Opinion |

By Mark Goldberg

| July 24, 2025

What started as a straightforward question—how best to measure and present broadband speeds to consumers—has spiralled into a regulatory exercise in search of a problem.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s ongoing push to mandate standardized broadband labels is a solution that’s not only unnecessary in the Canadian context, but one that has failed to deliver meaningful results elsewhere.

The CRTC’s own consumer research tells a clear story: Canadians already find the information provided by their internet service providers useful and easy to understand. Consumers report being able to compare options and make informed choices based on what’s available in the market. That should be the end of the story.

But it’s not.

Instead of recognizing that the system is working well, the CRTC doubled down on the idea of creating a standardized “nutrition label” for broadband services—mirroring an approach taken in the United States. The problem? There’s no evidence the U.S. model works. On the contrary, data cited by Cogeco in its submission to the CRTC shows that only two per cent of customers of its U.S.-based services even look at the broadband label. For a public policy tool that’s supposed to empower consumers, that figure should raise serious concerns.

In fact, the U.S. experience should be viewed as a cautionary tale. While standardized labels may seem appealing on paper, they haven’t improved consumer outcomes in practice. Other countries, like the United Kingdom and Australia, have opted not to mandate such labels. Rather than micromanaging how companies communicate service information, they’ve recognized that companies should have the flexibility to display product information provided it is accurate and not misleading.

The Canadian broadband landscape, while not perfect, is delivering results. Consumers are better informed than ever. Providers have every incentive to communicate clearly in a competitive marketplace where switching is relatively easy, and transparency is expected. Rather than enhancing transparency, a mandatory label risks becoming a costly distraction from the issues that matter most to consumers.

Complying with a prescriptive labelling mandate requires service providers to invest time, money, and ongoing IT system changes. These are finite resources that could be—and should be—spent on things that matter more to consumers: expanding rural coverage, boosting network speeds, and improved resiliency.

Instead, if the CRTC imposes a standard label requirement, we’re likely to see a label very few Canadians will read, developed through a lengthy regulatory process that has only a self-congratulatory press release issued by the CRTC to show for it. For the average consumer, the impact will be negligible. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost will be very real.

This isn’t to say the CRTC shouldn’t care about consumer transparency. It absolutely should. But it needs to pick its tools carefully. When the existing approach is working, when international evidence points to the failure of labelling mandates, and when the cost of action outweighs the benefit, regulators should resist the urge to do something for the sake of doing something.

Canada’s telecommunications future depends not just on investment and innovation, but also on smart, focused regulation. This is a moment for the CRTC to embrace pragmatism over performative policy. It should resist the temptation to fix that which isn’t broken—and acknowledge that sometimes doing nothing is the best option.

Mark Goldberg (@mark_goldberg) is a telecommunications consultant with 45 years of international experience working with service providers, equipment manufacturers, policy makers, and regulators. He was co-founder of The Canadian Telecom Summit. In naming him as one of Canada’s top 10 technology bloggers, itWorld Canada wrote: “No one does a better job of exploring, interpreting or criticizing telecommunications policy in Canada. Period.”

The Wire Report welcomes submissions of opinion pieces from outside contributors who are knowledgeable on the subject matter discussed.

For more information on what should be included with opinion piece submissions, click here: hilltimes.com/submit-an-article. Submissions can be sent to editor Hannah Daley at hdaley@thewirereport.ca. To see previous opinion piece submissions, click here: thewirereport.ca/tag/opinion/.