Summary#

B26-0783, the Broadband Price Transparency Regulation Temporary Amendment Act of 2026, would temporarily amend Chapter 39 of Title 28 of the D.C. Code. Its goal is to treat certain broadband providers’ compliance with federal consumer-label rules as compliance with one specified D.C. price-information requirement. The Council passed the bill, but the supplied text says it still needs the required approval and congressional review to take effect.

• A broadband provider that meets the federal broadband consumer-label rules as they existed on January 1, 2026, would be deemed to meet D.C. Code § 28-3904(a)(12).
• The deeming rule is limited to that D.C. requirement; the bill does not say federal compliance meets every D.C. price-transparency rule.
• The temporary amendment would expire 225 days after it takes effect. It says it applies as of September 26, 2026, the effective date of the Enhancing Consumer Protection Procedures Amendment Act of 2026.
• The bill adds a table-of-contents entry for a section on cease-and-desist orders and summary suspension or closure, but the supplied text does not include operative language creating that section.

What it means for you#

• Broadband providers: If you provide broadband internet access and comply with the cited federal label rules, the bill would count that as compliance with D.C. Code § 28-3904(a)(12), for the temporary period. The parent law was not supplied, so the exact D.C. requirement being satisfied could not be verified.
• D.C. consumers: The bill does not set broadband prices, require a discount, or create a new consumer service. Its direct change is about when a provider is considered to have met one D.C. price-information requirement.
• Other businesses and residents: The bill does not directly change their duties or benefits.

Money#

No cost figure is available in the supplied material.

• The bill adopts the Budget Director’s fiscal impact statement, but that statement was not supplied.
• The bill does not state an appropriation, fee, fine, or staffing requirement.

What is unclear#

• The parent law was not supplied, so the current wording and effect of § 28-3904(a)(12) could not be checked.
• The bill uses the federal rules as they existed on January 1, 2026. It does not say whether later federal changes would affect the D.C. deeming rule.
• The bill says it applies starting September 26, 2026, while its own effective date depends on approval and congressional review. The supplied text does not explain how that timing would work if the bill takes effect later.
• The bill does not explain how compliance with the federal label rules would be checked or what process applies if there is a dispute.
• The supplied text lists a section on cease-and-desist orders and summary suspension or closure in the table of contents, but does not provide that section’s operative wording.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to avoid requiring broadband providers to meet two different price-information standards for the requirement it names.
• A possible argument for the bill is that using an existing federal label standard may make compliance clearer for providers that already follow it.
• The rule is limited in scope and time: it addresses one D.C. requirement and expires after 225 days.

Case against#

• One concern is that the bill may reduce the force of the named D.C. requirement for providers that meet the federal standard, but the supplied material does not show how the two standards compare.
• It is unclear whether the federal label rules provide the same information or protections as the D.C. requirement.
• The temporary rule could create uncertainty for providers and consumers about which standard applies, especially if federal rules change or the D.C. amendment takes effect after its stated application date.