Responding to an FCC rulemaking notice that seeks comment on the collection of information that would enable the FCC better to assess the state of the U.S. broadband sector, wireless, wireline and cable broadband service providers urged the FCC overwhelmingly to refrain from expanding reporting requirements to include pricing, download and upload speeds, and other granular data that would prove too burdensome, costly, or impractical to collect. Adopted last spring, the rulemaking notice solicits public input on the collection of information about actual upstream and downstream speeds delivered by broadband ISPs as opposed to advertised or hypothetical maximum speeds. In addition to recently enacted rules that establish speed “tiers” and that require carriers to submit data on the basis of census tracts, the proposed rules would replace the FCC’s former system of classifying as broadband all services that deliver speeds in excess of 200 kilobits per second. Declaring that the new speed tier and census tract requirements “will be challenging enough for broadband providers,” the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) warned: “to add a requirement that the provider also report the retail price for each tier in each census tract, and for that price to somehow reflect discounts attributable to promotions and bundling, would be overwhelming.” Citing inevitable time lags between the reporting of data by carriers and the publication of that data by the FCC, NCTA added that, “time-lagged reports would be meaningless as soon as they are released.” Wireless association CTIA also cautioned against data collections based on actual broadband speed, as “mobile wireless broadband is particularly susceptible to factors that impact speed—many of which are outside carrier control.” Arguing that price data “is not relevant to broadband availability and deployment” and that the reporting of actual speeds “tells the Commission very little about actual network performance,” the Wireless Communications Association International said, “there is no public interest justification for imposing additional reporting burdens . . . that outweigh the value of the information reported.” As AT&T maintained that the FCC’s proposals represent “a disturbing departure from the Commission’s prior judicious approach to collecting data,” Time Warner Cable advised the FCC to “await and assess” the information it gathers through earlier rule revisions before enacting additional reporting requirements, as “doing otherwise would risk . . . burdening service providers without any offsetting benefits for consumers.