Overview
Title
Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to Office of Management and Budget
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The FCC wants people to tell them what they think about a plan to make it easier for small internet companies to share information with customers, so customers know what they are paying for. They want ideas before the end of March 2021.
Summary AI
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is seeking public feedback on a proposed information collection, as part of efforts to reduce paperwork burdens under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. They are particularly interested in how they can lessen the information collection burden for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. Public comments must be submitted by March 29, 2021, through the specified online platform. This collection primarily addresses transparency rules for internet service providers, ensuring consumers have the information needed to make informed decisions about internet services.
Abstract
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might "further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees." The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register, titled "Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to Office of Management and Budget," outlines efforts by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to gather public input on reducing paperwork burdens as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This initiative is particularly focused on easing the information collection obligations for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC seeks comments on whether the proposed collection of information is necessary, accurate, and how its burden might be minimized. Stakeholders are encouraged to submit their feedback by March 29, 2021, through a designated online platform.
General Summary
The FCC is proposing changes to the transparency rules for internet service providers (ISPs). The aim is to ensure that consumers have the necessary information to make informed decisions regarding their internet services. This initiative is part of a broader effort to reduce paperwork burdens and streamline the information collection process, especially for small businesses. These changes are rooted in past FCC directives, such as the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which affects how ISPs disclose network management practices and commercial terms.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One of the main concerns with this document is its vagueness regarding the specific information collections being extended. While it references the "Transparency Rule Disclosures" and the "Restoring Internet Freedom Order," it fails to provide detailed insights on what these entail. This could create confusion or leave stakeholders uncertain about the exact changes proposed.
Furthermore, the document uses technical language, particularly when discussing requirements like "congestion management" and "device attachment rules." This might not be easily comprehensible to individuals without a background in telecommunications.
Another issue is how past FCC orders are heavily referenced in the "needs and uses" section without clear context or explanation for readers who might not be familiar with these historical regulations. The estimates provided for the annual burden and response time are also presented without transparent methodology, making it difficult for stakeholders to understand how these figures were determined.
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, this document represents an opportunity to express opinions and potentially influence how internet service information is collected and presented. Clear and accessible data on internet services can empower consumers to make better decisions that meet their needs.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Small Businesses: The document attempts to focus on reducing the burden for smaller firms with under 25 employees. While the intention is positive, the document's technical nature might make it challenging for these businesses to fully engage or understand how the proposed changes will affect them.
Internet Service Providers: The proposed rules require ISPs to disclose certain operational practices and service characteristics. This transparency could lead to increased administrative responsibilities, but it also forces ISPs to maintain clear business practices that benefit consumers.
Telecommunications Industry: For industry professionals, the document outlines regulatory expectations that may influence how services are marketed and managed. Industry stakeholders have a vested interest in ensuring these regulations are both practical and reasonable.
Overall, while the FCC's effort to seek feedback is commendable, the document might benefit from clearer language and specific examples. Doing so could enhance public understanding and facilitate more meaningful feedback from a wider array of stakeholders.
Financial Assessment
The Federal Register document includes financial references primarily in the context of the estimated costs associated with the information collection requirements imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It indicates that the Total Annual Cost for the information collection is $510,000.
This financial reference is positioned within the context of an effort by the FCC to manage and regulate the disclosure requirements for internet service providers (ISPs) as described in the Restoring Internet Free Order. The figure appears to represent the projected expenditure by respondents to comply with the FCC's requirements. However, the document does not provide specific details on how this figure is calculated, nor does it break down the expenses into specific categories, such as labor, materials, or overhead costs. This lack of specificity is one of the issues identified in the document as it could limit transparency and clarity for those reviewing or affected by the regulations.
The cost of $510,000 annually, when considered alongside the total annual burden of 56,290 hours, suggests that this is a significant undertaking for those entities required to adhere to the FCC’s stipulations. Yet, without further elaboration, the rationale behind this cost estimate remains unclear. Stakeholders, especially small business owners who are not experts in telecommunications law or policy, might struggle to understand why these compliance efforts carry such a financial burden.
Moreover, the document mentions its endeavor to reduce information collection burdens, especially concerning smaller businesses with fewer than 25 employees. However, there is a striking absence of detail about how financial considerations, such as the cost burden, may be alleviated for these smaller entities. This gap could be a particularly pressing issue for small businesses, which might not have the resources to manage such compliance costs without facing significant financial strain.
In summary, the explicit reference to the Total Annual Cost lacks a comprehensive breakdown or detailed explanation, which is crucial for understanding the financial implications of the FCC's requirements on different stakeholders. Furthermore, the absence of a specific strategy to mitigate this financial burden for smaller entities complicates the accessibility and applicability of these regulations for them. This enhances the importance of seeking comments from the public and stakeholders for potentially revising and improving these financial and practical considerations.
Issues
• The document does not specify which specific information collections are being extended, other than general references to ‘Transparency Rule Disclosures’ and ‘Restoring Internet Freedom Order’. This could be seen as somewhat vague without further details.
• The language around ‘congestion management, application-specific behavior, device attachment rules, and security practices’ disclosures could be perceived as overly technical and may not be easily understood by individuals not familiar with the telecom industry.
• The ‘needs and uses’ section heavily references past FCC orders without clearly explaining how they relate to the current information collection request, which might confuse readers unfamiliar with FCC history and terminology.
• The section detailing estimated time per response and annual burden provides figures without a clear explanation of how these estimates were derived, potentially lacking transparency.
• The overall jargon-heavy language may not be entirely accessible to small business owners or other stakeholders who are not specialists in telecommunications law and policy.