Forgive me if I cannot get too exercised about the existence and usefulness of Federal Communications Commission broadband nutrition labels, one way or the other, as there is an argument to be made that they neither help nor hinder consumers very much.
The reason is drop-dead simple: consumers aren’t dumb. They routinely use “lowest price” searches, so any supplier that bundles the add-ons risks being beaten by another provider that doesn’t do so. One might argue that so long as every supplier has to play by the same rules, there is no advantage to be gained or lost.
But there is a supplier cost: time and money spent “explaining” all the component costs to every customer, on every interaction involving a potential purchase.
In competitive markets, the widespread use of comparison apps and "find lowest price" features naturally pushes providers to list the lowest possible base price and separate out other costs (taxes, fees, equipment rentals).
In a market where products or services are perceived as largely similar (like basic internet speed or a standard movie subscription), price becomes the primary differentiator. Providers, seeing their competitors list a low base price, are compelled to match or beat it to remain visible in the comparison results, leading to a competitive "race to the bottom" on the headline figure.
By segmenting the price into a low "base" and later "fees," providers make their initial offering appear more transparent or competitive than a competitor who lists a higher, all-inclusive price. The competitor with the truly all-inclusive price is penalized by being ranked lower in the comparison search results.
The “nutrition label” is supposed to help, in that regard, but one suspects few consumers are surprised by the fact that the advertised base price is not the total “all in” cost.
