You may identify plans by speed or by brand name.
  • Prices. At a minimum, you must show the unbundled standalone rate for each service offering. This must be the retail price before any promotions or discounts are applied to the product. You are allowed to separately describe the discounts that are available. This would include any bundling discounts.
  • Fees. You must disclose all fees associated with the product. This includes any installation fees. It would include all fees that are billed monthly in addition to the base price. This would include fees for a modem, gateway, or router. Fees like deposits or fees for late payment must be disclosed. Any fees for cancelling the contract must be disclosed.
  • Introductory Rates. If you offer introductory rates, you must disclose the discounted price, the length of a discount period, and the rates after the introductory rate expires. You can provide a link to a webpage that describes the special rates.
  • Contracts. You must disclose if a contract is required to get the listed price. There should be a link to see the contract terms that would apply.
  • Taxes. You must disclose if there are taxes on the product, although you don’t have to disclose the exact amount. You should disclose if taxes are rolled into your quoted prices.
  • Speeds and Latency. ISPs must disclose their ‘typical’ download and upload speed and latency for each product. If ISPs participate in the Measuring Broadband America (MBA) program, you should disclose the speeds determined in that process. If you don’t, you should disclose speeds based on actual internal testing. This is a stern warning to ISPs that advertise 100/20 Mbps but deliver 20/5 Mbps to disclose a number closer to your actual speeds. The same rules apply when reporting latency.
  • Network Management Practices. These don’t go on the label, but there must be a link near to the labels that directs the public to a description of network practices. Current transparency rules specifically require disclosing practices associated with blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. I highly recommend describing the technology you are using in plain English without hyperbole.
  • Privacy Policy. ISPs must also provide a link that discloses the privacy policies for dealing with customer data.
  • FCC Glossary. You must include a link to the FCC webpage that includes a glossary of broadband terms and other informational materials.
  • Archive. You must keep labels on file for at least two years for any products that you no longer offer. This basically means keeping all versions any time you make changes. This also implies that your labels must be up to date for all information provided.

If your broadband products are superior to those offered by competitors, you should post the labels now and not wait until October.

I think the labels are a great marketing tool for ISPs that sell good broadband at a good price. The labels have to be a major concern for ISPs that deliver broadband products that are much slower than what they advertise. Expect that customers will complain to the FCC if you advertise a speed or price on the labels but deliver something different.

First Look at Broadband Labels

The FCC’s Broadband Labels were implemented by ISPs with more than 100,000 customers on or before April 10. Not surprisingly, many ISPs waited until the last day. I think the FCC hoped that the labels would create “clear, easy-to-understand, and accurate information about the cost and performance of high-speed internet services.” I looked at a lot of the labels this past week. As you might expect, the actual labels often fall far short of the FCC’s goal. I’m not going to use this single blog to try to rate and rank the various labels but will highlight a few of the things I found.

The first observation is that the labels are generally hard to find – they are not prominently displayed on ISP websites. This is because the FCC rules say that ISPs only have to display the labels at ‘points of sale’. ISPs have interpreted this to mean that a customer must first submit a valid address to the ISP website, and then typically navigate through several more links to find the labels. Even after entering an address, the links to broadband labels are often not clearly identified, and it was a challenge to find the labels for some ISPs. I thought one of the purposes of the labels was to make it easier for the public to comparison-shop between ISPs – but finding the labels usually takes a lot of work, especially for somebody who isn’t familiar with navigating ISP websites.

The one big benefit of the labels for most ISPs is that they make it easier to find broadband prices. Over the last few years, it’s grown increasingly difficult to find the list price for broadband on big ISP websites – the price that customers pay at the end of a special promotion rate. ISPs are now disclosing the full list price on the labels.

One exception to showing list prices is Comcast. The company is showing the promotional rates in bold for many broadband products and only shows the list price in fine print. Comcast is also deceptive about the cost of its broadband modem. All they say is that it’s optional, without mentioning that their price for a modem rental is $15. They also don’t mention that to get some features a Comcast modem is mandatory. I rate the Comcast labels as still being as deceptive as their website was before the labels. But Comcast isn’t the only one not being open and clear about the modem rental. I’m guessing that big ISPs are rationalizing that WiFi and the modem are not a broadband product as a way to keep them off the label. Any ISP not disclosing modem prices and policies is creating a hidden fee.

One of the features of the labels is that an ISP is supposed to provide a plain English description if its technology and network practices. Most ISPs failed at this, and a customer trying to understand two competing ISPs is not going to understand the technology difference using the broadband labels.

Consider Verizon. It has a network management section of the label that mixes in descriptions of its wide range of different technologies rather than describing each separately. There are a few things that a shopper for FWA service ought to be told: 1) that the FWA product is delivered over the same network delivering bandwidth to cellphones, 2) that the key factor that determines the speed for a customer at a given tower is the distance between the customer and the tower, and 3) that broadband can be throttled if the cell site gets busy. They disclose the third item, but overall, they fail at describing how FWA works.

The labels are not going to tell the public much about speeds. A few ISPs, like Verizon FWA and T-Mobile FWA, are honest and report a range of speeds. Cox is relatively honest and says that speeds are ‘up-to’ the cited marketing speed for a given product. But most big ISPs are claiming they deliver speeds in excess of advertised rates. Charter says speeds are at the advertised speed or faster. Comcast, CenturyLink, Mediacom, and Sparklight all cite ‘typical speeds’ which are all faster than the advertised speed – some significantly faster. This is the first time I’ve seen the term ‘typical speed’, and I have no idea what ISPs mean by it.

Windstream took an interesting approach to broadband labels and only created labels for fiber customers and not for older DSL. I don’t know if that meets the FCC requirements, but Windstream is reporting 100 Mbps capability for DSL in some markets on the FCC map, and this feels like something that should have a label.

All of the labels must disclose latency, and many of the latency numbers cited seem significantly low. I think that the ISPs are citing the latency between their headend and the customer, not the latency that a customer can expect in getting to the Internet. If so, this also feels deceptive to me.

Overall, the Broadband Labels do not fulfill the FCC’s goals of making it easier for customers to understand broadband products. It is a relief to see most ISPs disclose prices – but if Comcast gets away with highlighting marketing promotional rates, the labels for other ISPs might change soon to match. Disclosures on speeds are mostly a joke – and most customers are going to be surprised to find that their ISP is bringing them faster speeds than what they are paying for (sarcasm alert). For the most part, the descriptions of network practices are not written in plain English to help a potential customer understand the technology being used. The carefully crafted lawyer language in these sections makes it hard for even experienced industry folks to understand network management policies.

Finally, Broadband Labels

At the end of August, the FCC gave final approval to the requirement that ISPs must provide broadband labels. The FCC had originally approved the broadband labels in November 2022 but then received three petitions to further modify the rules. The recent order makes a few minor changes to the original order but largely leaves the original broadband label rules intact.

The labels were required as a provision of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. ISPs with more than 100,000 customers will have to start using the new labels within six months. All other ISPs have a year to implement. I think ISPs with fiber networks ought to issue the new labels quickly – it’s a chance to brag and compare your symmetrical capabilities against other technologies.

The new labels look a lot like the nutrition labels that are on all processed foods. The label requires basic information like the monthly price for standalone broadband, any special pricing that is in place currently and when that special pricing expires, a description of other monthly and one-time fees associated with the broadband, and the typical broadband speeds and latency.

I can’t wait to see how the big ISPs are going to implement the labels. Marketing folks at the big ISPs must be dreading the requirement to disclose the list price of standalone broadband and the requirement to list extra fees like big charges for a WiFi router. It’s been standard practice for years for customers to buy broadband without getting even basic facts such as the price for the broadband after an introductory offer.

The labels are going to be a big challenge for the cable companies that still sell a huge number of product bundles. The cable companies have never told consumers the portion of the bundled price associated with any given product. But my interpretation of the label rules is that they will somehow have to identify the broadband price.

As usual, the FCC let the big ISPs off the hook on one of the major requirements. ISPs are only required to disclose the typical broadband speed and latency. I am willing to bet that the labels are going to look a lot like the marketing speeds that are reported to the FCC maps – and that can be very different than what is delivered. In the many surveys that my consulting firm has done over the years, consumers regularly tell us that they have no idea what speed they are supposed to be getting. From the many bills we’ve collected over the years, many ISPs also don’t disclose the speeds on the monthly bill.

I’m really curious about what ISPs are going to report for upload speeds. We’ve been seeing huge numbers of speed tests for ISPs that don’t deliver 20 Mbps, which has become the new practical standard to be considered as broadband – and which the new 5-Commissioner FCC is likely to soon make official. How many ISPs are going to honestly disclose upload speeds under 20 Mbps, which would be an admission that their product is not broadband?

There are ISPs using a few technologies that are going to really struggle with the label requirement. For example, there are a dozen factors that can influence the speed of DSL, and two adjacent homes can have a significantly different DSL experience. The speeds on all wireless technologies vary to some degree with differing environmental conditions. Speeds on the new FWA cellular broadband are highly dependent on the distance between a customer and the serving tower. Any ISP that has network bottlenecks will deliver different speeds at different times of the day, depending on how busy the network is.

ISPs also face the challenge of somehow balancing what they declare on the broadband label and what they report to the FCC mapping. ISPs know that most of the public likely never sees what they report to the FCC maps, but a lot of people are going to see broadband labels that must be prominently displayed on ISP websites. My guess is that most ISPs will claim the same speeds in both places. I think the whole intent of the labels was to invite public pushback against ISPs that are exaggerating performance.

Will Broadband Labels Do Any Good?

The FCC is still considering the use of broadband labels that are supposed to explain broadband to customers. This sounds like a really good idea, but I wonder if it’s really going to be effective?

Some of the items included on the FCC sample label are great. The most important fact is the price. It has become virtually impossible to find broadband prices for many ISPs. Many ISP, including the largest ones, only show special pricing online that applies to new customers. These ISPs show the public the sale prices, but it’s often impossible to know the list prices. It’s often the same if somebody calls an ISP – they’ll be offered different promotional packages, but it’s like pulling teeth to get the truth about the everyday price that kicks in at the end of a promotion.

I’m curious about how the broadband labels will handle bundling. The surveys we’ve done recently show that half or more of homes in many markets are still buying a bundle that might include broadband plus voice, cable TV, security, smart home, or cellular. Big ISPs have never wanted to disclose the cost of individual products inside of a bundle and I can’t wait to see how ISPs handle a bundled broadband product.

There are also hidden fees and other ways to disguise the real price. Disclosing pricing will be a huge breath of fresh air – if ISPs are forced to be totally honest. I can imagine the PR and marketing groups at the bigger ISPs are already agonizing over how to disclose pricing while still keeping it cloudy and mysterious.

More perplexing is the broadband speed issue. The sample label that the FCC circulated for comment would require ISPs to list the typical download speeds, typical upstream speeds, typical latency, and typical packet loss. What does typical mean? Consider a Comcast market where the company sells residential broadband that ranges between grandfathered 50 Mbps and 1.2 Gbps. What is the typical speed in that market? How will any consumer be able to judge what a typical speed means?

I’ve written about broadband speeds a lot, and for many technologies, the speeds vary significantly for a given customer during the day. What’s the typical broadband speed for a home that sees download speeds vary by 50% during a typical day? I don’t always want to come across as skeptical, but I’m betting that the big cable companies will list the marketing speeds of their most popular broadband product and call it typical. Such a number is worthless because it’s what customers are already being told today. I don’t have a proposed solution for the various speed dilemmas, but I fear that whatever is told to customers will be largely uninformative.

What will the typical consumer do when told the typical latency and packet loss? It’s hard to think many homes will understand what those terms mean or what the typical values mean.

ISPs are also supposed to disclose network management processes. Does this mean a cable company must be truthful and tell some neighborhoods that their coaxial cable is too old and needs to be replaced – because that is s specific network practice? Will a cable company tell a customer that their neighborhood node is oversubscribed, which accounts for slowdowns at peak times? I’m guessing the network management processes will be described at the total market level instead of at the neighborhood level – again, making them largely uninformative.

I’m also curious how the FCC will know if customers are being told the truth. Folks who read this blog might tell the FCC if a broadband label is deceptive or wrong – but what is the FCC going to do with such complaints? Broadband issues are often hyper-local, and what happens on my block might be different than somebody living just a few blocks away.

I want to be clear that I am not against the broadband labels. Forcing ISPs to be public with prices is long overdue, as long as they disclose the truth. But I’m skeptical about many other things on the labels, and I fear big ISPs will use the labels as another marketing and propaganda tool instead of disclosing what people really need to know.

Regulatory Shorts for April 2016

FCC_New_LogoHere are a few things of interest happening in the regulatory world:

Copper Retirement. The FCC’s new copper retirement rules went into effect on March 24. The rules require that any telco tearing down copper must give residential customers 90 days notice and business customers 180 days notice.

While this rule very well might be aimed at Verizon who has been retiring copper with short customer notices, it applies to everybody. This is something that anybody replacing a copper network with a fiber network needs to be aware of. Verizon has been forcing customers to abandon the copper, and that act requires this same notice.

Appeals of USAC Rulings. The FCC recently decided that anybody who wants to appeal a ruling from USAC must formally first appeal the process at USAC and can then only bring the issue to the FCC after losing that appeal.

This is an interesting ruling and probably speaks to the volume of complaints the FCC has been getting about USAC. As telephone landlines have been falling the revenues that feed the Universal Service Fund have been decreasing. USAC has made up shortfalls by constantly raising the USF surcharge, which is now up to an 18.2% surcharge on interstate revenues, and back in 2010 was only 12%.

But USAC has also been getting more aggressive in defining the items to which the surcharges apply and have made retroactive rulings against a number of carriers on various issues. With this new process a carrier will have to go through the USAC formal process before starting any complaint at the FCC, which will greatly increase the time during they might be liable for disputed retroactive surcharges.

Broadband Labels. The FCC has unveiled their suggested labels where carriers can report facts about broadband such as cost, price, speeds, latency, etc. The labels look surprisingly like food labels. It’s often been impossible for customers to find a lot of the information that the FCC wants reported to customers.

No company is required to use the suggested FCC format, although a number of large companies like Verizon, Google and CenturyLink had input into creating the format. For now only large carriers with more than 100,000 broadband customers are required to report this information to customers. But small companies that have a superior broadband product compared to your competition ought to strongly consider doing this anyway. I also strongly recommend you look closely at the labels issued in your areas by large competitors to make sure they are being truthful.

Cancelling Service On-line. There is currently a bill in the California legislature that requires any company that sells services on-line to also allow customers to disconnect services on-line. There are companies like Comcast who are notorious for making it difficult to disconnect without going through a long spiel from a service rep.

The process of making it hard to disconnect started with AOL who was infamous in the day for making it extremely hard to drop their dial-up service. But many other ISPs have started win-back programs that make customers tell the company why they want to disconnect while also listening to a host of special offers trying to get the customer to stay.

While currently this is only proposed in California, we’ve often seen that ideas from California, New York and Illinois often make their way to many other states within a few years.