Good Outcomes Beat Good Intentions: How Dumb Are We?

Good intentions clearly are not enough when designing policies to improve home broadband availability in underserved areas. In fact, since 2021, more than three years after its passage, the U.S. Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program has yet to install a single new connection.  

It seems we were determined to make the perfect the enemy of the good, preventing construction until we mostly were certain our maps were accurate. A rival approach would have proceeded on the assumption that residents and service providers pretty much know where they have facilities and where they do not; where an upgrade can be conducted fast and easily, and where it cannot. 

And perhaps (despite the clear industry participant interests that always seem to influence our decisions) we should not have insisted on the “fastest speed” platforms. Maybe we’d have prioritized “good enough” connections that could be supplied really fast and enabled the outcomes we were looking for (getting the unconnected connected; getting the underserved facilities that do not impede their use of internet apps). 

This is not, to use the phrase, “rocket science.” We have known for many decades that “good enough” home broadband can be supplied fast, and affordably, if we use satellite (geostationary or low earth orbit, but particularly now LEO) or wireless to enable the connections. 

To those who say we need to supply fiber to the home, some of us might argue the evidence suggests relatively-lower speed (such as 100 Mbps downstream) connections supply all the measurable upside we seek, for homework, shopping, telework. The touted gigabit-per-second or multi-gigabit-per-second connections are fine, but there is very little evidence consumers can even use that much bandwidth. 

Study/Source	Key Findings
Distinguishing Bandwidth and Latency in Households' Willingness to Pay for Broadband Internet Speed (2017)	Consumers value increasing bandwidth from 10 to 25 Mbps at about $24 per month, but the additional value of increasing from 100 Mbps to 1 Gbps is only $19. This suggests diminishing returns for speeds beyond 100 Mbps.
Are you overpaying for internet speeds you don't need? (2025)	Research indicates that many Australians are overspending on high-speed internet connections they don't need. Most households can manage well with a 50 Mbps plan unless they engage in high-bandwidth tasks like 4K streaming or online gaming.
Simple broadband mistake costing 9.5 million households up to £113 extra a year (2024)	Millions of UK households are overpaying for broadband by purchasing higher speeds than necessary. Smaller households often need speeds up to 15 Mbps but pay for over 150 Mbps, wasting £113 annually.
ITIF (2023)	- US broadband speeds outpace everyday demands - Only 9.1% of households choose to adopt 250/25 Mbps speeds when available - Clear inflection point past 100 Mbps where consumers no longer see value in higher speeds
ITIF (2020)	- Average existing connections comfortably handle more than typical applications require - A household with 5 people streaming 4K video simultaneously only needs 2/3 of current average tested speed - Research shows reaching a critical threshold of basic broadband penetration is more important for economic growth than faster speeds
European Research (2020)	- Full fiber networks are not worth the costs - Partial, not full end-to-end fiber-based broadband coverage entails the largest net benefits
US Broadband Data Analysis	- Compared to normal-speed broadband, faster broadband did not generate greater positive effects on employment
OpenVault Q3 2024 Report	- Average US household uses 564 Mbps downstream and 31 Mbps upstream - Speeds around 500 Mbps sufficient for most families
FCC Guidelines	- 100-500 Mbps is enough for 1-2 people to run videoconferencing, streaming, and online gaming simultaneously - 500-1000 Mbps suitable for 3 or more people with high bandwidth needs

We might all agree that, where it is feasible, fiber to home makes the most long-term sense. But we might also agree that where we want useful home broadband speeds, right now, everywhere, with performance that enables remote work, homework, online shopping and all other internet apps, then any platform delivering 100 Mbps (more for multi-user households, but likely not more than 500 Mbps even in the most-challenging use cases) will do the job, right now. 

Good intentions really are not enough. Good outcomes are what we seek. And that often means designing programs that we can implement fast, at lower cost, with wider impact, immediately or nearly so. “Better” platforms that cost more and are not built are hardly better.

Telcos are Generally "Not Good" at Predicting Sources of New Product Revenue

The mobile and telecom industries have rarely been good at predicting the actual "new product" value of each next-generation mobile network. The switch to 2G, the first digital platform, was seen as increasing the efficiency of spectrum use; improving voice reliability; enhancing security and increasing capacity.

The use of Signaling System 7 also allowed sending of control data “out of band” (separately from the voice channel) to manage the network. Aside from security advantages, that also provided faster call set up and tear down. 

SS7 supports a wide range of then-advanced telecommunication services, such as call forwarding, caller ID, call waiting, and short message service (SMS or text messages). It is reasonable to say that telco executives primarily expected operating efficiencies from SS7, as well as the ability to embed voice handling features in the network. 

To be sure, some “new products and capabilities” were anticipated for 3G and 4G, ranging from mobile internet access in 3G to video entertainment and video conferencing (3G and 4G). But many more-exotic use cases failed to develop. In fact, many would attribute the one-time leadership of smartphones by BlackBerry devices and Research in Motion as an example of the role of email value. 

In fact, some might argue that mobile e-mail was a more salient outcome of 3G than “web access,” which remained painfully slow on 3G networks. Likewise, some might argue that “turn by turn” navigation apps were a clearer “new use case” for 4G, early on, than video conferencing or video entertainment. 

Later 4G development of ride sharing apps is an example of a new use case not envisioned by 4G architects. 

The point is that we are not very good at predicting what new use cases, revenue drivers and value users will see in each next-generation network, beyond an order of magnitude increase in bandwidth and a similar improvement in latency performance (which most users will not be able to identify). 

Likewise, virtually nobody predicted that fixed wireless would be the first “at scale” new revenue opportunity 5G enabled. 

Despite the fact that fixed wireless was hardly ever mentioned as among the new features and capabilities 5G would bring, it has, so far, proven to be the best example of a new use case that generates significant new revenue for mobile service providers selling it. Over the past few years fixed wireless has generated virtually all the net new home broadband connections in the U.S. market, for example. 

Some might point to consumer dissatisfaction with cable-provided home broadband as one reason for the growing adoption of fixed wireless, where the value proposition might well turn on lower prices rather than an increase in speeds, in some cases, while being based on higher speeds and lower prices in other cases. 

The former might be the driver in urban areas where fixed wireless provides lower prices; the latter the driver in rural areas, where fixed wireless might actually be faster than DSL but also less costly than cable. 

The point is that the value proposition in urban areas is “good enough” speed and lower price; while in rural areas the value proposition might be “faster speed, lower price.”

J.D. Power surveys actually suggest that fixed wireless consumer satisfaction are comparable to optical fiber and cable home broadband, and actually higher than satisfaction with fiber-to-home services. By definition, that means the value proposition for fixed wireless is based on price and speed, as FTTH always is much faster. 

2023 U.S. Residential Internet Service Provider Satisfaction Study	J.D. Power	Fixed wireless, especially 5G FWA, leads in customer satisfaction scores compared to fiber optic and cable. FWA outperforms fiberoptic by over 20 points on a 1,000-point satisfaction scale.	October 2022 - August 2023
2023 HSI Customer Satisfaction Survey	HighSpeedInternet.com	Fixed wireless customers gave the highest overall satisfaction ratings, particularly in pricing and customer service.	September 8, 2023
CableTV Survey	CableTV	Fixed wireless and fiber providers scored highest in overall satisfaction, with cable providers lagging, especially in price satisfaction.	2023
S&P Global Market Intelligence	S&P Global Market Intelligence	Fixed wireless is particularly popular and satisfying among rural customers, where it often represents the most reliable option.	2023

Price seems important. “T-Mobile’s current FWA (fixed wireless access) plan retails for $50/month, but that falls to $30/month for customers subscribing to its Magenta MAX mobile plan,” analysts at Ookla say. “Verizon prices at a slight premium to T-Mobile, with its FWA service currently retailing for $60/month, but falling to $35/month with select 5G mobile plans.”

Speed might be less important in urban areas, but perhaps more important in rural areas. The median download speed across the United States for all fixed providers combined in the third quarter of  2023 was 207.42 Mbps, Ookla says. The median speeds for Verizon and T-Mobile fixed wireless was 122 Mbps, Ookla notes. 

  

source: Ookla 

And though fixed wireless has traditionally been viewed as an attractive platform in rural areas, 5G home broadband gains are driven by consumers in urban markets. Both T-Mobile and Verizon are getting 80 percent of their gross additions in urban locations, Ookla says. 

Among the key takeaways from 5G home broadband is that the value proposition--as always--is a mix of drivers, including both speed and price. Consumers seem willing to accept less of the former to get more of the latter. 

If the success of 5G home broadband shows anything, it is that the consumer estimation of home broadband value can change when a new value proposition is available (faster speed and lower price).

According to Nerdwallet, the most-popular home broadband service plans in 2023 cost $41.31 per month for 104 Mbps in the downstream direction. According to OpenVault, in the first quarter of 2024 about 33 percent of U.S. home broadband customers purchased service plans operating between 200 Mbps and 400 Mbps. Some 11 percent purchased service plans operating between 100 Mbps and 200 Mbps. 

The download speed provided in this top-selling category was 104 Mbps.

Most Consumers Want "Good Enough" Home Broadband

Though regulators and advocates often focus mostly on availability (coverage) and quality (speed), consumers often prioritize value, preferring a “good enough for my needs” approach where recurring price might be more important than raw performance. 

And that might explain the demand for fixed wireless services in many markets, where FWA offers enough speed at lower prices than services provided by telco digital subscriber line, telco fiber-to-home or cable TV home broadband. 

In the U.S. market, FWA appears to have dented demand for cable services, in particular. 

source: Opensignal 

Though most consumers would likely have a hard time quantifying how much speed their households require, it remains true that beyond a fairly low level of access speed, users gain very little, in terms of performance (quality of experience) when shifting to services offering speeds faster than about 25 Mbps per user in the downstream.  

source: FCC 

To be sure, the percentage of U.S. customers buying gigabit or multi-gigabit services has steadily increased since 2021, while the percentage of customers buying service at speeds below 50 Mbps has dropped.

But it might be worth noting that about 25 percent of the home broadband market continues to buy services at the lower end (200 Mbps or less) of home broadband speeds sold by ISPs. That suggests the market opportunity for FWA is about a quarter of the market, so long as speeds top out around 200 Mbps. 

At the moment, FWA could address more than half the U.S. market if it were upgraded to offer speeds up to 400 Mbps. 

source: OpenVault 

We might well assume that buyers of gigabit-speed services are mostly driven by service “quality” as measured by downstream speed, upstream speed, unlimited data usage and network reliability. That might broadly account for up to 30 percent of the market. 

This segment includes gamers, streamers, professionals with high bandwidth needs and larger families. 

In contrast, perhaps up to 30 percent of customers seem to buy the most affordable option, including students, budget-conscious families, or those with limited online activity. By definition this segment is most price conscious, even if that means lower speeds. 

The broad middle of the market might represent up to 40 percent of customers who balance price and features. This segment prefers “good enough” speeds, sufficient data allowances, and reliable service, at a reasonable cost, somewhere between the most-expensive and most-affordable tiers of service. 

Service Tier	Percentage	Key Driver
Higher-Cost (High Speeds, Unlimited Data)	30 percent	Value-Driven
Median Cost (Balanced Speeds & Data)	40 percent	Balanced Value
Lower-Cost (Lower Speeds, Data Caps)	30 percent	Price-Driven

In many cases, FWA could appeal to both “balanced value” and “price-driven” segments of the market, in particular for single-person households or dual-person households with lower usage. 

U.S. Consumers Often Choose "Good Enough" Home Broadband

Though regulators and advocates often focus mostly on availability (coverage) and quality (speed), consumers often prioritize value, preferring a “good enough for my needs” approach where recurring price might be more important than raw performance. 

And that might explain the demand for fixed wireless services in many markets, where FWA offers enough speed at lower prices than services provided by telco digital subscriber line, telco fiber-to-home or cable TV home broadband. 

In the U.S. market, FWA appears to have dented demand for cable services, in particular. 

source: Opensignal 

Though most consumers would likely have a hard time quantifying how much speed their households require, it remains true that beyond a fairly low level of access speed, users gain very little, in terms of performance (quality of experience) when shifting to services offering speeds faster than about 25 Mbps per user in the downstream.  

source: FCC 

To be sure, the percentage of U.S. customers buying gigabit or multi-gigabit services has steadily increased since 2021, while the percentage of customers buying service at speeds below 50 Mbps has dropped.

But it might be worth noting that about 25 percent of the home broadband market continues to buy services at the lower end (200 Mbps or less) of home broadband speeds sold by ISPs. That suggests the market opportunity for FWA is about a quarter of the market, so long as speeds top out around 200 Mbps. 

At the moment, FWA could address more than half the U.S. market if it were upgraded to offer speeds up to 400 Mbps. 

source: OpenVault 

We might well assume that buyers of gigabit-speed services are mostly driven by service “quality” as measured by downstream speed, upstream speed, unlimited data usage and network reliability. That might broadly account for up to 30 percent of the market. 

This segment includes gamers, streamers, professionals with high bandwidth needs and larger families. 

In contrast, perhaps up to 30 percent of customers seem to buy the most affordable option, including students, budget-conscious families, or those with limited online activity. By definition this segment is most price conscious, even if that means lower speeds. 

The broad middle of the market might represent up to 40 percent of customers who balance price and features. This segment prefers “good enough” speeds, sufficient data allowances, and reliable service, at a reasonable cost, somewhere between the most-expensive and most-affordable tiers of service. 

Service Tier	Percentage	Key Driver
Higher-Cost (High Speeds, Unlimited Data)	30 percent	Value-Driven
Median Cost (Balanced Speeds & Data)	40 percent	Balanced Value
Lower-Cost (Lower Speeds, Data Caps)	30 percent	Price-Driven

In many cases, FWA could appeal to both “balanced value” and “price-driven” segments of the market, in particular for single-person households or dual-person households with lower usage. 

Is Fixed Wireless an "Inferior" Product or Not?

Cable TV suppliers of internet access continue to argue that fixed wireless is an “inferior” product whose market impact is temporary, while the hybrid fiber coax product offers performance advantages. 

Others might simply argue that fixed wireless is an attractive "value" oriented product that perhaps 20 percent of the present market is willing to buy--and does buy--services operating at 200 Mbps or less. In other words, there is significant demand for “inferior” products in the home broadband market. 

Over time, speeds will have to increase, in every category, including the “value” segment. But there is little reason to believe a significant portion of the market will stop preferring “value” connections, especially as speeds and prices continue to rise for all the other tiers of service. 

Source	Year	Percentage of Customers with Speeds of 200 Mbps or Lower
Openvault	2023	Up to 25%
FCC - Measuring Fixed Broadband - Twelfth Report	2023	15%
NTIA - 2020 Broadband Deployment Report	2020	43%
Leichtman Research Group - Q3 2023 Report	2023	32%
Pew Research Center - Broadband Adoption Report 2023	2023	28%

Fixed wireless access is “an inferior product with limited capacity and geographic coverage which is fluid, is often marketed by the phone companies at a perceived lower-priced to their existing customers, “ said Chris Winfrey, Charter Communications CEO. “ We continue to believe the impact from fixed wireless is temporary.”

Charter argues its hybrid fiber coax product is “faster and more reliable,” and can offer lower pricing when home broadband is purchased in a bundle with mobile or video services. 

Charter also believes the mobile operators will run out of sufficient capacity, eventually, and will have to limit the amount of capacity available to support fixed wireless. 

Of course, there also is competition on the high end. But Charter seems unconcerned about that. 

Overbuilders--generally using fiber-to-home platforms--”will not be able to take significant market share,” Charter also claims. “Overbuild impact tends to be limited to a few percentage points of Internet penetration during the first year of a new overbuild vintage coming online,” Winfrey argues. 

Others will question that assertion, particularly as the major telcos ramp up their fiber-to-home investments. Generally speaking, major telcos are able to get about 20 percent adoption initially, ramping up to about 40 percent share over several years.