User experiences of broadband availability and speeds and industry metrics differ wildly, even for services in the same square mile. How is this still the case? Accurate physical maps at the street level remain contentious. Self-reported, voluntary data from providers is taken by the FCC at face value, despite actual experiences proving the contrary. Consumers often see maps that claim coverage of their area, while the reality is that one home in an entire census block has connectivity. FCC data is released infrequently, based on questionable methods and has been shown to be false and favorable towards carriers, who receive enormous amounts of subsidies to build out infrastructure but are rarely audited. Resilient infrastructure is important in a crisis or natural disaster in which communications needs to be available, quickly re-routed and repaired. The recent disaster in Puerto Rico was eye opening to responders who were unable to find accurate telecom maps. What can be done? We propose the creation of an Internet Nutrition Label combining qualitative and quantitative metrics, overseen by an independent, watchdog organization like an NTSB (for airline disasters). One example label field is privacy. Personal data collection is ubiquitous by broadband providers, which sell the information to data brokers. Were an ISP to offer consumers an obvious and free "Opt Out" of data collection, stop throttling certain browsers and resist cooperation with government surveillance programs via data capture on the backbone, their score would be higher. Another field is bandwidth caps. No tangible metrics have proven a negative impact to carrier systems or infrastructure from lifting the caps. The label sheds light on questionable FCC and FTC practices and educate consumers about their limited choices, with an ideal outcome of enacting large scale change by public pressure.