Faster Broadband is Inevitable, How We Get it is Another Matter

Definitions always matter, and especially so when considering eligibility for government funds to support whatever business a firm happens to operate. Lots of people disagree that the U.S. federal government definition of “broadband” should remain at 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. And, over time, the definition will be changed. The only question is when, and to what minimum level. 

So some advocate a minimum broadband  definition of 100 Mbps/100 Mbps. Support for that definition includes some in the U.S. Senate. As always, there are trade offs and business implications. 

Capital investment requirements; efficient use of scarce capital; user behavior; willingness to pay; current and anticipated usage profiles all are important. Cable networks have an advantage in basically having upgraded virtually all U.S. plant to gigabit speeds downstream. Upstream improvements are much more difficult, costly and time-consuming.

How the upgrades can happen within the feasible limits of today’s business models, for all would-be suppliers, is key. Government subsidies are important at the margin, but most of the upgrade activity has to be undertaken by private suppliers.

And that means there must be a clear understanding of how the upgrades fit the business models. In that respect, the upstream definition will be more challenging than the downstream definition. 

Up to this point, the key element in the broadband definition has been downstream speed, as that remains arguably the most-important single numerical indicator of “quality.” But all observers agree that upstream speeds now are more important. And that is the rub. 

Telcos and independent internet service providers can rip out copper and replace it with optical fiber access at a faster pace, to be sure. But the business model is challenging. Were it not so, they’d already have done so. 

5G, fixed wireless and satellite networks also would be challenged to supply 100 Mbps upstream, though there is a path to incremental downstream upgrades that do not break the business model. 

For the majority of U.S. households and locations served by cable TV networks, the 100/100 standard would be troublesome only in the upstream direction, but still would require reworking of most of the physical plant. 

For telcos the challenge would be far greater, requiring a replacement of copper access facilities. For every fixed network operator save Verizon, the 100/100 definition would require ripping out and replacing a majority of physical plant.

Rural areas of low housing density would be especially troublesome. 

Though cable operators might have a more-graceful upgrade path, telcos generally must rip out the existing legacy network and replace it with entirely-new infrastructure to meet the 100 Mbps minimum upstream standard. 

Estimates vary, but a huge telco capital investment would be required to meet a 100/100 minimum. Customer demand is an issue, but less an issue over time, as most consumers now buy faster services than they used to, and often pay more money than they used to, for broadband service. 

The 100 Mbps downstream goal is more realistic. About 49 percent of U.S. residents buy fixed network service operating between 100 Mbps and 200 Mbps. 

Nearly 32 percent buy services running faster than 200 Mbps. 

But a significant percentage choose to buy services operating at lower speeds. Some 20 percent of all customers purchase services running no faster than 75 Mbps, according to Openvault data.  

We can argue that 80 percent of the market already buys service at speeds as high, or higher than, the proposed 100 Mbps minimum definition. But 20 percent of the market does not do so, possibly because they cannot buy anything else, but many also might choose not to buy service at 100 Mbps. 

source: Openvault

Setting a higher minimum definition will happen. But it matters what the definition entails. Virtually no platforms could meet the 100 Mbps upstream definition quickly. FTTH networks could do so, but only at a cost that stresses the current business model. 

And that matters. If 54 million U.S. homes are served by fiber to premises networks, and there are about 138 million total U.S. homes, then fully 61 percent of telco passings would have to be replaced to meet the 100/100 standard. 

One might argue that fixed wireless, 5G or some other network could meet the 100 Mbps downstream speed. But none of the other networks are engineered to support 100 Mbps in the upstream path. 

More than anything else, it is the impossibility of practical mass market networks hitting the 100 Mbps upstream speed that is the key problem. 

Impact of 25-Mbps "Broadband" Definition

Conspiracy thinkers might see a pattern in recent decisions by the Federal Communications Commission to manipulate statistics on U.S. Internet adoption, even if each single decision has a logic of its own.

Beyond some greater inability to track progress, and some obvious marketing and strategic issues for entire classes of providers, it might be difficult to determine the impact--beyond universal service funding implications.

That might be considered odd, since the presumed reason for changing the definition was to spur faster investment in higher-speed networks.

Consider the decision to define “broadband” as a minimum of 25 Mbps downstream, in January 2015. Since access speeds are increasing, seemingly at a faster pace, it makes sense to periodically review definitions, at least for the purpose of determining performance levels relevant for government universal service purposes.

Oddly, the announcement about the speed redefinition began with the statement that “broadband deployment in the United States--especially in rural areas--is failing to keep pace.” The irony is that the new definitions make the “problem” bigger.

“The 4 Mbps/1 Mbps standard set in 2010 is dated and inadequate for evaluating whether advanced broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a timely way,” the FCC said.

“Using this updated service benchmark, the 2015 report finds that 55 million Americans--17 percent of the population--lack access to advanced broadband,” the FCC said.

Cynics might point out that redefining an issue to increase the number of incidents will logically create a bigger defined problem. Those who argue a higher definition will cause faster investment might argue the new definitions almost immediately will mean recipients of universal service funds will have to build at a minimum 25 Mbps, not 4 Mbps, to receive funds.

The impact on the broader market is unclear, in terms of investment incentives. Many commercial providers, especially those in the fixed networks segment, having long passed the 4 Mbps standard, arguably will not be much affected, however, as the market level of competition comes from the Google Fiber gigabit challenge, not the “minimum” 25 Mbps definition.

So changing the definition likely has little impact on many major commercial providers, in terms of investment incentives. 

But there are some odd implications, with high sector impact. Some Internet service providers have been redefined out of existence. 

That includes most satellite and fixed wireless ISPs, plus many rural telcos. Selling a 15-Mbps access service no longer qualifies as “high speed” or “broadband.”

And some of those service providers cannot increase speeds to 25 Mbps, across the board, for reasons related to lack of spectrum. If speeds higher than 25 Mbps are the future, those contestants face long term issues related to ability to compete.

Some might see other important implications, as well. Even most Long Term Evolution networks do not consistently deliver 25 Mbps, though they easily meet the 4 Mbps definitions. So, by raising the definition of “broadband” to 25 Mbps, the entire U.S. mobile industry was eliminated from contention.

Again, the result is a suddenly “bigger” problem, even if few really believe the actual state of high speed access has gotten significantly worse over the last year.

Also, the new definition meant Comcast, had it acquired Time Warner Cable, would have had at least 57 percent market share of “broadband” connections in the United States. By historical standards, that was far beyond the 30-percent share maximum that has governed antitrust thinking in the communications and video entertainment businesses.

So some might see ulterior motives. Others might see an understandable logic, less sinister but still designed to create problems, not solve them.

Students of organizational “mission creep” or development will note that organizations never declare victory and disband, when the original problem they sought to fix has been vanquished. Instead, they search for new missions.

Cynics might argue something similar was at work: definitional changes that dramatically affected the status and scope of a defined problem, with a bigger implied need for action to solve the problem.

Others might note that the fuzziness about Internet access has grown for some time, though. Classically, “broadband” was defined as any speed at or above 1.5 Mbps. That definition now is archaic, but has been replaced by a subjective notion that “broadband is what we say it is,” in essence.

That is perhaps unavoidable in a market where speed improvements, since the earliest days of dial-up access, have been increasing nearly at the rate Moore’s Law would suggest.

There arguably is no "conspiracy." But real issues are created. Comparing performance or progress over time will be tougher, since the definitions have changed. 

Many ISPs no longer can say they sell high speed access or broadband. In many cases, there are physical limits to progress, such as lack of access to additional spectrum. What policy changes can, or should, flow from that situation are unclear.

FCC Adopts New 25-Mbps Definition for High Speed Access

The Federal Communications Commission has upped the definition of “broadband Internet access” to a minimum of 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream. In one sense, the revision makes sense: high speed access speeds are climbing about as fast as Moore’s Law would suggest.

The definitional change will be reflected in FCC and other policies to spur faster broadband deployment in rural areas. The last revision was made in 2010, when the FCC redefined broadband as 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream.

In other words, in five years, the FCC has boosted the definition of broadband by an order of magnitude. That, the agency says, reflects “advances in technology, market offerings by broadband providers and consumer demand.”

And yet the FCC also maintains that broadband deployment in the United States is failing to

keep pace with today’s advanced, high-quality voice, data, graphics and video offerings.”

Using the updated service benchmark, the FCC argues that 55 million Americans, representing 17 percent of the population, lack access to advanced broadband.

Some might say this is a “moving of the goalposts” scenario, however reasonable the change of definition might be. Oddly, 10 Mbps Ethernet access now does not qualify as “broadband,” either, which sort of complicates analysis.

Laudable though boosting the minimum targets and definitions, some might say a necessary consequence is that the government might keep claiming no progress is being made, because it keeps redefining the definitions to create the very “gap” the government then decries.

That is true even if one agrees that 25 Mbps is not a bad lower limit, in some respects, as speeds keep increasing. The new definitions will have to scale as the top bandwidths start to routinely be offered at 100 Mbps to 1 Gbps, some might argue.

The issue, though, is that there no longer is any fixed definition of speed, only relative definitions. Some might say it is nonsense to effectively redefine 10 Mbps Ethernet as narrowband.

The revisions also mean a longitudinal comparison of progress is complicated, since the definitions keep changing.

Also, using the new definition, a Comcast that had acquired Time Warner Cable would have perhaps 50 percent market share of high speed access connections in the United States, a number so high it would trigger antitrust concerns.

In 2012, for example, the FCC reported that 19 million U.S. residents, about six percent of the population, lacked broadband access.

The latest report, using the new definition, suggests that 55 million U.S. residents, or 17 percent of the population, lack broadband access.

But the 2012 report also indicated that 27  percent of U.S. residents already had access to networks providing 100 Mbps service.

In fact, the 2012 report indicated that 89 percent of U.S. residents could buy service at 10 Mbps. Some 64 percent of U.S. residents could buy service at 25 Mbps and 55 percent already could buy service at 50 Mbps.

The new definition suggests high speed access has gone backwards. It clearly has not, though we will not have the FCC’s own analysis of how much faster speeds have gotten, until the full report is released.

Broadband Definitions Always Change

Everyone expects that the working definition of broadband will continue to change over time. In the U.S. market, for example, the official national government definition is a minimum of 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream, with proposals to boost that minimum to 100 Mbps.

The real pushback has been against an immediate shift to symmetrical 100-Mbps speeds, which would imperil most ISPs in the upstream direction.

Of course, most people use internet access operating vastly faster than the current minimums. 

If 98 percent of U.S. homes can buy internet access at the defined minimum from a cabled terrestrial network, that still leaves two percent that cannot, of course. Satellite and fixed wireless services reach virtually al lthe rest of the locations with service at the required minimums.

Changing the definition of “broadband” will likely increase the percentage of homes unable to purchase “broadband.” And that might boost the percentage of U.S. customers unable to purchase broadband access to as much as 16 percent or so of locations. 

Of course, supply and demand are always changing. 

About half of U.S. internet access customers buy services running between 200 Mbps and 400 Mbps as of June 2022.  That is a shift. Until recently, about half of the customers purchased services running between 100 Mbps and 200 Mbps. 

Roughly 70 percent of fixed network broadband customers purchase service at speeds of 200 Mbps or higher. Customers who buy gigabit or faster service have reached 13 percent, while customers of services operating between 500 Mbps and 900 Mbps are six percent of total. 

source: Openvault 

The definition change largely will affect any ISPs who currently sell service that will not match the 100-Mbps definition, especially some satellite and telco ISPs who use copper access networks. Adjusting the definitions might mean some providers, at some locations, do not qualify for broadband subsidies. 

In the U.S. market, for all the complaints we hear, gigabit speeds now are available to more than 88 percent of all U.S. homes, according to the Federal Communications Commission. Even if one disagrees with that estimate, most consumers in the U.S. market actually buy services operating far faster than the minimum. 

Other estimates peg the percentage of homes with cable high-speed access at 90 percent. And reported uptake of gigabit speeds in rural areas is far higher than what most likely believe. 

Consider rural telco networks. “Respondents to this year’s survey report an average of 4,467 residential and 469 business fixed broadband connections in service,” NTCA says, with an  average of 7,581 serviceable locations. 

“On average, three-quarters (75 percent) of serviceable locations are served by fiber to the home (FTTH) in 2021; this is an increase of 5.1 percentage points from the prior year’s survey, the latest Broadband/Internet Availability report issued by NTCA says. 

The point is that “broadband” definitions have been changing for decades. 50 years ago, broadband was defined as any data rate of 1.5 Mbps or faster. 30 years ago the working definition had moved up to perhaps 10 Mbps. The current Federal Communications Commission definition is 25 Mbps. 

But very few customers buy services operating that slow.

Verizon Exec Says "We Don't Want to Upgrade" Charges are "Absurd"

Some policy advocates are taking shots at Verizon Communications for taking the position that a workable minimum definition of "broadband," for purposes of setting national broadband policy, is 768 kbps downstream and 200 kbps upstream.

"There seems to be some confusion around Verizon’s filing suggesting that the FCC keep a baseline definition for broadband as

768 kbps down and 200 kbps up," says David Young, Verizon VP. "The implication here is that we want to keep the speed set low so we won’t have to upgrade our networks."

"This is clearly absurd," he says. Indeed, in its filing Verizon itself suggests a goal of 50 Mbps for fixed broadband and 5 Mbps for mobile broadband.

But Verizon suggests that for reporting, tracking and measurement purposes, the FCC should maintain the current definition used in

the FCC broadband data reporting program (Form 477) for a basline, while continuing to track multiple higher “speed tiers” to get

a full view of what’s happening in the broadband marketplace.

This threshold definition also has the benefit of being the same one used by NTIA and RUS for the broadband stimulus program, Young argues.

There are lots of good reasons for being consistent about national data collection, the most obivious being that it is impossible to track progress over time if we keep changing the definitions. Many important changes that happen in national communications take 10 years or more, and it can make a huge difference if, along the way, the definitions of what we are tracking have changed frequently.

The other reason is that the definitions will cover networks of very type physical properties. Satellite, fixed wireless wireless, mobile and fixed networks all have different cost and capability profiles.

Beyond that, if what we are after is the fastest possible broadband availability, from the widest array of suppliers, with the most-robust growth in speeds and quality of service, at the lowest cost to consumers, the different speeds and investment profiles have to be harmonized.

Every communications engineer realizes there is a trade-off between capability and cost whenever a network is designed. Every engineer knows a network can be optimized--both in terms of performance and deployment cost--if a single application is supported. But multi-purpose networks inherently are tougher to design because there are more trade-offs.

Broadband networks generally are more expensive than narrowband networks, and networks featuring higher bandwidth generally cost more than networks of lower bandwidth.

If definitions are too stringent in the near term, it is possible some potential users, especially users in thinly-settled areas, will find that few, if any, providers can provide them service at any price those consumers would be willing to pay.

Finally, it would strike many as odd to accuse Verizon, which has been the most-aggressive tier one U.S. provider, of not being willing to invest heavily in broadband. Its FiOS fiber-to-home network is the most aggressive program in North America, and Verizon already is ready to start building a 4G wireless network even as it upgrades its 3G wireless network.

Floors are different from ceilings, and floors for some networks are ceilings for others. Customers, for example, cannot buy satellite broadband operating at more than 5 Mbps downstream, for any amount of money. And satellite is, by anybody's estimation, the absolute most affordable way to provide broadband to isolated locations. Fixed and mobile broadband are somewhat more expensive, but can support higher bandwidth.

In an isolated area, optical fiber or even digital subscriber line or cable modem service offers the most bandwidth, but at the highest cost. Cost and bandwidth, in other words, represent a standard engineering trade-off. The highest bandwidth also comes at the highest cost.

To the extent that retail prices are to be kept relatively low, the network investment must be matched to the anticipated revenue. It might, in some cases, be necessary to trade off some capability to keep costs low.

It would be a mistake to confuse that problem, and the other need to maintain comparable statistics to measure progress, with provider unwillingness to keep pace with growing market demands for broadband speed.

Providers that fail to keep pace will lose customer share. They know that. But unreasonable near-term definitions will not help potential customers get service, or even help existing customers get faster speeds, more quickly.

http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/661/title.aspx

Broadband "Over-supply" Problem

Cox Communications is doubling the download speed of its most popular residential Internet service (Preferred) in Northern Virginia and increasing the speed of its Premier service by thirty-three percent.

PowerBoost, which supplies temporary "burst" bandwidth for uploads, also has been added to the Preferred and Premier packages. PowerBoost for downloads has been available since 2007. This is the fifth consecutive year that Cox has enhanced the speed of its Internet services in northern Virginia (credit Verizon's FiOS service for that).

Verizon has boosted FiOS downstream speeds to 50 Mbps, with 20 Mbps upstream, for its top package, available everywhere FiOS is sold.

Cox customers will get the speed increases automatically in July, without need for a call or technician visit.

The PowerBoost feature means uses of the Preferred package will experience speeds up to 12.5 Mbps down/2.5 Mbps up. Premier customers can achieve 25 Mbps down/3.5 Mbps up.

Policy advocates often complain about the U.S. "broadband problem." Sometimes they mean it isn't available, isn't fast enough or costs too much. The evidence suggests availability isn't a problem. Whether a service is "fast enough" is a matter of interpretation, but I don't see evidence of anything but increasing speeds, often for the same cost. "Price" likewise is an issue.

With the exception of Japan and South Korea, though, cost per Mbps in the United States is quite comparable to nearly all other leading nations.

Complaining about broadband is a bit like similar observations we could easily have made about wireless penetration or use of text messaging, where U.S. users lagged way behind European users for quite some time. That "problem" doesn't exist anymore.

Neither will the "broadband" problem. Have there been issues with availability and speed? Yes. Are those problems in the process of resolution? Yes. Pointing to the existence of problems is fine. Ignoring clear evidence that problems rapidly are being fixed is either misinformed, intellectually dishonest or sloppy.

Some people like to say the definition of broadband is a problem, pointing to data collection that defines "broadband"--at minimum--as 200 kbps. That is wrong, also. The FCC recently changed its minimum definition to 768 kbps. A couple of points.

The only definition the global telecom industry ever has formally set was way back when ISDN was created. Broadband still formally is defined as any bit rate over "voice" rates of 64 kbps. So 128 kbps "traditionally" has been considered "broadband."

Market have moving definitions. But you can hardly fault the FCC for initially setting a minimum standard that is in fact above the recognized global nomenclature. In recent practice, industry executives might have considered broadband to be 1.544 Mbps or above, while anything between 64 kbps and 1.544 Mbps is "wideband."

All that is meaningless. It will be even more meaningless when cable operators start branding some broadband speeds as "wideband," to suggest it is more bandwidth than "broadband." Markets may like that. But it doesn't change the only formal definition the global engineering community ever has embraced.

Also, "minimum" is one thing. "Maximum" or "mean" are other things. Megabit access now is the norm. Targets will continue to shift higher over time. Call it the broadband version of grade inflation. The minimum "passing" grade might be a "D." That doesn't mean people expect that to be the norm.

The United States once had a major "broadband" availability problem. It no longer has. There are places where "access" by wire remains a problem. Most of those places have satellite alternatives, though. And many places have fixed wireless access as well.

Honestly, most potential users have one or two wired networks to choose from, two satellite providers and two or three mobile providers. Many consumers soon will be able to choose from as many as five mobile broadband providers.

Under-supply won't be an issue for most, much longer. Over-supply is the looming problem.

New Definition of "Broadband" Could Have Big Consequences

The Federal Communications Commission decision to redefine "broadband" might have consequences. Where the FCC had used a 4 Mbps definition, it now defines “broadband” as a minimum of 25 Mbps downstream.

With the new definition, about, 12 million U.S. households that previously qualified as having a broadband connection no longer have it.

All satellite broadband and most fixed wireless Internet service providers now sell “Internet access,” not “high speed” or “broadband” access. Many fixed network telcos likewise now do not sell “broadband.”

Paradoxically, 10 Mbps Ethernet no longer is “broadband,” either. The new definitions will mean a revising--downward--of U.S. “broadband” access connections.

Some think the new definition could derail the proposed Comcast bid to buy Time Warner Cable, as well.

Up to this point, Comcast has been careful to point out it would sell off three million video accounts, to keep total video accounts below the 30 percent market share level that the Federal Communications Commission historically has used as a limit for market share in linear video, mobility or fixed network communications.

The problem is is that some do not believe “video” is the key market where share is crucial.

With the new definition in place, Comcast’s share of broadband will  be 56.8 percent, up from 30.6 percent using the older definition.

That will be a problem.

Broadband Stimulus Won't Change Much, Firm Says

Some observers seem to have believed the "broadband stimulus" program, as helpful as it will be for some organizations and service providers, would somehow "fix" a "broadband" adoption problem in the rural and some other "underserved" areas of the country. It appears reality is setting in.

"The bottom line is that the stimulus money is going to change any of the access issues," says Robert Rosenberg, Insight Research Corp. president. "It is far to few dollars to make any impact."

But "access" is only part of the "problem." In fact, Insight Research says, there are four different kinds of households that must be considered when looking at broadband "adoption" and "availability," which are quite different issues.

There are households "unable to buy" broadband service, at least from a terrestrial provider (most analysts seem to forget that there are two national providers of satellite broadband). There are households that can buy broadband, but choose to buy dial-up service.

There are households that do not own computers and households that own computers but do not use the Internet.

"I don't want to over-play the 'I can't buy it' issue, says Rosenberge. "Yes there is some of that, but it is also the issue of 'no computers' or 'dial up is fine for me,'" he says.

Insight says 60 million U.S. homes buy broadband access service, while 12.6 million homes buy dial-up access, for a total of 72.6 milliion Internet access buyers.

Insight Research says that if one adds up the households without any broadband service at all, plus dial-up households, perhaps 58 million households, or 49 percent of all U.S. households, potentially are candidates for broadband service and have not yet bought it.

Insight Research estimates that at least 12 million rural and non-urban market households do not have access to any broadband service (terrestrial) due to the lack of supporting terrestrial infrastructure. Given a minimum cost of $1,500 per household, it is easy to see that the price tag for expanding broadband access to 12 million new households could exceed $18 billion.

By definition, the funding available under the broadband stimulus program is just a bit over $7 billion, and that includes funding for middle-mile projects, computing centers and other projects that do not directly add new broadband access capability. In fact, only a theoretical $6.4 billion actually is available for infrastructure.

Insight Research projects that non-governmental funding will provide the majority of the
growth in broadband penetration for the next five years.

With an estimated 40 million households still lacking broadband access by year-end 2014, the $6.4
billion in government funding would allow for an investment of $164 per household to provide broadband access to these non-broadband households.

The availability of such a small investment amount per household casts serious doubt that any significant expansion of broadband access will result from this government action, Insight Research says.

At the current estimate of $1,500 per household, at least $60 billion would be needed to deploy universal broadband access across the United States for 40 million households.

The broadband stimulus will not change much, it appears.

Why the Broadband "Problem" Cannot be Permanently "Solved"

 So long as we keep changing the definition of “broadband,” we are likely “never” to see “improvement” in the number or percentage of homes or people able to buy the product, no matter how much investment is made in facilities. 

When we change definitions of minimum speed, for example, we automatically increase the number or percentage of locations or people that cannot buy the product. Colloquially, that is known as “moving the goalposts.” Put another way, our understanding of “broadband” changes over time. 

The classic definition of broadband was that it was any service running at speeds of 1.5 Mbps. In the U.S. market the official definition of “broadband” is 25 Mbps. But most consumers buy service at speeds an order of magnitude higher than the minimum definition. Yesterday’s power user is today’s light user. 

source: Openvault

And though new platforms might help, a continuing evolution of our definitions to support an increase in minimum speeds will continue to be a challenge for any market or country with lots of rural or thinly-populated areas. In the United States, six percent of the land mass is where most of the people live. 

How we define the market also affects our analysis of the amount of competition in the consumer broadband market. The common observation in the U.S. market, for example, is that minimum service at 25 Mbps is unavailable to “millions” of people. 

Of course, that finding requires a big assumption, namely that all satellite and mobile services are excluded from the analysis. Two U.S. satellite suppliers sell broadband access across virtually the entire continental land mass, while mobile speeds already exceeded the minimum threshold in 2019 and early 2020. 

If any and all services supplying 25 Mbps or faster speeds are considered, it might be very difficult to find any U.S. locations unserved by at least two providers. 

The point is that definitions and assumptions matter. By continually increasing the speed used as the definition of “broadband,” we will almost arbitrarily keep moving the goal line on who has it, where it is available and how many competitors can sell it. 

Ignore for the moment consumer choice, which has shown that most consumers buy services in the middle of the range: not the most costly or least costly; not the fastest or slowest offerings. 

Because “typical, average or median speeds” will keep getting higher, so will our definitions be adjusted. But at a time when satellite and mobile minimum and average speeds often already exceed the minimum definitions, and where most fixed network consumers buy services an order of magnitude above the “minimum” threshold, it is hard to “close the digital divide.”

There likely will always be some statistical gaps. Where there is a serious “problem” actually is--or will be--more debatable.

Most of the Time, Wideband--Not Broadband--Satisfies Consumer Needs

Internet access matters. Wideband internet access also matters. But “broadband” sometimes does--and sometimes does not--really matter to end users. The easiest example is mobile internet access, which often runs at far less than the 25 Mbps U.S. minimum to be called “broadband.”

One rarely hears anybody complain about their mobile internet access preventing them from actually doing something. Sure, there are dead spots. But wideband mobile internet access is sufficient for consumer smartphone use cases.

Think about the ways people use their smartphones. Do most users of 4G networks in the United States routinely get 25 Mbps downstream speeds? No. Does that prevent them from using all the apps they want, with satisfactory experience? In nearly all cases, yes.

For most users, access speed no longer is an issue preventing them from using the apps they want.

That might be less true for fixed connections supporting multiple users, to be sure. And many U.S. connections actually purchased by consumers are wideband, not broadband.

By definition, U.S. satellite internet, many fixed wireless offers and mobile connections are “not broadband.”

But 10 Mbps to 20 Mbps for mobile users seems to work just fine for consumers. And while more speed arguably is needed for any multi-user household, the actual end user experience often hinges on how many users or devices are using the shared connection at any single point in time. Obviously, the types of apps make a difference as well.

People often confuse internet access “availability” with “buying choices.” And there is a lot of nuance to be sorted through.

One hears it said that some number of people do not have access to broadband, using the 25 Mbps definition. Fair enough.

Since the U.S. Federal Communications Commission defines broadband as a “minimum of 25 Mbps downstream, some 24 million U.S. residents (though not that many locations) do not have the ability to buy “broadband” internet access.

That is not the same as claiming those consumers and citizens do not have access to internet access. They do. But it now is defined as wideband (less than 25 Mbps), not broadband.

Over time, as we keep redefining the minimum for “broadband,” some of those consumers will still be disadvantaged, compared to urban dwellers. Still, you get the point. When, in the future, broadband is defined as 50 Mbps, and then 100 Mbps, some of those people might still not be able to buy broadband internet access.

Will it matter? Will wideband be enough? For most people, probably. At some point, for any single user, additional speed does not actually improve experience. For most people, the minimum practical standard is enough bandwidth to watch Netflix. And that only requires wideband speeds.

"Speeds and Feeds" for Home Broadband: It's the PC Story

Though definitions of “broadband” matter for regulators, advocates and suppliers, in most cases “broadband capability” matters quite little for most users of internet access services. Internet access matters quite a lot, in comparison. 

The analogy perhaps is what happened with personal computers. Suppliers used to compete on clock speed and other performance metrics. Then we got to a point where performance across a broad range was "good enough" that it stopped making as much sense to keep touting performance. 

We are getting to that point with home broadband services. 

Use of a Chromebook, for example, absolutely requires internet access. But whether use of a Chromebook requires “broadband,” defined as 100 Mbps downstream, 20 Mbps upstream” is highly questionable, if true at all. 

I’ve used a Chromebook on a symmetrical gigabit-per-second connection and on Wi-Fi connections of varying quality but with downstream speeds not exceeding 100 Mbps and upstream in the mid-single digits. 

Was the user experience on Wi-Fi as good as on my symmetrical gigabit connection? No. But was it a major issue? Also, no. Keep in mind, I do no gaming, do not upload or download large files routinely, have no other users on my connection and might watch 4K but never 8K video. 

Though we often use the terms interchangeably, “internet access” is not the same as “broadband.” 

Internet access is the ability to connect to the internet, regardless of the speed or platform used. 

"Broadband" is a moving target describing internet access at defined minimum speeds. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission defines “broadband” as 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload. 

So, strictly speaking, many access services do not operate at “broadband” speeds, as the definition requires. That does not mean the access is deficient, simply that it might not meet the minimums. Wi-fi access on airplanes or in public locations are typical examples where internet access is available, but not at “broadband” speeds in both directions.

In fact, even cable modem services I have used can fail to meet the definition, even when offering gigabit-per-second downstream speeds, as upstream speeds did not hit 20 Mbps. 

For most of us, the issue is whether such failures matter. Often, they do not matter much, if at all. People can do all the things they want to on many connections that fail to meet the broadband definitions. `

As a practical matter, past a certain point, “broadband” matters relatively little in terms of user experience. 

Verizon Fixed Wireless Keeps Growing Subscriber Base: What That Suggests About Demand

Most of us "dumb end users" of home broadband have probably realized the value-price proposition for broadband outweighs the "raw bandwidth" claims we are urged by internet service suppliers to consider. The success of relatively bandwidth-constrained fixed wireless is a case in point.

In a market where headline speeds are pushing past 2 Gbps and up to 5 Gbps, it might be easy to dismiss claims that far-lower speeds are adequate for many households and use scenarios. In fact, for most end users, the number of users in a household, and the number of their devices, have more to do with suitability than the actual applications those people engage with on a routine basis.

Verizon, for example, reported fixed wireless net additions of 278,000 in the second quarter of 2025, growing the base to over 5.1 million fixed wireless access subscribers. Keep in mind that those connections tend not to operate faster than about 300 Mbps in most areas where Verizon has not activated its millimeter wave spectrum assets.

Though nobody outside of Verizon actually knows, it is possible that 30 percent to 50 percent of those fixed wireless connections operate at less than 100 Mbps delivered bandwidth. It is possible that 30 percent to 40 percent of accounts can use bandwidth up to about 300 Mbps.

And possibly 10 percent to 20 percent of customers have access to speeds faster than 300 Mbps.

The point is that a growing number of households find those speed ranges to be adequate for their needs and budgets.

The company says it is positioned to achieve the next milestone of eight million to nine million fixed wireless access subscribers by 2028.

Though definitions of “broadband” matter for regulators, advocates and suppliers, in most cases “broadband capability” matters quite little for most users of internet access services. Internet access matters quite a lot, in comparison. 

Use of a Chromebook, for example, absolutely requires internet access. But whether use of a Chromebook requires “broadband,” defined as 100 Mbps downstream, 20 Mbps upstream” is highly questionable, if true at all. 

I’ve used a Chromebook on a symmetrical gigabit-per-second connection and on Wi-Fi connections of varying quality but with downstream speeds not exceeding 100 Mbps and upstream in the mid-single digits. 

Was the user experience on Wi-Fi as good as on my symmetrical gigabit connection? No. But was it a major issue? Also, no. Keep in mind, I do no gaming, do not upload or download large files routinely, have no other users on my connection and might watch 4K but never 8K video. 

Though we often use the terms interchangeably, “internet access” is not the same as “broadband.” 

Internet access is the ability to connect to the internet, regardless of the speed or platform used. 

"Broadband" is a moving target describing internet access at defined minimum speeds. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission defines “broadband” as 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload. 

So, strictly speaking, many access services do not operate at “broadband” speeds, as the definition requires. That does not mean the access is deficient, simply that it might not meet the minimums. Wi-fi access on airplanes or in public locations are typical examples where internet access is available, but not at “broadband” speeds in both directions.

In fact, even cable modem services I have used can fail to meet the definition, even when offering gigabit-per-second downstream speeds, as upstream speeds did not hit 20 Mbps. 

For most of us, the issue is whether such failures matter. Often, they do not matter much, if at all. People can do all the things they want to on many connections that fail to meet the broadband definitions. `

As a practical matter, past a certain point, “broadband” matters relatively little in terms of user experience.