Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act International Broadband Data Report ) ) ) ) ) ) IB Docket No. 10-171 GN Docket 11-121 THIRD REPORT Adopted: August 13, 2012 Released: August 21, 2012 By the Chief, International Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is the Commission’s third annual International Broadband Data Report (IBDR or Report). The IBDR is required by the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA) and provides comparative international information on broadband services.1 Through the presentation of this data, we have the opportunity to evaluate the United States’ rates of broadband adoption, speeds, and prices in comparison to the international community. International data can serve as useful benchmarks for progress in fixed and mobile broadband accessibility. 2. In the past year, both fixed and mobile broadband providers have made significant progress in their efforts to expand broadband networks and improve service quality. As noted in the Eighth 706 Report released today, the market is responding to the needs of Americans for increased broadband capabilities.2 In 2011, U.S. investment in wired and wireless network infrastructure rose 24%.3 Some recent trends show that providers are offering higher speeds, more data under their usage limits, and more advanced technology in both fixed and mobile broadband. For example, cable operators have increased their deployment of DOCSIS 3.0-based data networks, which are capable of providing 100 megabits per second or faster (Mbps) speeds. In the last three years, the percentage of households passed by DOCSIS 3.0 broadband infrastructure has risen from 20% to 82%.4 Advances in broadband technology and initiatives to promote greater deployment and adoption of broadband services have led to broadband- enabled innovation in other fields such as health care, education, and energy efficiency. Consumers all over the world are using applications and services created by U.S. companies, including social networks, search engines, and e-commerce. Although the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) has not updated its cable modem coverage data since 2008, it ranked the United States first 1 See 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). In this report we use the term “broadband” synonymously with “advanced telecommunications capability.” See generally Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 11-121, Eighth Broadband Progress Report, FCC 12-90 (2012) (Eighth 706 Report). 2 Eighth 706 Report, at ¶ 6. 3 TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, TIA’S 2012 ICT MARKET REVIEW AND FORECAST 1-3 (2012). 4 NCTA, Industry Data, http://www.ncta.com/Statistics.aspx. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 2 out of 28 countries in cable modem coverage, and we have no reason to think that this ranking has changed.5 3. Wireless providers are deploying new, faster, and more spectrally-efficient technologies for mobile broadband, known as 4G LTE.6 American consumers have been quick to adopt 4G LTE technology, securing the United States’ position as the world leader in LTE adoption. In the 15thAnnual Mobile Wireless Competition Report, the Commission observed that there were no commercial LTE launches in the United States as of August 2010.7 By the end of 2011 though, U.S. LTE subscribers numbered 5.6 million, accounting for 64% of the roughly 9 million LTE subscribers worldwide.8 Deloitte predicts that U.S. investment in 4G networks during 2012-2016 could be $25-$53 billion.9 Aggressive LTE network build-out by U.S. providers has been a driving force in customer take-up and we anticipate that this trend will continue. Analysts anticipate that globally, LTE subscribership will reach at least 400 million by 2016. IBDRs. 10 We will continue to follow global LTE trends for future 4. With this progress, the United States has regained its role as a global leader in and around mobile broadband. More than 80% of smartphones sold globally run on U.S. operating systems, up from less than 25% three years ago.11 As the first adopters of 4G LTE, the U.S. is the global test bed for wireless technology and services. In 2011, venture investment in Internet start-ups reached its highest 5 OECD Broadband statistics, Table 3e, Availability of cable modem services (up to 2008), available at http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadbandandtelecom/44435586.xls. To compile this ranking, the data that the OECD uses for the United States is current as of the end of 2007. For other countries, the data is current as of as early as 2003 (Korea) and as late as 2008 (United Kingdom). 6 See, e.g. , Press Release, Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Network Will Be Available to More then 2/3 of U.S. Population Starting April 19, Verizon Wireless (Apr. 17, 2012), http://news.verizonwireless.com/news/2012/04/pr2012-04- 16c.html. 7 Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 10-133, Fifteenth Report, 26 FCC Rcd 9664, 9706, n. 115 (2011), available at .http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-103A1.pdf. 8 US Remains at Forefront of LTE Service Adoption, TeleGeography (Mar. 15, 2012), available at http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/03/15/us-remains-at-forefront-of-lte-service- adoption/ (finding that the United States leads the world in 4G adoption). 9 Deloitte, The impact of 4G technology on commercial intera ction, economic growth, and U.S. competitiveness (Aug. 2011), available at http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom- UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/TMT_us_tmt/us_tmt_impactof4g_081911.pdf (noting that analysts predict investment in 4G wireless networks could amount to between $25 and $53 billion over the next four years, creating as much as $150 billion in GDP growth and up to 770,000 new jobs). 10 Wireless Subscribers by Region, Telegeography Research, available at http://www.telegeography.com/products/globalcomms/world-and-regional-totals/wireless-subscribers-by- region/index.html (predicting 400 million LTE subscribers worldwide by 2016); Global 4G LTE Usage Expected to Skyrocket, PC Magazine (July 25, 2012), available at http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407612,00.asp (noting that Parks Associates predicts 560 million LTE subscribers worldwide by 2016); LTE Connections To Hit 90 Million By Year’s End, 1 Billion By 2017, Techcrunch (May 17, 2012), available at http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/17/report-lte-connections-to-hit-90-million-by-years-end-1-billion-by-2017/. 11 Android, Apple Own 80% of Global Smartphone Market: Microsoft’s Share, 2.2% , PC World (May 24, 2012), available at http://www.pcworld.com/article/256155/android_apple_own_80_of_global_smartphone_market_microsofts_share_ 22.html. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 3 levels since 2001.12 The apps economy, a $20 billion industry that barely existed five years ago, has created nearly 500,000 jobs.13 5. The Commission has also adopted a number of major initiatives in the last year to help increase adoption rates by bringing down major barriers to adoption and utilization – access and affordability. Last year, the Commission released the USF/ICC Transformation Order , which establishes the Connect America Fund and transforms the existing high-cost universal service program in order to speed delivery of broadband to all Americans.14 For the millions of Americans who do not have access to fixed broadband, implementation of this Order will mean access to the benefits of broadband, such as long-distance learning options, health information technology, and economic opportunities. For other Americans, access to broadband is limited by affordability, a lack of digital literacy, and a perception about the Internet’s usefulness to them.15 Earlier this year, the Commission also released a modernized Lifeline Order, adopting reforms to the Lifeline program, including the Broadband Pilot Program, which uses $25 million to increase broadband adoption among low-income Americans.16 Connect2Compete , which was developed with the cooperation of the private industry last year, also aims to connect low- income families to low-cost computers, digital literacy training, and low-cost Internet service by targeting students eligible for free school lunch.17 6. The roll-out of DOCSIS 3.0 and LTE, the Commission’s recent reforms targeting broadband availability and adoption, and other developments noted above should have a significant impact on overall broadband speeds and penetration over time, but many of these developments are just beginning to have an impact. For example, the Commission is just beginning the process of awarding Connect 12 Press Release, Venture Capital Investments Experience Double-Digit Increases in Dollars and Deal Volume in Q2 2012 , PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the National Venture Capital Association (July 20, 2012) available at http://www.pwc.com/us/en/press-releases/2012/2012-q2-moneytree.jhtml. 13 Mandel, Dr. Michael, Where the Jobs Are: The App Economy, TechNet (Feb. 7, 2012), available at http://www.technet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/TechNet-App-Economy-Jobs-Study.pdf. 14 Connect America Fund; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future; Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers; High -Cost Universal Service Supp ort; Developing an Unified In tercarrier Compensation Regime; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Servi ce; Lifeline and Link-Up; Universal Service Reform— Mobility Fund , WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, 03-109, GN Docket No. 09-51, CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96- 45, WT Docket No. 10-208, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663 (2011) ( USF/ICC Transformation Order), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11- 161A1_Rcd.pdf, pets. for review pending sub nom. In re FCC 11-161 , No. 11-9900 (10th Cir. filed Dec. 8, 2011); Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd 17633 (2011); Second Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 4648 (2012); Third Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 5622 (2012). 15 ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION & NTIA, EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: COMPUTER AND INTERNET USE AT HOME at vi, 37 (2011) (DIGITAL NATION NOV. 2011), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_computer_and_internet_use_at_home_ 11092011.pdf.; see also Horrigan, Broadband Adoption and Use in America at 5; KATHRYN ZICKUHR & AARON SMITH, PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES 7 (showing that 10 percent of non-Internet users do not use the Internet because it is too expensive), 8 (finding that 35 percent of dial-up users will not switch to broadband until the price falls) (2012) (PEW INTERNET, DIGITAL DIFFERENCES), available at http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Digital_differences_041312.pdf. 16 Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Lifelin e and Link Up; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Advancing Broadband Availability Through Digital Literacy Training , WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 03-109, 12- 23, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 12-11 (rel. Feb. 6, 2012) ( Lifeline Order ). 17 See Press Release, FCC and “Connect to Compete” Broadband Fact Sheet (Nov. 9, 2011), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0510/DOC-310924A1.pdf. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 4 America funds to promote broadband deployment as this Report is being released. The data in this IBDR generally dates from several months ago, so early effects of these developments may not yet appear here. 7. As these reforms are implemented, however, and as providers continue their roll out of next generation services, the data in this report provides a benchmark for the Commission and industry to measure improvements in adoption, cost, and quality of service. Based on OECD data, the United States ranks seventh (compared to ninth at the time of the previous report) for wireless (mobile) broadband penetration on a per capita basis,18 and ranks 15th (similar to Japan, Finland, and Canada) for wired (e.g. , DSL or cable) broadband penetration on a per capita basis.19 U.S. wired broadband adoption continues to lag behind such countries as South Korea, the United Kingdom, and Germany, but exceeds adoption rates in Israel, Australia, and the EU average.20 8. As with past reports, the 38 countries we selected for comparison present a diverse profile of countries with developed broadband markets, including all 34 OECD countries. Our selection exceeds the requirement of the BDIA that we review broadband data for 75 communities in 25 countries.21 With respect to speeds, our review of data on average actual download speeds reported by a sample of consumers from 38 countries (including the United States and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China), finds that the United States ranks 24th in average actual speeds purchased and experienced by consumers. The United States ranks 17th when based on a stratified sampling technique using weighted average actual download speed.22 We also present data comparing the speeds in select cities around the world. 9. As a result of efforts to improve data collection, this third Report also, for the first time, takes a close look at the broadband prices for both fixed and mobile service plans around the world, including detailed price information for mobile broadband plans, broken down by technology (e.g ., smartphones, stick modems, and tablets). We find U.S. prices for standalone fixed broadband are in the mid-level range in our 38 country survey, but are higher in higher speed tiers. We find that the prices per GB of data for fixed broadband plans with usage limits and for smartphone data plans with usage limits are on the lower end of the countries we surveyed. Within the United States, the price per Mbps declined from 2010 to 2011. 10. We also present in this Report updated demographic data for 37 countries on a sub-national basis, including the latest figures for such indicators as broadband adoption and income, population size, and population density.23 Using this sub-national data, we are able to draw comparisons across both 18 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d(2) (June 2011) (accessed March 5, 2012), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/35/39574709.xls. 19 OECD Broadband Portal, Figure 1d(1) (June 2011) (accessed March 5, 2012), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/35/39574709.xls. 20 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed March 5, 2012), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/59/39574039.xls. Note that the OECD considers broadband to mean transmission speeds of at least 256 kbps in one direction (see Indicators of Broadband Coverage, OECD Working Party on Communication Infrastructures and Services Policy at 8 (Dec. 10, 2009), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/39/44381795.pdf), which is considerably slower than the Commission’s broadband definition. See ¶ 21 infra, for discussion of the Commission’s broadband definition. 21 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1). For Appendix D (demographic data) we have data at the sub-national level (equivalent to states or larger) for 37 countries. See Appendix D. In Appendix F, we examine broadband speeds in three cities (including capitals) in 38 countries. See Appendix F. Together, this represents well over 75 communities in 25 countries. 22 For a more detailed discussion of stratified sampling, see n. 84, infra. 23 We did not have demographic data for Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore, and Switzerland. See Appendix A. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 5 international and domestic cities and states, and often the intra-United States variation is greater than the inter-country differences. In particular, differences in population density, dispersion, and income may create significant variations. The lower population density and size of the United States present unique challenges. 11. As we indicated in the previous reports, available data sources on international broadband are incomplete and generally challenging to compare because of significant gaps and variations in data collection methodologies across countries, limiting the conclusions we can draw from the data. However, this Report provides an update on steps the Commission is taking to obtain better, more globally standardized broadband data in order to help the Commission better meet its statutory responsibilities. In the future, we hope to build further on the OECD’s data collection efforts. In the meantime, the information presented today should inform industry and Commission efforts to drive improvements in adoption, cost, and quality of broadband. II. BACKGROUND A. Requirements of the BDIA 12. The Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA) requires the Commission to include in its annual broadband progress report “information comparing the extent of broadband service capability (including data transmission speeds and price for broadband service capability) in a total of 75 communities in at least 25 countries abroad for each of the data rate benchmarks for broadband service utilized by the Commission to reflect different speed tiers.”24 The BDIA directs the Commission to assess broadband capability in international communities comparable to U.S. communities with resp population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile. ect to 25 The Commission is also directed to include “a geographically diverse selection of countries” and “communities including the capital cities of such countries.”26 The Commission must “identify relevant similarities and differences in each community, including their market structures, the number of competitors, the number of facilities- based providers, the types of technologies deployed by such providers, the applications and services those technologies enable, the regulatory model under which broadband service capability is provided, the types of applications and services used, business and residential use of such services, and other media available to consumers.”27 B. Data Presented in the 2011 IBDR 13. The International Bureau published its second report under the BDIA last year. In that report we presented a wide range of broadband data gathered from public sources.28 Commission staff compiled advertised broadband prices from the websites of broadband providers in 38 countries (including the United States).29 For 35 countries, staff also gathered community-level broadband adoption, demographic, income, and education data from OECD collections, the European Commission’s regional 24 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1). 25 Id. § 1303(b)(2). 26 Id. 27 Id. § 1303(b)(3). 28 International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act International Broadband Data Report, IB Docket No. 10-171, Second Report, 26 FCC Rcd 7378, Appendices B-G (2011) (2011 IBDR). 29 2011 IBDR , 26 FCC Rcd 7378, Appendices C and D. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 6 database,30 and from national government agencies.31 We presented econometric analyses of how population size, population density, income, and education affect broadband adoption at a sub-national or “community” level.32 Our analysis suggested a correlation between broadband adoption and (1) communities with larger populations, (2) communities with higher population density, and (3) communities with higher income. The same model, however, did not detect a statistically significant relationship between education and broadband adoption.33 Staff also compiled information about broadband policies and the extent of competition in the broadband market in 40 countries (including Hong Kong).34 In an effort to give some sense of the actual speeds foreign consumers experience, for the 2011 IBDR we surveyed the average actual download speeds determined by Ookla (proprietor of speedtest.net)35 in 15 foreign capital cities, and compared those speeds to Ookla-determined speeds in 15 U.S. cities with comparable populations. We found that some large European and Asian cities exhibit a significant edge over comparable U.S. cities in reported download speeds, but also that reported speeds for some other international cities are roughly comparable to speeds in many U.S. cities. C. Efforts To Improve Data Collection 14. Soon after the release of the 2011 IBDR , the Commission sought comment in the Eighth Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry on, among other things, how to improve upon the 2011 IBDR’s data and analysis.36 The Commission also sought comment generally on preparation of the next IBDR and how best to include the international comparison in the Eighth Broadband Progress Report. None of the filed comments specifically addressed these questions, though several possible improvements for the IBDR were suggested in ex parte comments, such as determining differences in broadband consumption (e.g ., by a megabits/month metric) and ascertaining the gap between advertised and actual broadband speeds across countries.37 In its comments, the United States Telecom Association (USTelecom) cited 30 Eurostat is the Statistical Office of the European Communities, located in Luxembourg. Its task is to provide the European Union with statistics that enable comparisons between countries and regions. See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/introduction. 31 See 2011 IBDR , Appendix D. Due to differences in data availability, there were some differences in the countries included for each dataset in the 2011 IBDR . For example, in the event that we lacked demographic or price data for a given country, we provided market and regulatory/policy information for it in Appendix E. See 2011 IBDR , 26 FCC Rcd at 7388, n. 78. We use the same approach with this IBDR. 32 See 2011 IBDR , Appendix G. 33 See id. 34 See 2011 IBDR , Appendix E. The Appendix E dataset has more countries (40) than the other datasets because it provided information for countries where other data (price, speed, or demographics) was not available. For instance, the 2011 IBDR lacked demographic data for Mexico, but did include price and Appendix E data for Mexico. Similarly, the 2011 IBDR lacked price data for Romania, but did include demographic and Appendix E data for Romania. 35 Ookla is one of the largest providers of speed test services for Internet users across the globe. Ookla determines speed and cost indices from the data it collects, which it provides on its website, www.netindex.com. The Commission uses Ookla’s and M-Lab’s speed testing data tools to analyze broadband quality and availability on a geographic basis across the United States. See http://www.broadband.gov/qualitytest/about/#qualitytest. 36 Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, 26 FCC Rcd 11800, 11812-13 (2011). 37 Memorandum re: Ex Parte Meeting in GN Docket No. 11-121 from Strategic Analysis and Negotiations Division, International Bureau, FCC (Sept. 15, 2011). Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 7 data that demonstrate the United States is “among world leaders in Internet usage.”38 USTelecom argues that the domestic investment in broadband has made U.S. networks “capable of accommodating massive data traffic growth . . . generating the most traffic use per user among industrialized nations except South Korea.”39 In this report, we focus on country demographics, broadband speeds, and broadband prices. We anticipate looking at usage data in future reports if appropriate data is available. 15. In an effort to standardize the methods countries use to collect broadband data, the Commission, working together with the State Department and the Department of Commerce, and through the OECD, started an initiative to collect more reliable and granular international data on broadband deployment and adoption internationally. The first concrete result of these efforts was a workshop hosted by the Commission at its Washington, D.C. headquarters in October 2011.40 In Section III.D below, we discuss the results of this workshop and next steps. D. Data and Analysis for the 2012 IBDR 16. Based on the feedback we have received and recognizing the importance of mobile broadband, we add more detailed and recent national-level price data for mobile broadband service offerings to this year’s IBDR.41 Wireless broadband subscriptions topped 500 million in OECD countries by the end of 2010 (compared to 300 million fixed broadband subscriptions).42 According to Cisco, global mobile data in 2011 (597 petabytes per month) more than doubled for the fourth consecutive year.43 Cisco also reports that all mobile data traffic generated in 2011 was “eight times the size of the entire global Internet in 2000.”44 To better understand this significant segment of the broadband market, we have included a survey of mobile broadband prices and speeds in this year’s report. The resulting fixed and mobile price dataset (gathered from service provider websites) is over twice as large as the dataset made available in the 2011 IBDR. 45 38 USTelecom Comments at 10. USTelecom, the one commenter who addressed international issues, contends that the United States “compares very favorably in a number of international comparisons, which raises questions about the validity of statements” by those who suggest that the United States is lagging. Id. at 7. USTelecom cites OECD data on telecommunications investment as evidence of U.S. leadership (arguing that the U.S. annual average investment of $249 per capita in broadband telecommunications networks between 1997 and 2007 exceeds the OECD average of $155). Id. USTelecom also argues that the greater level of competition for broadband services in the United States sets it apart (citing data that 82% of U.S. households can choose between two or more wired competitors, compared to 43% of European Union households that have such a choice). Id. at 9. 39 USTelecom Comments at 10. For 2009, the USTelecom calculated (based on Cisco Visual Networking Index and ITU data) that the average IP traffic per Internet user in the United States was 19.2 GB/month, second highest to South Korea, with 40.7 GB/month. 40 See OECD Technical Workshop, Broadband and Its Impact on Consumers and Economies: Developing a New Framework for Future Metrics, available at http://transition.fcc.gov/ib/Metrics_Workshop/agenda.pdf. 41 The first IBDR, released in 2010, had no mobile price data and the 2011 IBDR contained limited mobile price data. Prior criticism of the IBDR had been directed at the lack of review of mobile broadband data. 2011 IBDR , 26 FCC Rcd at 7390. 42 “Internet Economy: Wireless Broadband Subscriptions Top Half a Billion, says OECD,” OECD News Release, June 22, 2011. By January 2012, 101.3 million mobile subscribers in the United States were using data-hungry smartphones. “US Smartphone users now over 100 Million, Android Increases Market Share,” Digital Trends (Trevor Moog, March 7, 2012). 43 Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2011 - 2016, at 1, available at http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/white_paper_c11-520862.pdf. 44 Id. 45 See Appendix B infra. With a few exceptions (e.g ., New Zealand’s TelstraClear, on whose website regional availability of some services was clearly indicated), service plans are presumed to be available throughout the country where offered. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 8 17. In addition, staff again gathered community-level broadband adoption, demographic, income, and education data from OECD collections, the European Commission’s regional database,46 and from national government agencies.47 Staff used Ookla speed test data from 38 countries48 as the basis for an analysis of international broadband speeds, building substantially on the more limited examination of broadband speeds we undertook in the 2011 IBDR .49 This actual speed data includes a discussion of the gap between advertised and actual speed. Finally, staff gathered updated information about the extent of competition in broadband markets, government policies, and mobile broadband adoption in various countries around the world.50 We discuss the data that we collected in more detail below. III. DISCUSSION 18. In preparing this IBDR, Commission staff have reviewed a number of data sources and analyzed various rankings that compare broadband service capability in the United States and other countries.51 The best currently available data set comparing the United States to other countries along a number of metrics appears to be from the OECD, which collects data on various broadband deployment, adoption, and usage metrics and publishes rankings of its member countries.52 19. The OECD’s deployment data ranks countries based on particular technologies, rather than overall coverage. The OECD has not updated its deployment data since we last reported it in the 2011 IBDR. The U.S. ranking in these surveys ranges from 27th out of 30 in DSL coverage53 to first out of 28 in cable modem coverage.54 The U.S. ranks sixth out of 16 in fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) coverage55 and eighth out of 29 in 3G mobile wireless coverage.56 As the OECD notes, however, its coverage rankings are compiled using metrics that may not be fully comparable across countries, thus limiting their utility.57 For example, deployment is measured using different indicators and different reference dates across various countries.58 20. The OECD’s more recent adoption data (from June 2011) also ranks countries based on particular technologies, rather than all broadband technologies inclusively. As the most populous member of the OECD, in terms of sheer number of wireless broadband subscribers, the United States 46 Eurostat is the Statistical Office of the European Communities, located in Luxembourg. Its task is to provide the European Union with statistics that enable comparisons between countries and regions. See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/introduction. 47 See Appendix D infra. 48 We used the same set of 38 countries for our price and speed analyses. See Appendix A, infra. 49 See Appendix F infra. 50 See Appendix E infra. 51 Differences between which countries are included for each dataset in this IBDR are primarily due to data availability. See Appendix B infra. 52 OECD Broadband Portal, available at http://www.oecd.org/document/36/0,3746,en_2649_33703_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html. 53 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 3d (2009 or latest year). 54 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 3e (2008 or latest year). 55 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 3f (2009 or latest year). 56 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 3g (2009 or latest year). 57 OECD Broadband Portal, http://www.oecd.org/document/46/0,3746,en_2649_37441_39575598_1_1_1_37441,00.html. 58 See id. and OECD Broadband Portal, 2a. Households with broadband access (1), 2000-09, available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/59/39574039.xls. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 9 ranks first out of 34 countries with 203,180,000 (by comparison, the second-ranked country, Japan, has 101,869,228 wireless subscriptions).59 The United States also ranked first in the sheer number of fixed (wired) broadband subscriptions with 84,672,000 (again the second-ranked country is Japan, with 34,360,672 wired subscriptions).60 The United States ranks 15th out of 34 countries for overall fixed (wired) broadband subscriptions (27.3) per 100 inhabitants.61 Breaking the fixed subscriber numbers down by technology, the U.S. ranking in these surveys ranges from 25th out of 34 in DSL adoption62 to third out of 34 in cable modem adoption,63 to 12th out of 34 in fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) adoption.64 The U.S. ranks seventh overall (out of 34 countries) in total wireless broadband subscriptions (65.5) per 100 inhabitants.65 In addition to measuring fixed or wired broadband adoption on a subscription- inhabitant basis, the OECD’s data also tracks member countries on the basis of the percentage of households that have fixed broadband. Under this metric, the OECD ranks the United States 14th out of 34. per- 66 21. As the OECD notes, however, numerous market, regulatory, and geographic factors determine penetration rates, prices, and speeds, and as such country comparisons should be undertaken with caution.67 Also, adoption is measured using different indicators and different reference dates across various countries.68 The U.S. ranking according to these adoption metrics is also likely affected by the OECD’s definition of broadband; it considers transmission speeds of at least 256 kbps in one direction to be broadband service. This is considerably slower than the 4 Mbps down/1 Mbps up transmission speed by which the Commission defines broadband.69 22. Further, where a particular country falls in these rankings may be influenced by population density and dispersion, income, and other factors. USTelecom notes that when comparing countries, one should take into account the importance of variation in population density.70 USTelecom observes that 59 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (June 2011). 60 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (June 2011). 61 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (June 2011). 62 Id. 63 Id. 64 Id. 65 The OECD includes satellite and fixed wireless subscriptions in its definition of wireless broadband. See http://www.oecd.org/document/46/0,3746,en_2649_34225_39575598_1_1_1_1,00.html. The Commission does not include satellite subscriptions in its broadband deployment determination and considers fixed wireless to be a fixed service, much like cable or DSL, for purposes of Form 477. See Eighth 706 Report at ¶¶ 31, 41. 66 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (2010 or latest year) (see http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/59/39574039.xls). Note that some countries (e.g ., Japan and Korea) include some wireless subscriber data for this metric. The previous year, the United States ranked 12th out of 33 countries in this category. See 2011 IBDR at ¶ 9. A fixed broadband connection is likely to be shared within a household whereas multiple people within a single household may each have their own mobile broadband connection, thus the OECD tracks fixed broadband penetration using both metrics. 67 OECD Broadband Portal, http://www.oecd.org/document/46/0,3746,en_2649_34225_39575598_1_1_1_1,00.html. 68 See OECD Broadband Portal, notes for Tables 1(d)(1) and (2). To elaborate, comparisons between countries may not be precise when data is collected at different times or when countries use different methods of determining what constitutes a broadband subscription. 69 See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket Nos. 09-137, 09- 51, Report, 25 FCC Rcd 9556, 9558, ¶ 4 (2010) ( 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report ). 70 USTelecom Comments at 7. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 10 the United States has about one quarter the population density of Europe, one-tenth that of Japan, and one-fifteenth that of South Korea.71 As discussed throughout this IBDR, we recognize the need for better data on these issues and have initiated efforts to improve available data, both domestically and internationally. In the meantime, we have continued to compile and analyze the international data that is available. A. Elements of “Broadband Service Capability” 23. The BDIA requires that the Commission gather information concerning “the extent of broadband service capability (including data transmission speeds and price for broadband service capability)” in foreign communities.72 Like last year, we understand the responsibility of collecting information on “the extent of broadband service capability” to require an inquiry into the availability of broadband service, which in turn includes factors such as available advertised and/or actual speeds, service quality, and price and affordability to broadband customers.73 We consider these characteristics here to the extent currently available data allow. 1. Advertised and Actual Speed 24. The BDIA requires the Commission to collect information on “data transmission speeds” for broadband services. Speed is a quantitative description of the information transfer rate of a broadband Internet access service, and Commission staff has defined speed as “data signaling rate,” as expressed in bits per second.74 The Sixth Broadband Progress Report increased the Commission’s speed benchmark for broadband to 4 Mbps download and 1Mbps upload because “network capabilities, consumer applications and expectations… have evolved in ways that demand increasing amounts of bandwidth.”75 The 2010 National Broadband Plan recommended a goal of affordable access to broadband with actual speeds of at least 100 Mbps to 100 million U.S. households by 2020.76 Investment in faster broadband is critical for a vibrant economy. 25. For this report, we have again collected both advertised and actual speed data for U.S. and foreign communities.77 Advertised speeds typically feature “up to” download and upload speeds.78 Different broadband providers in different parts of the world may not use the same methodology for determining their advertised speeds, and providers vary on how well advertised speeds match actual delivered speeds. For example, a November 2011 U.K. broadband study (conducted by the U.K. regulator Ofcom with the assistance of SamKnows) revealed an average advertised speed of 16.3 Mbps, with a corresponding average actual speed of 7.6 Mbps—a significant gap between the advertised and actual speed that U.K. consumers experience.79 By contrast, the most recent U.S. data on actual speed 71 Id. 72 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1). 73 Cf. Eighth 706 Report at ¶ 27. 74 See Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on “Need for Speed” Information for Consumers of Broadband Services, Public Notice, DA 11-661, n.1 (April 11, 2011). 75 2010 Sixth Broadband Progress Report , 25 FCC Rcd at 9558, ¶ 4. 76 Omnibus Broadband Initiative (OBI), FCC, Connecting America: The NationalL Broadband Plan, GN Docket No. 09-51 at 9 (2010) (2010 National Broadband Plan). 77 See Appendices B and F. 78 Different broadband providers in different parts of the world may not use the same methodology for determining their advertised speeds. 79 U K fixed-line broadband performance, November 2011: The performance of fixed-line broadband delivered to UK residential consumers , Ofcom, Feb. 2, 2012, at 5, available at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/broadband-research/Fixed_bb_speeds_Nov_2011.pdf; see also (continued . . .) Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 11 shows that American ISPs deliver on average 96% of advertised speeds during peak intervals, with five ISPs routinely meeting or exceeding advertised rates.80 In an attempt to address the gap that exists between advertised and actual speeds in the U.K., the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) issued guidance (effective April 2012) providing that ISPs may advertise a given broadband speed only if at least 10% of the customer base can achieve it.81 26. As with the 2011 IBDR , for this Report we have collected data on advertised speed from broadband provider websites. We obtained advertised speeds and prices from the publicly accessible websites of mobile and fixed broadband providers in 38 countries. We also examined the OECD’s most recent data on advertised speed for the 34 OECD countries.82 Our analysis of actual speed data is based on the publicly available raw source data provided by Ookla, proprietor of speedtest.net, on their Net Index site. This dataset comprises approximately 14.4 million observations of daily broadband speeds and spans over 12,000 cities from 159 countries from 2008 to December 2011. 27. Appendix F contains our analysis of the actual speed data, which examines the data on both a country and city basis. Using the aggregated data, we ranked 38 countries based on a weighted average of the city mean speeds, with weights determined by the number of tests per city, and using a stratified sample technique to offset changes in average speeds based on differences in city participation across countries.83 Because, as we show in Appendix F, aggregate national rankings can be misleading, we also report speed results at the city level. 28. Below are some highlights from our analysis of Ookla’s actual speed data in 38 countries: ? The shortfall index, or the percentage difference between advertised and actual speed, declined in all countries in 2011 from 2010. In the United States, the shortfall index declined from 7.06% to 6.80% based on self-reported data from consumers. ? The United States shows a large increase in the average speed with the percentage of tests reporting speeds of 10 Mbps or higher increasing from 30% in 2009 to 80% in 2011. ? The United States ranks 24th (11.6 Mbps) in terms of actual download speeds based on the weighted averages of all city data. (. . . continued from previous page) http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2012/02/02/ofcom-confirms-uk-average-broadband-isp-downloads-speeds-hit-7- 6mbps.html. 80 2012 Measuring Broadband America July Report: A Report on Consumer Wireline Broadband Performance in the U.S. , FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, available at http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america/2012/july. 81 See Jump in U.K. Broadband Speeds, Ofcom News Release, Feb. 2, 2012, available at http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2012/02/02/jump-in-uk-broadband-speeds/; UPD Ofcom Confirms UK Average Broadband ISP Download Speeds Hit 7.6Mbps, ISPreview (Feb. 2, 2012), available at http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2012/02/02/ofcom-confirms-uk-average-broadband-isp-downloads-speeds-hit-7- 6mbps.html; Broadband: A need for speed, U.K. Advertising Standards Authority and Committee of Advertising Practice, available at http://www.asa.org.uk/Resource-Centre/Hot-Topics/Broadband-advertising.aspx. One study of advertised broadband speeds in the U.K. after the ASA/CAP guidelines went into effect showed that advertised “up to” speeds in the fast (i.e ., “up to” speeds below 30 Mbps) tier fell by 33%, from 21.66 Mbps to 14.58 Mbps. See “Stricter Rules Cause UK Advertised Broadband ISP Speeds to Fall by 33 Percent,” ISPReview (April 24, 2012), available at http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/04/stricter-rules-cause-uk-advertised-broadband-isp- speeds-to-fall-by-33-percent.html. 82 OECD Broadband Portal, Average advertised download speeds, by country (Sept. 2011), Table 5(a), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/53/39575086.xls. 83 We use sample weights (i.e. the number of tests taken) instead of population weights (population in a city). The advantage of using sample weights is that it puts greater weight on speed numbers when they are generated by more tests rather than a few tests. Using population weights would not achieve this. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 12 ? The United States ranks 17th (12.5 Mbps) when based on a stratified sampling technique using weighted average actual download speed.84 ? When comparing all 50 states with 37 foreign countries in our dataset, we find that Massachusetts is ranked 11th, Delaware 13th and the 15th, 16th and 17th places are taken by Rhode Island, Maryland, and New York. ? The United States as a whole ranks in the middle in tests related to latency, jitter, and packet loss. Again, a more detailed look at state measurements shows wide variations between states. 2. Price 29. The BDIA directs the Commission to collect information regarding the price of broadband service capability.85 A number of international organizations routinely collect and compare broadband prices across countries.86 OECD’s most recent broadband price data ranks the United States sixth most expensive among 34 OECD countries in terms of median monthly broadband prices.87 Conversely, in its Measuring the Information Society 2011 report, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) stated that “[c]ountries with the relatively cheapest broadband prices are high-income economies and include Monaco, Macau (China), Liechtenstein, the [United States] and Austria.”88 30. We recognize that the complexity in the pricing of residential broadband services makes any empirical analysis difficult. The features and quality of broadband service vary across countries and providers; service is often offered under a multi-part pricing scheme;89 and broadband is frequently purchased as part of a bundle of services.90 Price comparisons are also difficult because different 84 The aggregate United States ranking presented above (24th) would be a sufficient basis for international comparison if the Ookla data set had speed data for all cities for the 38 countries in our sample. However, given that it does not have data for every city in each of these countries, the aggregate rank may be biased. A stratified sampling would choose an optimal number of cities from each population strata to reflect the actual dispersion of cities in a country. For example, suppose a country has 90 small cities (assume all have low average speed) and 10 large cities (assume all have high average speed). But Ookla may have data for only 10 large cities and 25 small cities. In that case the aggregate rank will show a higher speed that we would actually get if we had the data for all cities. The stratified sampling would involve choosing 90% from the small city sample and 10% from the large city sample to come up with an aggregate ranking. A stratified sampling approach divides the sample of cities into different non-overlapping bins according to their population level, and then draws a sample from each bin. If large cities have inherently different broadband characteristics from smaller and sparsely populated cities, then a stratified sample will achieve greater precision than an aggregate ranking. See Appendix F for a more detailed discussion of stratified sampling. 85 See 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1). 86 See, e.g ., OECD Broadband Portal, available at http://www.oecd.org/document/36/0,3746,en_2649_33703_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html. 87 See, OECD Broadband Portal, Table 4c (Sept. 2011 data), available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/42/39574970.xls. The OECD price ranking is based on cost per megabit/second. 88 Measuring the Information Society 2011, ICT Price Basket, http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/ipb/; see also http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/material/2011/MIS2011-ExceSum-E.pdf. The ITU price ranking is based on price as a percentage of GNI per capita. 89 For example, the broadband service price often includes an installation charge, a monthly service fee, and possibly equipment rental charges. 90 See, e.g. , Scott Wallsten, Understanding International Broadband Comparisons: 2009 Update (Technology Policy Institute Paper, June 2009), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1434570 (discussing difficulties in comparing broadband prices due to differing characteristics of broadband services and the tendency of consumers to purchase services in bundles). Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 13 providers frequently adopt different price structures for broadband Internet access service. For example, an offering of unlimited broadband service with a maximum download speed of 5 Mbps for an up-front fee, a flat monthly recurring fee, and a two-year contract with an early termination fee, is not easily comparable to a 5 Mbps offering from another provider that charges a different up-front fee, monthly recurring fees that vary with usage, the ability to cancel service at any point with no penalty or termination fee, and a usage limit. When broadband is bundled with other services, such as telephone or video service, it becomes even more complicated to identify the price of the broadband service. Promotional offers further complicate comparisons. In our research, we observed that broadband offerings around the world vary with respect to download and upload speeds; type of technology used to deliver broadband services; limitations on use, including limits on upload and download volumes; determinations of use limits (download traffic vs. a combination of upload and download traffic vs. download traffic at peak/non-peak usage times); and consequences of exceeding usage limits (e.g ., access speed reductions, surcharges, service cut-off). 31. In pursuit of a more comprehensive dataset to enable price comparisons, Commission staff compiled a dataset of publicly available advertised pricing information for residential broadband services in 38 countries (including the United States), most of which are members of the OECD. Our research this year generated a much richer dataset than the one included in either of the previous two IBDRs. In Appendix B we list 1682 fixed plans and 1765 mobile plans for 38 countries, including the United States, whereas in the 2011 IBDR we provided data on 1554 (mostly fixed91) plans for 38 countries. Staff collected this pricing information between August 2011 and February 2012.92 The fixed dataset includes a range of residential broadband offers by all major Internet service providers for these 38 countries.93 The mobile dataset includes smartphone plans, wireless USB stick modem plans, tablet plans, and netbook plans offered by all major mobile providers in the same 38 countries.94 The countries in the dataset represent a broad range of broadband markets, including countries of various sizes and population 91 The 2011 IBDR included a small number of wireless plans offered by fixed providers (e.g ., wireless USB stick modem plans that might be offered as a value-added service by a cable operator). We did not include any wireless ISPs, per se, in the 2011 IBDR . 92 See Appendix B infra. We assembled the data by visiting the websites of broadband providers serving the countries and communities in our sample. In order to mitigate the effects of variations in a particular broadband provider’s prices over time, we visited the websites of providers and downloaded the relevant information at one specific point in time. Thus, some provider data was collected in August 2011 while other provider data might have been collected in February 2012, but our sample does not reflect pricing changes that any individual provider may have implemented over the August-to-February period. Our price data reflects only what a given provider was offering at the specific point in time we accessed its website. For some countries in the dataset, we were able to determine whether the offerings were on a national or community level. Many advertised offerings were national in scope, though some were listed for particular cities or on an “as available” basis. Unless noted otherwise, we assume that a service offering is available nationwide. In the event that a provider website did not indicate if a data cap was in place for a given plan, we assumed that said plan had no data cap. Because we obtained the information for the dataset at specific points in time, we were not able to determine which offers are regularly available and which are significant departures from regularly available offers. Therefore, while ideally we would include only widely and regularly available offerings, it is possible we captured information on some non-standard offers such as special, promotional, or other limited offers. 93 For each of the European countries in the dataset, we obtained a list of incumbent operators and their competitors from the European Commission’s 2010 report on broadband Internet access prices. See Broadband Internet Access Cost (BIAC), Final Report, prepared for the European Commission, Information Society and Media Directorate- General, by Van Dijk Management Consultants, January 2010, Brussels, Belgium, available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/eda/biac_2009.pdf. This was supplemented with staff research into incumbent operators and their competitors, for both European and non- European countries. 94 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 14 densities from every continent except Africa and Antarctica. The countries we examined range from emerging economies such as former Soviet republics and Mexico, to mature economies such as Germany and Japan. We include Israel and Singapore in this year’s report as well. In Appendix B, we have converted all prices to U.S. dollars based on both 2011 purchasing power parity (PPP)95 and 2010 exchange rates.96 Converting prices through both methods enables more meaningful comparisons.97 32. For each broadband service offering (both fixed and mobile), the dataset includes upload and download98 speeds, limitations on data usage, and information on the types of technology offered, including DSL, cable, fiber-to-the-home, fixed wireless, satellite, and public WiFi, for fixed services, and 3G or 4G for mobile. The dataset includes information on advertised monthly recurring charges and nonrecurring charges such as connection and modem/equipment fees, to allow for a more complete pricing analysis of each broadband Internet service offering. The dataset includes not only advertised price but also promotional discounts such as those associated with online sign-up and longer service contracts. Data on advertised and promotional prices may be helpful for analyzing competition because advertised prices are focused on winning new customers or keeping customers who may be considering switching providers. The fixed dataset also contains a number of offers that include services, such as voice or video, which are bundled with a broadband service. The mobile dataset also contains bundle offers, typically associated with smartphone plans, which have data, voice, and messaging components. 95 PPPs are currency conversion rates that convert to a common currency and equalize the purchasing power of different currencies. In other words, they eliminate the differences in price levels between countries in the process of conversion. PPPs show the ratio of the prices in national currencies of the same good or service in different countries. For example, if the price of a hamburger in France is €2.84 and the price of an equivalent hamburger in the United States is $2.20, then the PPP for a hamburger between France and the United States is €2.84 to $2.20, or €1.29 to the dollar. This means that for every dollar spent on hamburgers in the United States, €1.29 would have to be spent in France to obtain the same quantity and quality of hamburgers. See OECD, Statistics Directorate webpage, available at http://oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34357_1_1_1_1_1,00.html; OECD, Statistics Directorate FAQ webpage, available at http://oecd.org/faq/0,3433,en_2649_34357_1799281_1_1_1_1,00.html#1799063. The PPP conversion is an accepted method of equalizing purchasing power in different countries, thereby enhancing comparative studies. Tim Callen, PPP Versus the Market: Which Weight Matters? , Finance and Development, Vol. 44, no. 1, March 2007, International Monetary Fund, available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2007/03/basics.htm. It accurately reflects the cost of a product or service relative to other items in a particular country and can allow a more valuable international comparison than merely comparing prices based on exchange rates in certain circumstances. International exchange rates, unadjusted for purchasing power, are most relevant when goods and services are traded across international borders. Generally, non-traded services or products are cheaper in less affluent countries than in more affluent countries because of lower wages and income to afford these services. This can vary, though, depending on how much the service makes use of goods that are traded across international borders. Failure to account for such differences may understate the cost of those services, relative to the economy, in less affluent countries. Nonetheless, we have also included in Appendix B the data using current exchange rates to provide an additional perspective. We believe that use of the exchange rates, unadjusted for purchasing power, provides a nominal measure of broadband service prices across countries, while the use of the PPP conversion factor not only converts the local currencies to a common currency but also measures value of broadband services at a uniform price level. Id. 96 Exchange rates fluctuate on a daily basis. The exchange rates (2010) and PPP conversion factors (2011) we used for each country are annual rates and factors obtained from the International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, September 2011. 97 Meaningful international PPP price comparisons are easier to achieve when the prices paid are for the same or similar service in each country. Since broadband service varies in terms of upload and download speeds, non- recurring charges, and promotional discounts, we have assembled data on various service attributes and associated those attributes with the price data for our international price comparisons. We believe this approach enables more useful international price comparisons. 98 In some cases, providers did not indicate upload speeds on their websites. See Appendix B. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 15 Since fixed and mobile service bundles can have a wide assortment of components, these variations present additional layers of complexity for comparison and analysis. 33. To facilitate analysis of the dataset, we first estimate the total amount a customer pays over the life of a contract that accounts for all recurring and non-recurring fees and rebates such as promotional discounts, one-time fees, equipment fees, and duration of contract. We then calculate the monthly net price and convert all prices to U.S. dollars based on both current exchange rates and purchasing power parity. We use a simple average to compute the country price because plan level subscribership data is unavailable, and thus any average price comparison implicitly assumes uniform subscribership of all plans. Because of this, these price comparisons may not reflect actual consumer experiences. We also note that the prices gathered by staff are based on advertised speeds in each country, and therefore may overstate actual speeds seen in a country. As noted above, these prices are also complicated by bundling offers, usage limits, and other plan characteristics. For mobile broadband, we also do not include device charges, and to the extent that a plan includes a subsidized device, the price will appear more expensive. However, using the available data, we compared average prices across countries, using speed tiers and usage limits. Some of our findings from the price data include: ? Prices (in 2011 PPP) and speed for residential fixed stand-alone broadband plans o The United States is 14th out of 24 countries in the 1-5 Mbps speed tier (advertised) with an average stand-alone broadband plan price of $35. The lowest advertised price for stand-alone services is in Hong Kong at $21.50, while the highest charges are found in Switzerland at $119. o The United States is 21st out of 33 countries in the 5-15 Mbps speed tier (advertised) with an average stand-alone broadband plan price of $44. The lowest advertised price for stand-alone services is in Slovakia at $21, while the highest charges are found in Switzerland at $185. o The United States is 26th out of 32 countries in the 15-25 Mbps speed tier (advertised) with an average stand-alone broadband plan price of $56.50. The lowest advertised price for stand-alone services is in Slovakia at $18, while the highest charges are found in Switzerland at $180. ? Price per GB for fixed broadband with usage limits (i.e ., cost per volume of data, not accounting for speed) o The United States is ranked third out of 16 countries with an average price of $0.76/GB. The lowest price is in Denmark with $0.20/GB and the highest is in Bulgaria with $26/GB. ? Price per GB for smartphone data plans with usage limits (not accounting for speed) o The United States is ranked ninth out of 37 countries with an average price of $10/GB. The lowest cost is in Iceland with $4/GB and Mexico is one of the highest with $95/GB. ? Price per GB for smartphone data plans without usage limits (not accounting for speed) o The United States is ranked 11th out of 19 countries with an average price of $52. The lowest cost is in Finland with $5 and Portugal is the highest with $149. ? Price per GB for stick modem mobile data plans with usage limits (not accounting for speed) o The United States is ranked 24th out of 35 countries with an average price of $10/GB. The lowest cost is in Finland with $1/GB and France is one of the highest with $19/GB. ? Price per GB for tablet mobile data plans with usage limits (not accounting for speed) Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 16 o The United States is ranked 17th out of 30 countries with an average price of $11/GB. The lowest cost is in Denmark with $2/GB and Hong Kong is one of the highest with $110/GB. B. Community-Level Comparisons 34. In addition to requiring the Commission to gather data on broadband service capability, the BDIA directs the Commission to compare broadband development in communities that are similar to U.S. communities in terms of population size and density, topography, and demographic profile.99 In view of the use of the phrase in the BDIA and consistent with our approach in previous reports, for purposes of this Report we again interpret “community” as a geographical unit smaller than a nation-state.100 35. Following past practice and the BDIA’s goal of developing a geographically diverse and detailed set of data on international broadband, we use two criteria to guide the selection of countries and communities. The first is inclusivity: We attempt to capture as full an international profile as possible, embracing communities from all parts of the world, while also focusing on those countries that have more developed broadband markets. The second is data availability: We include only communities for which a substantial set of relevant information is available. These two criteria result in a dataset that exceeds the statutory minimum requirements of 25 countries and 75 communities comparable to U.S. communities, and includes communities from almost all nations with the most broadband deployment.101 We believe that the criteria that we have used for choosing communities and offers for comparison are squarely in line with what the BDIA requires. In instructing us to include a “geographically diverse selection of countries,”102 we do not believe that Congress intended for us to use a random sample of countries. Rather, the BDIA requires the Commission choose communities that are similar to U.S. communities, which suggests communities with higher income and education levels, and better broadband service, than communities in poorer, less developed countries. 36. For each community in the dataset, we examine population size and density, and a number of additional criteria useful for building a “demographic profile.” In assembling our first two IBDRs, we reviewed major public databases of economic, social, and demographic data, including the World Bank’s Development Indicators,103 the ITU’s World Telecommunication Indicators,104 the OECD’s regional statistics database,105 and Eurostat’s regional statistics database to determine what additional demographic or other factors to include in each community profile.106 We also looked at studies and national broadband plans from other countries to determine which indicators would reflect the factors typically expected to influence broadband deployment and adoption. Based on our review of these sources, we 99 Specifically, the statute requires that “[t]he Commission shall choose communities for the comparison under this subsection in a manner that will offer, to the extent possible, communities of a population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile that are comparable to the population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile of the various communities within the United States.” BDIA § 103(b)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(3). 100 See International Broadband Data Report, 25 FCC Rcd 11963, 11967-68 (2010); 2011 IBDR , 26 FCC Rcd at 7387. 101 There are some differences in the countries included for each dataset contained in this Report. Those differences are primarily due to data availability. See Appendix B infra. We also recognize that much room for improvement remains with regard to international data availability and collection. See Section III.D, infra. 102 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(2)(A). 103 See http://go.worldbank.org/U0FSM7AQ40. 104 See http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/world/world.html. 105 See http://oecd.org/gov/regional/statisticsindicators/explorer/. 106 See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/introduction. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 17 identified three variables that are particularly likely to be of importance in understanding international broadband service capability and selected them for inclusion in our report: (1) education level within a community (percentage of labor force with tertiary—i.e. , college or graduate school—education); (2) total income of a community (GDP, in current U.S. dollars, adjusted for purchasing power parity); and (3) income per capita within a community (GDP per capita, in current U.S. dollars adjusted for purchasing power parity). For this third IBDR, we collected data on the same indicators. 37. The data for the variables listed above,107 are drawn mainly from the OECD’s regional statistics108 and the European Commission’s Eurostat regional data.109 We note that data at the national level for the variables listed above are generally available annually. Community-level information, however, is collected less frequently. Accordingly, we provide the most recent publicly-available data (ranging from 2005-2011) for each variable in the community dataset in Appendix D.110 Data for communities not covered by the OECD and Eurostat datasets are drawn from national statistical agencies, communications ministries, and communications regulators.111 C. Other Relevant Similarities and Differences 38. The BDIA also directs the Commission, for the foreign communities selected, to identify “relevant similarities and differences” across several criteria.112 For each foreign country included in this IBDR, Commission staff collected, in Appendix E, information on topography; the regulatory environment, including national broadband plans; the market structure, including the number of competitors, broadband penetration, and the types of network technologies deployed; types of applications and services used; and other media, specifically television and radio outlets, available to consumers.113 D. Goals for Future Reports 39. As discussed above, the BDIA requires that we obtain a wealth of international data, much of which does not exist or is not readily available without significant expense.114 Though this IBDR 107 See Appendix D, infra, which contains the most recent data available for the countries surveyed. A more complete version containing historical data going back several years is available at http://www.fcc.gov/reports/international-broadband-data-report-third. Information on topography is included in Appendix E of this IBDR. See Appendix E. 108 See http://stats.oecd.org. 109 See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/introduction. 110 Communities that include the capital city of a country are indicated in boldface in Appendix D. Communities that are the same as the capital city are indicated in boldface and italics. For example, Ontario, the Canadian province where Ottawa is located, is in bold, while the District of Columbia is in bold and italics. 111 See “Notes” in Appendix D infra. 112 The statute provides that “[t]he Commission shall identify relevant similarities and differences in each community, including their market structures, the number of competitors, the number of facilities-based providers, the types of technologies deployed by such providers, the applications and services those technologies enable, the regulatory model under which broadband service capability is provided, the types of applications and services used, business and residential use of such services, and other media available to consumers.” BDIA § 103(b); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). We take “other media” to mean other electronic video and audio news, information, and entertainment options, particularly television and radio. Section 103(b)(2) of the BDIA (47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(2)) also directs the Commission to identify topography for selected foreign communities. 113 Much of the information reported in Appendix E of our earlier IBDRs has not changed. Therefore, rather than replicate unchanged information in this report, we incorporate by reference Appendix E from the 2011 IBDR as supplemented by the new information contained in the new Appendix E herein. 114 See Section II supra. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 18 improves upon the 20 11 IBDR in terms of the amount, quality, and analysis of data collected and presented, we aspire to further improve our collection of international broadband data. Obtaining more data (and more granular data) on foreign broadband capability would help us understand broadband deployment and adoption patterns in the United States and globally. 40. Last year, we outlined efforts underway at the OECD to develop meaningful cross-sectional and longitudinal data that can be used to gauge key broadband and Internet-related metrics within and across countries.115 To further this goal, the Commission hosted a two-day OECD broadband metrics workshop in Washington, D.C. in October 2011, where technical experts from the OECD’s Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy Working Parties,116 academics, international institutional stakeholders, and industry representatives examined the OECD’s proposed Metrics Checklist and assessed both the broad policy issues and the methodological underpinnings surrounding its further revision, adoption and ultimate implementation. 41. The workshop focused primarily on developing a new metrics and data collection framework to facilitate a harmonized analysis of OECD member economies’ broadband infrastructure availability, access, and use, and the impact of the Internet on productivity and other macroeconomic parameters.117 The major underlying theme of the workshop was the need to standardize terms, benchmarks and indicators, and data collection and reporting tools/methods employed by the OECD and member countries.118 42. Ofcom hosted a second workshop in June 2012. Taking into account the outcome of the first metrics workshop in Washington in October 2011, participants met to advance the development of new OECD metrics criteria building on the discussions thus far. In particular, participants at the second technical workshop discussed:119 ? a new proposed definition of broadband (tiered); ? a subset of meaningful cross-sectional and time-series data that can be implemented quickly and which describes the deployment of broadband services and who adopts them and what services are adopted; and 115 2011 IBDR , 26 FCC Rcd at 7395. The proposal addressed many of the data needs including broadband deployment and adoption data at a disaggregated, statistical, geographic area level, with special attention to residential and business use, speed tiers, the number of competitors, and technology type (e.g ., wireline, fixed and mobile wireless). The proposal also called for collection of demographic metrics at a disaggregated, statistical, geographic area level, e.g. , education, income, age, and household type. Also part of the proposal was a request for urbanicity metrics, particularly urban versus rural, which could be used as a proxy for loop length. Detailed subscriber price data for OECD countries was part of the proposal as well. 116 The working parties include the Working Party on Communication Infrastructures and Services Policy (CISP), the Working Party on the Information Economy (WPIE), and the Working Party on Indicators for the Information Society (WPIIS). 117 For a summary of what transpired at the workshop, see http://transition.fcc.gov/ib/Metrics_Workshop/summary.pdf. 118 See OECD Technical Workshop Announcement, “Broadband and Its Impact on Consumers and Economies: Developing a New Framework for Future Metrics” available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/1/48594941.pdf. 119 See OECD Workshop on Broadband Metrics, 14-15 June 2012, available at http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,3746,en_21571361_48621988_48622087_1_1_1_1,00.html. See also http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/internet/oecd/technical-workshop/ for the papers submitted for discussion at the workshop. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 19 ? comparable cross-sectional and time-series data, both qualitative and quantitative, that identifies the drivers of Internet usage and its impact on innovation, productivity and entrepreneurship within and across countries. 43. Subsequently, the outcome of the workshop, including an initial subset of recommended metrics, measuring both broadband and the impact of the Internet Economy, will be submitted to the OECD ICCP Committee for review in fall 2012.120 The recommendations will be provided to the OECD’s Working Parties for their agreement and implementation in December 2012. IV. CONCLUSION 44. In conjunction with the Commission’s adoption of the Eighth 706 Report, the release of this IBDR fulfills the obligation imposed by Section 103(b) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act.121 V. ORDERING CLAUSE 45. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 103(b) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act, 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b), and pursuant to authority delegated to the International Bureau in Section 0.261 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.261, this IBDR, with its associated Appendices A-F, is ADOPTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mindel De La Torre Chief, International Bureau 120 Video recordings of all the workshop presentations and final papers can be found at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/internet/oecd/ and http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/internet/oecd/presentations/. 121 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b) . Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 APPENDIX A: Countries Included in the IBDR COUNTRIES Appendix B: Broadband Price Dataset Appendix D: Demographics Dataset Appendix E: Market and Regulatory Background Appendix F: Actual Broadband Speeds Australia X X X X Austria X X X X Belgium X X X X Bulgaria X X X X Canada X X X X Chile X X X X Cyprus X X Czech Republic X X X X Denmark X X X X Estonia X X X X Finland X X X X France X X X X Germany X X X X Greece X X X X Hong Kong X X X Hungary X X X X Iceland X X X X Ireland X X X X Israel X X X X Italy X X X X Japan X X X X Korea X X X X Latvia X X Lithuania X X X X Luxembourg X X X X Mexico X X X X Netherlands X X X X New Zealand X X X Norway X X X X Poland X X X X Portugal X X X X Romania X X Singapore X X X Slovakia X X X X Slovenia X X X X Spain X X X X Sweden X X X X Switzerland X X X Turkey X X X X U.K. X X X X USA X X X Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 APPENDIX B: Broadband Price Dataset This dataset can be found on the FCC website at http://www.fcc.gov/reports/international- broadband-data-report-third . Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 1 Appendix C International Broadband Prices Complexity in the pricing of residential broadband services makes any analysis of pricing across countries difficult. The features and quality of broadband service vary across countries and providers; service is often offered under a multi-part pricing scheme,1 and broadband is frequently purchased as part of a bundle of services.2 Price comparisons are also difficult because different providers frequently have plans that differ in various components of ?price.? For example, it is not simple to compare an offering of unlimited broadband service with a maximum download speed of 5 Mbps for an up-front fee, a flat monthly recurring fee, and a two-year contract with an early termination fee, to a 5 Mbps offering from another provider that charges a different up-front fee, monthly recurring fees that vary with usage, and the ability to cancel service at any point with no penalty or termination fee. In addition, broadband offerings around the world vary with respect to download and upload speeds; limitations on use, including limits on upload and download volumes; determinations of usage limits (download traffic vs. a combination of upload and download traffic vs. download traffic at peak/non- peak usage times); and consequences of exceeding usage limits (e.g., access speed reductions, surcharges, service cut-off). Price offerings can also vary based on the level of involvement of a government in a country’s broadband deployment, through the use of taxes and subsidies. Identifying the price of broadband becomes even more complicated when broadband is bundled with other services, such as telephone or video service. And promotional offers further complicate comparisons. Additionally, data on subscribership is not available at the plan level, and any average price comparison implicitly assumes uniform subscribership of all plans. Notwithstanding these inherent difficulties, this Appendix provides a best-effort report on available fixed and wireless broadband plans for all OECD countries,3 the quality attributes of each plan, the advertised and promotional prices, and non-recurring charges associated with each plan. We analyze this data in sections 1 (for fixed broadband) and 3 (for mobile broadband). In section 2, we use data provided by Ookla to compare countries based on speed-adjusted prices for fixed broadband. I. Data on Residential Fixed Broadband Prices 1 For example, broadband service price often includes an installation charge, a monthly service fee, and possibly equipment rental charges. 2 See, e.g., Scott Wallsten, Understanding International Broadband Comparisons: 2009 Update (Technology Policy Institute Paper, June 2009), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1434570 (discussing difficulties in comparing broadband prices due to differing characteristics of broadband services and the tendency of consumers to purchase services in bundles). 3 Staff gathered data on the most popular offerings if they were identified as such on the provider’s website. If the website did not indicate which plans were most popular, we obtained data for all offers advertised. To the extent possible, we tried to capture the same plans that OECD used in its 2010 study of popular broadband offers and prices; however, not all of those plans from 2010 were still being offered in 2011. See Table 7.19. Broadband pricing for residential users in the OECD area, September 2010, http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3746,en_2649_34225_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 2 Commission’s Web Harvest Data In compliance with the BDIA’s directive that we compare, among other metrics, price information in 75 communities in at least 25 countries.4 Commission staff has compiled a dataset of publicly available advertised pricing information for residential broadband services in 38 countries (including the United States), most of which are members of the OECD. Our research this year generated a much richer dataset than the one included in the previous IBDR. The dataset includes 16715 residential post-paid broadband offers by all major Internet service providers for these 38 countries,6 including 113 U.S. plans. Staff collected this pricing information between August 2011 and December 2011.7 The countries in the dataset represent a broad range of broadband markets, including countries of various sizes and population densities from every continent except Africa and Antarctica. The economies of the countries we examined range from emerging economies such as former Soviet republics and Mexico, to mature economies such as Germany and Japan. The dataset includes information on advertised monthly recurring charges and nonrecurring charges, such as connection and modem fees, to allow for a more complete pricing analysis of each broadband Internet service offering. It also includes promotional discounts and rebates such as those associated with online sign-up and longer service contracts, and the duration of those promotions. Information on incidental and recurring costs (such as installation and equipment rental fees), and other charges is also included. For each broadband service offering, the dataset includes upload and download speeds,8 limitations on data usage, and information on the types of technology offered. In the dataset there are 192 symmetric DSL plans, 386 ADSL plans, 128 VDSL plans, 351 cable plans, 463 fiber plans, 51 DSL-cable plans, 22 DSL-fiber hybrid plans, 60 cable-fiber hybrid plans, and 18 satellite plans.9 Appendix Table 1a 4 BDIA § 103(b); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). 5 The raw data that was collected had 1732 plans. However for some plans either the monthly charges or some other information was missing so the final cleaned dataset has 1671 plans. 6 For each of the European countries in the dataset, we obtained a list of incumbent operators and their competitors from the European Commission’s 2010 report on broadband Internet access prices. See Broadband Internet Access Cost (BIAC), Final Report, prepared for the European Commission, Information Society and Media Directorate-General, by Van Dijk Management Consultants, January 2010, Brussels, Belgium, available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/benchmarking/eda/biac_2009.pdf. This was supplemented with staff research into incumbent operators and their competitors, for both European and non- European countries. 7 We assembled the data by visiting the websites of broadband providers serving the countries and communities in our sample. In order to mitigate the effects of variations in a particular broadband provider’s prices over time, we visited the websites of providers and downloaded the relevant information at one specific point in time. Thus, data was collected between October 2011 and December 2011. Our price data reflects only what a given provider was offering at the specific point in time we accessed its website. For some countries in the dataset, we were able to determine whether the offerings were on a national or community level. Many advertised offerings were national in scope, though some were listed for particular cities or on an ?as available? basis. Because we obtained the information for the dataset at specific points in time, we were not able to determine which offers are regularly available and which are significant departures from regularly available offers. Therefore, while ideally we would include only widely and regularly available offerings, it is possible we captured information on some non- standard offers such as special, promotional, or other limited offers. 8 In some cases, providers did not indicate upload speeds on their websites. See Appendix C. 9 The DSL, ADSL and VDSL categories include DSL, ADSL, ADSL2+, VDSL, VDSL2, XDSL, SHDSL, DSLD, LAN, XDSL & SIOL Telephony; cable includes regular cable and the upgraded Docsis3 technology; Fiber includes, regular fiber, FTTH and NGN; the Cable-DSL hybrid includes some combination of ADSL or Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 3 shows the number of plans for each country, disaggregated by the type of broadband bundle. Additionally, the usage limits on each plan and the consequences of reaching that usage limit are reported, such as the extra charge customers may incur, or whether they experience a slowdown of their speeds. The dataset also shows the bundling characteristics of the plans. Service bundles can have a wide assortment of components, and variations in broadband plans bundled with other services present additional layers of complexity. The 2011 IBDR had listed whether the bundles were double, triple or quad play, without listing the bundle elements. While this is useful in understanding the differences in pricing, it does not capture the full extent of the variations because the bundle components are unknown. For example, a double play bundle that has broadband and video will be priced very differently from a bundle that has broadband and phone service. Without this information, interpreting pricing differences across countries is problematic. The 2012 IBDR price comparison corrects this shortcoming by listing the bundle components. The dataset shows whether the offer is a standalone broadband plan, or whether it includes bundled services such as voice, wireless, WiFi or video. Data on the number of video channels included in a video bundle, or the type of TV service (basic, premium and so on), and the number of phone minutes included in phone packages are included wherever available. This allows us to analyze price differences more rigorously. Computing Monthly Net Price Across Countries To compare prices across countries, first, we need to construct an annual or monthly price that reflects all the rebates, charges and fees associated with each plan. Thus, this price reflects all the recurring and non-recurring charges of a plan. To accomplish this, we first estimate the total amount that the customer pays over the life of the contract10 using the formula below.11 Net price for the contract term = (promotional price * number of months promotion lasts) + (standard price * (contract term – number of months promotion lasts)) + installation fee + activation fee + equipment charges + modem rental charge + other fees (incl. line charges) – rebates. VDSL with cable; the fiber-DSL hybrid includes some combination of fiber with VDSL or XDSL; Cable-fiber hybrid includes some combination of a cable and fiber, or a hybrid fiber coaxial network. Some plans did not list some characteristics and were dropped from the final dataset of 1671 total plans. 10An alternative approach would be to calculate the first year annual cost to the customer. However, this may bias the resulting price variable as some of the one-time rebates will be deducted for the 12 month cost, rather than over the entire contract period, which is usually 18 months or more. This will bias the prices downward. Conversely, installation charges and other one-time fees will be added to the 12 month period rather than being spread out over the longer contract period. This will bias prices upwards. To avoid such biases we calculate the contract length cost to the customer and then calculate the monthly cost by dividing it by the length of the contract. Although this is the best price measure, some biases remain. In particular, the contract period pricing may have a downward bias if prices revert to ?full rack rate? and people pay that after the contract period. Or the bias maybe upward if save-desk prices are lower than advertised. However, without detailed data on the average revenue per user in ever plan category for every provider in every country, the contract length price calculation is the appropriate method for calculating prices. 11 This is a modified version of the one year formula used by Scott Wallsten in his paper ?Residential and Business Broadband Prices Part 1: An Empirical Analysis of Metering and Other Price Determinants?, available at http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=scott_wallsten. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 4 We then calculate the monthly net price by dividing it by the length of the contract. Next, we convert all prices to U.S. dollars based on both current exchange rates12 and purchasing power parity (PPP).13 We use both approaches since each methodology has its pros and cons.14 When computing the country price, we compute the simple average of all the prices as subscribership data at the plan level is unavailable. Thus caution must be taken when interpreting these price comparisons. Figure 1 (Appendix Table 1b) shows the monthly net price data for both the PPP and exchange rate conversions. This price is a simple average price over all plans in the sample for each country and does not correct for any quality attributes such as bundling characteristics, speed, or usage limits. 12 Exchange rates fluctuate on a daily basis. The exchange rates (2010) and PPP conversion factors (2011) we used for each country are annual rates and factors obtained from the International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, September 2011. 13 PPPs are currency conversion rates that convert to a common currency and equalize the purchasing power of different currencies. In other words, they eliminate the differences in price levels between countries in the process of conversion. PPPs show the ratio of the prices in national currencies of the same good or service in different countries. For example, if the price of a hamburger in France is €2.84 and the price of an equivalent hamburger in the United States is $2.20, then the PPP for a hamburger between France and the United States is €2.84 to $2.20, or €1.29 to the dollar. This means that for every dollar spent on hamburgers in the United States, €1.29 would have to be spent in France to obtain the same quantity and quality of hamburgers. See OECD, Statistics Directorate webpage, available at http://oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34357_1_1_1_1_1,00.html and FAQ webpage, available at http://oecd.org/faq/0,3433,en_2649_34357_1799281_1_1_1_1,00.html#1799063. The 2011 IBDR reports (Footnote 61) that AT&T contends that since PPP does not measure the actual cost of broadband service but rather its cost relative to the cost of living, the use of PPP gives EU countries a 21-28% discount compared to the United States. The PPP conversion is an accepted method of equalizing purchasing power in different countries, thereby enhancing comparative studies. Tim Callen, PPP Versus the Market: Which Weight Matters?, Finance and Development, Vol. 44, no. 1, March 2007 International Monetary Fund, available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2007/03/basics.htm. It accurately reflects the cost of a product or service relative to other items in a particular country and can allow a more valuable international comparison than merely comparing prices based on exchange rates in certain circumstances. International exchange rates, unadjusted for purchasing power, are most relevant when goods and services are traded across international borders. Generally, non-traded services or products are cheaper in less affluent countries than in more affluent countries because of lower wages and income to afford these services. This can vary, though, depending on how much the service makes use of goods that are traded across international borders. Failure to account for such differences may understate the cost of those services, relative to the economy, in less affluent countries. Nonetheless, we have also included in Appendix C the data using current exchange rates to provide an additional perspective. We believe that use of the exchange rates, unadjusted for purchasing power, provides a nominal measure of broadband service prices across countries, while the use of the PPP conversion factor not only converts the local currencies to a common currency but also measures value of broadband services at a uniform price level. Id. 14 See Rodney L. Ludema, ?Nominal Prices, Real Prices and Faux Prices: The Perils of Comparing Individual Prices at Purchasing Power Parity Exchange Rates? (2010). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1575745 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 A v e r a g e N e t P r i c e P e r M o n t h ( $ P P P & U S $ ) Figure 1 Comparing Average Monthly Broadband Net Price Using Alternate Currency Conversions, 2011 Monthly Net Price ($ PPP Conversion) Monthly Net Price (US$ Exchange Rate Conversion) Note: The monthly net price reflects the price per month, including rebates, installation charges, equipment charges such as modem rentals and other fees. So the net price is different from the simple monthly advertised price. Generally, we find that Germany, Korea, Sweden and Estonia have some of the lowest monthly broadband prices, and Singapore, Mexico and Switzerland have the highest prices for the PPP conversion. The United States appears to be one of the high priced countries with an average price of $69.75 per month.15 It would be inaccurate however, to perform an international comparison of prices based solely on average net prices. Usage limits, speeds, and bundling characteristics on plans differ considerably among countries, and average price alone is not meaningful as it conflates the price of different types of plans into one price. Thus, comparisons should be done based on usage limits, i.e. price per gigabyte (GB) of data included in the plan, or prices in narrowly defined speed tiers. Below, we discuss both metrics. Comparing Standalone Broadband Net Prices by Speed (1-25 Mbps) and Technology Prices for different broadband service tiers vary widely. In the United States, the cheapest plan in our sample is $23 per month with 768 Kbps download speed and unlimited data, while the most expensive naked broadband plan in the sample16 is a FiOS fiber plan at $199 per month with 150 Mbps of download speed, 35 Mbps of upload speed and unlimited data. In this section we compare countries based on the average advertised monthly net price of standalone broadband plans, comparing only 15 This price is a simple average of all the U.S. plans (standalone and bundled broadband) in the dataset. 16 FiOS has recently come out with a 300 Mbps broadband plan for $209.99. Source: (http://www22.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/fastest-internet-plans/) United States Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 6 comparable speed tiers. We focus on speed tiers in the 1-25 Mbps range since 86% of U.S. broadband consumers17 subscribed to services in this range in 2011. We caution that our comparisons are based on advertised speed,18 i.e. the maximum theoretical speed that the consumer could achieve with a given broadband connection, and not what the consumer will actually get. To the extent that advertised speeds overstate actual speeds by less in the United States than in most other countries, comparing advertised speeds will disfavor the United States. We discuss this possibility in greater detail in the next section. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 M o n t h l y N e t P r i c e ( $ P P P ) Figure 2a Average Monthly Net Price ($ PPP) of Residental (Fixed) Standalone Broadband 2011 1-5 Mbps of Download Speed Note: The monthly net price reflects the price per month, including rebates, installation charges, equipment charges such as modem rentals and other fees, which is different from the simple monthly advertised price. The average price is obtained by a simple average over all technologies, excluding satellite, in the 1 – 5 Mbps speed tier. Austria, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom do not have any standalone broadband plans in the 1-5 Mbps speed tier in our sample. Portugal and Germany only have satellite plans for that speed tier. Thus all are excluded from Figure 2a. 17 We compute this using subscription data from the FCC’s 477 report that collects the number of residential and business lines in eight speed buckets. The percentage of subscribers in the 1-25 Mbps speed tier is the proportion of subscribers in the 1.5-25 Mbps speed tiers and half the subscribers in the 768 Kbps-1.5 Mbps speed tier. 18 See discussion of the ?shortfall index? or the percentage difference between advertised and actual speed in Appendix F (Figure 1B). United States Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 7 Appendix Table 2a-2c and Figure 2a-2c compares the average monthly net price19 of standalone broadband in the 1-5 Mbps, 5-15 Mbps and 15-25 Mbps download speed tiers. Figure 2a shows that the United States is 14th out of 24 countries within the 1-5 Mbps speed tier, with an average price of $34.93 and an average download speed of 2.78 Mbps (when satellite is excluded). The two lowest price countries are Hong Kong and Poland with an average net price of approximately $22. These countries also report a lower average download speed, however, of 1.65 Mbps. The two highest price countries are Lithuania and Switzerland with net prices of $81.90 and $119.33 respectively. Appendix Table 2a suggests that a majority of the standalone plans at the 1-5 Mbps speed tier are DSL plans. Out of the 19 countries that have DSL plans, the United States is the 7th lowest in price with an average net price of $34 per month. U.S. cable prices are the most expensive in this speed tier with an average of $42.30 (standalone broadband). The lowest cable price in this speed tier is $16.70 in Poland. The United States also has satellite plans in this category with an average price of $84.32. Germany and Portugal were the only other countries with satellite plans in this speed tier. See Appendix Table 2a. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 M o n t h l y N e t P r i c e ( $ P P P ) Figure 2b Average Monthly Net Price ($ PPP) of Residental (Fixed) Standalone Broadband 2011 5-15 Mbps of Download Speed Note: The monthly net price reflects the price per month, including rebates, installation charges, equipment charges such as modem rentals and other fees. The net price is different from the simple monthly advertised price. The average price is obtained by a simple average over all technologies, excluding satellite, in the 5-15 Mbps speed tier. In our sample, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Spain, and the United Kingdom do not have any standalone broadband plans in the 5-15 Mbps speed tier; Portugal only has satellite plans for this speed tier in our sample, and is thus excluded from this graph. 19 Spain has no standalone broadband plans in any speed-tier in the IBDR sample. Other countries, such as Austria, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, do not have standalone plans in all speed-tiers. United States Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 8 Figure 2b shows average prices in the 5-15 Mbps speed tier (again excluding satellite services). The United States is 21st out of 31 countries with an average price of $43.71 and an average download speed of 10.72 Mbps. The two lowest price countries are Slovakia and Italy with an average net price of approximately $21. These countries report average download speed of 10 Mbps. The two highest price countries are Mexico and Switzerland with net prices of $95.60 and $185 respectively. Appendix Table 2b shows the breakdown by technology in this speed tier. The United States is 9th amid 24 countries having DSL plans, with an average net price of $40.80 per month. The lowest average price is in Sweden ($25.30) and the highest is in Switzerland ($185). The United States cable and fiber plans average $44.75 and $54.99 respectively. See Appendix Table 2b for prices in other countries. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 M o n t h l y N e t P r i c e ( $ P P P ) Figure 2c Average Monthly Net Price ($ PPP) of Residental (Fixed) Standalone Broadband 2011 15-25 Mbps of Download Speed Note: The monthly net price reflects the price per month, including rebates, installation charges, equipment charges such as modem rentals and other fees. So this is different from the simple monthly advertised price. The average price is obtained by a simple average over all technologies, excluding satellite, in the 15-25 Mbps peed tier. Lithuania, Mexico, Portugal and Spain, do not have any standalone broadband plans in this speed tier in our sample, and are thus excluded from the graph. Figure 2c shows average prices in the 15-25 Mbps speed tier (again excluding satellite services). The United States is 26th out of 32 countries with an average price of $56.50. The two lowest price countries are Slovakia and Korea with an average net price of approximately $18-19 and average download speeds of 20-25 Mbps. The two highest price countries are New Zealand and Switzerland with net prices of $124.50 and $180 respectively. Appendix Table 2c shows the technology breakdown. The United States is 15th among 25 countries having DSL plans, with and average net price of $49 per month. The lowest average DSL price is in Italy ($22) and the highest is in Switzerland ($242.90). The United States is among the more expensive in terms of cable and fiber. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 9 Overall, prices in the United States fall in the middle among surveyed countries in the 1-15 Mbps speed range and in the upper 75th percentile in the 15-25 Mbps range. In speed tiers above 25 Mbps, the United States is also one of the more expensive countries as well. Double Play Broadband Net Prices by Bundle Type (1-25 Mbps) Double play bundles can comprise broadband and phone, broadband and video and Double play bundles can comprise broadband and phone, broadband and video and broadband and wireless bundles. The features, speeds and prices of these bundles vary significantly and the appropriate comparison is thus between similar bundle types. The two major category of double play bundles are broadband and video and broadband and phone. The most common double play bundle is a broadband and phone bundle (29 countries), followed by the broadband and video bundle (16 countries).20 Only seven countries have broadband and wireless bundles in our sample. With the data we have, a meaningful comparison of video double play bundles across countries is impossible. The composition of video channels and the associated content cost differ widely between countries. Generally speaking, in the United States, the typical video package includes more premier channels with higher content cost. For example, in our dataset the FiOS double play video plan, with 15 Mbps download speed and 5 Mbps upload speed, has more than 210 channels including more than 55 HD channels, premium channels such as ESPN and Discover, extensive On Demand library with over 35,000 titles many of which are free, and 46 commercial-free music channels. In comparison, a similar broadband plan in the United Kingdom offers 16 Mbps download speed along with 70 free preview channels and ?catch-up? TV.21 Content costs in the United States are very high compared to other countries. We estimate that the cost of video content in the United States is $42.70 per subscriber per month on average.22 In contrast, adding or removing 150 video channels to a broadband product in France does not change the monthly charge and in most European countries, adding video to a broadband service changes the price generally between five to ten Euros a month.23 This makes it impossible to meaningfully compare bundles that contain video services. Double play bundles that include a phone service along with the broadband service allow for better comparisons. Even this comparison poses challenges, however. In particular, we must control the number of local and long distance minutes. Many phone double play plans in the United States have unlimited local and long distance calling within the United States, while most plans in other countries have limited minutes. To address these issues, in Figure 3, we compare DSL double play phone plans in the 1-25 Mbps download speed tier,24 including only those plans with unlimited local and long distance calling. See Appendix Table 3a for the data. 20 There are 14 countries in Appendix Table 3c as Korea and Canada have no double play plans in the 1-25 Mbps speed tier in the sample. 21 The ?TV Essential? plan by BT TV allows a subscriber to add this basic TV package for 4 pounds per month if they already have the broadband. 22 This is estimated as the sum of the affiliate fees for all cable channels listed on SNL Kagan and 50 cents for the retransmission consent fees for each of the four major broadcast networks. 23 See http://abonnez-vous.orange.fr/residentiel/forfaits/livebox-star.aspx. 24 This sample is also restricted to plans that have less than 20 Mbps of upload speed. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 M o n t h l y N e t P r i c e ( $ P P P ) Figure 3 Average Monthly Net Price ($ PPP) of Residental (Fixed) Phone and Broadband Bundle with Unlimited Local and Long Distance calling Minutes, 2011 1-25 Mbps of Download Speed We find that the United States is 10th among 17 countries having phone double play bundles with unlimited local and long distance minutes, with an average price of $61.80. The least expensive country is Sweden ($18.40) and the most expensive is Singapore ($139). The data for all video and phone double play plans by speed-tier are presented in Appendix Tables 3b-3c. The data for the triple play plans (broadband, video and phone) by speed tier are presented in Appendix Table 3d. We did not do a further analysis of the data due to the lack of comparability in the plans when video is included in the bundles. The above discussion shows how complex the price data are and the challenges with international comparisons. Thus further analysis that appropriately controls for the characteristics of the plans, such as usage limits and advertised speed, is required to understand where the United States stands in terms of the quality-adjusted price of broadband.25 25 If detailed disaggregated data were available for all plan characteristics across countries, the most appropriate price comparison would be based on a hedonic price index that is constructed from a hedonic regression analysis. However, due to the unavailability of some important price attributes such as the number of channels included in video, the quality-adjusted prices obtained from a hedonic regression based on current data may not be appropriate. Thus, we do not present the quality-adjusted price results in the report. In brief, a hedonic regression approach decomposes a product into its attributes, and then obtains estimates of the value of each attribute in the overall product. This assumes that the product is a sum of its characteristics and that the market can value those characteristics. For example, in our case, the price (or value) of a broadband plan can be decomposed into how much speed the plan promises to deliver, the usage limits on the plan, the consequence of exceeding the usage limit, the bundle characteristics, such as whether video is included or not, and so on. Presumably, the sum of the value to the consumer of each of these attributes leads to the composite price. Hedonic models are commonly used in constructing the Consumer Price Index, and are usually estimated using regression analysis. Comparing this price index, rather than raw average prices, allows for a more valid comparison of the ?average? broadband price in each country. We conducted a hedonic regression analysis to model prices as a function of speed, technology type, usage limits associated with each plan, consequence of that usage limit (speed slow down versus additional charge), contract length, and characteristics of the bundle (double, triple or quad play, including the bundle components) if the broadband plan is part of a bundle and country fixed effects. We found that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 11 Comparing Monthly Broadband Net Price per GB Next, we compare countries based on the price per gigabyte of data that is included in the usage limit, and does not control for difference in speed or other bundle characteristics. Consequently, we base the comparison on plans that have a specified usage limit. In our sample, 16 countries have such plans. Figure 4 (Appendix Table 4a) presents the results; the United States ranks 3rd out of the 16 countries with an average monthly price of $0.76/GB. Denmark appears to be the cheapest, with an average monthly price of $0.02/GB, and Bulgaria is the most expensive at $25.77/GB. From Appendix C Table 4a and b, it appears that ?light users? of broadband, who can remain within the imposed usage limits, fare better in the United States compared to most other countries. ?Heavy users,? i.e. those that may require unlimited plans, would fare better in countries such as Sweden, Estonia and Germany. 0 5 10 15 20 25 M o n t h l y N e t P r i c e P e r G B ( $ P P P / G B ) Figure 4 Average Monthly Net Price per GB ($ PPP/GB) of Residental (Fixed) Broadband 2011 Plans with Usage Limits Note: This comparison is based on plans that have hard usage limits in all speed tiers, all technologies and both standalone and bundled plans. The above analysis shows how country rankings can change considerably when plan characteristics, such as usage limits, are taken into account. It demonstrates how complex the price data is and the difficulty in making international comparisons. Thus, further analysis that appropriately controls for quality adjusted prices were lower than the simple average prices we obtained from the raw data. For additional literature about hedonic regressions, see Rosen, S., ?Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition,? Journal of Political Economy, January-February 1974, pp. 34-55; Greenstein, S., and McDevitt, R., ?Evidence of a Modest Price Decline in US Broadband Services,? The Center for the Study of Industrial Organization, Northwestern University, Working Paper #0102 (2010); Stranger, G., and Greenstein, S., ?Pricing at the On-ramp to the Internet Price Indices for ISPs during the 1990s? (2008), in Hard to Measure Goods and Service: Essays in Memory of Zvi Griliches, edited by Ernst Berndt and Charles Hulten, University of Chicago Press; Williams, B., ?A Hedonic Model for Internet Access Service in the Consumer Price Index,? Monthly Labor Review, July 2008, pp. 33-48. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 12 the characteristics of the plans, such as usage limits, advertised speed, and bundling, is required to understand where the United States stands in terms of quality-adjusted price of broadband. II. Speed-Adjusted Prices As the earlier discussion suggests, advertised speeds may not equate to the speeds consumers actually receive, and the gap between advertised and actual speeds may differ between countries. Given this, an additional useful metric when comparing the affordability of broadband across countries is a measure of actual speed adjusted price, i.e. price per Mbps of actual measured speed. Ookla’s ?Value Index? data (which is a sub-section of the Net Index data) reports the daily median price per Mbps26 in 848 cities around the world. In contrast to our web scraped data, the Ookla data also has the advantage that all reported speeds are for actual plans with subscribers, and the number of reports may roughly correspond to the share of various speed plans across different countries. While Ookla data is the best available for international prices based on actual speeds, some caveats have to be noted when interpreting this data. First, the prices reported in Ookla are derived from surveys that are administered to people who take the speed test and are therefore subject to misreporting. Second, when asked about the price of a broadband plan, consumers may report the recurring monthly charges and exclude non-recurring charges such as installation fees. Thus, if there are some countries with high non-recurring costs, this variation will not be captured in the Ookla price data. Third, we do not know whether the reported prices are for standalone broadband or broadband purchased as part of a bundle, nor do we have information on non-speed plan attributes like monthly usage limits. Thus, we cannot disaggregate by the bundling characteristics or usage limits, as we did earlier, but only compare average prices. Figure 5 shows the average weighted price (U.S. dollars) per Mbps27 of download speed for consumers, for 2010 and 2011.28 Bulgaria, Lithuania, Slovakia, Hungary and Hong Kong pay the lowest amount per unit of speed, while New Zealand, Australia, Chile and Mexico are the most expensive. The price per Mbps appears to have increased in Switzerland and Finland from 2010 to 2011. We find that although the United States is not among the least expensive countries, the price per Mbps noticeably declined from 2010 to 2011. Appendix C Table 5 has the data. 26 One potential bias from this metric is that more expensive plans (e.g., $100+ for 100 Mbps) may look cheaper than lower-price plans. That also means that to the extent the U.S. has a bias toward lower-speed plans and slow speed DSL plans relative to other countries, this figure will also show a bias toward higher prices. 27 The Ookla data reports the median price per Mbps on a daily basis for each city in its data set. We calculate the average of these prices. 28 The Net Index price data does not include Japan or South Korea. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 13 Source: Based on the Value Index data from the Ookla Net Index database. The price per Mbps is weighted by the sample size for each city when constructing the country average. Japan, the Netherlands and South Korea are not in this dataset. The data presented in the above graph provides a snapshot of the trends in speed adjusted price by comparing country-level data from 2010 and 2011. However, there is significant heterogeneity among U.S. states. Additionally, the 2010 data is sparse and does not have as extensive coverage as the 2011 data. Therefore, in Figure 6, we show the weighted average price per Mbps for the top and bottom 25th percentile of countries and U.S. states for 2011. We find that South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Virginia are among the states with the lowest price per Mbps. In contrast, Mississippi, Maine, Alaska, and Washington D.C. are on the top end of the price distribution. The data for all the countries and U.S. States is shown in Appendix C Table 6. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 14 Source: Value Index from the Ookla Net Index database provided by Ookla. Japan, the Netherlands and South Korea are not in this dataset. The blue bars denote U.S. states. As noted above, the disparity in speed-adjusted priced across the United States may be the result of sample errors or differences in broadband adoption patterns considered above. Additionally, these rankings do not control for the type of cities generating the data. For example, from existing literature, we know that population level and/or density is directly related to availability and costs of broadband.29 The rankings further illustrate the difficulty in comparing the data and the need for further, careful analysis of the speed-adjusted price data. Controlling for population metrics will be considered for future reports. III. Mobile Broadband Prices The price data for mobile broadband plans are complex, and every country has different reporting and advertising standards. Usage limits, differing peak and off-peak speeds, all effect price comparisons. For example, advertising about the speed of the broadband appears to vary widely across countries. Some carriers in countries such as Hong Kong,30 Italy31 and Poland,32 advertise the theoretical 29 See, e.g., Aron, D. J. and D. E. Burnstein., ?Broadband Adoption in the United States: An Empirical Analysis? March 2003, Mimeo; Gruber, H. and Koutroumpis, P., ?Competition Enhancing Regulation and Diffusion of Innovation: The Case of Broadband Networks?, Draft July 2011, electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1898125. 30 Hong Kong CSL. 1O1O 4G Ultimate Mobile Broadband Service Plan. 31 Vodaphone Italia, Internet Speed (netbook) Plan (3G HSPA). Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 15 maximum available speeds, i.e. they report 100 Mbps for 4G and 42.2 Mbps for 3G HSPA+. In contrast, the highest speed advertised for a 4G plan in the United States is 5-12 Mbps and for a 3G plan it is 7.2 Mbps.33 Device discounts and phone plans that have to be purchased along with data plans vary widely by country as well. Phone plans associated with broadband also vary in terms of the number of minutes and text messages included in the plans. And because most broadband on smartphones is bought as a bundle with mobile voice, carriers may use the phone plans to cross-subsidize their data plans in some countries. Given these issues, meaningful international comparisons of mobile pricing are extremely difficult. Below we compare mobile pricing focusing on just the broadband segment of mobile plans, and using the price per GB of data as the metric. These data should be taken with extreme caution, however. It is often impossible to value how much a GB of data is worth in a country when promotions are in terms of increasing usage limits. For example, in Australia, a smartphone plan by Vodafone has 0.5 GB usage limit, but infinite access to certain social networking sites, e.g. Facebook, while an Optus plan may have a 2 GB peak, 4 GB off-peak data limit, but unlimited access to certain unmetered sites, including Facebook and the carrier specific email account.34 In these cases when we treat the usage limit as 0.5 GB for Vodafone or 3 GB for Optus, we may be inflating the price paid per GB of data. The same argument holds true for some plans in the United States such as T-Mobile’s ?Classic— Overage-Free Ultra? plan, where there is a usage limit of 10 GB, but instead of charging overage fees for exceeding the cap, T-Mobile reduces users’ speeds. Additionally, usage patterns matter if we think about a volume-adjusted price, i.e. instead of diving the price by the usage limit, we divide price by the usage (or amount of data used). In that case, two countries may have very different GB limits but the same effective price (or volume-adjusted price) given different usage. In addition, the comparisons below do not account for differences in speeds offered in different countries, nor were we able to account for device discounts. Given these and other limitations, the data should be treated with care. We nevertheless provide this detailed data on mobile broadband plans as an initial step for future analysis. Commission’s Web Harvest Data For the first time, Commission staff has compiled a dataset of publicly available advertised pricing information for mobile broadband services in 38 countries (including the United States), most of which are members of the OECD. Staff collected this pricing information between October 2011 and February 2012.35 The dataset includes information on advertised monthly recurring charges and 32 Polkomtel, iPlus 20 GB w/out night/morning limit (4G Plan) Plan; PTK Centertel (Orange), Orange Free Z 19 Plan (3G HSPDA+). 33 Verizon 4G Smartphone plan 8, AT&T LG Phoenix (3G) 34 Vodafone Infinite 500M, Optus Data Cap 2 35 We assembled the data by visiting the websites of broadband providers serving the countries and communities in our sample. In order to mitigate the effects of variations in a particular broadband provider’s prices over time, we visited the websites of providers and downloaded the relevant information at one specific point in time. Thus, data was collected between October 2011 and February 2012. Our price data reflects only what a given provider was offering at the specific point in time we accessed its website. For some countries in the dataset, we were able to determine whether the offerings were on a national or community level. Many advertised offerings were national in scope, though some were listed for particular cities or on an ?as available? basis. Because we obtained the information for the dataset at specific points in time, we were not able to determine which offers are regularly Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 16 nonrecurring charges such as connection fees for four types of device (smartphones, stick modems, tablets and netbooks), to allow for a more complete pricing analysis of each mobile broadband offering. We have fairly complete information on 1,765 mobile plans for the 38 countries, out of which 100 are United States plans. There are 857 smart phone plans, 531 stick modem plans, 289 tablet plans, and 88 netbook plans. The dataset also includes promotional discounts and rebates such as those associated with online sign- up and longer service contracts, and the duration of those promotions. Additionally, information on device charges (such as the cost of a smart phone or modem) is also included. This allows for a more nuanced analysis of the price that a customer pays for a mobile broadband plan. The dataset includes upload and download speeds,36 limitations on data usage, and information on the type of technology, i.e. whether it is 3G, 3.5G, GSM, 4G and so on.37 Additionally, the usage limits on each plan and the consequences of reaching that usage limit are reported, such as the extra charge customers may incur, or whether they experience a slowdown of their speeds. The dataset also shows whether the broadband belongs to a bundle, i.e. includes mobile voice. To compare prices across countries, we first construct an annual or monthly price that reflects all the rebates, charges and fees associated with each plan. To accomplish this, we calculate what the customer pays over the life of the contract, using the formula discussed earlier in the report for fixed broadband prices.38 We do not include the device charges, or the monthly phone plan charges that accompany the data plan in the calculation. To the extent that the plan includes a subsidized device, such an approach will mean that the price for the broadband service will include sufficient margin to repay that subsidy – i.e., the price for bandwidth will appear more expensive. We then calculate the monthly net price by dividing it by the length of the contract. Next, we convert all prices to U.S. dollars based on both purchasing power parity (PPP) and current exchange rates. For reasons discussed earlier, we use the PPP conversions for the following analyses. Comparing the Average Net Price of Monthly Plans The price data for mobile broadband plans is complex and the data plans vary by the type of device. One important metric however, is the amount of data included in a plan. Therefore, for mobile broadband, we compare the net price per gigabyte of data, i.e. the price for total capacity (before hitting a penalty rather than a price per bit consumed) for four device types – smartphones, stick modems, tablets and netbooks. Plans that are advertised as unlimited data plans but that have customer speeds slowed down after a certain data limit is reached are classified as plans with usage limits. For example, the ?Unlimited Mobiilinet M? plan by Tele 2 Estonia states that the particular plan is unlimited – however, there is a reasonable use policy in place and after reaching 30 GB, download speed is reduced to 200 Kbps and upload speed is reduced to 64 Kbps. The usage limit in this case would be 30 GB. Only those ?unlimited? plans that have no overages or speed slowdowns are classified as truly unlimited. For unlimited plans we present the monthly average price and not the price per GB metric. available and which are significant departures from regularly available offers. Therefore, while ideally we would include only widely and regularly available offerings, it is possible we captured information on some non- standard offers such as special, promotional, or other limited offers. 36 In some cases, providers did not indicate upload speeds on their websites. 37 We probably only collect ?the best? advertised technology and that the technology actually in use by any customer at any time depends on a number of factors (e.g., location, spectrum band, network congestion) – so someone on a 4G plan could easily spend most of their time using the 3G network. 38 Net price for the contract term = (promotional price * number of months promotion lasts) + (standard price * (contract term – number of months promotion lasts)) + installation fee + activation fee + modem rental charge + other fees (incl. line charges) – rebates. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 17 Figures 7a-10a shows the net price per gigabyte of data for plans with usage limits, and Figures 7b-10b reports the average monthly net price for unlimited data plans. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 P r i c e p e r G B o f D a t a ( $ P P P / G B ) Figure 7a Average Monthly Net Price per GB of Data 2011 Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits Note: Belgium does not have any limited data plans in the sample. Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet = 128 bytes according to the advertised plan. These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the phone plan or device charge. The net price per GB for an ?average? smartphone plan with usage limits are presented in Figure and Appendix Table 7a.39 We find that the United States is among the ten cheapest countries for smartphone data plans with usage limits, with an average price of $10/GB. Iceland, Finland and Germany are the three lowest price countries with an average price of $5/GB. Figure 7b and Appendix Table 7b show the net price for unlimited data plans, Finland is the cheapest country ($5.08) and Portugal is the most expensive ($148.99). The United States lies in the middle with $52.50. 39 Most Japanese plans in the data set charge by the amounts of packets sent and not by gigabyte of data use. We use 1 packet = 128 bytes to convert the number of packets into gigabytes. The phone company website provides this information. See: http://www.au.kddi.com/english/packetwin/service/waribiki.html. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 18 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 A v e r a g e M o n t h l y P r i c e ( $ P P P ) Figure 7b Average Monthly Net Price 2011 Smartphone Data Plans with No Usage Limits Note: Belgium does not have any unlimited data plans in the sample. The above net prices are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the phone plan or device charge. Countries not listed in Figure 7b do not have unlimited data plans in the sample. Figure 8a and Appendix Table 8a shows that for stick modem data plans, Finland, Austria and Sweden have the lowest prices, with an average of $2/GB. Excluding Japan, the three most expensive countries are Canada, France and Hong Kong, with an average price of over $17/GB. Japan is the most expensive country in our sample with an average price of $62.38/GB for modem plans. The United States is 24th out of 34 countries, with an average price of $9.80/GB. Figure 8b and Appendix Table 8b show that for plans with no usage limits, Luxembourg is the cheapest country ($18.53) and Japan is the most expensive ($97.31). The United States does not have any unlimited data plans for stick modems in the sample. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 19 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 P r i c e p e r G B o f D a t a ( $ P P P / G B ) Figure 8a Average Monthly Net Price per GB of Data 2011 Stick Modem Data Plans with Usage Limits Note: Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet = 128 bytes as mentioned in their plan and it is the most expensive. We exclude Japan from the graph due to this extreme value. These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the stick modem or other rental charges. Countries not listed in Figure 8a do not have stick modem plans with usage limits in our sample. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 A v e r a g e M o n t h l y N e t P r i c e ( $ P P P ) L u x e m b o u r g S w i t z e r l a n d E s t o n i a F i n l a n d I t a l y S i n g a p o r e N o r w a y S l o v a k i a L i t h u a n i a A u s t r a l i a I r e l a n d S w e d e n N e t h e r l a n d s D e n m a r k G r e e c e I c e l a n d A u s t r i a P o r t u g a l S l o v e n i a H o n g K o n g C z e c h R e p u b l i c P o l a n d J a p a n Figure 8b Average Monthly Net Price 2011 Stick Modem Data Plans with No Usage Limits Note: The prices above are for the data plan only, and do not include the price of the stick modem or other rental charges. Countries not listed in Figure 8b do not have unlimited stick modem plans in our sample. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 20 Figures 9a-9b and Appendix Tables 9a-9b present the results for tablet data plans. Denmark and Australia are the cheapest countries with a price of $2/GB for plans with usage limits and Hong Kong and Japan are the most expensive. The United States is in the middle with a price of $10.90/GB. For unlimited data plans, Figure 9b and Appendix Table 9b, show Finland being the least expensive countries ($13.37), with Poland and Japan as the most expensive at $79.12 and $97.31 respectively. The United States does not have any unlimited data plans for tablets. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 P r i c e p e r G B o f D a t a ( $ P P P / G B ) D e n m a r k A u s t r a l i a I r e l a n d S w e d e n A u s t r i a L i t h u a n i a P o l a n d I t a l y L u x e m b o u r g S w i t z e r l a n d U n i t e d K i n g d o m G e r m a n y S p a i n N e t h e r l a n d s C z e c h R e p u b l i c S l o v a k i a U n i t e d S t a t e s H u n g a r y C h i l e P o r t u g a l K o r e a T u r k e y M e x i c o G r e e c e B u l g a r i a I s r a e l C a n a d a N e w Z e a l a n d J a p a n H o n g K o n g Figure 9a Average Monthly Net Price per GB of Data 2011 Tablet Data Plans with Usage Limits Note: Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet = 128 bytes as mentioned in their plan and it is the most expensive. The prices noted are for the data plan only and do not include the device charge. Countries not listed in Figure 9a do not have tablet plans with usage limits in our sample. 0 20 40 60 80 100 P r i c e p e r G B o f D a t a ( $ P P P / G B ) F i n l a n d S w i t z e r l a n d L u x e m b o u r g I t a l y S w e d e n S l o v a k i a P o r t u g a l S i n g a p o r e A u s t r i a N e t h e r l a n d s P o l a n d J a p a n Figure 9b Average Monthly Net Price per GB of Data 2011 Tablet Data Plans with No Usage Limits Note: The prices noted are for the data plan only, and do not include the device charge. For unlimited plans, we assume the usage limit to be 30 GB when calculating the per GB price. The download speed numbers are for the highest possible advertised speeds listed on the plan Countries not listed in Figure 9b do not have tablet plans with unlimited data in our sample. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 21 There are some netbook plans for some countries, although the data is sparse. Figures 10a-10b and Appendix Tables 10a-10b present this data. We find that Denmark is the least expensive country for plans with usage limits, while Italy is the least expensive for unlimited data plans. The U.S. price is consistent with earlier findings and is around $10/GB. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 P r i c e p e r G B o f D a t a ( $ P P P / G B ) D e n m a r k E s t o n i a A u s t r i a U n i t e d K i n g d o m L i t h u a n i a P o l a n d S w i t z e r l a n d I t a l y L u x e m b o u r g K o r e a U n i t e d S t a t e s H u n g a r y T u r k e y I s r a e l M e x i c o J a p a n Figure 10a Average Monthly Net Price per GB of Data 2011 Netbook Data Plans with Usage Limits Note: Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet = 128 bytes according to the advertised plan, and it is the most expensive. These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the device charge. Countries not listed in Figure 10a do not have netbook plans with usage limits in our sample. 0 20 40 60 80 100 A v e r a g e M o n t h l y N e t P r i c e ( $ P P P ) I t a l y L u x e m b o u r g S w i t z e r l a n d J a p a n Figure 10b Average Monthly Net Price 2011 Netbook Data Plans with No Usage Limits Note: The prices noted are for the data plan only, and do not include the device charge. Countries not listed in Figure 8b do not have netbook plans with no usage limits in our sample. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 22 Conclusion This pricing section presents data from an unprecedented sample of fixed and mobile price offers from 38 countries. From the analysis of the data, we have concluded that the United States is in the mid- price range of countries, whether we compare by speed tier or price per gigabyte of data, for fixed residential broadband. For mobile broadband, particularly for smartphone plans, the United States is one of the ten least expensive countries in terms of price per gigabyte of data. In future work, with more granular data, a more systematic quality adjusted price index could be developed, allowing for better international comparison. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 1a Number of Total, Unbundled and Bundled Broadband Plans 2011 Country Total Number of Plans in the Sample Number of Naked Broadband Plans Number of Double Play Plans Number of Triple Play Plans Number of Quad Play Plans Australia 90 48 32 10 Austria 27 11 13 3 Belgium 16 12 4 Bulgaria 24 13 5 6 Canada 31 27 2 2 Chile 37 16 11 10 Czech Republic 40 31 7 2 Denmark 38 9 27 2 Estonia 27 13 5 9 Finland 24 23 1 France 15 3 12 Germany 26 7 18 1 Greece 15 5 6 4 Hong Kong 28 28 Hungary 16 9 7 Iceland 14 14 Ireland 43 21 22 Israel 30 26 1 3 Italy 30 2 22 6 Japan 52 47 5 Korea 130 56 45 29 Lithuania 67 67 Luxembourg 64 24 9 31 Mexico 27 5 15 7 New Zealand 37 5 31 1 Norway 42 34 6 2 Poland 89 40 11 25 13 Portugal 31 8 5 15 3 Singapore 105 5 50 50 Slovakia 42 12 14 16 Slovenia 75 43 1 31 Spain 22 10 12 Sweden 40 12 21 4 3 Switzerland 51 25 7 10 9 The Netherlands 38 11 3 24 Turkey 41 28 9 4 United Kingdom 34 1 12 15 6 United States 113 58 33 22 Total 1,671 799 462 373 37 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 1b Average Monthly Net Price of a Broadband Package in US Dollars (PPP and Exchange Rate Conversion) Country Price $ (PPP) Price $ (Ex. Rate) Rank (PPP) Rank (Ex. Rate) Germany 32.63 35.91 1 8 Korea 32.96 23.08 2 1 Estonia 33.25 26.07 3 2 Sweden 34.92 45.38 4 14 France 35.78 42.51 5 13 Italy 36.09 41.54 6 11 Finland 38.07 48.66 7 18 Iceland 39.12 42.00 8 12 Japan 41.85 50.93 9 19 Denmark 43.09 67.43 10 30 Czech Republic 43.62 31.70 11 3 Israel 44.31 45.45 12 15 Austria 45.07 51.04 13 20 United Kingdom 45.98 48.31 14 17 Slovakia 46.68 33.45 15 5 The Netherlands 46.93 53.46 16 23 Turkey 47.05 37.25 17 10 Hong Kong 47.11 32.92 18 4 Belgium 48.24 57.76 19 24 Greece 49.83 47.12 20 16 Hungary 50.06 34.74 21 6 Poland 54.16 35.06 22 7 Luxembourg 54.73 73.94 23 35 Norway 55.19 91.38 24 37 Portugal 56.68 51.95 25 21 Ireland 57.34 66.00 26 29 Canada 59.36 70.75 27 34 Spain 59.41 60.59 28 26 Australia 60.85 70.07 29 33 New Zealand 61.04 69.42 30 31 United States 69.75 69.75 31 32 Lithuania 71.47 77.50 32 36 Slovenia 71.80 59.82 33 25 Bulgaria 72.08 36.07 34 9 Chile 78.83 63.06 35 27 Mexico 78.93 52.98 36 22 Singapore 89.48 64.41 37 28 Switzerland 119.38 190.48 38 38 Note: The monthly cost reflects the price per month, rebates, installation charges, equipment charges such as modem rentals and other fees. So this is different from the simple monthly advertised price. 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 2a Average Monthly Net Price of a Standalone Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Technology 2011 Advertised Download Speed between 1 – 5 Mbps Country All * DSL Cable Fiber Hybrid Satellite Average Download Speed Hong Kong 21.50 21.50 1.50 Poland 22.51 28.22 16.79 1.75 The Netherlands 23.20 23.20 5.00 Israel 24.09 20.63 26.00 25.64 3.33 Slovakia 24.21 24.21 2.00 Greece 26.41 26.41 2.00 Canada 26.86 26.86 1.50 Estonia 27.03 27.03 27.03 5.00 Czech Republic 27.81 34.81 19.81 28.82 1.33 Hungary 28.18 28.18 2.95 Finland 29.19 30.78 27.59 2.17 Ireland 29.64 27.64 31.64 2.17 Japan 32.92 37.95 27.90 1.13 United States 34.93 34.12 42.30 29.99 84.32 2.78 Turkey 35.78 35.78 2.67 Luxembourg 36.32 36.32 5.00 Mexico 37.76 37.76 3.00 Belgium 38.21 38.21 2.50 Slovenia 42.66 43.72 33.39 50.87 2.94 Australia 45.67 45.67 3.25 Norway 49.02 56.04 34.98 2.15 Chile 49.18 49.18 2.17 Lithuania 81.90 81.90 3.82 Switzerland 119.33 167.24 23.49 4.00 Portugal 26.13 Germany 58.10 Note: The monthly cost reflects the price per month, rebates, installation charges, equipment charges such as modem rentals and other fees. So this is different from the simple monthly advertised price. Spain did not have any naked broadband plans in the sample. ‘*’ The simple average is calculated by excluding satellite 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 2b Average Monthly Net Price of a Standalone Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Technology 2011 Advertised Download Speed between 5 – 15 Mbps Country All * DSL Cable Fiber Hybrid Satellite Average Down Speed Slovakia 20.56 20.56 10.00 Italy 21.86 21.86 10.00 Bulgaria 23.05 27.06 19.03 246.62 15.00 Sweden 25.74 25.34 26.13 7.75 The Netherlands 27.13 27.13 8.00 Austria 27.76 21.06 34.46 9.03 Korea 30.62 30.62 10.00 Israel 31.83 30.74 29.91 34.85 11.83 Poland 31.91 36.71 29.46 29.56 9.38 Finland 32.46 35.76 34.79 26.84 9.67 Denmark 32.84 42.04 23.63 12.50 Hungary 34.40 51.46 17.33 11.25 Luxembourg 37.31 41.26 29.41 11.67 Iceland 38.00 38.00 11.40 Canada 38.30 44.48 32.13 8.00 Ireland 38.58 40.46 36.70 95.49 8.03 Czech Republic 40.69 64.37 33.76 23.95 10.00 Turkey 42.52 48.07 36.97 8.86 Japan 42.76 48.26 37.26 11.00 Singapore 43.04 43.04 10.00 United States 43.71 40.84 44.75 54.99 39.99 10.52 Slovenia 45.53 59.22 42.39 34.98 9.81 Norway 46.02 41.31 50.73 9.29 Belgium 49.10 50.89 45.54 12.00 Australia 50.35 59.59 47.56 43.90 9.33 Hong Kong 52.25 79.91 47.06 29.79 9.33 Chile 52.30 52.30 10.25 Lithuania 52.97 98.35 7.60 8.37 New Zealand 53.65 53.65 15.00 Mexico 95.59 95.59 7.00 Switzerland 185.10 185.10 9.25 Portugal 52.67 Note: The monthly cost reflects the price per month, rebates, installation charges, equipment charges such as modem rentals and other fees. So this is different from the simple monthly advertised price. Spain did not have any naked broadband plans in the sample. ‘*’ The simple average is calculated by excluding satellite 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 2c Average Monthly Net Price of a Standalone Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Technology 2011 Advertised Download Speed between 15 – 25 Mbps Country All * DSL Cable Fiber Hybrid Satellite Average Down Speed Slovakia 17.91 17.91 25.00 Korea 19.25 19.25 20.00 Italy 21.86 21.86 20.00 Hungary 22.18 22.18 25.00 France 23.41 23.41 20.00 United Kingdom 28.68 28.68 20.00 The Netherlands 30.68 38.76 31.49 21.80 21.67 Turkey 30.85 39.68 22.02 18.50 Bulgaria 31.46 33.83 29.09 20.00 Sweden 32.76 32.98 32.53 19.25 Estonia 33.78 33.78 20.00 Poland 34.68 36.88 32.46 34.69 21.67 Greece 35.08 35.08 24.00 Germany 35.28 35.28 16.00 Austria 39.86 26.49 53.24 19.44 Denmark 41.06 33.95 48.17 20.00 Canada 41.91 37.44 46.38 22.75 Norway 42.80 35.73 56.96 20.39 Belgium 43.32 43.32 22.50 Israel 44.29 61.25 35.12 36.51 20.00 Czech Republic 46.32 54.53 29.89 21.63 Hong Kong 49.06 49.06 18.00 Australia 50.51 55.54 45.48 23.23 Finland 50.89 50.89 22.00 Ireland 52.12 54.16 50.08 24.17 United States 56.50 49.12 59.27 74.99 49.99 21.45 Iceland 58.62 58.62 16.00 Slovenia 59.53 70.48 63.59 44.52 20.00 Chile 61.24 61.24 20.00 Luxembourg 71.48 71.48 21.33 New Zealand 124.53 124.53 25.00 Switzerland 179.61 242.89 116.34 20.83 Note: The monthly cost reflects the price per month, rebates, installation charges, equipment charges such as modem rentals and other fees. So this is different from the simple monthly advertised price. Spain did not have any naked broadband plans in the sample. ‘*” – The simple average is calculated by excluding satellite 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 3a Average Monthly Net Price of a Double Phone DSL Broadband Plan ($ PPP) with Unlimited Local and National Calling (Broadband Download Speed 1 – 25 Mbps) 2011 Country Monthly Net Price ($PPP) Sweden 18.40 Germany 36.02 Italy 37.82 Denmark 42.09 Austria 42.28 Belgium 44.25 United Kingdom 47.98 New Zealand 55.45 Spain 59.75 United States 61.82 Australia 62.55 Greece 65.28 Ireland 67.88 Luxembourg 72.19 Chile 81.52 Mexico 94.21 Singapore 139.00 6 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 3b Average Monthly Net Price of a Double Phone Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Speed Tier 2011 1-5 Mbps 5-15 Mbps 15-25 Mbps Country $PPP $PPP $PPP Australia 57.24 66.45 62.55 Austria 35.95 53.28 Belgium 42.97 53.47 Bulgaria 40.51 Chile 83.27 75.92 Czech Republic 32.06 Denmark 26.59 31.63 42.2 Estonia 23.63 37.15 Germany 33.02 26.17 23.32 Greece 51.91 Ireland 57.98 55.27 71.9 Italy 25.45 36.2 38.85 Japan 20.04 Korea 26.56 Luxembourg 25.49 44.12 70.67 Mexico 69.21 101.28 138.42 New Zealand 45.01 Norway 13.31 7.89 Poland 45.6 49.44 43.87 Portugal 21.66 28.89 Singapore 32.92 41.86 59.22 Slovakia 22.08 41.03 44.94 Spain 41.75 39.55 Sweden 25.05 24.33 18.4 Switzerland 24.99 43.18 The Netherlands 26.16 Turkey 32.77 44.57 United Kingdom 42.06 United States 51.56 63.08 73.52 7 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 3c Average Monthly Net Price of a Double Video Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Speed Tier 2011 1-5 Mbps 5-15 Mbps 15-25 Mbps Country $PPP $PPP $PPP Austria 25.73 Bulgaria 29.5 29.5 Chile 68.54 Czech Republic 28.68 52.83 Denmark 22.61 28.29 Germany 44.26 Italy 26.47 Luxembourg Mexico 56.59 93.41 131.54 The Netherlands 42.64 New Zealand 41.49 Poland 60.92 64.76 52.03 Slovakia United States 54.91 87.93 105.99 8 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 3d Average Monthly Net Price of a Triple Play Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Speed Tier 2011 1-5 Mbps 5-15 Mbps 15-25 Mbps Country $PPP $PPP $PPP Australia 77.28 Austria 48.13 55.31 Bulgaria 34.3 34.91 Canada Chile 96.34 110.21 Czech Republic 53.67 Denmark 52.91 Estonia 25.32 38.83 France 37.24 Germany 38.29 Greece 63.49 75.46 Hungary 66.71 64.71 Israel 76.92 Italy 46.12 44.88 Korea 34.32 Luxembourg 35.64 45.98 54.8 Mexico 73.05 124.66 173.99 New Zealand 56.87 Norway 12.89 Poland 37.51 72 62.35 Portugal 51.42 21.67 Singapore 42.96 60.16 Slovakia 57.24 48.83 Slovenia 63.26 73.13 79.49 Spain 57.09 66.17 Sweden 34.92 Switzerland 41.47 58.06 55.07 The Netherlands 45.47 53.03 Turkey 62.19 United Kingdom 45.07 United States 86.87 118.2 95.97 9 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 4a Average Monthly Net Price per GB of Data ($ PPP/GB) 2011 Plans with Hard Data Caps Country Monthly Net Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Country Monthly Net Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Denmark 0.2 Slovakia 7.96 Estonia 0.68 Portugal 9.35 United States 0.76 Austria 11.41 Canada 1.67 Turkey 12.40 United Kingdom 3.25 Belgium 12.86 Australia 3.29 New Zealand 19.31 Iceland 3.91 Sweden 24.06 Luxembourg 4.49 Bulgaria 25.77 Appendix Table 4b Average Monthly Net Price ($ PPP) 2011 Plans with No Usage Limits Country Monthly Net Price ($PPP) Country Monthly Net Price ($PPP) Sweden 31.68 United Kingdom 53.70 Estonia 32.43 Poland 54.16 Germany 32.63 Luxembourg 54.89 Korea 32.96 Norway 55.19 France 35.78 Ireland 57.34 Italy 36.09 Spain 59.41 Bulgaria 37.18 Portugal 60.09 Finland 38.07 Czech Republic 61.05 Japan 41.85 Lithuania 71.47 Denmark 43.38 United States 73.06 Israel 44.31 Australia 76.52 The Netherlands 46.93 Chile 78.83 Hong Kong 47.11 Mexico 78.93 Slovakia 49.04 Singapore 89.48 Greece 49.83 Turkey 93.00 Hungary 50.06 Slovenia 101.68 Belgium 50.14 Canada 102.38 Austria 52.52 Switzerland 151.31 10 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 5 Average Price (US$) per Mbps of Download Speed by Country Country $/Mbps 2010 $/Mbps 2011 Bulgaria 0.67 0.69 Lithuania 1.74 1.33 Slovakia 3.32 2.03 Hungary 2.51 2.16 Hong Kong 2.31 Czech Republic 2.85 2.96 Poland 3.15 Iceland 3.30 Netherlands 3.41 3.41 Israel 3.51 Germany 2.67 3.54 United Kingdom 3.60 3.54 Denmark 3.45 3.59 Switzerland 3.54 3.91 Sweden 5.29 4.48 Finland 3.99 4.49 Austria 4.75 4.55 Singapore 5.01 Estonia 5.02 Slovenia 5.36 France 5.40 Belgium 6.46 5.61 Turkey 5.77 Greece 5.87 United States 6.75 6.14 Norway 6.44 6.21 Canada 6.43 6.22 Portugal 6.78 6.43 Ireland 7.02 Italy 7.06 Spain 8.13 New Zealand 9.30 Chile 11.25 Australia 11.84 11.60 Mexico 12.80 Source: Value Index from the Net Index database provided by Ookla. Japan and South Korea are not in this dataset. 11 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 6 Average Weighted Price (US$) per Mbps of Download Speed 2011 By U.S. States and International Countries Lowest 25 th Price Percentile Middle 50 Percent Highest 25th Price Percentile Country Price (US$)/ Mbps Country Price (US$)/ Mbps Country Price (US$)/ Mbps Country Price (US$)/ Mbps Bulgaria 0.69 Kentucky 4.62 Nebraska 5.78 Idaho 7.83 Lithuania 1.33 New York 4.80 Kansas 5.80 Maryland 8.06 Slovakia 2.03 Minnesota 4.87 Texas 5.85 Illinois 8.06 Hungary 2.16 Oregon 4.91 Greece 5.87 North Dakota 8.13 Hong Kong 2.31 Arizona 4.92 Utah 5.93 Michigan 8.13 South Dakota 2.36 Singapore 5.01 Oklahoma 6.05 Spain 8.13 Delaware 2.91 Estonia 5.02 Norway 6.21 New Mexico 8.37 Czech Republic 2.96 Washington 5.02 Canada 6.22 Iowa 8.40 Poland 3.15 Florida 5.15 New Jersey 6.25 Montana 8.74 Iceland 3.30 South Carolina 5.17 California 6.32 Massachusetts 9.10 Netherlands 3.41 Colorado 5.20 Nevada 6.34 Pennsylvania 9.27 Israel 3.51 Wyoming 5.24 Portugal 6.43 New Zealand 9.30 Germany 3.54 Wisconsin 5.28 Louisiana 6.44 West Virginia 9.36 United Kingdom 3.54 Slovenia 5.36 Alabama 6.44 New Hampshire 10.78 Denmark 3.59 Connecticut 5.39 Hawaii 6.48 Chile 11.25 Rhode Island 3.66 France 5.40 Indiana 6.99 Mississippi 11.51 Switzerland 3.91 Georgia 5.47 Ireland 7.02 Australia 11.60 Sweden 4.48 Tennessee 5.48 Italy 7.06 Alaska 11.71 Finland 4.49 Belgium 5.61 Ohio 7.19 District of Columbia 11.75 Virginia 4.51 North Carolina 5.62 Arkansas 7.21 Maine 12.03 Austria 4.55 Turkey 5.77 Missouri 7.50 Mexico 12.80 Note: The table is based on the Ookla Value Index data. We create a weighted average price by using the number of tests/surveys as the weights for each median price reported by Ookla, and then taking the average over all cities and dates to create an annual average weighted price. 12 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 7a Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits 2011 Country Price per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Price per Month ($PPP) Average Data Cap (GB) Download Speed (Mbps) Iceland 4.29 11.86 2.77 7.20 Germany 5.29 43.03 8.13 17.73 Denmark 5.37 28.17 5.25 15.00 Singapore 5.67 35.44 6.25 7.20 Slovenia 7.60 17.81 2.34 21.37 Sweden 7.64 37.72 4.94 9.19 Luxembourg 8.45 20.59 2.44 7.20 Austria 8.52 30.40 3.57 17.83 United States 10.40 54.82 5.27 6.41 Turkey 10.72 20.86 1.95 11.12 Poland 11.87 35.79 3.01 46.44 Slovakia 11.92 15.49 1.30 17.31 Hungary 16.31 52.44 3.22 8.87 Australia 18.02 34.32 1.90 7.23 Hong Kong 19.95 44.70 2.24 60.36 Lithuania 20.19 22.56 1.12 7.35 Ireland 20.56 56.76 2.76 10.74 Italy 21.72 49.54 2.28 17.28 Czech Republic 22.96 18.65 0.81 11.90 Finland 23.07 25.03 1.09 16.00 Chile 23.89 101.52 4.25 Korea 27.72 51.30 1.85 Norway 28.05 32.33 1.15 36.67 Spain 28.96 46.24 1.60 5.30 Canada 29.16 56.49 1.94 66.75 France 29.64 32.01 1.08 14.40 Estonia 35.84 23.75 0.66 21.60 Switzerland 51.31 29.32 0.57 Bulgaria 52.06 42.12 0.81 24.32 New Zealand 58.91 50.08 0.85 7.30 United Kingdom 60.36 39.15 0.65 5.54 Israel 61.35 66.47 1.08 7.20 Netherlands 65.41 73.04 1.12 9.26 Portugal 71.74 52.61 0.73 59.93 Greece 91.76 93.14 1.02 28.20 Mexico 94.73 76.67 0.81 4.53 Japan 606.92 10.02 0.02 7.20 Note: Belgium does not have any limited data plans in the sample. Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet=128 bytes. These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the phone plan or device charge. The download speed numbers are for the highest possible advertised speeds listed on the plan. 13 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 7b Smartphone Data Plans Without Usage Limits 2011 Country Average Price per Month ($PPP) Download Speed (Mbps) Finland 5.08 0.50 Sweden 29.38 16.00 Lithuania 40.19 21.60 United Kingdom 40.20 3.90 Switzerland 40.36 Slovakia 42.83 14.16 Luxembourg 42.89 Japan 48.66 7.20 Spain 49.50 15.90 Estonia 52.22 5.60 United States 52.50 6.70 Korea 63.63 Italy 65.02 14.40 Ireland 68.41 7.20 Hungary 73.02 60.00 Poland 81.97 100.00 Hong Kong 95.60 100.00 Singapore 131.71 14.10 Portugal 148.99 7.20 Note: Belgium does not have any unlimited data plans in the sample. These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the phone plan or device charge. For unlimited plans, we assume the data cap to be 30GB when calculating the per GB price. The download speed numbers are for the highest possible advertised speeds listed on the plan. 14 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 8a Stick Modem Data Plans With Usage Limits 2011 Country Price per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Price per Month ($PPP) Average Data Cap (GB) Download Speed (Mbps) Finland 1.42 10.32 7.25 8.38 Austria 1.97 16.51 8.39 13.80 Sweden 2.01 19.59 9.75 16.66 Denmark 2.48 44.74 18.01 48.27 Iceland 2.57 17.96 7.00 7.20 Israel 3.10 31.03 10.00 7.20 Norway 3.19 19.43 6.09 13.21 Australia 3.23 30.26 9.36 22.67 Ireland 3.50 28.18 8.05 12.08 Italy 3.50 22.95 6.56 16.09 Estonia 3.97 59.62 15.00 38.85 Hungary 4.08 30.77 7.55 13.93 Poland 4.40 31.03 7.06 61.54 Slovakia 4.56 26.37 5.79 28.43 Korea 4.94 51.89 10.50 Slovenia 5.19 25.97 5.00 31.80 Germany 5.36 36.76 6.85 13.28 Lithuania 6.13 18.38 3.00 21.60 Switzerland 6.63 27.34 4.13 18.80 United Kingdom 6.78 21.96 3.24 9.37 Greece 7.37 31.14 4.23 29.47 Luxembourg 7.55 21.89 2.90 7.20 Portugal 9.75 27.23 2.79 2.62 United States 9.80 58.83 6.00 6.04 Czech Republic 10.25 32.63 3.18 6.50 Spain 10.45 32.22 3.08 8.17 Chile 10.79 62.21 5.77 8.95 New Zealand 11.03 34.84 3.16 7.40 Netherlands 12.52 24.40 1.95 7.76 Mexico 12.81 42.72 3.34 14.40 Turkey 14.40 43.88 3.05 13.13 Canada 17.29 38.19 2.21 64.00 Hong Kong 18.36 55.07 3.00 100.00 France 18.76 37.90 2.02 Japan 5466.01 97.31 0.02 7.20 Note: Belgium, Bulgaria and Singapore did not have any limited data plans in the sample. Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet=1000 bytes. These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the phone plan or device charge. The download speed numbers are for the highest possible advertised speeds listed on the plan. 15 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 8b Stick Modem Data Plans Without Usage Limits 2011 Country Average Price per Month ($PPP) Download Speed (Mbps) Luxembourg 18.53 7.20 Switzerland 19.63 Estonia 20.60 3.67 Finland 21.25 35.38 Italy 22.05 21.60 Singapore 26.45 3.47 Norway 28.38 100.00 Slovakia 29.39 42.00 Lithuania 30.03 21.60 Australia 30.61 7.20 Ireland 30.68 14.23 Sweden 31.12 42.68 Netherlands 31.73 8.40 Denmark 34.16 80.00 Greece 34.87 7.20 Iceland 38.03 7.20 Austria 43.27 60.00 Portugal 45.51 20.36 Slovenia 54.05 21.60 Hong Kong 61.06 53.60 Czech Republic 61.16 21.60 Poland 73.09 55.33 Japan 97.31 7.20 Note: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Spain, Turkey, UK and the US did not have any unlimited data plans in the sample. Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet=1000 bytes. These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the phone plan or device charge. For unlimited plans, we assume the data cap to be 30GB when calculating the per GB price. The download speed numbers are for the highest possible advertised speeds listed on the plan. 16 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 9a Tablet Data Plans With Usage Limits 2011 Country Price per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Price per Month ($PPP) Average Data Cap (GB) Download Speed (Mbps) Denmark 1.73 17.74 10.28 6.80 Australia 2.10 21.34 10.14 7.62 Ireland 2.74 19.17 7.00 16.47 Sweden 2.74 13.45 4.90 10.15 Austria 3.02 34.76 11.50 8.60 Lithuania 3.57 14.29 4.00 7.20 Poland 4.12 53.51 13.00 22.50 Italy 4.62 24.37 5.27 15.13 Luxembourg 5.21 20.31 3.90 Switzerland 6.63 27.34 4.13 18.80 United Kingdom 7.06 26.48 3.75 4.65 Germany 7.09 48.58 6.85 13.28 Spain 9.10 36.20 3.98 15.15 Netherlands 9.93 17.68 1.78 9.84 Czech Republic 10.02 32.27 3.22 5.64 Slovakia 10.41 15.62 1.50 42.00 United States 10.91 48.04 4.40 5.81 Hungary 10.94 33.52 3.06 11.24 Chile 11.83 41.40 3.50 4.00 Portugal 12.47 20.78 1.67 11.90 Korea 13.54 39.72 2.93 Turkey 14.48 43.52 3.01 12.00 Mexico 14.93 38.40 2.57 7.20 Greece 18.67 18.67 1.00 42.20 Bulgaria 18.99 30.85 1.63 42.00 Israel 20.60 20.60 1.00 7.20 Canada 22.95 40.48 1.76 58.50 New Zealand 44.63 29.65 0.66 7.52 Hong Kong 109.97 54.98 0.50 Japan 5466.01 97.31 0.02 7.20 Note: Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Norway, Singapore and Slovenia did not have any limited data plans in the sample. Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet=1000 bytes. These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the phone plan or device charge. The download speed numbers are for the highest possible advertised speeds listed on the plan. 17 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 9b Tablet Data Plans Without Usage Limits 2011 Country Average Price per Month ($PPP) Download Speed (Mbps) Finland 13.37 15.00 Switzerland 17.73 Luxembourg 19.25 Italy 22.05 21.60 Sweden 27.38 34.25 Slovakia 29.39 42.00 Portugal 38.14 14.10 Singapore 38.22 7.20 Austria 39.85 10.00 Netherlands 46.27 8.40 Poland 79.12 24.00 Japan 97.31 7.20 Note: Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Korea, Lithuania, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, UK and the US did not have any unlimited data plans in the sample. These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the phone plan or device charge. For unlimited plans, we assume the data cap to be 30GB when calculating the per GB price. The download speed numbers are for the highest possible advertised speeds listed on the plan. 18 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 19 Appendix Table 10a Netbook Data Plans with Data Caps 2011 Country Price per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Price per Month ($PPP) Average Data Cap (GB) Download Speed (Mbps) Denmark 1.56 15.60 10.00 7.00 Estonia 2.63 39.39 15.00 1.50 Austria 3.02 34.76 11.50 8.60 United Kingdom 3.12 46.79 15.00 13.30 Lithuania 3.57 14.29 4.00 7.20 Poland 5.07 71.00 14.00 42.00 Switzerland 5.93 30.65 5.17 18.80 Italy 6.90 27.62 4.00 11.25 Luxembourg 7.69 17.22 2.24 7.20 Korea 9.05 40.73 4.50 United States 9.14 63.99 7.00 7.30 Hungary 12.25 53.06 4.33 14.00 Turkey 14.40 43.88 3.05 13.13 Israel 20.60 20.60 1.00 Mexico 34.42 49.91 1.45 7.20 Japan 5466.01 97.31 0.02 7.20 Note: Only 16 out of the 38 countries have limited data plans in the sample. Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet=1000 bytes. These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the phone plan or device charge. The download speed numbers are for the highest possible advertised speeds listed on the plan. Appendix Table 10b Netbook Data Plans with No Data Caps 2011 Country Average Price per Month ($PPP) Download Speed (Mbps) Italy 22.05 7.20 Luxembourg 24.51 Switzerland 35.46 Japan 97.31 7.20 Note: Only 4 out of the 38 countries have any unlimited data plans in the sample. Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet=1000 bytes. These prices are for the data plan only and do not include the price of the phone plan or device charge. For unlimited plans, we assume the data cap to be 30GB when calculating the per GB price. The download speed numbers are for the highest possible advertised speeds listed on the plan. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 APPENDIX D: Demographics Dataset Below is a concise version of the demographics dataset, containing only the most recent data available for the countries surveyed. A complete version contai ning historical data going back several years is available at http://www.fcc.gov/reports/internat ional-broadband-data-report-third . Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (avg population per square meter) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) GDP per cap, PPP (purchasing power parity) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) ALA0 Australia 73 22326388 3 864132 39369 23 ALA1 New South Wales 73 7232589 9 277443 38928 34 ALA2 Victoria 72 5545932 24 201108 36924 33 ALA3 Queensland 74 4513850 3 168190 38011 28 ALA4 South Australia 69 1644582 2 54467 33529 27 ALA5 Western Australia 75 2293510 1 117195 52216 31 ALA6 Tasmania 65 507643 8 15982 31755 25 ALA7 Northern Territory 73 229711 0 11839 52336 31 ALA8 Australian Capital Territory 83 358571 153 17908 50833 47 AT0 Austria 72 8375290 102 324770 38870 20 AT11 Burgenland (A) 67 283965 78 7446 26301 16 AT12 Niederösterreich 74 1607976 85 51265 31938 16 A T13 Wien 74 1698822 4320 85127 50453 24 AT21 Kärnten 66 559315 60 18160 32394 17 AT22 Steiermark 67 1208372 74 40631 33650 16 AT31 Oberösterreich 73 1411238 121 54680 38769 16 AT32 Salzburg 73 529861 75 23443 44297 18 AT33 Tirol 69 706873 57 28817 40906 17 AT34 Vorarlberg 79 368868 146 15065 40985 16 BE0 Belgium 70 10839905 360 395970 36824 38 BE1 Région de Bruxelles- Capitale/Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest 65 1089538 6861 75064 70249 45 BE21 Prov. Antwerpen 74 6251983 471 227124 36580 36 BE3 Région Wallonne 64 3498384 209 93563 26919 34 BG0 Bulgaria 7563710 69 46112 6072 2 BG3 Severna I iztochna Bulgaria 32 3922971 58 17659 4488 No Data BG4 Yugozapadna I yuzhna tsentralna Bulgaria 48 3640739 87 28453 7788 No Data Canada 70 1332626 CA1 Newfoundland And Labrador 70 511281 1 23125 45230 36 CA2 Prince Edward Island 72 143395 25 4110 28659 47 CA3 Nova Scotia 69 944810 18 29819 31560 48 CA4 New Brunswick 65 752838 11 24155 32086 46 CA5 Quebec 65 7905679 6 261953 33135 49 CA6 Ontario 71 13227791 15 502414 37982 56 CA7 Manitoba 59 1234535 2 44506 36051 44 CA8 Saskatchewan 65 1044028 2 52134 49936 37 CA9 Alberta 71 3720928 6 216173 58097 45 CA10 British Columbia 75 4529674 5 166636 36788 47 Yukon Territory No data 34559 0 1911 55304 No Data Northwest Territories, and Nunavut No data No data No data 5292 No Data No Data Chile 39 16928873 23 177938 10511 CL01 Tarapaca 41 307426 7 8568 27871 No Data CII Antofagasta 64 538432 5 14867 26154 No Data CIII Atacama 36 278515 4 4496 16143 No Data CIV Coquimbo 26 708369 18 5522 7795 No Data CV Valparaiso 39 1739876 106 19111 10984 No Data CVI O'Higgins 19 874806 53 8971 10255 No Data CVII Maule 17 999685 33 8305 8308 No Data CVIII Bio-Bio 31 2022995 55 21778 10765 No Data CIX Araucania 20 962120 30 5719 5945 No Data CX Los Lagos 25 825830 17 10637 12880 No Data CXI Aisen 22 103738 1 1444 13923 No Data CXII Magallanes y Anta(a)rtica 33 158111 1 2995 18943 No Data CRMS Santiago 51 6814630 442 105098 15422 No Data CL14 Los Rios 26 378193 21 No Data No Data No Data CL15 Arica Y Parinacota 53 186147 11 No Data No Data No Data Cyprus 56 804435 87 22246 27852 CZ0 Czech Republic 63 10506813 137 268732 25673 16 C Z01 Praha 70 1257158 2627 67972 55118 32 CZ02 Strední Cechy 65 1264978 119 28427 23099 13 CZ03 Jihozápad 61 1210751 71 26717 22155 14 CZ04 Severozápad 58 1143489 135 23826 20821 7 3 CZ05 Severovýchod 67 1511909 124 31370 20816 12 CZ06 Jihovýchod 66 1669223 122 38707 23282 16 CZ07 Strední Morava 57 1232042 135 25380 20575 14 CZ08 Moravskoslezsko 61 1243220 234 26334 21063 12 DK0 Denmark 84 5534738 129 211487 38372 38 DK01 Hovedstaden 86 1680271 660 77383 46552 40 DK02 Sjælland 82 820564 113 22944 27938 28 DK03 Syddanmark 80 1200277 99 41012 34187 26 DK04 Midtjylland 85 1253998 96 44815 35917 30 DK05 Nordjylland 86 579628 73 19897 34275 26 Estonia 66 1340127 31 26526 19789 FI0 Finland 81 5351427 18 190561 35777 40 FI13 Itä-Suomi 78 652346 9 17366 26540 30 FI18 Etelä-Suomi 83 2672190 66 109414 41229 39 FI19 Länsi-Suomi 80 1355168 23 43320 32098 32 FI1A Pohjois-Suomi 80 643989 5 18954 29563 32 FI20 Åland 64 27734 18 1430 52099 28 France 70 64694497 103 2175064 33800 31 FR1 Île de France 77 11798427 986 646979 55081 41 FR2 Bassin Parisien 67 10743207 74 299251 27936 No Data FR3 Nord - Pas-de-Calais 65 4025605 324 110716 27527 27 FR4 Est 70 5379468 112 152203 28412 No Data FR5 Ouest 67 8534180 100 243813 28820 No Data FR6 Sud-Ouest 73 6866219 66 202781 29794 No Data FR7 Centre-Est 67 7557252 108 246093 32799 No Data FR8 Méditerranée 72 7894822 117 234073 29769 No Data FR 9 Departements d'outre- mer 54 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data DE0 Germany 75 81802257 229 2951421 35992 28 DE1 Baden-Württemberg 75 10753880 301 420143 39102 27 DE2 Bayern 75 12538696 178 521852 41714 26 DE3 Berlin 76 3460725 3895 113081 32847 34 DE4 Brandenburg 64 2503273 85 66755 26579 28 DE5 Bremen No Data 660706 1633 32910 49734 24 DE6 Hamburg 78 1786448 2371 104081 58663 28 DE7 Hessen 79 6067021 287 265076 43728 26 DE8 Mecklenburg- Vorpommern 57 1642327 70 43561 26381 24 DE9 Niedersachsen 81 7918293 166 253287 31945 21 DEA Nordrhein-Westfalen 79 17845154 522 643844 36024 22 4 DEB Rheinland-Pfalz 74 4003745 201 125686 31322 23 DEC Saarland 77 1017567 394 35059 34285 19 DED Sachsen 66 4149477 224 114270 27411 31 DEE Sachsen-Anhalt 65 2335006 113 62102 26357 22 DEF Schleswig-Holstein 81 2834259 179 90479 31949 22 DEG Thüringen 72 2235025 137 59235 26328 27 GR0 Greece 33 11260402 86 337965 30138 27 GR1 Voreia Ellada 27 3580472 64 89843 25152 25 GR2 Kentriki Ellada 20 2475170 47 66125 26795 19 GR3 Attiki 46 4088447 1080 147407 36295 32 GR4 Nisia Aigaiou, Kriti 29 1116313 64 34590 31085 20 HU0 Hungary 61 10014324 108 202002 20138 23 HU10 Közép- Magyarország 69 2951436 430 99402 33978 31 HU21 Kosep-Dunantul 62 1098654 99 18451 16726 18 HU22 Nyugat-Dunantul 64 996390 88 18741 18775 16 HU23 Del-Dunantul 56 947986 67 13205 13856 17 HU31 Eszak-Magyarország 55 1209142 89 14979 12246 16 HU32 Eszak-Alfold 53 1492502 84 19585 13036 18 HU33 Del-Alfold 56 1318214 72 17638 13307 19 Iceland 92 317630 3 11723 36706 31 Ireland 65 4467854 66 177606 39911 IE01 Border - Midlands and Western 60 1204423 38 33299 27766 30 IE02 Southern and Eastern 68 3263431 91 144307 44392 36 Israel 7623600 352 No Data No Data No Data IL01 Jerusalem 53 934500 1431 No Data No Data No Data IL02 Northern 56 1268200 284 No Data No Data No Data IL03 Haifa 70 905700 1046 No Data No Data No Data IL04 Central 76 1834600 1418 No Data No Data No Data IL05 Tel Aviv 73 1281100 7448 No Data No Data No Data IL06 Southern 69 1095600 77 No Data No Data No Data IL06 Judea and Samaria 68 303900 No Data No Data No Data No Data IT0 Italy 52 200 1950076 32477 18 ITC1 Piemonte 51 4457335 179 153628 34659 16 ITC2 Valle d''Aosta/Vallée d''Aoste 52 128230 40 5266 41444 13 ITC3 Liguria 49 1616788 303 55925 34627 20 5 ITC4 Lombardia 58 9068078 396 406704 41745 17 ITD1 Provincia Autonoma Bolzano-Bozen 55 507657 69 23085 46275 11 ITD2 Provincia Autonoma Trento 58 529457 86 20281 39017 17 ITD3 Veneto 55 4937854 280 182535 37362 14 ITD4 Friuli-Venezia Giulia 56 1235808 163 44458 36117 15 ITD5 Emilia-Romagna 56 4432418 205 172742 39821 17 ITE1 Toscana 58 3749813 165 131985 35596 17 ITE2 Umbria 53 1273449 154 26830 21027 16 ITE3 Marche 56 1020458 107 51359 43237 15 ITE4 Lazio 55 5728688 338 213078 37869 22 ITF1 Abruzzo 52 1342366 126 35916 26910 18 ITF2 Molise 43 319780 73 8390 26154 17 ITF3 Campania 43 5834056 435 121803 20954 16 ITF4 Puglia 37 3698396 193 87688 21494 15 ITF5 Basilicata 44 587517 61 13787 23343 15 ITF6 Calabria 43 2011395 136 42422 21119 17 ITG1 Sicilia 42 5051075 199 107427 21324 15 ITG2 Sardegna 56 1675411 70 41695 24952 13 JP0 Japan 128057352 343 4194818 32897 24 JPA Hokkaido/Tohoku 53 5506419 66 156717 28458 No Data JPB Tohoku 53 9335636 140 271668 28993 No Data JPC Southern-Kanto 78 35618564 2717 1341994 38255 No Data JPD Northern-Kanto, Koshin 63 10001045 283 313162 31319 No Data JPE Hokoriku 62 5443799 166 172603 31694 No Data JPF Toukai 67 15111223 677 530112 34940 No Data JPG Kinki 73 20903173 797 655144 31476 No Data JPH Chugoku 57 7563428 241 238226 31474 No Data JPI Shikoku 52 3977282 213 112886 28292 No Data JPJ Kyushu, Okinawa 53 14596783 334 402305 27619 No Data KR0: Korea 84 48874539 491 1425223 29161 34 KR01: Capital region 90 24336199 2079 681747 28014 40 KR02: Gyeongnam region 78 7680036 623 248928 32412 37 KR03: Gyeonbuk region 73 5022566 252 140377 27949 34 KR04: Jeolla region 76 4893303 238 140066 28624 25 KR05: Chungcheong region 88 4952605 299 166243 33567 23 6 KR06: Gangwon region 74 1442929 87 35348 24497 29 KR07: Jeju 72 546901 296 12513 22879 34 Latvia 59 2229641 36 24448 10824 Lithuania 57 3244601 52 35138 10560 Luxembourg (Grand- Duché) 68 511840 196 41263 83613 32 Mexico 21 112336538 57 1476530 13784 20 ME01 Aguacalienetes 24 1184996 211 16249 14340 24 ME02 Baja California Norte 36 3155070 44 41520 13297 21 ME03 Baja California Sur 28 637026 9 9481 16978 23 ME04 Campeche 20 822441 14 75784 95769 20 ME05 Coahuila 7 2748391 18 43873 16774 22 ME06 Colima 134 650555 116 7793 13052 21 ME07 Chiapas 17 4796580 65 27356 6101 15 ME08 Chihuahua 4 3406465 14 45784 13561 17 M E09 Distrito Feder a l 35 8851080 5964 260658 29488 29 ME10 Durango 18 1632934 13 18847 12178 18 ME11 Guanajuato 68 5486372 179 56408 11207 14 ME12 Guerrerro 23 3388768 53 22021 7006 17 ME13 Hidalgo 13 2665018 128 22712 9403 15 ME14 Jalisco 4 7350682 94 93665 13401 21 ME15 Mexico 12 15175862 680 135214 9174 18 ME16 Michoacan 13 4351037 74 36481 9186 15 ME17 Morelos 26 1777227 363 16425 9845 18 ME18 Nayarit 20 1084979 39 9143 9443 20 ME19 Nuevo Leon 34 4653458 73 110754 25052 24 ME20 Oaxaca 7 3801962 41 22800 6419 15 ME21 Puebla 13 5779829 169 49377 8780 15 ME22 Queretaro 22 1827937 157 27258 15985 21 ME23 Quintana Roo 30 1325578 31 21275 16488 18 ME24 San Luis Potosi 15 2585518 42 27694 11169 21 ME25 Sinaloa 26 2767761 48 31522 11893 22 ME26 Sonora 30 2662480 15 37828 15136 21 ME27 Tabasco 12 2238603 91 50715 24796 19 ME28 Tamaulipas 25 3268554 41 46535 14661 23 ME29 Tlaxcala 9 1169936 293 7961 7062 18 ME30 Veracruz 14 7643194 106 69390 9544 18 ME31 Yucatan 20 1955577 49 21043 11017 15 ME32 Zacatecas 12 1490668 20 12965 9390 16 NL0 Netherlands 80 16574989 492 679034 41189 36 7 NL1 Noord-Nederland 75 1713954 206 67601 39560 26 NL2 Oost-Nederland 77 3517162 363 122140 34898 28 NL3 West-Nederland 82 7777014 901 341659 44257 34 NL4 Zuid-Nederland 79 3566859 505 140691 39551 29 NO0 Norway 80 4858199 16 262945 56171 39 NO01 Oslo og Akershus 83 1123359 225 81425 76977 46 NO02 Hedmark og Oppland 75 375925 8 15699 42232 25 NO03 Sør-Østlandet 79 928852 28 39972 44406 29 NO04 Agder og Rogaland 76 706823 30 36748 54602 30 NO05 Vestlandet 82 835517 18 43715 54083 32 NO06 Trøndelag 86 422102 11 19951 48910 34 NO07 Nord-Norge 74 465621 4 21462 46432 31 PL0 Poland 61 38167329 122 721478 18919 24 PL1 Centralny 60 7763999 145 201853 26034 No Data PL2 Poludniowy 61 7938995 289 147604 18607 No Data PL3 Wschodni 57 6718785 90 89915 13369 No Data PL4 Pólnocno-Zachodni 67 6111526 92 112843 18500 No Data PL5 Poludniowo-Zachodni 64 3907724 133 75258 19247 No Data PL6 Pólnocny 61 5726300 95 94010 16451 No Data PT0 Portugal 57 10637713 116 265126 24948 16 PT11 Norte 53 3741092 176 74273 19829 13 PT15 Algarve 57 437643 88 11393 26250 12 PT16 Centro (PT) 51 2375902 84 49345 20724 11 PT17 Lisboa 67 2839908 949 98985 34966 22 PT18 Alentejo 48 749055 24 16990 22550 14 PT30 Região Autónoma da Madeira (PT) 59 245811 106 5743 23405 8 PT20 Região Autónoma dos Açores (PT) 54 247568 309 8087 32689 13 RO0 Romania 21413815 93 156019 7260 RO1 Macroregiunea unu 30 5240224 78 35755 6864 No Data RO2 Macroregiunea doi 20 6505815 97 33346 5148 No Data RO3 Macroregiunea trei 43 5521131 157 59016 10692 No Data 8 RO4 Macroregiunea patru 31 4146645 69 27766 6600 No Data S K0 Slovakia 55 5424925 111 122534 22640 17 SK01 Bratislavský kraj 57 628686 309 34329 55129 30 SK02 Západné Slovensko 60 1866652 125 39759 21302 13 SK03 Stredné Slovensko 51 1350492 83 24352 18030 14 SK04 Východné Slovensko 51 1589443 101 24091 15198 14 Slovenia 67 2046976 102 55432 27275 ES0 Spain 62 45989016 92 1476469 32217 34 ES11 Galicia 52 2738602 93 79028 28854 33 ES12 Principado de Asturias 62 1058114 100 31559 29803 37 ES13 Cantabria 66 577997 111 17999 31226 38 ES21 Pais Vasco 65 2138588 298 89421 41863 47 ES22 Comunidad Foral de Navarra 63 619011 60 24979 40647 39 ES23 La Rioja 58 314005 63 11137 35276 32 ES24 Aragón 63 1313017 28 46643 35504 34 ES30 Comunidad de Madrid 71 6335807 805 266688 42365 40 ES41 Castilla y León 54 2499155 27 77306 30792 34 ES42 Castilla-la Mancha 58 2035516 26 53001 26204 24 ES43 Extremadura 52 1082792 27 24267 22460 25 ES51 Cataluña 69 7301132 230 272626 37396 32 ES52 Comunidad Valenciana 60 4994322 219 142594 28566 28 ES53 Illes Balears 66 1079094 220 36685 34283 21 ES61 Andalucia 56 8206057 96 201485 24721 27 ES62 Región de Murcia 59 1460664 131 39052 27056 26 ES63 Ciudad Autónoma de Ceuta (ES) 65 74403 3893 2121 29226 25 ES64 Ciudad Autónoma de Melilla (ES) 59 72515 5508 1899 27105 25 ES70 Canarias (ES) 61 2088225 284 56771 27339 25 SE0 Sweden 79 9340682 23 345848 37363 34 SE11 Stockholm 84 2019182 314 107258 54136 38 SE12 Östra Mellansverige 79 1558292 41 49032 31724 28 SE21 Småland med öarna 75 810066 24 25800 31935 24 9 SE22 Sydsverige 80 1383653 100 43823 32057 32 SE23 Vastsverige 79 1866283 64 64721 34952 30 SE31 Norra Mellansverige 78 825931 13 25793 31258 23 SE32 Mellersta Norrland 73 369708 5 12660 34191 27 SE33 Övre Norrland 76 507567 3 16704 32916 29 TUR Turkey 34 72561312 94 1038330 14519 UK0 United Kingdom 80 62261892 258 2095021 33904 36 UKC North East 75 2606600 305 67042 25942 26 UKD North West 80 6935700 493 197430 28622 30 UKE Yorkshire and The Humber 76 5301300 346 147181 27991 29 UKF East Midlands 83 4481400 289 132197 29699 28 UKG West Midlands 75 5455200 421 152855 28144 28 UKH Eastern 82 5831800 308 181201 31423 28 UKI London 84 7825200 5025 457137 58958 44 UKJ South East 84 8523100 450 303977 36035 34 UKK South West 85 5273700 223 161253 30825 30 UKL Wales 77 3006400 145 74559 24859 30 UKM Scotland 78 5222100 67 173943 33489 37 UKN Northern Ireland 42 1799392 128 46243 25850 32 US0 United States 68 309050816 34 14551782 47085 US01 Alabama 56 4729656 36 172567 36486 20 US02 Alaska 73 708862 1 49120 69294 24 US04 Arizona 74 6676627 23 253609 37985 23 US05 Arkansas 52 2910236 22 102566 35243 17 US06 California 73 37266600 92 1901088 51013 27 US08 Colorado 72 5095309 19 257641 50564 32 US09 Connecticut 75 3526937 281 237261 67271 33 US10 Delaware 68 891464 176 62280 69863 25 U S11 Dist. of Colum b i a 72 610589 3840 103288 169161 45 US12 Florida 70 18678049 134 747735 40033 24 US13 Georgia 69 9908357 66 403070 40680 25 US15 Hawaii 69 1300086 78 66760 51350 26 US16 Idaho 72 1559796 7 55435 35540 22 US17 Illinois 69 12944410 90 651518 50332 27 US18 Indiana 59 6445295 69 275676 42772 21 US 19 Iowa 68 3015766 21 142698 47317 22 US 20 Kansas 75 2841121 13 127170 44761 27 US 21 Kentucky 58 4339435 42 163269 37624 18 US 22 Louisiana 61 4529426 40 218853 48318 18 US 23 Maine 67 1312939 16 51643 39334 23 10 US 24 Maryland 74 5737274 227 295304 51471 32 US 25 Massachusetts 76 6631280 327 378729 57113 35 US 26 Michigan 66 9931235 68 384171 38683 23 US 27 Minnesota 71 5290447 26 270039 51043 29 US 28 Mississippi 52 2960467 24 97461 32921 17 US 29 Missouri 64 6011741 34 244016 40590 23 US 30 Montana 61 980152 3 36067 36797 24 US 31 Nebraska 69 1811072 9 89786 49576 25 US 32 Nevada 74 2654751 9 125650 47330 20 US 33 New Hampshire 78 1323531 57 60283 45547 31 US 34 New Jersey 73 8732811 455 487335 55805 32 US 35 New Mexico 58 2033875 7 79678 39175 22 US 36 New York 69 19577730 160 1159540 59228 29 US 37 North Carolina 65 9458888 75 424935 44924 24 US 38 North Dakota 71 650417 4 34685 53327 24 US 39 Ohio 64 11532111 109 477699 41423 22 US 40 Oklahoma 63 3724447 21 147543 39615 20 US 41 Oregon 75 3855536 16 174151 45169 26 US 42 Pennsylvania 67 12632780 109 569679 45095 24 US 44 Rhode Island 71 1056870 391 49234 46585 28 US 45 South Carolina 60 4596958 59 164445 35773 21 US 46 South Dakota 66 820077 4 39893 48645 23 US 47 Tennessee 60 6338112 59 254806 40202 21 US 48 Texas 67 25213445 37 1207494 47891 23 US 49 Utah 80 2830753 13 114538 40462 25 US 50 Vermont 69 622433 26 25620 41161 29 US 51 Virginia 70 7952119 78 423860 53302 31 US 53 Washington 77 6746199 39 340460 50467 28 US 54 West Virginia 59 1825513 29 64642 35410 16 US 55 Wisconsin 71 5668519 40 248265 43797 24 US 56 Wyoming 73 547637 2 38527 70351 21 11 Sources % hous eh olds wit h broa dba nd Popu latio n Total Popu latio n dens it y GDP total GDP per cap, PPP Educati on Australi a 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 5, OECD Austria 201 1, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Belg ium 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Bulg aria 201 1, Eurostat 201 0, Eurostat 201 0, Eurostat 200 9, Eurostat 200 9, Eurostat Canada 201 0, CRT C 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 6, OECD Chil e 201 1, Subtel 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD Cyprus 201 1, Eurostat 201 1, Eurostat 201 0, Eurostat 200 9, Eurostat 200 9, Eurostat Czech Repu bli c 201 1, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Denm ark 201 1, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Estonia 201 1, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD Finla nd 201 1, OECD; for Alan d, 200 7, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD France 201 1, Eurostat 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, Eurostat German y 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Greece 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD 200 8, OECD 200 8, OECD Hun gar y 201 1, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Icelan d 201 1, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 6, OECD Irelan d 201 1, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Israel 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD Ital y 201 1, OECD 201 1, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Japa n 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD Korea 200 9, KCC 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 6, OECD Latvia 201 1, Eurostat 201 1, Eurostat 201 0, Eurostat 200 9, Eurostat 200 9, Eurostat Lithu ani a 201 1, Eurostat 201 1, Eurostat 201 0, Eurostat 200 9, Eurostat 200 9, Eurostat Luxem bour g 201 1, OECD 201 1, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Mexico 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD 12 Nether lan ds 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Nor wa y 201 1, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 7, OECD 200 7, OECD 200 8, OECD Pola nd 201 1, Eurostat 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Portuga l 201 1, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Roma nia 201 1, Eurostat 201 1, Eurostat 201 0, Eurostat 200 9, Eurostat 200 9, Eurostat Slovak ia 201 1, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Slove nia 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD Spai n 201 1, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Swe d en 201 1, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Unite d King do m 201 1, OECD; for Norther n Irelan d 200 8 OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 9, OECD 200 8, OECD Unite d States 201 0, NT IA 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 201 0, OECD 200 8, OECD Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 1 APPENDIX E: Market and Regulatory Background In our previous IBDRs, we included in Appendix E market and regulatory background information as well as information about topography and television and radio broadcast stations. Much of the information reported in Appendix E of our earlier IBDRs has not changed. Therefore, we incorporate by reference Appendix E from the Second IBDR as supplemented by the new information contained herein. This Appendix contains updated information on regulatory and market developments for the 40 foreign countries for which we obtained either pricing data in Appendix C or community-level demographic and broadband adoption data in Appendix D. We also include in this Appendix topography and broadcast information for Israel, the one country that was not included in Appendix E in the Second International Broadband Data Report. The country-specific tables included in this Appendix E provide data on wired broadband and wireless broadband, unlike the Second International Broadband Data report, which included country-specific tables on fixed and mobile broadband. We made this change to reflect how the OECD currently reports broadband data. Table 1 OECD Rankings, Households with Broadband Access, 2010 or latest available year Percentage of all households OECD Broadband Portal Table 2a 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 Korea (*) Iceland Norway (*) Sweden Denmark Netherlands Finland Germany Canada (2009)(*) Switzerland (2008) Luxembourg (*) Belgium United Kingdom (2009) United States France Israel (2009) (*) Estonia Austria Japan (*) New Zealand (2009) (*) Slovenia Australia (2008) (*) EU27 Ireland Spain Poland Czech Republic (*) Hungary Portugal Slovak Republic Italy Greece Turkey Chile (2009) Mexico (*) Source: OECD, ICT database and Eurostat, Community Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals, November 2011. Generally, data from the EU Community Survey on household use of ICT, which covers EU countries plus Iceland, Norway and Turkey, relate to the first quarter of the reference year. For Australia: data is based on a financial year, data provided relate to the second half of the reference year and the first half of the following year; data was based on a multi-staged area sample of private and non-private dwellings, and covers the civilian population only; data includes persons aged 15 years and over except members of the permanent defense forces, certain diplomatic personnel of overseas governments customarily excluded from census and estimated population counts, overseas residents in Australia, and members of non-Australian defense forces (and their dependants) stationed in Australia. For Canada: Statistics for 2009 include the territories (Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory and Nunavut). For the Czech Republic, data relate to the fourth quarter of the reference year. For Japan: Households with Internet access via FTTH, ADSL, cable and fixed wireless broadband. For Korea: Data also include mobile [broadband] phone access. For New Zealand: The information is based on households in private occupied dwellings. Visitor-only dwellings, such as hotels, are excluded. 2 Table 2 OECD Rankings, Wireless Broadband Subscript ions per 100 inhabitants, June 2011 Source: OECD Broadband Portal Table 1d(2) 1. Austra l i a Regulation: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has modified the deal between Telstra, the Australian government and NBN Co for Telstra to decommission its copper network and shift its customers to the new high-speed network. Telstra will now be allowed to promote its wireless service as a substitute for fiber because the ACCC felt that the original restrictions on Telstra’s marketing of its wireless services could hinder competition for wireless voice and broadband services.1 Also, as a part of the agreement with the government and NBN Co., Telstra must separate its wholesale and retail divisions. It has submitted a plan for this separation to the ACCC for approval, which the ACCC accepted in February, 2012.2 Market and Competition: Telstra is the only 4G provider in Australia. It launched its LTE service on the 1800 MHz network in May 20113, but it did not offer 4G-capable handsets until January 2012.4 Users could only access the service using USB dongles (i.e ., stick modems). By March 2012, Telstra was offering two 4G handsets following the launch of Samsung’s latest device loaded with the OS2.3 Android software.5 1 The Australian, NBN loses Telstra wireless battle (Dec. 20, 2011), available at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/nbn-loses-telstra-wireless-battle/story-e6frgaif-1226218587235. 2 ABC News, ACCC green lights Telstra separation plan (Feb. 28, 2012), available at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-28/accc-approves-telstra-separation-plan/3856848. 3 The Register, Telstra turns on 4G (May 24, 2011), available at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/24/telstra_tunes_lte/. 4 News.com.au, Telstra first 4G smartphone hits the shelves (Jan. 24, 2012), available at http://www.news.com.au/.../smartphones/...first-4g-smartphone.../story-fn6. 5 The Register, Samsung joins Telstra’s 4G handset party (March 26, 2012), available at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/26/telstra_galaxy_s_ii_4g/. 3 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other6 Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants7 24.0 0.1 3.9 19.9 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)8 5,405,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2008)9 62.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants10 64.8 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011)11 14,609,000 2. Austria Market and Competition: In 2010, the incumbent operator, Telekom Austria, substantially accelerated the expansion of its fiber-optic cable network, reaching 1.5 million homes or 36% of all households in the country at the beginning of September 2010. The operator plans to create “fiber cities” across the country, bringing FTTH to 150,000 homes and businesses; allowing broadband connection speeds of up to 1 Gbps by 2013.12 Telekom Austria merged with mobilkom austria in 2011 and now operates under the A1 brand.13 In November 2011, ZTE Corporation launched a commercial LTE network in Austria in partnership with Hutchison 3G (H3G) Austria.14 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants15 24.7 0.1 7.6 16.9 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)16 2,068,623 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 17 63.7 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants18 33.5 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011)19 2,807,234 6 “Other” includes broadband over power lines. 7 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 8 Id. 9 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 9, 2011). 10 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). This figure includes satellite, which could be fixed or mobile, and terrestrial fixed wireless, which is generally not a mobile service but is included by the OECD in its mobile broadband statistics. This figure does not include mobile-broadband equipped handsets that do not subscribe to a data package for a separate fee and did not make an Internet data connection via IP in the previous three months. 11 Id. 12 IHS Global Insight, Austria: Telecoms Report (2010) (accessed Dec. 14, 2011), http://ihsglobalinsight.com (subscription-based service). 13 http://www.telekomaustria.com/presse/news/02_23-pr-results-2010.php (accessed May 1, 2012). 14 Medianama, H3G, ZTE launch commercial LTE network in Austria (Nov. 16, 2011), available at http://press- release.medianama.com/h3g-zte-launch-commercial-lte-network-in-austria-223. 15 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 7, 2011). 16 Id. 17 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (July 2010) (Dec. 7, 2011). 18 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 7, 2011). 4 3 . Belgium Market and Competition: Four Belgian operators currently hold 3G licenses and competition in the market is intense. The three existing mobile operators: Belgacom’s Proximus, Orange’s Mobistar and KPN’s BASE; were joined by a fourth 3G licensee, in a joint-venture between cable operators Telenet and Tecteo, in June 2011.20 At the end of November 2011, four companies acquired 4G licensees in the 2.6 GHz band: Belgacom SA, BUCD BVBA, KPN group Belgium SA and Mobistar SA; through an auction conducted by the regulator, Belgian Institute for Post services and Telecommunications (BIPT).21 In August 2011, BIPT announced plans to free up the existing mobile frequency bands in the 900 MHz, 1800 MHz (GSM) and 2.0 GHz (UMTS) spectrum and make them technology-neutral. BIPT has indicated it will free up the existing frequency bands being used for 2G GSM and 3G UMTS services, consistent with European Union directives, so they can be used for next-generation services like LTE. Several companies have announced plans to test LTE mobile-broadband networks in Belgium, including Telenet, Mobistar and KPN.22 The BIPT issued a consultation in March 2012, on the 800 MHz spectrum as part of ongoing plans to make the band available for electronic communications services in the European Union by 2013. The consultation relates to the use of the 800 MHz band for wireless broadband services. Responses and comments were due to BIPT by May 11, 2012.23 In July 2011, the Belgian media regulator, the Conference of Regulators of Electronic Communications (CRC) published a set of decisions that addressed triple play services (TV, Internet and fixed telephony). The new rules went into effect in August 2011 and will impact the Belgian television broadcasting landscape by opening up the cable television market in Belgium and improving the prices and quality of the services provided to the consumer.24 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants25 31.6 0.0 14.6 16.9 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)26 3,433,746 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 27 70.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants28 10.9 (. . . continued from previous page) 19 Id. 20 IHS Global Insight, Belgium: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Jan. 19, 2012). 21 http://www.bipt.be/ShowDoc.aspx?objectid=3639&lang=en. 22 Id. 23http://www.bipt.be/en/426/ShowDoc/3761/Consultations/Consultation_organised_by_the_BIPT_Council_of_21_ M.aspx 24 http://www.bipt.be/ShowDoc.aspx?objectID=3539&lang=EN. 25 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 9, 2011). 26 Id. 27 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 9, 2011). 5 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 29 1,182,344 4 . Bulgari a Market and Competition: Following requests from industry, Bulgaria’s telecommunications regulator, the Communications Regulation Commission (CRC), reopened an auction for a fourth GSM operator in 2011, however, the auction failed to attract any bidders. Observers say that the auction failed because of the high penetration in the Bulgarian mobile market and the auction’s high starting bid.30 In December 2011, the CRC announced the authorization of three operators to launch mobile services in the 1800 MHz range. The operators may choose their network technology, whether GSM, UMTS, LTE or WiMAX.31 In December 2011, the CRC also announced an auction with negotiated bidding for granting a license for a broadband wireless (BWA) concession, using 1 frequency block of 42 MHz in the 3.5 GHz range for a period of ten years. 32 The auction was held in February and the results have not yet been announced. Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants33 14.70 Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Fixed broadband subs (2010)34 1,101,634 % of households with fixed broadband access (2009) 35 26 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants36 20 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Q1 2012)37 1,505,406 5. Canad a Regulation: In November 2011, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) issued a new ruling on billing practices for wholesale residential Internet access. To foster competition at the wholesale level, the CRTC decided that there are two acceptable methods for large (. . . continued from previous page) 28 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 9, 2011). 29 Id. 30 http://sofiaecho.com/2011/11/27/1213578_bulgaria-delays-tender-for-fourth-mobile-carrier. 31 http://www.crc.bg/news.php?news_id=180&lang=en. 32 http://www.crc.bg/news.php?news_id=174&lang=en 33 See ITU, ICT Statistics Database (2010), available at http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/icteye/Indicators/Indicators.aspx (ITU Statistics Database) (accessed Nov. 17, 2011). 34 Id. 35 See eGovernment Factbook (2009), available at http://www.epractice.eu/en/document/288394. 36 Wireless Intelligence, https://www.wirelessintelligence.com/Index.aspx (accessed May 15, 2012) (available by subscription) (High Speed Packet Access (HSPA) connections only). HSPA, which uses the FDD transmission scheme, includes HSDPA (High Speed Downlink Packet Access), HSUPA (High Speed Uplink Packet Access) and HSPA Evolved. 37 Id. 6 telephone and cable companies to charge independent service providers for use of their networks: the flat- rate billing model and the capacity-based billing model. Under the flat-rate model, independent service providers are charged a flat monthly fee per retail customer for access to a telephone or cable company’s network. Under the capacity-based model, independent service providers pre-purchase the amount of network capacity they anticipate they will need, and if demand exceeds the amount purchased, the provider must manage its network capacity until it can buy more.38 Under this model, the independent service providers are paying for the total capacity they need, not the volume of data downloaded. The CRTC decided to implement the capacity-based billing model for independent ISPs starting in February 2012. This decision only affects the wholesale services that the large telephone and cable companies provide to independent ISPs. Furthermore, the CRTC does not regulate the rates or packages that ISPs offer to consumers.39 Market and Competition: In its Telecom Regulatory Policy 2011-291, the CRTC stated that it would be in the public interest to establish universal target speeds for broadband Internet access so that all Canadians, particularly those in rural and remote areas, could benefit from a greater level of broadband connectivity. The CRTC established target speeds of 5 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream, which are to be available to all Canadians through a variety of technologies by the end of 2015.40 A number of technologies and platforms are available and used to provide broadband service in Canada. In 2010, mobile (HSPA+) technology was available to 96% of households, surpassing DSL (85%), fixed wireless and satellite (83%) and cable modem (82%).41 Rogers launched its 4G LTE broadband network in July 2011, and Bell deployed its own LTE network in September 2011. Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants42 31.2 0.2 17.6 13.5 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (December 2011)43 10,653,342 % of households with fixed broadband access (2009) 44 72.2 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants45 31.8 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 46 10,835,371 6. Chile 38 http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/t1044.htm. 39 http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2012/r120127.htm. 40 Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, Broadband Report (November 2011), at http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/broadband/bbreport1111.htm. 41 Id. at 7. 42 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 43 Id. 44 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). In even numbered years, Canada includes only its 10 provinces in its statistics and excludes its three territories. 45 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 46 Id. 7 Regulation: New amendments to the General Telecommunications Law passed in 2011 mandate that information regarding the service plans of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must be transparent and prohibit ISPs from blocking arbitrary applications, services and Internet content.47 The Chilean government’s support is a fundamental component of the country’s broadband deployment. There is no universal service requirement in Chile, and the Telecommunications Development Fund is financed from the national budget rather than through levies on telecommunications operators. In 2009, the government funded a two year project to provide broadband access to between 70-90% of the rural population, called Rural Internet Network: All Chile Connected. The public-private partnership with telecommunications operator Entel and Ericsson completed the first stage of the project in September 2010 by connecting 1.7 million rural inhabitants. The second stage of the project was launched in August 2011, benefitting 991,000 people in 587 communities, and the third and final stage is expected to be completed by the beginning of 2012.48 In November 2011, Chile’s President Sebastian Piñera signed a bill to create a Superintendency of Telecommunications, a new telecommunications regulator that will deal with more technical issues than the Subsecretaría de Telecomunicaciones (SUBTEL), the current telecommunications regulator. The Superintendency will have three major functions: to reduce the time needed to award mobile licenses; improve regulation; and supervise and measure network performance, and produce quarterly service quality indices showing the different networks’ performance to help consumers make informed decisions when contracting for services. It has been tasked with: monitoring compliance with regulations and administering punitive measures when necessary; participating in the award and revocation of licenses; ensuring proper use of spectrum; and collecting information on the sector and regulating tariffs. The Superintendency will not replace the current telecommunications regulator SUBTEL, but will work alongside it. The bill has been sent to Congress for approval and is expected to be processed by the end of 2012.49 Market and Competition: The largest broadband provider by subscribers is Telefónica Chile (Movistar). Another major broadband provider is Claro Chile, which was created by the merger of Telmex Chile and Claro Chile in August 2010 to form a new company offering triple-play services under the Claro brand name. As of December 2011, Telefónica Chile has the most market share, at 43.5%, followed by VTR (37.9%), Claro Chile (10.1%), Grupo GTD 7.3%) and Entel (1.0%).50 On December 1, 2011, Chile launched an auction of 4G spectrum in the 2.6 GHz band for LTE services. The government is auctioning three blocks of 20 MHz each in the 2.6 GHz band, and a maximum of one block will be awarded for each applicant. Auction rules were made available on December 16, 2011. 51 Award of the licenses in anticipated in the second half of 2012. 47 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Chile (2011) (accessed Dec. 5, 2011), http://www.telegeography.com (subscription-based service). 48 Telegeography, Govt, Entel and Ericsson to connect rural areas to broadband (Dec. 7, 2010); Telegeography, Rural roll-out reaches second stage (Aug. 19, 2011). 49 Telecompaper, Chile to set up second telecoms watchdog by end-2012 , (Dec. 28, 2011); Government of Chile, Proyecto de ley que crea Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones, (Nov. 4, 2011) at http://www.gob.cl/especiales/proyecto-de-ley-que-crea-superintendencia-de-telecomunicaciones/. 50 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Chile (2011) (April 23, 2012). 51 Subtel, Subtel Lanza Concurso para Servicios 4G Impulsando Mayor Cobertura y Competencia en Banda Ancha Móvel (Dec. 1, 2011), available at http://www.subtel.gob.cl/prontus_subtel/site/artic/20111201/pags/20111201082958.html. 8 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants52 11.0 0.0 5.3 5.7 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)53 1,883,956 % of households with fixed broadband access (2009) 54 23.9 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants55 9.7 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 56 1,656,473 7. Cyprus Regulation: The Department of Electronic Communications of the Ministry of Communications and Works (MCW) oversees spectrum management.57 The Office of the Commissioner of Electronic Communications & Postal Regulation, established in 2002, is responsible for the introduction of effective competition in the provision of networks and services, and the protection of consumers, especially in issues relevant to the price and the quality of the provided services.58 Cyprus requires both unbundled loops and wholesale broadband access.59 Market and Competition: Cytamobile-Vodafone’s entire network has been upgraded to 3.5G. MTN is currently in the process of a 3.5G upgrade with priority given to the urban areas of Nicosia.60 Using a 3G mobile phone, a 3G modem, or a specialized 3G data card, Cypriot users can access the internet with broadband speeds of up to 384 kbps or up to 1.8 Mbps in the case of 3.5G (HSDPA). Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants61 17.62 Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Fixed broadband subs (2010)62 194,455 % of households with fixed broadband access Data N/A Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants63 37 52 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 53 Id. 54 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 55 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 56 Id. 57 See MCW, http://www.mcw.gov.cy/mcw/mcw.nsf/index_en/index_en?OpenDocument. 58 See OCECPR, http://www.ocecpr.org.cy/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=767&tt=ocecpr&lang=gr; see also Cyprus Government, Office of the Commissioner of Electronic Communications and Postal Regulation, http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/portal/portal.nsf/All/6D2934F2A71AAF04C225702A0029F464. 59 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/doc/implementation_enforcement/annualreports/15threport /cy.pdf. 60 http://www.cyprusbroadband.net/3g-mobile-broadband.html. 61 ITU Statistics Database (accessed Nov. 17, 2011). 62 Id. 9 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Q1 2012)64 413,367 8. Czech Republic Market and Competition: O2 Czech Republic maintains its focus on developing attractive voice and data packages, along with the policy of migration from pre-paid to contract, on its fully-fledged 3G network. In February 2011, O2 and T-Mobile announced an agreement to share W-CDMA networks in areas served by neither. Consistent with Telefónica's group strategy, its Czech unit has begun trials of LTE as its 4G technology of choice.65 In September 2011, the Czech Republic announced the tender for 4G spectrum in the 800 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2.6 GHz bands. Public consultation on auction rules was released in March 2012 and comments were due in May.66 The frequencies on offer can be purchased by the existing mobile operators in order to add 4G services to their service portfolios. The 1800MHz band is reserved for a possible new entrant. Dates have not yet been established for the auction.67 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants68 15.1 1.9 4.7 8.5 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)69 1,589,600 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 70 53.6 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants71 54.9 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 72 5,777,828 9. Denmark Regulation: The Danish government announced in October 2011 that the National IT and Telecom Agency (NITA) will close, and the agency’s business will be transferred to the Ministry of Business Affairs and Growth, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Interior and Economy.73 (. . . continued from previous page) 63 Wireless Intelligence, https://www.wirelessintelligence.com/Index.aspx (accessed May 15, 2012) (HSPA connections only). 64 Id. 65 IHS Global Insight, Czech Republic: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Jan. 19, 2012). 66 Czech Telecommunication Office, Press Release, March 20, 2012 available at http://www.ctu.eu/main.php?pageid=342 (accessed May 23, 2012). 67 http://www.ctu.cz/cs/download/aktualni_informace/invitation_to_tender_20_03_2012_ invitation_to_tender_20_03_2012.pdf (accessed May 18, 2012). 68 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 69 Id. 70 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a June 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). Data relates to the fourth quarter of 2010. 71 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 72 Id. 73 http://en.itst.dk/news/the-national-it-and-telecom-agency-is-closing. 10 Market and Competition : The number of broadband connections continues to rise, and the country has had rapid growth in the number of broadband connections with speeds of up to 100 Mbps.74 By the end of June 2011, speeds of up to 100 Mbps were available to 38% of households and businesses.75 According to NITA, the improvement is due to the expansion of the existing fiber network in the country, as well as the upgrade of the cable network.76 Next generation mobile broadband is also expanding, with all four major mobile operators now holding LTE licenses.77 In October 2011, TeliaSonera’s Danish unit, Telia, announced plans to expand the coverage of its LTE network to an additional 69 cities, taking its total network coverage to 73 cities in the country, covering over half of Denmark’s population.78 Incumbent TDC partnered with Ericsson to roll out its LTE network.79 Hutchison Whampoa's Hi3G entered into an agreement with ZTE for the delivery of LTE infrastructure equipment that will enable it to build the first LTE TDD (Time Division Duplex)/FDD (Frequency Division Duplex) dual-mode network in the world.80 At the end of June 2011, approximately 0.5% of all households in the country remained unable to get a connection of at least 2 Mbps, down from 1.0% a year earlier.81 In an effort to help meet the objective of providing broadband access offering download speeds of at least 100 Mbps to all by 2020, and meet the ever increasing need for bandwidth, NITA launched a public consultation on the future shape of the 800MHz digital dividend auction.82 In August 2011 the government announced that the frequencies in the bands 791-821 MHz and 832-862 MHz would be auctioned nationwide for telecom use on a service- and technology-neutral basis.83 This auction is due to be held in May 2012.84 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants85 37.7 5.0 10.1 21.9 0.7 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)86 2,090,825 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 87 80.1 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants88 73.6 74 IHS Global Insight, Denmark: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011); Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Denmark (2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 75 Id. 76 IHS Global Insight, Denmark: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 77 http://point-topic.com/content/operatorSource/profiles2/denmark-broadband-overview.htm. 78 IHS Global Insight, Denmark: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Oct. 11, 2011). 79 IHS Global Insight, Denmark , Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Nov. 8, 2010); Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Denmark (2011) (accessed Oct 12, 2011). 80 IHS Global Insight, Denmark : Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Mar. 29, 2011); Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Denmark (2011) (accessed Mar. 29, 2011). 81 IHS Global Insight, Denmark: , Telecoms Report (2011) (access March 22, 2012). 82 Id. 83 Id.; Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Denmark (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012). 84 Id. 85 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 86 Id. 87 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 11 Mobile wireless broadband subs (December 2010) 89 4,081,086 10. Eston i a Market and Competition: On July 23, 2010 the European Commission (EC) approved Estonia’s plan to provide state aid to the Estonian Wideband Infrastructure Network (EstWin) project to roll out a nationwide broadband network by 2015.90 This plan to develop super-fast broadband infrastructure is intended to narrow the gap in digital service provision that exists between urban and rural areas. It will do so by connecting households and business to a new fiber network capable of offering 100 Mbps speeds.91 The EstWin project will be implemented in several stages. 92 The first stage is the deployment of fiber- optic networks in rural areas where it is not currently commercially viable to do so. 93 Next, the project will cover the upgrade of existing networks to improve their quality and capacity. 94 Telecom operators will build network connection points in cooperation with local governments, and an open access model will be used, with all operators being able to rent the infrastructure on equal terms. 95 By the end of the project, 98% of end users will be within 1.5 kilometers of the nearest network access point. On August 24, 2011, the government announced completion of the first stage of the EstWin project.96 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants97 24.1 5.5 6.1 11.9 0.6 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)98 322,523 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 99 64.5 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants100 33.3 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 101 446,510 (. . . continued from previous page) 88 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 89 Id. 90 Estonia Broadband Overview , http://point-topic.com/content/operatorSource/profiles2/estonia-broadband- overview.htm 91 Id. 92 Id. 93 Id. 94 Id. 95 Id. 96 First stage of EstWin broadband network completed , http://www.elasa.ee/index.php?page=93&action=article&article_id=30. 97 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 98 Id. 99 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 100 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 101 Id. 12 11. F i n l a n d Market and Competition: Finland leads the Nordic countries in mobile broadband penetration as more users migrate to LTE networks and fixed-mobile replacement.102 Thirty percent of Finns use mobile broadband subscriptions.103 Most of the users that acquired mobile broadband in 2011 were users who already had a fixed broadband connection.104 The Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority (FICORA) anticipates the greatest increase in mobile broadband will continue to occur in households where it will be used side-by-by with another connection. 105 The fastest and most affordable broadband connections – and consequently the users – were concentrated in the big cities where there is more variety in the supply of fast, fixed-line internet connections, and competition.106 Specifically, in the Greater Helsinki area, other large cities, and areas outside of large cities, the percentages of homes with fixed-line internet connections were 40%, 30%, and 20% respectively. Big city dwellers paid 20% less for their internet connections than those living elsewhere in Finland. 107 In order to increase the availability of broadband connections of 100 Mbps in sparsely-populated areas by the end of 2015, the state, municipalities, and the EU have agreed together to cover 66% of the cost of building ultra-high speed broadband infrastructure in those areas.108 The first company to receive such aid is Suupohjan Seutuverkko Oy.109 The regulator provided the aid in February 2012 for the optic-fiber network covering the municipality of Karvia in Western Finland.110 There is a lot of competition in the Finnish broadband market. Elisa, TeliaSonera, DNA, and Finnet are the dominant players.111 At the end of June 2011, Elisa and TeliaSonera were the joint broadband market leaders. Each had a 30% share. DNA and Finnet Group held 19% and 16% shares of the broadband market respectively.112 DNA has recently taken steps to increase its market share. DNA indicated that it will achieve the higher downlink speeds via the deployment of two technologies: dual carrier HSPA+ (DC-HSPA+) and Long Term Evolution (LTE).113 As of April 2012, DNA has the largest 4G DC-HSPA network in Finland covering over 100 cities and almost 50% of the Finnish population. Its LTE network is available in the capital city Helsinki, as well as in Turku, Tampere and Hameenlinna.114 102 IHS Global Insight, Finland: Telecoms Report (2011)(accessed March 21, 2012). 103 Id. 104 http://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/index/asiointi-info/ajankohtaista/lehdistotiedotteet/2012/T_4.html. 105 Id. 106 Id. 107 Id. 108 http://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/index/asiointi-info/ajankohtaista/uutiset/2012/P_9.html. 109 Id. 110 Id. 111 IHS Global Insight, Finland: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 21, 2012). 112 Id. 113 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Finland (2011) (accessed March 21, 2012). 114 http://telecomlead.com/inner-page-details.php?id=8337&block=Broadband (accessed May 21, 2012). 13 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants115 28.9 0.7 4.8 20.8 2.6 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)116 1,550,400 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 117 75.8 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants118 79.1 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011)119 4,243,800 12. France Market and Competition: The rollout of fiber in France is picking up speed in part because operators are entering into new agreements and increasing investments. For example, in November 2011 France Telecom-Orange announced an agreement with mobile provider SFR to deploy optical fiber technology covering millions of households in less densely-populated areas of France.120 The fiber-optic deployment agreement covers approximately 9.8 million homes in areas where both operators have redundant deployment projects. 121 This fiber investment is part of France Telecom-Orange’s plan to spend, with the help of private-operator investment, EUR2 billion (US$2.7 billion) by 2015 on fiber expansion to reach 60% of French households by 2020.122 In addition, in September 2011, the French telecommunications regulator, ARCEP (L’Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes) sold the first blocks of 4G mobile frequencies in the 2500 – 2690 MHz band for a total of EUR936 million (US$1.28 billion).123 ARCEP awarded concessions to all four of the country’s main mobile network operators and raised far more money than it had expected.124 However, another goal of the auction is to achieve LTE coverage across 99% of the country by 2025. Accordingly, in December 2011, ARCEP kicked off phase two of the licensing process by selling the more valuable – or so-called “golden” 800 MHz frequencies – for EUR 2.64 billion (US$3.45 billion) to Vivendi's SFR, France Telecom, and Bouygues.125 115 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 116 Id. 117 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 16 2011). 118 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) ) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 119 Id. 120 France Telecom-Orange, SFR strike agreement to roll out fibre to less densely populated areas (Nov. 15, 2011), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2011/11/15/france-telecom-orange-sfr-strike- agreement-to-roll-out-fibre-to-less-densely-populated-areas/index.html 121 Id. 122 Id. 123 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: France (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012); IHS Global Insight, France: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012) 124 Id. 125 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: France (2011)(accessed March 23, 2012); IHS Global Insight, France: Telecom Report (2011)(accessed March 23, 2012); IHS Global Insight, France: Telecom Report (accessed April 20, 2012) http://myinsight.ihsglobalinsight.com/servlet/cats?pageContent=art&serviceID=9663&filterID=1015&documentID =2438445&typeID=0&documentTypeId=8&src=pc ;http://www.telecomengine.com/article/french-government- raises-345-billion-4g-auction 14 ARCEP and a number of other entities commissioned a report from Analysys Mason on future applications and services of ultra fast broadband (UFB).126 The 2012 report is based upon research conducted from February to July 2011. It provides forward-looking analysis by exploring the current state of the French market, comparing representative foreign markets, and analyzing the advantages of UFB compared to regular broadband. Among other things, the report found that, because of the current availability of affordable good quality access, users in France may not see any clear incentive to switch to a faster service. According to this report, it appears that those countries wanting to enable the emergence of UFB have adopted policies such as incentives, government investment, or regulatory frameworks in support of UFB and competition.127 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants128 33.8 0.2 2.0 31.6 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)129 21,895,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 130 66.8 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants131 38.2 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 132 24,776,000 13. German y Regulation: German implementation of the European Union’s latest Electronic Communications Framework Directive, entitled the national Telecommunications Act (Telekommunikationsgesetz - TKG), calls for increased competition in the sector and provides for asymmetric deregulation of the market, while allowing investigations of anti-competitive behavior to be initiated at the discretion of the German regulator (Bundesnetzagentur – BNetzA).133 In early 2012, the Upper House of the German Parliament adopted various amendments to the German Telecommunications Act (“TKG Amendments”) and shortly thereafter, in March 2012, after deliberation on a set of compromise amendments, the German Lower House also voted favorably on the bill. The final legislation includes: 1) broad consent requirements of the German states for revisions to the national Frequency Allocation Plan; 2) new rules and consultation requirements between the Federal government and the German states in frequency matters concerning broadcasting; and 3) an agreement in principle on the distribution of proceeds between the Federal Government and the States in case of new “digital dividend” auctions.134 126 http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=8571&L=1&tx_gsactualite_pi1[uid]=1496&cHash=df7940c8cb 127 Id. 128 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 129 Id. 130 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 131 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 132 Id. 133 http://trade.gov/cs/Germany 134 Bundesrat Bill 72/12 (adopted on 02/10/12): http://www.bundesrat.de/nn_8396/SharedDocs/Drucksachen/2012/0001-0100/72- 12,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/72-12.pdf and Bundesrat Resolution: http://www.bundesrat.de/nn_8396/SharedDocs/Drucksachen/2012/0001-0100/72- 12_28B_29,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/72-12(B).pdf (accessed May 8, 2012). 15 The new legislation was published in Germany’s Federal Gazette and, with the exception of a provision relating to call waiting, took effect in May 2012.135 Market and Competition: The German Information and Communications Technology (ICT) market is currently the largest in Europe, representing 20% of the overall European Union market, and fourth largest in the world.136 The broadband market share distribution between Deutsche Telekom AG (DT) and its competitors remained steady over the past year, with competitors able to maintain their combined market share of over 54%.137 Deutsche Telekom plans to complete expansion of its fiber optic network to over 20 German cities by the end of 2012, with anticipated total expenditure of between EUR40 to 50 billion (between US $53 to 66 billion). The new network architecture will make it possible to download data at speeds of up to one gigabit per second (1 Gbps) and upload it at speeds of up to 0.5 Gbps.138 With mobile internet usage doubling in 2011, 3G mobile penetration is expected to reach more than 60% of all German mobile subscribers by the end of 2012.139 Mobile data services are the fastest growing segment within the German telecommunications services market, with expected two-digit growth rates in 2012. Overall, data services are expected to reach a volume of nearly EUR6 billion (US $7.9 billion) by the end of 2012.140 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants141 32.6 0.2 3.8 28.5 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)142 26,615,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 143 75.2 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants144 29.2 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 145 23,874,300 14. Greece Market and Competition: Greece is among the countries hardest hit by the Eurozone monetary crisis.146 The regulator, EETT (National Telecommunications and Post Commission), has had to take a number of 135 http://www.bgbl.de/Xaver/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl (accessed May 9, 2012). 136 http://www.ukti.gov.uk/home.html?guid=none. 137http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cln_1932/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2011/111215_ActivityReportPos tTK.html?nn=214432. 138 http://www.cr-report.telekom.com/site11/en/co/uebersicht/index.php. 139 http://www.bitkom.org/70928_70921.aspx. 140 http://www.bitkom.org/70928_70921.aspx. 141 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 142 Id. 143 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 144 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 145 Id. 16 measures in return for European Union bailout loans. Among them is the sale of spectrum as part of the privatization program begun in the early part of 2011, when Greece sold off an additional 10% stake in state-owned operator OTE to Deutsche Telekom. The Greek regulator also recently raised EUR380.5 million (US$523 million) from the sale of both new and existing spectrum in the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz bands.147 The buyers included all three existing operators, OTE's Cosmote, Vodafone Greece, and Wind Hellas.148 The regulator issued the licenses for 15 years.149 It is expected that all three operators will promote the development of high speed mobile broadband technologies such as LTE.150 Greece’s operators are also struggling to stay afloat as subscriber numbers remain far below what they had been in previous years.151 A planned merger between Greece’s second and third largest cellular companies, Wind Hellas and Vodafone, was abandoned by Vodafone.152 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants153 20.8 0.0 0.0 20.7 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)154 2,349,878 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 155 41.2 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants156 30.0 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 157 3,391,905 15. Hong Kong Speci a l Admin i s t r a t i v e Region of the Peopl e ’ s Republi c of China Regulation: In June 2011, the Legislative Council passed the Communications Authority (CA) Bill, which established a unified regulator for the entire communications industry.158 To form the CA, the Office of the Telecommunications Authority (OFTA) and the Broadcasting Division of the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (TELA) were merged. The executive arm is now a government department named the Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA), similar to OFTA but with additional jurisdiction over broadcasting. The CA began functioning on April 2, 2012 and will enforce the (. . . continued from previous page) 146 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Greece (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012). 147 IHS Global Insight, Greece : Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012); IHS Global Insight, Greece: Telecoms Report (2011)(accessed March 23, 2012). 148 Id. 149 Id. 150 Id. 151 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Greece (2011)(accessed March 23, 2012). 152http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/9063386/Vodafone- quits-Hellas-merger-over-Greek-default-fears.html (accessed April 26, 2012) 153 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 154 Id. 155 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 156 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 157 Id. 158 Legislative Council, Brief on Communications Authority Bill, available at http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr09- 10/english/bills/brief/b33_brf.pdf. See also CEDB, Press Release, “Communications Authority Bill to be introduced” (June 18, 2010), available at http://www.cedb.gov.hk/ctb/eng/press/2010/pr18062010.htm. 17 Telecommunications Ordinance, the Broadcasting Ordinance, and the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance.159 In addition, the Legislative Council is considering a Competition Bill that is still in the process of being amended amidst heavy industry lobbying. The Competition Bill would repeal or amend, as applicable, any relevant competition provisions in the Telecommunications and Broadcast Ordinances. The Competition Bill would also establish a Competition Commission, which would have concurrent jurisdiction over competition-related telecommunications and broadcast matters with the CA.160 Market and Competition: Mobile broadband is extremely popular and demand is growing: mobile data usage for the month of December 2010 was 296 MB per 2.5/3G mobile user, a nearly threefold increase over the prior year, and almost 14 times the amount used in 2008.161 CSL Limited launched Hong Kong’s first 4G LTE mobile broadband network in November 2010.162 PCCW and Hutchison launched their 4G joint venture in early 2011.163 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants164 30.16 Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Fixed broadband subs (2010)165 2,126,962 % of households with fixed broadband access (2012) 166 87 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants167 70 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Q1 2012)168 5,027,667 16. Hunga r y Market and Competition: The market consists of three mobile network operators: Deutsche Telekom's T-Mobile, Telenor Hungary, and Vodafone, which are increasingly battling over mobile data revenues. 159 OFCA, “Chairman’s Welcome Message” (April 1, 2012), available at http://www.coms- auth.hk/en/about_us/message/index.html. 160 See Secretary of CEDB, Remarks on the Competition bill (Oct. 18, 2011), available at http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201110/18/P201110180243.htm (detailing six proposed amendments to the Competition Bill); see also Mayer Brown JSM, Hong Kong Antitrust & Competition Update (Dec. 21, 2010), available at http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=10169 (noting that Mayer Brown is “assist[ing] a broad range of organizations who are making submissions to the Bills Committee”). 161 2010 Government Yearbook, id. at 358. 162 CSL, Press Release, “CSL Launches World’s First Commercial Grade LTE/DC-HSPA+ Network” (November 25, 2010), available at http://www.hkcsl.com/en/pdf/2010/CSL_Network_Launch_eng.pdf. 163 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Hong Kong (2011)(accessed March 23, 2012). 164 ITU Statistics Database, accessed Nov. 17, 2011. 165 Id. 166 http://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/telecommunications.pdf (accessed May 1, 2012). 167 Wireless Intelligence, https://www.wirelessintelligence.com/Index.aspx (accessed Apr. 14, 2011) (HSPA connections only). 168 Id. 18 To that end, each operator has been focusing on mobile broadband, with significant investments in high speed packet access (HSPA+). Specifically, Telenor and T-Mobile launched their HSPA+ networks in 2011, while third operator Vodafone launched its network in early 2010.169 In addition, T-Mobile plans to launch LTE in 2012.170 The three network operators may soon face additional competition. In August 2011, Hungary’s national telecoms regulator, the National Media and Infocommunications Authority (NMHH), launched an auction for companies wishing to secure the right to use 900 MHz mobile frequencies for 15 years.171 The NMHH invited bids through a two-round auction process to award three blocks of spectrum in the 900 MHz band for the provision of GSM, UMTS, WiMAX, or LTE services. 172 NMHH received bids from six companies. In addition to the three incumbent mobile network operators, the regulator received an application to bid for 900MHz frequency blocks from a consortium of three state-owned companies (postal operator Magyar Posta, power utility MVM and development bank MFB) that are collectively referred to as MVM.173 NMHH also received applications from Romania-based cable company RCS&RDS, and Vietnamese telecommunications company Viettel Group.174 NMHH rejected the latter two applications, and in January 2012, awarded the 900 MHz spectrum to the MVM consortium and the three incumbents, Vodafone, Telenor and T-Mobile.175 The incumbents have since filed multiple legal challenges to the regulator’s decision to award frequencies to the new market entrant, which were pending as of April 2012.176 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants177 20.3 2.6 9.3 8.4 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)178 2,031,947 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 179 52.2 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants180 10.5 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 181 1,046,405 17. Iceland Market and Competition : Although broadband adoption in Iceland remains among the highest in the world, in January 2009, Iceland suffered a severe economic collapse and the telecommunications sector 169 IHS Global Insight, Hungary : Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012). 170 Id. 171 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Hungary (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012). 172 Id. 173 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Hungary (2012) (accessed May 18, 2012) 174 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Hungary (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012). 175 TeleGeography GlobalComms Database: Hungary (2012) (accessed May 18, 2012). 176 Id. 177 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 178 Id. 179 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 180 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2(June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 181 Id. 19 was not immune from the fallout. The two leading players, Vodafone Iceland and incumbent Síminn, continue to experience reductions in revenue as customers continue to reign in their discretionary spending.182 Nonetheless, the industry has shown remarkable resiliency. The Post and Telecom Administration reports that in 2010, fiber-optic connections increased significantly, and there are now more than 10,000 homes connected through fiber-optic facilities. In addition, Iceland added two GSM systems that cover the whole country, and a 3G system that reaches 90% of the country's households and coastal waters.183 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants184 33.6 4.4 0.0 29.3 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (December 2010)185 106,896 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 186 87.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants187 54.21 Mobile wireless broadband subs (December 2010) 188 172,127 18. Ireland Market and Competition: The Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg) has been working on ushering in a new era of advanced wireless services including fast, high capacity mobile broadband.189 On March 16, 2012, ComReg announced that it had decided to offer via auction, the rights to use spectrum across 800 MHz, 900 MHz, and 1800 MHz radio bands for the period from 2013 to 2030.190 In all, 28 blocks of bandwidth will be made available which will more than double the currently licensed assignments in these bands. 191 The completion of Ireland's National Broadband Scheme (NBS) in October 2010 brought broadband services to every district in the country. However, there are still some areas that, because of difficulty in reaching them or for technical reasons, have not benefited from the NBS. Consequently, in May 2011, the Irish government announced a new plan to bring broadband connectivity to the entire country by the end of 2012.192 ComReg began 2012 with a consultation to identify the remaining individual premises in rural regions that are still not connected, 193 and remedies for next generation access.194 ComReg also 182 31 May 2011: Statistics report on the Icelandic telecommunications market in 2010, http://www.pfs.is/default.aspx?cat_id=112&module_id=220&element_id=3213. 183 18 Aug 2011 Post- and Telecom Administration Annual report for 2010 , http://www.pfs.is/default.aspx?cat_id=112&module_id=220&element_id=3299. 184 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (December 2010) (accessed Nov. 15, 2011). 185 Id. 186 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (July 2010) (accessed Feb. 11, 2011). 187 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (December 2010) (accessed Nov. 15, 2011). 188 Id. 189 IHS Global Insight, Ireland: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012). 190 16 March 2012: ComReg Decision on the Release of the 800 MHz, 900 MHz, and 1800 MHz spectrum bands , http://www.comreg.ie/publications/comreg_publishes_decision_on_the_release_of_the_800_mhz__900_mhz_and_1 800_mhz_spectrum_bands.583.104064.p.html. 191 Id. 192 IHS Global Insight, Ireland: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012). 193 Id. 20 published another consultation on April 4, 2012, on the proposed regulation of next generation access markets.195 ComReg reports that most of Ireland’s users subscribe to packages providing broadband speeds between 2 Mbps – 10 Mbps, but adoption of higher advertised broadband speeds is on the rise.196 Thus, in the second quarter of 2011, contracts for broadband speeds of greater than 10 Mbps increased at the expense of lower category speeds. 197 In total, approximately 12.5% of broadband subscriptions were faster than 10 Mbps, compared to 7.3% a year earlier.198 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants199 21.5 0.1 5.1 16.3 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)200 962,120 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 201 53.7 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants202 47.1 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 203 2,105,739 19. Israel Regulation: Israel’s Ministry of Communications was established as a separate and distinct ministry in 1971, to cover both telecommunications and the post. The Postal Authority began to operate outside of the Ministry in 1987. Bezeq, the Israeli Telecommunications Company, was separated from the Ministry and incorporated in 1984. All regulatory responsibility lies with the Ministry of Communications. The Ministry has 5 divisions: Engineering and Licensing, Frequency Allocation, Broadcasting, Cable Television, and Computer Communications (Telematics). The Ministry’s responsibilities include: formulating telecommunications regulation and policy, developing telecommunications infrastructures, supervising Bezeq and other telecommunications service providers, supervising the Postal Authority, setting and auditing postal and communications tariffs, managing the electromagnetic spectrum, regulating and supervising cable television services and tariffs, and approving usage of telecommunications equipment in Israel.204 (. . . continued from previous page) 194 4 April 2012: ComReg, Next Generation Access (NGA) Proposed Remedies for NGA Markets, http://www.comreg.ie/publications/next_generation_access_nga__proposed_remedies_for_nga_markets.583.104068 .p.html. 195http://www.comreg.ie/about_us/comreg_publishes_its_consultation_on_the_proposed_regulation_of_next_genera tion_access_markets.43.1088.whatsnew.html. 196 14 September 2011: ComReg Quarterly Report Q2 2011 , http://www.comreg.ie/publications/comreg_quarterly_report_q2_2011.583.103931.p.html. 197 Id. 198 Id. 199 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 200 Id. 201 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 202 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 203 Id. 204 Israel Ministry of Communications: http://www.moc.gov.il/135-en/MOC.aspx. 21 Market and Competition : Internet penetration is growing quickly. Internet in Israel is provided through the phone and cable infrastructures, by Bezeq and HOT Telecommunication Systems Ltd respectively. Bezeq provides dial-up and ADSL services, while HOT provides cable Internet services and multi- channel TV. Due to competition laws, every ADSL or cable Internet user has to pay separately to the infrastructure provider and to the ISP. There are five major ISPs currently serving both the narrowband and broadband Internet access market. There are also 70 smaller internet service providers in the Israeli broadband market. Fixed-line incumbent, Bezeq launched its ADSL service in 2001. Bezeq remains the largest broadband-service provider in Israel, with over 1 million subscribers as of April 2012.205 Three cable companies, Golden Channels, Matav and Tevel, launched broadband services in 2002 and now offer a combined service through their joint venture HOT. Israel has a well developed mobile market and all three of its cellular providers, Cellcom, Partner Communications, and Pelephone, offer 3G services. Each was awarded a UTMS license in 2001 but did not begin offering services until 2004. Cellcom launched its 3G service in June 2004, and differentiated itself from the other 3G operators in Israel by providing music content services over mobile. As of 2009, it holds 26.1% of the Israeli 3G market. Pelephone, a subsidiary of Bezeq, launched 3G services in September 2004, and by 2009, had the highest 3G market share at 40.3%. Partner launched its 3G services in December 2004 and held 33.7% of the 3G market by 2009. Partner is planning to implement HSDPA technology (3.5G), which allows download speeds of up to 3.6 MB per second.206 Other Media: The state broadcasting network, operated by the Israeli Broadcasting Authority (IBA), broadcasts on two channels, one in Hebrew and the other in Arabic. There are five commercial channels, including a channel broadcasting in Russian, a channel broadcasting Knesset proceedings and a music channel supervised by a public body. Multi-channel cable and satellite TV packages provide access to foreign channels. IBA broadcasts on eight radio networks with multiple repeaters and Israeli Defense Forces Radio broadcasts over multiple stations. There are about 15 privately-owned radio stations, with overall more than 100 stations and repeater stations operating as of 2008.207 Topography: Israel covers approximately 20,700 square kilometers (7,992 sq. mi), an area slightly larger than New Jersey. Israel’s geography is diverse, with desert conditions in the south, and snow- capped mountains in the north. The Negev Desert comprises approximately 12,000 square kilometers, more than half of Israel's total land area.208 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants209 24.2 0.0 10.0 14.3 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)210 1,847,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2009) 211 66.3 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants (June 40.3 205 http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/newslog/CategoryView,category,Mobile%2Bsubscribers.aspx. 206 IHS Global Insight, Israel: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012). 207 CIA Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook. 208 Id. 209 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 5, 2011). 210 Id. 211 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (accessed Dec. 5, 2011). 22 2011)212 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 213 3,068,443 20. Italy Market and Competition: In September 2011, Italy’s 4G auction garnered EUR3.95 billion (over US$5.2 billion), exceeding the Ministry of Economic Development’s maximum forecast of EUR3.1 billion. All four of Italy’s leading wireless operators won spectrum. Telecom Italia and Vodafone each spent EUR1.26 billion for 2 blocks of 800 MHz spectrum, 1 block of 1800 MHz spectrum, and 3 blocks of 2600 MHz spectrum. Wind paid EUR1.09 billion for 2 blocks of 800 MHz spectrum and 1 block of 1800 MHz spectrum. Three Italia (3Italia) paid EUR305 million for 1 block of 1800 MHz spectrum and 4 blocks of 2600 MHz spectrum.214 The operators will be able to use the 1800 MHz band by the end of 2011, the 2600 MHz band at the end of 2012, and the 800 MHz band at the end of 2013. All licenses run until 2029.215 Telecom Italia is continuing pre-commercial 4G trials. All four operators who won spectrum plan to roll out 4G in 2012. 3Italia has announced that it plans to be the first to launch 4G in 2012. In 2013, Vodafone plans a “massive launch” and Wind plans to launch in “all major cities.”216 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants217 22.3 0.5 0.0 21.8 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)218 13,507,951 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 219 48.9 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants220 42.4 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 221 25,644,685 21. Japa n Market and Competition: The focus of the broadband market in recent years is on fiber, which continues to be the dominant broadband technology in the country and a key driver for overall growth in broadband services. In the competitive mobile broadband market, NTT DoCoMo is the leader followed by KDDI and Softbank Mobile. 212 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 5, 2011). 213 Id. 214 See Ministry of Economic Development website, www.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it. (accessed December 6, 2011) 215 See Telecom.Paper website, http://www.telecompaper.com/news/italy-raises-eur-39-billion-in-spectrum-auction. (accessed December 6, 2011). 216 See Telegeography Globalcomms Database, Italy: (accessed December 7, 2011). 217 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 218 Id. 219 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 220 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 221 Id. 23 Japanese mobile carriers have begun preparing for migration to 4G LTE. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications allocated spectrum in the 1.5 GHz band to NTT DoCoMo, KDDI, and SoftBank Mobile, and in the 1.7 GHz band to EMOBILE.222 DoCoMo launched its service in December 2010, KDDI plans to begin service in December 2012, EMOBILE expects to launch LTE services in 2012. Softbank Mobile will launch its HSPA service in July 2012.223 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants224 27.0 16.4 4.5 6.0 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)225 34,360,672 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 226 63.4 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants227 80.0 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 228 101,869,228 22. South Korea Market and Competition: The Korean government has encouraged companies to invest heavily in the locally-developed mobile WiMax technology called WiBro (Wireless Broadband). Since KT Corporation (KT), formerly Korea Telecom, started WiBro service in June 2006, it has invested more than KRW800 billion (US$685 million) to set up networks in Seoul and its vicinity. The service is now available nationwide, however, the technology has not been readily adopted by Korean consumers and at the end of June 2010, KT’s WiBro network had only 330,000 subscribers.229 Nevertheless, KT still plans to update its WiBro service to 10 Mbps connection speeds.230 LTE service began in Korea in July 2011, and as of April 2012, there were 4 million subscribers. SK Telecom had 2.09 million subscribers, LG Uplus had 1.71 million, and KT had 400,000. Both SK Telecom and LG Uplus offer nationwide LTE data services.231 LTE connections are expected to reach 10 million by 2015.232 222 IHS Global Insight, Japan: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012) . 223 See Softbank, Press Release, “Allocation of 900 MHz ‘Platinum Band.’” (March 1, 2012) available at http://www.softbankmobile.co.jp/en/news/press/2012/20120301_01/; see also Ericsson, Press Release, “SOFTBANK Mobile deploys 900 MHz Evolved HSPA network (March 22, 2012) available at http://www.ericsson.com/thecompany/press/releases/2012/03/1596253. 224 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 225 Id. 226 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 227 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 228 Id. 229 Telecoms Korea, 2010 Top 5 Korea Telecom Market News Spotlights , January 3, 2010, available at http://www.telecomskorea.com/opinion-8624.html. Asia-Pacific Business and Technology Report, Super-Fast 4G Wireless Service Launching in South Korea, October 10, 2011, available at http://www.biztechreport.com/story/1619-super-fast-4g-wireless-service-launching-south-korea. 230 Asia-Pacific Business and Technology Report, Super-Fast 4G Wireless Service Launching in South Korea , October 10, 2011, available at http://www.biztechreport.com/story/1619-super-fast-4g-wireless-service-launching- south-korea. 231 Telecompaper.com, LTE subs in Korea hit 4 million , April 19, 2012, available at http://www.telecompaper.com/news /lte-subs-in-korea-hit-4-million 232 Wireless Intelligence, Over 90% of users connected to wireless internet in South Korea, Oct. 20, 2011, available at http://www.wirelessintelligence.com/analysis/pdf/2011-10-20-over-90-of-users-connected-to-the-wireless- internet-in-south-korea.pdf. 24 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants233 36.0 20.4 10.4 5.3 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)234 17,604, 503 % of households with fixed broadband access (2009) 235 83.8 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants236 99.3 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 237 48,542,393 23. Latvia Market and Competition: In November 2011, the European Commission approved a support scheme in Latvia worth around LVL71.5 million (US$139 million) for the deployment of superfast broadband networks. The program aims to bring Internet access at speeds from 30 Mbps to 100 Mbps to both consumers and businesses, while it also hopes to further bridge the digital divide between rural and urban areas.238 Competitors to the incumbent carrier, Apollo (Lattelecom), include Telekom Baltija, Baltkom, Latnet, Izzi (formerly Telia Multicom), and Vernet. In June 2011, Latvijas Mobilais Telefons (LMT) launched 4G/LTE service.239 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants240 19.31 Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Fixed broadband subs (2010)241 434,876 % of households with fixed broadband access Data N/A Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants242 18 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Q1 2012)243 406,137 233 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 234 Id. 235 KCC. The data for Korea available in the OECD Broadband Portal Table 2a (97.5%) includes mobile broadband access. 236 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). (terrestrial fixed wireless not included). 237 Id. 238 See Europa.com, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1323&type=HTML (accessed December 7, 2011). 239 See Teliasonera website, http://www.teliasonera.com/en/media/press-releases/2011/6/teliasonera-first-with-4g-in- latvia/ (accessed December 7, 2011). 240 ITU Statistics Database (accessed Nov. 17, 2011). 241 Id. 242 Wireless Intelligence, https://www.wirelessintelligence.com/Index.aspx (accessed May 15, 2012) (HSPA connections only). 243 Id. 25 24. Lithua n ia Regulation: In March 2011, the Lithuanian Parliament and Prime Minister approved an Information Society Development Program for 2011-2019, to be coordinated by the Ministry of Transport and Communications. The Program’s priorities include increasing the public’s skill in using ICT for development, promoting the use of content and services, and developing infrastructure. The program sets specific targets such as increasing the percentage of the population who regularly use the Internet from 58% in 2010 to 75% by 2015 and 85% by 2019. Another target is to increase access to broadband from 80% of the population in 2011 to 100% in 2019, to increase the number of households subscribing to broadband from 49% in 2011 to 80% in 2019, and to increase the number of state and local government agencies that engage in electronic document exchange to 100 percent.244 Market and Competition: Teo LT, the leading fixed telephony provider, serves 39% of broadband subscribers, followed by mobile providers Omnitel (13%) and Bit? (9%).245 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants246 20.58 Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Fixed broadband subs (2010)247 684,057 % of households with fixed broadband access Data N/A Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants248 19 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Q1 2012)249 610,769 25. Luxem b o u r g Regulation: Luxembourg adopted a law implementing most of the European Union’s Digital Agenda in January 2011. The Digital Agenda’s aims include creating a single European digital market, improving standards-setting and interoperability, improving cybersecurity, increasing download speeds, and enhancing skills.250 Market and Competition: In September 2011, the largest broadband provider, state-owned PT Luxembourg, served 67% of Luxembourg’s 161,000 subscribers.251 244 Resolution 301, On Lithuania's information society development program for the year 2011-2019, Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, www.lrs.lt (accessed December 9, 2011). 245 Report on the Electronic Communications Sector, Q2 2011, http://www.rrt.lt/download/14833/reportpercent202011%20i%20quarter.pdf (accessed Dec. 8, 2011). 246 ITU Statistics Database (accessed Nov. 17, 2011). 247 Id. 248 Wireless Intelligence, https://www.wirelessintelligence.com/Index.aspx (accessed May 15, 2012) (HSPA connections only). 249 Id. 250 See European Commission, Digital Agenda for Europe, http://www.ec.europa.eu (accessed Dec. 9, 2011). 251 See www.ilr.public.lu (accessed December 9, 2011). 26 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants252 31.7 0.2 2.9 28.5 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)253 160,639 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 254 70.3 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants255 54.3 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 256 276,679 26. Mexic o Regulation: In an effort to strengthen ICT access and development, the Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT) launched a national digital agenda (Agenda Digital.mx)257 in March 2012 with concrete goals and actions by the government to be taken in the short term. Some of the goals to be met by 2015 include providing 55% of Mexican homes with at least 5 Mbps broadband access; having fixed and mobile broadband penetration exceed 38 subscribers per 100 inhabitants, universal access by the end of the decade; and having all primary schools, public health centers and public offices connected to the Internet. The digital agenda has six main lines of action: (1) implement strategies to continue increasing Internet penetration in the country, promoting competition in the telecommunications market and supporting a social coverage policy; (2) use ICT as a tool for equity and social inclusion; programs, plans and policies must bear in mind the necessary conditions to provide ICT access to the low-income segment, indigenous groups, people with disabilities, the elderly and women; (3) increase the use of new technologies in education to promote the development of digital skills; (4) use ICT to increase connectivity in the health sector, promote telemedicine initiatives and create appropriate systems for the management of healthcare centers; (5) increase the country’s competitiveness through strategies aimed at promoting work skills and productivity through the digital media; and (6) consolidate e-government with new technologies that simplify administrative procedures and coordinate systems between the three branches of the federal government. Market and Competition: ADSL continues to be the most popular form of Internet access, followed by cable, other technologies (such as dedicated access, ISDN, satellite), and dial-up.258 According to OECD’s broadband statistics for June 2011, Mexico’s broadband penetration (both fixed and wireless) continue to be among the lowest in the OECD countries, while its broadband prices in terms of cost per megabit per second are among the highest. In the wireless broadband sector, there are four national cellular services providers, Telcel, Movistar, Iusacell and Nextel Mexico with 3G licenses. As of June 2011, Telcel led the mobile market with 70.3% market share, followed by Movistar (21.6%), Iusacell (4.4%) and Nextel Mexico (3.7%).259 Nextel 252 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (3) (June 2010) (accessed Feb. 11, 2011). 253 Id. 254 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (July 2010) (accessed Feb. 11, 2011). 255 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (December 2010) (accessed Nov. 15, 2011). 256 Id. 257 See Agenda Digital Nacional, at http://www.agendadigital.mx/descargas/AgendaDigitalmx.pdf. 258 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Mexico (2011)(accessed Dec. 5, 2011). 259 Id. 27 Mexico was the sole bidder in the June 2010 auction for a nationwide concession in the 1700 MHz spectrum, and was awarded the license in October 2010 despite several attempts by competitors, in particular Iusacell, to block the award.260 Nextel’s 3G network deployment, originally planned to be completed by the second quarter of 2012, has been delayed to the third quarter of 2012, due to problems in construction sites and delays in equipment delivery.261 2012. Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants262 10.9 0.0 2.1 8.7 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)263 11,753,458 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 264 21.1 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants265 0.5 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 266 525,508 27. Nether l a n d s Regulation: Beginning in January 2013, the Independent Post and Telecommunications Authority of the Netherlands (OPTA) will be merged with the Netherlands Consumer Authority and the Netherlands Competition Authority. The merged authority will be called the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), and will retain independent status. The ACM will focus on three main themes: consumer protection, industry-specific regulation, and competition oversight.267 Market and Competition : KPN is the largest player in the fixed-line broadband market, serving approximately 42% of the market, followed by Ziggo with approximately 27% and UPC with approximately 12%. DSL subscribership, which currently reaches 55% of the market, has been gradually declining since early 2010, while cable subscribership has gradually risen to its current 42%. Fiber commands a small but rapidly growing share (currently less than 1% ) of the broadband market.268 The government of the Netherlands plans to auction off a number of blocks of spectrum in 2012, including frequencies in the 800 MHz band suitable for 4G mobile data services. The Ministry of Economy may reserve a significant portion of the spectrum for new entrants.269 Cable provider Ziggo, which purchased spectrum in 2010, launched its mobile broadband service in July 2011, targeting tablet 260 Id. See also Total Telecom, Mexican Mobile Operators End Spectrum Dispute, Dec. 6, 2011 at http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?C=1&ID=469748. 261 RCRWireless Americas, NII Holdings to delay 3G launch; posts weak Q4 revenue; EBITDA , Feb. 24, 2012 at http://www.rcrwireless.com/americas/20120224/carriers/nii-holdings-to-delay-3g-launch-posts-weak-q4-revenue- ebitda/. 262 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 263 Id. 264 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 265 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 266 Id. 267 See OPTA news release, October 4, 2011, “New Dutch regulator to be called ACM, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets. Merger of three regulators to be completed January 1, 2013” at www.opta.nl/en/. 268 See OPTA Market Figures for the Second Quarter of 2011 at www.opta.nl/en/. 269 See Telegeography Comms Update September 16, 2011, “Dutch government looking to ring fence spectrum for new entrants.” 28 and laptop users.270 After purchasing spectrum in April 2010, Tele2 launched the first 4G network in the Netherlands in July 2010.271 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants272 38.5 1.3 16.0 21.2 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)273 6,392,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 274 79.5 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants275 44.1 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 276 7,318,000 28. New Zeala n d Regulation: In April 2011, New Zealand’s government implemented its Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) by signing agreements with Telecom New Zealand and Vodafone for a NZ$285 million (US$213.9 million) infrastructure roll out. The RBI will focus on the 16% of the population living in areas that experience no or very poor broadband services. The RBI will bring high speed broadband to 252,000 customers and 86% of rural houses and businesses will have access to broadband peak speeds of at least 5 Mbps. Under the program, most rural schools will have access to speeds of 100 Mbps with 1035 rural schools connecting directly to fiber networks, and 57 schools having point to point wireless connections capable of speeds of 10 Mbps or more.277 In the first year of the RBI, 520 schools were connected, as were 10 health facilities.278 Market and Competition: In August 2011, the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) announced plans for an auction of mobile spectrum in the 700 MHz band, ahead of the switch-off of analog TV signals in the country in 2013. MED has indicated that 112 MHz will be made available in the 700 MHz band. Detailed plans for the auction have not been released, which is scheduled for the fourth quarter 2012.279 In the interim, New Zealand Telecom will conduct live customer trials of LTE in the second half of 2012 and has begun upgrading is network from 3G to 4G. Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other 270 See Telegeography Comms Update July 19, 2011, “Ziggo enters mobile broadband sphere.” 271 See Tele2 launches the Blackberry solution in the Netherlands at press.rim.com. 272 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 273 Id. 274 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 275 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 276 Id. 277 New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development. Rural Broadband Initiative FAQ, available at http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/technology-communication/fast-broadband/rural-broadband- initiative/faqs 278 New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development. Roll-Our Schedule, .available at http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/technology-communication/fast-broadband/rural-broadband- initiative/roll-out-schedule 279 New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development. Digital Dividend: Planning for New Uses of the 700 MHz Band. Available at http://www.rsm.govt.nz/cms/policy-and-planning/projects/digital-dividend-planning-for-new- uses-of-the-700-mhz-band 29 Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants280 26.0 0.1 1.5 24.4 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)281 1,138,830 % of households with fixed broadband access (2009) 282 63.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants283 54.3 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 284 2,380,709 29. Norwa y Market and Competition: Telenor continues to be the leading broadband Internet access provider in Norway, although its market share in September 2011 had fallen to 49.7%. Mobile broadband subscription continues to grow, increasing 33.7% in 2010 from 2009.285 Fixed broadband growth slowed to 3% from the first half of 2010 to the first half of 2011, compared to 5% between the first half to 2009 to the first half of 2010.286 In February 2011, NetCom, Norway’s second largest mobile operator, expanded its 4G network beyond Oslo to three other major cities. When its 4G network is complete, NetCom plans to offer 4G coverage to 89% of the population. In October 2011, Telenor announced the completion of upgrades to its mobile network and plans to use the upgraded network for deployment of LTE services in 2012.287 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants288 34.9 5.7 10.3 18.7 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)289 1,703,817 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 290 82.6 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants291 76.4 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 292 3,732,917 30. Polan d 280 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 281 Id. 282 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 283 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 284 Id. 285 IHS Global Insight, Norway: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Dec. 5, 2011). 286 NPT, The Norwegian Electronic Commun ications Services Market 1 st half 2011 (rev. Nov. 14, 2011), available at http://www.npt.no/ikbViewer/Content/133773/The%20Norwegian%20Electronic%20Communcations%20Services %20market%201st%20half%202011.pdf. 287 Telegeography GlobalComms Database, Norway : (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012) 288 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 289 Id. 290 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 291 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 292 Id. 30 Regulation: In March 2010, the Office of Electronic Communications (UKE) announced the inauguration of a nationwide project to support the expansion of broadband Internet access networks. Through the European Union’s Rural Development Plan 2007-2013, Poland has access to a maximum of approximately 1 billion Euros (US$1.34 billion) in state and European Union funding for building broadband networks.293 In May 2010, the Polish Parliament passed the Act on Supporting the Development of Telecommunication Services and Networks. The purpose of the Act is to establish the legal basis for universal access to telecommunications services through new technologies, in particular broadband access, and to facilitate investment and remove barriers to telecommunications infrastructure as well as to improve the disbursement of EU funds for broadband development.294 Market and Competition: Mobyland (owned by Aero2) and CenterNet launched the world’s first commercial LTE network in the 1800 MHz band in September 2010, aiming to cover 75% of the population. Polkomtel, Poland’s largest mobile telecommunications operator by subscribers, was the latest operator to launch LTE services in December 2011, covering approximately 22% of the population.295 In Poland, the 2.6 GHz band and the 700/800 MHz bands are earmarked for LTE services, but the tender for the frequencies, which was originally scheduled for 2010-2011, will be delayed until 2013-2014 as the military, which uses spectrum in the 2.6 GHz band, is unable to release the spectrum before then.296 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants297 14.3 0.3 4.7 7.8 1.5 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)298 5,460,186 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 299 56.8 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants300 50.9 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011)301 19,453,493 31. Portu g a l Regulation: In January 2011, in response to a request submitted by the Portuguese government, the EU Commission approved EUR106.2 million (US$ 142.5 million) in state aid to support the deployment of 293 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Poland (2011) (accessed Dec. 5, 2011). 294 2010-2011 Joint Project of the ITU- Telecommunication Development Bureau and the Poland Ministry of Infrastructure, New Legislative Paradigm Fostering Development of Broadband Infrastructure: Case Study – Poland, available at http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/eur/NLP-BBI/CaseStudy/CaseStudy_POL.html. 295 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Poland (2011)(accessed Dec. 5, 2011). 296 IHS Global Insight, Poland: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Dec. 5, 2011). 297 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 298 Id. 299 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 300 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 301 Id. 31 high-speed broadband networks in Portugal. The project aims to provide broadband coverage to at least 50% of the population in the 139 underserved or uncovered rural municipalities by 2013.302 Market and Competition: As of September 2011, Portugal Telecom continued to lead in market share for broadband services at 50%, followed by Zon Multimedia with 33.8%, Cabovisão with 8.2%, Vodafone with 4% and Sonaecom with 3.7%.303 As of December 2010, ANACOM, the telecommunications regulator, assessed that the number of mobile network subscribers who were eligible to use 3G services had increased to just under 10.5 million, representing 63.7% of the national wireless subscriber market. Of that total, however, only 30% actually utilized 3G technology.304 In November 2011, Portugal launched auctions for 4G licenses in the 450 MHz, 800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1.8 GHz, and 2.6 GHz bands. Portugal Telecom, Sonaecom and Vodafone all won spectrum that they plan to use for deployment of LTE services.305 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants306 20.3 1.6 8.3 10.3 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)307 2,155,056 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 308 50.3 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants309 64.7 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 310 6,885,232 32. Romania Regulation: In the second half of 2012, the National Authority for Management and Regulation in Communications (ANCOM), the Romanian telecommunications regulator, will auction spectrum for four licenses in the 800 MHz and 2.6 GHz bands for LTE.311 In June 2011, Romania’s Ministry of Communications and Information Society (MCSI) said it would use EU funding of EUR86.2 million (US$124 million) to fill gaps in broadband coverage. These funds were to help address the 10% of the Romania’s population that is not covered by existing broadband networks.312 In November 2011, however, MCSI said the funding would be delayed until late 2012.313 302 European Commission, State Aid SA.30317 Portugal - High Speed Broadband in Portugal , Jan. 19, 2011, available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/236635/236635_1199063_71_2.pdf. 303 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Portugal (2011)(accessed Dec. 5, 2011). 304 Id. 305 IHS Global Insight, Portugal: Telecoms Report (2011)(accessed March 23, 2012). 306 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 307 Id. 308 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 309 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 310 Id. 311 IHS Global Insight, Romania: Telecoms Report(2011) (accessed March 23, 2012). 312 IHS Global Insight, Romania : Telecoms Report(2011)(accessed March 23, 2012). 32 Market and Competition: Orange Romania plans to extend its 43.2 Mbps-capable HSPA+ network to the cities of Cluj to the northwest, Constanta to the southeast, Iasi to the northeast and Timisoara to the west. Its 21.6 Mbps HSPA+ network now reaches 20 cities. At the 14.4 Mbps level, Orange Romania aims to increase its population coverage from 82.7% currently to 98% of the population by mid-2012.314 Vodafone Romania is also planning to add mobile data coverage to all locations where it offers mobile voice, thus boosting mobile data coverage from the current 90% levels.315 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants316 13.96 Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Fixed broadband subs (2010)317 3,000,000 % of households with fixed broadband access Data N/A Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants318 23 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Q1 2012)319 4,834,782 33. Singa po r e Regulation: In November 2011, Singapore’s Parliament amended the Telecommunications Act to strengthen the authority of its independent regulator, the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA). One of the amendments gives the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts – to whom IDA reports – the power to impose a Separation Order for the transfer of telecommunications assets or business of a licensee to a separate entity. This is to eliminate barriers to competition, particularly when one operator controls the network infrastructure as well as participates in retail services. Other amendments permit the minister to issue Special Administrative Orders to allow the takeover of a telecommunications service or property by a third party. This is to ensure that a key telecommunication service remains functional, for public and national interest, in cases of insolvency by an operator. The amendments also allow the IDA to impose higher penalties, and to suspend or cancel a license if penalties are not paid on time.320 Market and Competition: SingTel continues to be the dominant carrier for both fixed and mobile broadband services with 45.2 and 45.5% market shares, respectively.321 With respect to mobile services, all three operators have launched 4G LTE services. M1 launched its 4G LTE network across the (. . . continued from previous page) 313 Id. 314 Id. 315 Id. 316 ITU Statistics Database (accessed Nov. 17, 2011). 317 Id. 318 Wireless Intelligence, https://www.wirelessintelligence.com/Index.aspx (accessed May 15, 2012) (HSPA connections only). 319 Id. 320 Newschannelasia.com, Parliament passes amendments to Telecommunications Act, November 21, 2011, available at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1166737/1/.html 321 Point Topic, Broadband Operator Profile, (April 2, 2012) available at http:// point- topic.com/content/operatorSource/profiles2/singtel.htm. 33 enterprise sector in June 2011.322 SingTel began commercial operations of its LTE services at the end of 2011 and StarHub has been running LTE trials and expects to launch commercial services by the end of 2012.323 In 2006, the government of Singapore announced its Next Generation National Infocomm Infrastructure (Next Gen NII) plan, which proposed to upgrade the country’s fixed and mobile network infrastructures to offer speeds of up to 1 Gbps and 1 Mbps, respectively by 2012.324 As of January 2012, the Next Gen NII broadband network (NGNBN) had been deployed to 86% of the country, and is on track to achieve its target of 95% coverage by mid-2012. Also in January 2012, there were 100,000 NGNBN subscribers. Homeowners and businesses which are connected to the NGNBN can subscribe to over 40 fiber-based broadband access plans offered by 12 retail service providers.325 Singapore’s next generation wireless infrastructure, branded Wireless@SG, offers everyone free wireless access in high volume pedestrian areas, including the Central Business District, downtown shopping belts and residential town centers. As of May 2012, the service averaged 15.1 hours per user per month, with over 5,000 public hotspots across the country. Wireless@SG will be free until March 31, 2013.326 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants327 24.72 Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Data N/A Fixed broadband subs (2010)328 1,257,400 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010)329 82 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants330 71 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Q1 2012)331 3,743,001 322 The Straits Times. M1 launches 4G network today. June 21, 2011. Available at http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_682132.html. 323 StarHub News Release, Starhub selects Nokia Siemens network for 4G, GSM modernization, April 10, 2012 available at http://www.starhub.com/content/corporate/newsroom/2012/04/starhub-selects-nokia-siemens-network- for-4G--gsm-moderization.html. 324 See Singapore InfoComm Development Authority. Fact Sheet: Updates to the Next Generation National Infocomm Infrastructure, available at http://www.ida.gov.sg/doc/Programmes/Programmes_Level2/Annex_2.pdf and Fact Sheet (March 2012): Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network, available at http://www.ida.gov.sg/images/content/Infrastructure/nbn/images/pdf/NextGenNBNFACTSHEET.pdf 325 Singapore InfoComm Development Authority. Fact Sheet (March 2012): N ext Generation Nationwide Broadband Network, available at http://www.ida.gov.sg/images/content/Infrastructure/nbn/images/pdf/NextGenNBNFACTSHEET.pdf. 326 Singapore InfoComm Development Authority. Fact Sheet (May 2012): Wireless@SG, available at http://www.ida.gov.sg/doc/News%20and%20Events/News_and_Events_Level2/20090728165354/WirelessSG_facts heet.pdf. 327 ITU Statistics Database (accessed Nov. 17, 2011). 328 Id. 329 http://www.ida.gov.sg/Publications/20070822125451.aspx. 330 Wireless Intelligence, https://www.wirelessintelligence.com/Index.aspx (accessed Apr. 14, 2011) (HSPA connections only). 331 Id. 34 34. Slova k Republi c Regulation: In September 2011, the Slovakian parliament passed updates of the country’s telecommunications law in accordance with EU directives. Changes include allowing for the provision of 3G services in the 900 MHz band and the implementation of mobile number portability.332 The Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of the Slovak Republic (Telekomunika?ný úrad Slovenskej republiky or TÚSR), is planning an auction of 800 MHz and 2.6 GHz spectrum in May 2012.333 TÚSR is considering including conditions on covering areas without broadband access, as well as reserving blocks of spectrum in the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz bands for a new, fourth operator. 334 Market and Competition: In July 2011, Telefónica Slovakia launched 3G services providing W- CDMA/HSPA coverage to approximately 33% of the population. Its 3G services are offered in mobile data plans, with the basic package offering speeds from 512 kbps, while extended packages offer speeds of up to 1,024 kbps.335 In September 2011, T-Mobile Slovakia increased coverage of its HSPA+ network to 83 cities and municipalities. In November 2011, Orange Slovensko also upgraded its mobile network to HSPA+. Download speeds on Orange’s high-end data packages have increased to 21 Mbps, while a further premium plan enables speeds of up to 42 Mbps.336 Fixed-line operators are also upgrading their networks to address increased data demand. In October 2011, DSL competitor Slovanet expanded its 40 Mbps broadband network to cover Tur?ianske Teplice, a small town in central Slovak Republic.337 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants338 13.5 4.0 1.9 7.5 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)339 731,652 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 340 49.4 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants341 32.9 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 342 1,785,534 35. Slove n i a Market and Competition: Mobile broadband band coverage in Slovenia is below EU average, however, Mobitel, a subsidiary of fixed line operator Telekom Solvenije, initiated testing of an LTE network in the 332 IHS Global Insight, Slovakia: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012). 333 Telecom Paper, Slovakia plans cap on 800, 1800 MHz band holdings (March 13, 2012) available at http://www.telecompaper.com/news/slovakia-plans-cap-on-800-1800-mhz-band-holdings. 334 IHS Global Insight, Slovakia: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed March 23, 2012). 335 IHS Global Insight, Slovakia: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed December 19, 2011). 336 Id. 337 IHS Global Insight, Slovakia: Telecoms Report, (October 2011) (accessed December 19, 2011). 338 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 339 Id. 340 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 341 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 342 Id. 35 1800 MHz band in June 2011. The test network was deployed in parts of Ljubljana on extra 1800 MHz spectrum released specifically for testing. Mobitel also plans to upgrade and expand its HSPA network to 21 Mbps, with a further upgrade to dual-carrier HSPA+ (DC-HSPA). Once fully operational, Mobitel plans to roll out LTE and LTE advanced networks across three spectrum bands the 800 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2600 MHz bands.343 Si.Mobil, Slovenia’s second largest mobile operator completed the expansion of its 3.0/3.5G network in early 2012. Si.Mobil 3G mobile services now cover 90% of the Slovenian population. However, its recently deployed base stations already support HSPA+ and DC-HSPA that allow data rates of up to 42 Mbps and the company plans to deploy more LTE ready base stations in 2012. Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants344 23.5 3.5 6.3 13.7 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)345 480,785 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010)346 62.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants347 28.9 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 348 591,908 36. Spai n Regulation: The assignment of spectrum has been one of the main ICT policy priorities in Spain. In early 2011, the Spanish authorities assigned spectrum to wireless providers, through a combination of auctions and comparative selection procedures on a technological and service neutral basis. In August, nine of the 11 bidders approved by the government to participate in its auction of mobile spectrum (totaling 270 MHz) were awarded frequencies.349 By the end of 2014, Spain’s plans include a reallocation of the upper part of the UHF band (790 – 862 MHz) which will be made available for advanced communication services.350 In addition, the Spanish telecommunications regulator, Comision del Mercado de las Telecommunicaciones has recently proposed extending the scope of the current radio spectrum regulations that permit spectrum trading, to the main frequency bands allocated for mobile services.351 Market and Competition: The economic outlook for Spain has worsened over the last year, as it remains beset by high unemployment and fiscal retrenchment. While this affected the ICT sector, slowing the previous acceleration of growth in both the broadband and mobile areas in recent months, there are still signs that the sector is still relatively robust.352 343 IHS Global Insight: Slovenia: Telecoms Report (2011) (accessed Jan. 19, 2012). 344 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 345 Id. 346 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 347 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 348 Id. 349 http://www.cmt.es/cmt_ptl_ext/SelectOption.do?nav=publi_estudios. 350http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/scoreboard/docs/regulatory/es_reg_dev_2011.pdf.pdf. 351http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/scoreboard/docs/regulatory/es_reg_dev_2011.pdf.pdf. 352 http://www.minetur.gob.es/telecomunicaciones/ProgramaMarco/Paginas/index.aspx (accessed March 21, 2012). 36 The latest subscriber data published by Spain’s four main mobile operators, Telefonica, Vodafone, Orange and Yoigo show there were 56.8 million mobile subscribers in Spain in 2011. This represents a 3.4% annual increase, with a total of 807,000 new subscribers being shared between the four largest operators.353 The issuance of new spectrum – including spectrum in the 2.6 GHz band – is helping operators cater to increased demand for data services. In terms of broadband deployment, DSL is expected to remain the dominant fixed broadband technology, though mobile broadband connections are predicted to account for an increasing share of the overall market over the next five years. Spain has continued its commitment (as specified under its national broadband strategy, “Plan Avanza ”) to provide public aid for broadband, with a collective EUR200 million (US $263 million) allocated in 2010 and 2011 in subsidies and interest-free loans.354 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants355 23.7 0.2 4.5 19.0 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)356 10,933,389 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 357 57.4 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants358 42.4 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 359 19,542,586 37. Sweden Regulation: The Swedish Post and Telecommunication Authority (PTS) conducted a survey in 2010 to measure variations in broadband availability at various speed thresholds in Sweden as a whole and in Swedish municipalities. The results reported that nearly 100% of the population has access to broadband download speeds of 3 Mbps, and 42% can access 50 Mbps service.360 Market and Competition: In June 2011, the four largest providers of mobile and fixed broadband were TeliaSonera (serving 37% of subscribers), Telenor (24%), Tele2 (21%), and Hi3G (16%). Together they represented 98% of all broadband subscriptions.361 In November 2011, TeliaSonera announced that it had expanded its 4G LTE mobile broadband services into 161 municipalities. TeliaSonera’s goal is to offer LTE to 663 municipalities by the end of 2012 by augmenting its existing 2600 MHz LTE frequencies with 800 MHz and 1800 MHz bands won in spectrum auctions in March 2011 and October 2011, respectively.362 353http://www.cmt.es/cmt_ptl_ext/SelectOption.do?nav=publi_anuales&detalles=09002719800b092f&pagina=1. 354http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/scoreboard/docs/regulatory/es_reg_dev_2011.pdf.pdf. 355 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 356 Id. 357 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (Novemebr 2011) (accessed Dec. 16 , 2011). 358 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 359 Id. 360 See PTS statistics portal, broadband survey at http://www.statistik.pts.se/broadband/index.html (accessed December 13, 2011.) 361 See PTS Report, The Swedish Telecommunications Market first half-year 2011, November 7, 2011 at http://www.pts.se/upload/Rapporter/Tele/2011/svtelem-halvar-2011-21-eng.pdf. 362 Telia’s LTE reaches 161 cities, November 14 2011, Telegeography GlobalComms Database. 37 Tele2 and Telenor Sweden formed an equal joint venture to build a fourth-generation network under the name Net4Mobility in 2009. Commercial LTE-based mobile broadband services were launched over the Net4Mobility network in November 2010. Net4Mobility plans to expand coverage to 99% of the population by the end of 2012. Telenor’s 4G services are now available in 116 municipalities throughout Sweden, while Tele2’s commercial LTE footprint covers 60% of the population. Both Tele2 and Telenor are also augmenting existing 2600MHz LTE coverage with 800MHz and 1800MHz frequency bands won in March 2011 and October 2011 respectively.363 Similar to its competitors, Hi3G won 800 MHz spectrum in the March 2011 auction. In early 2012, Hi3G Sweden selected ZTE to install base stations in order to expand its 3G and 4G network infrastructure. 4G services will be available by the end of 2012.364 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants365 31.9 9.0 6.3 16.5 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)366 2,995,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 367 82.6 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants368 93.6 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 369 8,778,000 38. Switz e r l a n d Regulation: In February 2012, the Swiss Federal Communications Commission (ComCom), auctioned spectrum in several frequency bands, including 800 MHz digital dividend spectrum (for which current licenses expire in 2013), 900 and 1800 MHz spectrum (some bands are available now, while others will be available by January 2016), and 2.1 and 2.2 GHz (available now, except for currently licensed UMTS licenses which expire at the end of 2016). Three companies won licenses: Orange, Sunrise, and Swisscom. The licenses expire at the end of 2028.370 Market and Competition: At the end of 2010, ten percent of Swiss households had access to broadband via fiber optic facilities.371 Swisscom is continuing its trials of 4G (LTE) technology in seven tourist 363 LTE Advanced tests reported by Tele2, Telenor, Telegeography, May 11 2012. 364ZTE deploys 3G/4G infrastructure for Hi3G, Global Telecoms Business, May 9 2012. 365 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 366 Id. 367 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 368 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 369 Id. 370 See ComCom “Orange, Sunrise and Swisscom purchase mobile radio frequencies at auction” at http://www.comcom.admin.ch/aktuell/00429/00457/00560/index.html?lang=en&msg-id=43520 (site accessed April 25, 2012). 371 See CommComm Annual Report, 2010, http://www.comcom.admin.ch/org/00452/index.html?lang=en (site accessed April 25, 2012). 38 areas through mid-2012, and plans to use its experience in the trials to deploy LTE, beginning later in 2012.372 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants373 38.3 0.2 10.6 27.2 0.3 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)374 2,983,281 % of households with fixed broadband access (2008) 375 70.8 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants376 48.7 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 377 3,795,353 39. Turkey Regulation: Beginning in 2003, the Prime Ministry and State Planning Organization’s Information Society Department began an e-Transformation Project. The overall project goal was defined as promoting information society polices to increase Turkey’s competitiveness. The project’s focus was to develop policy actions and strategies to enable Turkey to transition to an Information Society.378 A new Turkish media law went into effect on March 3, 2011 (Law No. 6112 on the Establishment of Radio and Television Enterprises and Their Broadcasts, or the “Law”), which repeals the pre-existing Law No. 3984 and introduces substantive changes to television and radio broadcasting in Turkey. The new regulatory regime, whose stated purpose was to respond to current technological developments and to align Turkish legislation with commitments to the EU, stipulates a complete switchover from analog to digital broadcasting by 2014. Plans for the digital dividend have not been announced.379 Market and Competition: Turkish regulator, the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK), reported that the country's broadband sector has been one of the fastest growing communications segments with annual growth rate of 16% as of the end of the third quarter of 2011. Turkcell is the dominant mobile operator in Turkey with 86% of the market. Turkcell’s new products and marketing approaches, such as its online TV service and a promotion which allows customers to sample its Internet service free of charge for the first two months before having to commit to subscribe, have helped maintain its position.380 Competition has heated up as Turkey has implemented regulatory reform as part of the European Union accession program. Naked DSL offerings made available in early 2011 have increased broadband 372 See http://www.swisscom.com/en/ghq/media/mediareleases/2011/12/20111208_MM_LTE-Pilotprojekt.html (accessed April 25, 2012). 373 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (December 2010) (accessed Nov. 15, 2011). 374 Id. 375 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (July 2010) (accessed Feb. 11, 2011). 376 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (December 2010) (accessed Nov. 15, 2011). 377 Id. 378 http://broadbandtoolkit.org/Case/tr/2 379 http://www.chadbourne.com/files/Publication/f7967d58-3521-41da-a47d- 02e34dac6446/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/d74f2cf7-78b5-4e99-9e70- 05b015243b13/Turkish_MediaLaw_ca(yuksel).pdf 380 IHS Global Insight: Telecoms Analysis: Turkey: Telecoms Report(2011) (accessed March 23, 2012). 39 penetration. Although ADSL still represents the majority of broadband subscriptions, the market is evolving as mobile broadband is growing rapidly. In addition, SuperOnline, a subsidiary of the country's largest mobile operator Turkcell, launched FTTH services at the end of 2009, collecting around 200,000 subscribers during the first year.381 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants382 10.0 0.3 0.5 9.2 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (June 2011)383 7,315,418 % of households with fixed broadband access (2010) 384 33.7 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants385 5.0 Mobile wireless broadband subs (June 2011) 386 3,640,563 40. Unite d King d o m Regulation: In December 2010, the government issued a broadband strategy, Britain’s superfast broadband future, allocating £530 million (US$826 million) to ensure that a digital divide based on broadband speed does not emerge between urban and rural areas. The strategy sets a goal to make the UK’s broadband network the best in Europe by 2015. The UK will use a composite index to determine whether this goal is met, including factors such as speed, coverage, price and choice.387 In order to reach the broadband goal, the UK’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), responsible for broadband policy and delivery, aims to ensure that superfast broadband reaches 90% of households by 2015.388 In March 2012, the DCMS announced it had chosen the super-connected cities, which will receive funding to bring superfast broadband to 1.7 million households.389 In January 2012, Ofcom, the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industry, updated its proposal to auction 4G spectrum in the 800 MHz and 2.6 GHz bands. Final auction design is scheduled to be complete in the summer of 2012 and to extend 4G coverage requirements to 98% of the UK. That exceeds the existing 3G coverage requisite of 95%. The UK government also proposes to invest £150 million ($240 million) to supplement mobile networks in areas of the country that receive little or no coverage. The final auction will begin in the fourth quarter of 2012.390 381 www.budde.com Turkey - Telecoms, Mobile, Broadband and Forecasts, October 2011. http://www.budde.com.au/Research/Turkey-Telecoms-Mobile-Broadband-and-Forecasts.html#execsummary (accessed Jan. 19, 2012). 382 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 383 Id. 384 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 385 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 386 Id. 387 See Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Britain’s Superfast Broadband Future , December 2010, at http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/10-1320-britains-superfast-broadband-future.pdf. 388 See DCMS: http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/telecommunications_and_online/7763.aspx (accessed May 22, 2012). 389 See DCMS: http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/8931.aspx (accessed May 22, 2012). 390 See Ofcom: http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2012/01/12/proposals-to-extend-4g-mobile-coverage/ (accessed April 19, 2012). 40 Market and Competition: BT continued to be the largest UK broadband provider in 2011 with a market share of 29% (1.5 percentage points higher than in 2010). Sky’s market share was up by 1.9 percentage points to 16%. Other operators market shares remain relatively the same, with O2/Be at 3.5%, and Virgin Media and the TalkTalk Group at 21.5 and 21%, respectively. Orange and T-Mobile’s joint venture, Everything Everywhere’s market share was approximately 3.6%.391 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants392 32.6 0.5 6.6 25.5 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (December 2011)393 20,274,861 % of households with fixed broadband access (2009) 394 69.5 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants395 44.4 Mobile wireless broadband subs (December 2011) 396 27,642,015 391 The Guardian, U K Broadband market, July 28, 2011, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/ business/2011/jul/28/uk-broadband-market-share (accessed May 24, 2012. 392 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (1) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 393 Id. 394 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 2a (November 2011) (accessed Dec. 16, 2011). 395 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1d (2) (June 2011) (accessed Dec. 2, 2011). 396 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix F Comparing International Broadband Speeds 1. Introduction Broadband speeds are often measured in three metrics: the advertised speed, the actual speed, and the divergence between the advertised and actual speed. Advertised speeds for a given consumer can generally be obtained either from the ISP serving that consumer or directly from the consumer. The latter approach may create some measurement error. Actual speed is measured primarily by two methods: (i) by installing special hardware on an end user’s computer that enables the device to measure actual download and upload speeds and (ii) by running software based tests.1 For international cities, the most widely used speed data is based primarily on software based tests conducted by Ookla using speedtest.net.2 This data can be useful in providing an international comparison, but certain caveats should be noted. For instance, since this is a software based test, the physical distance of the end user to the server may be one factor influencing speed measurement. Also, the actual speeds that are observed in each country are a combination of availability and usage. This means that a low average download speed for a country could be a reflection of either more people subscribing to low speed broadband or poor performance and availability of high speed broadband. Despite these shortcomings, the Ookla speed data help in constructing meaningful international comparisons. Additionally, the data provides other metrics of network quality that may be used to evaluate broadband performance across countries. In this appendix, we analyze broadband speeds in 38 countries using Ookla data on actual speeds, as well as Ookla customer surveys of advertised speeds. Below are some highlights from our analysis: ? The United States ranks 24th (11.6 Mbps) in terms of actual download speeds when these are weighted by the sample size, based on all available data. ? The United States shows a large increase in the average speed with the percentage of tests reporting speeds of 10 Mbps or higher increasing from 30% in 2009 to 80% in 2011 (Figure 1c). ? The shortfall index, or the percentage difference between advertised and actual speed, declined in all countries in 2011 from 2010. In the United States, the shortfall index declined from 7.06% to 6.80% based on self-reported data from consumers (Figure 4), i.e. consumers get 94% of advertised speeds, which is approximately consistent with the findings in Measuring Broadband America report. ? The United States ranks 17th (12.5 Mbps) when based on a stratified sampling technique using weighted average actual download speed (Figure 3a). 1 The former is usually preferred as the speed measurement is not biased by the subscriber’s computer configuration, the type of connection between the end user and the ISP’s network, and the physical distance of the end user from the testing server. For example, SamKnows conducts such hardware based tests for the U.S. and the U.K. For the U.S., the Federal Communication Commission teamed up with SamKnows to measure the advertised and actual speeds, and the results are summarized in FCC’s Report titled “Measuring Broadband America – A Report on Consumer Wireline Broadband Performance in the U.S,” available at http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband- america. For information about the U.K. speed testing, see http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2011/07/consumers- benefit-from-uk-broadband-speed-surge/. However for broad-based international data, software based tests, such as Ookla’s speedtest.net, are the best available data source. 2 This is based on the NetIndex data provided by Ookla. 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 2. Data Overview The following analysis is based on the publicly available data provided by Ookla on its Net Index site.3 This dataset comprises approximately 14.4 million observations of daily broadband speeds and spans over 12,000 cities from 159 countries from 2008 to December 2011.4 The main difference between the speed data gathered by Ookla and other software based tests is the method by which Ookla measures speed. Most web-based tests measure the average speed of downloading a single file from the internet. Ookla however, adopts a “fill the pipe” approach.5 This method measures the speed of the broadband connection when multiple computers or programs are using it.6 Essentially, more data is used to test the faster connections than slower ones, ensuring the speed data reflect the actual speed experienced by the typical consumer.7 For this analysis we use the 38 countries selected by the Bureau for the 2011 IBDR.. 8 Section 103(b) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA) tasks the Commission with “comparing the extent of broadband service capability (including data transmission speeds and price for broadband service capability) in a total of 75 communities in at least 25 countries abroad for each of the data rate benchmarks for broadband service utilized by the Commission to reflect different speed tiers.”9 As discussed in the report, we interpret “communities” to mean a geographical unit smaller than a nation- state (the sub-national level).10 Where we have more granular data, as we do for actual speeds, we can examine “communities,” namely cities. Therefore, we also present city-level speed comparisons. We 3 The data extraction was performed on December 15, 2011 from http://netindex.com/source-data/. 4 There are several daily speed datasets at the country, region and city level that are available from Ookla. Depending on the level of geographic disaggregation, each dataset contains the name of the country where the speed test was conducted, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) country code, region name and code for U.S. States and Canadian Provinces, name of Internet Service Provider, the average download and average upload speed in Kbps, average latency in milliseconds, average latency variation (jitter) in milliseconds, average packet loss in percent, average estimated r-factor, the number of tests analyzed to calculate the index, and the average distance in miles between the client and the server across all tests. We use the daily country and city level data to compare how countries perform on the speed metric. 5 Frequently Asked Questions, Version 1.02, May 26, 2010, available at https://support.speedtest.net/forums/20483933-how-speedtest-net-works and http://www.netindex.com/about/. 6 This is done by using multiple threads (simultaneous transfers of data) and carefully "right-sizing" the transferred payload.” Frequently Asked Questions, Version 1.02, May 26, 2010, pp. 2-3. 7 See Steve Bauer, David Clark, William Lehr, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Understanding Broadband Speed Measurements”, http://mitas.csail.mit.edu/papers/Bauer_Clark_Lehr_Broadband_Speed_Measurements.pdf (“[T]he Ookla/Speedtest approach – which typically results in higher measured data rates than the other approaches reviewed – was the best of the currently available data sources for assessing the speed of ISP's broadband access service. One of the key differences that accounts for this is that the Ookla/Speedtest tools utilize multiple TCP connections to collect the measurement data which is key to avoiding the receive window limitation. These tests are also much more likely to be conducted to a server that is relatively close to the client running the test.”). 8 Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea (South), Lithuania, Latvia, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States. 9 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(3). 10 2012 IBDR at ¶ 34. 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 start by discussing the rankings on an aggregate, country level based on speed data compiled by the OECD and Ookla, and then analyze the disaggregated data. 3. Aggregate Country Rankings Based on Ookla Data Figure 1a shows the 2011 rankings based on average download speed (Mbps) for each country chosen in the IBDR. These ranking are based on weighted average speed, i.e. the average speed obtained by averaging across cities using the sample size in each city as weights.11 The U.S. ranks 24th out of the 38 countries in the IBDR sample with an average speed of 11.6 Mbps. The speed leaders appear to be the Republic of Korea, Lithuania, Hong Kong, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Mexico, Italy and Turkey are at the bottom of the distribution. The average download speed in 2011 was 32.0 Mbps for Korea, 11.6 Mbps for the U.S., and 4.5 Mbps for Mexico. The data is shown in Appendix F, Table 1a. Figure 1a Country Average Weighted Speed Rankings: 2011 Ko rea Ho ng Ko ng Sw ede n Ne the rla nds Sw itze rla nd Bu lga ria Ice lan d Jap an Ge rm any Sin gap ore Po rtu gal De nm ark Lu xem bou rg Hu nga ry Slo vak ia Cz ech Re pub lic Ire lan d Ne w Z eal and Gr eec e Tu rke y Ita ly Lit hua nia Be lgi um Fra nce Cz ech Fin lan d No rw ay Au stri a Un ite d S tat es Un ited Ki ngd om Sp ain Ca nad a Po lan d Slo ven ia Au stra lia Ch ile Isr ael Me xic o 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Ave rag e W eig hte d D own loa d Sp eed (Mbps )                 Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla (Data drawn on Dec. 15, 2011) The 2011 data presented in Figure 1a is a one-year snapshot, so it fails to provide information on how speeds have changed over the years. It is also more prone to distortions from extreme values as these are raw averages. Therefore, to gain a more nuanced understanding of how speeds have changed over the years, we compare countries in different speed bands for 2009 and 2011, based on the Ookla actual speed data. 11 We do not use an unweighted average as this does not control for the total number of tests (sample size) used to generate the average actual speed. The ranking based on unweighted average speeds may be biased, since each speed observation gets an equal weight irrespective of how many observations were used to generate it. Ideally, one should weight the average actual speed for a broadband plan by the number of broadband subscribers in that plan in a particular city or country, but that data is unavailable at the international level. The best approximation is to weight the mean city level actual speeds reported by Ookla by the number of tests used to generate the mean. 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Figures 1b and 1c, respectively, show the percentage of the tests with actual speeds greater than 5 Mbps and 10 Mbps in 2009 and 2011. By 2011, in about 80% of the countries, including the United States, 90% of the tests show a download speed of 5 Mbps or higher (Figure1b). Some countries, such as Chile, Luxembourg, Poland, Ireland, Israel, Turkey, Italy and Mexico, show dramatic increases between 2009 and 2011. Two countries, Finland and Sweden, report slightly lower average speeds in 2011 than 2009.12 0 20 40 60 80 100 Per cen tag e Figure 1b Percentage of Tests Reporting Greater than 5Mbps of Download Speed, 2009 and 2011 2011 2009 Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla (Data drawn on Dec. 15, 2011) In approximately 37% of the countries, 90% of the tests show an average speed of 10 Mbps or higher by 2011 (Figure 1c). Countries such as Belgium, Slovakia, Norway, Estonia, France and Austria experienced an increase from less than 40% in 2009, to 75-100% at 10 Mbps or higher download speeds in 2011. Canada and U.K. have seen an increase from 5% to 80%. Spain, Poland, Ireland and Slovenia show dramatic increases in average speed as well. Likewise, the U.S. shows a large increase – the percentage of tests reporting speeds greater than 10 Mbps increased from 30% in 2009 to 80% in 2011. 12 This could be a result of greater uptake in the low speed band offerings in 2011, thus dampening the average speed, the result of a selection bias, or could be interpreted as a lowering of quality. A selection bias would occur if lower speed customers took the test in greater numbers in 2011 than in 2009. 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 010 2030 4050 6070 8090 100 Per cen tag e Figure 1c Percentage of Tests Reporting Greater than 10 Mbps of Download Speed, 2009 and 2011 2011 2009 Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla (Data drawn on Dec.15, 2011) 4. Speed Comparisons at the City Level Aggregate country rankings based on averages fail to take into account differences in demand and cost conditions across cities within a country. Moreover, the number of cities in which the speed tests are conducted, and the characteristics of those cities, differ by country, skewing the aggregate results further. To partially solve this problem, we compare speeds at the city level. In the following analysis, we first compare the broadband speeds (weighted by sample size) of the capital cities in the 38 countries, including Washington, D.C., and all of the U.S. state capitals (88 cities in aggregate), based on 2011 data. Figure 2 shows the ranking of capital cities for the top 25th and bottom 25th percentile of the mean download speed distribution (weighted by the sample size). This is done for ease of exposition, and a detailed table is provided in Appendix F, Table 2a. Seoul (Korea) is ranked in first place, followed by Vilnius (Lithuania), Hong Kong,13 Stockholm (Sweden), Sofia (Bulgaria). Several U.S. state capitals compare favorably with their international counterparts. Dover (Delaware) reports the highest average speed during this period and ranks 13th out of 88 capital cities, with Bismarck at 14th, Olympia at 16th, and Annapolis at 21st. However, several other U.S. cities are in the bottom quarter of the distribution with Juneau (Alaska) having the lowest rank. 13 We use the weighted average of the whole country as the speed data are not disaggregated by regions in Hong Kong. 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Av era ge Do wn loa d S pe ed (M bp s) Figure 2 Capital City Average (Weighted) Speed Rankings: 2011 Top and Bottom 25th Percentile Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by the sample size (Data drawn on Dec. 15, 2011) Capital cities covering large metro areas are more diverse economically than smaller capitals, and therefore may report lower average speeds. Additionally, the demographic composition of U.S. state capitals is a large number of low-income residents, with wealthier citizens concentrated in the suburbs. The scenario is the reverse for most international capital cities. This difference implies that U.S. capitals will typically report lower broadband speeds due to price-sensitivity. This may be a significant reason why U.S. state capitals report lower speeds when compared to international capitals. In addition, as mentioned earlier, software-based speed measures are often impacted by the distance between the customer and the server. To partially address these issues, we restricted the sample to cities within 100 miles of a server, and then used a random sampling technique to select the two cities from this subset. This controls for a significant factor that can cause differences in speed, and makes the cities more comparable.14 Results are presented in Appendix F Table 2b and 2c. 5. Speed Comparisons Using a Stratified Sampling Technique The aggregate country rankings presented in Figure 1 would be a sufficient basis for international comparison if the Ookla data set had speed data for all cities for the 38 countries in our sample. However, given that it does not have data for every city in each of these countries, the aggregate rank may be biased. A stratified sampling would choose an optimal number of cities from each population strata to reflect the actual dispersion of cities in a country. For example, suppose a country has 90 small cities (say low average speed) and 10 large cities (say high average speed). But Ookla may have data for only 10 large cities and 25 small cities. In that case the aggregate rank will show a higher speed that we would actually get if we had the data for all cities. The stratified sampling would involve choosing 90% from the small city sample and 10% from the large city sample to come with an aggregate ranking. A stratified sampling approach divides the sample of cities into different non-overlapping bins according to their 14 We did not do a simple random sampling procedure as this method may yield cities that differ significantly, comparisons may be flawed. We restricted the sample to cities within 100 miles of a server, and then used a random sampling technique to select the two cities from this subset. This controls for a significant factor that can cause differences in speed, and makes the cities more comparable. 6 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 population level, and then draws a sample from each bin. If large cities have inherently different broadband characteristics from smaller and sparsely populated cities, then a stratified sample will achieve greater precision than an aggregate ranking. Additionally, analyzing each stratum separately can give valuable insights about how demography can drive broadband characteristics. We implement this methodology on a country by country basis for non-U.S. countries and on a state by state basis for the United States. There are two main steps when implementing a stratified sampling approach: (a) choosing the overall optimum sample size and (b) choosing the sample size in each strata. Choosing the overall optimal sample size15 requires three inputs; the estimated variance in the population, the confidence interval, and the confidence level. In this case, the estimated variance (?2) is the calculated variance in speed obtained from the measured speed data. Large estimated variances increase the optimal sample size and vice versa. The confidence interval (?) reflects the level of precision with which the sample predicts the true values, i.e. it is a measure of the sampling error and is often referred to as the margin of error. It is fairly standard to choose between ±1% and ±5% confidence interval. We choose a ±2% confidence interval to be conservative. This implies that the true population mean speeds will lie within ±2% of the estimated sample mean. The confidence level shows the risk a researcher is willing to accept that the sample is within the average of the population. We choose a 95% confidence level which is standard in the literature. These levels correspond to percentages of the area of the normal density curve. A 95% confidence interval covers 95% of the area under the normal bell curve, or alternatively, the probability of observing a value outside of this area is less than 5%. This implies if the speed data was sampled 100 times, 95 of these samples would have the true (population) mean speed within the margin of error specified earlier. When calculating the optimal sample size, we will use the z-value16 (1.96) that corresponds to the 95% confidence level for the normal density curve. Thus the optimal sample size (n) is given by: We use the above formula to calculate the optimal sample size for the United States and non-U.S. countries separately. As explained above, we use the following values, z=1.96 and ?=2. We estimate the variance of speed (?2) from the monthly Ookla city-level speed data for each country, and the results are presented in Appendix F, Table 4a. The optimal sample for each country is in Appendix F, Table 4b. Next we use population levels17 to determine the appropriate strata and the proportional allocation rule to choose the optimal sample size (number of cities) in each stratum. This rule specifies that the proportion of cities in each sample stratum must mirror the proportion of cities in the population strata. Strata sample sizes are determined by the specification given below: Where: ns is the sample size in each stratum, Ns is the total number of cities in each stratum, N is the total number of cities in each country, and n is the total (optimal) sample size. 15 See Bartlett, Kotrlik and Higgins; “Organizational Research: Determining Appropriate Sample Size in Survey Research,” Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), Spring 2001. 16 The z-value for 95% confidence level specifies the point on the standard normal density function where the probability of observing a value greater than z (1.96) is equal to 0.025 or the probability of observing a value less than z (1.96) is equal to 0.975. 17 Ideally we would use the population density data to create the strata, but data availability issues prevent us from using this variable. 7 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 For example, if 20% of the U.S. population lives in cities of 20,000 inhabitants or less and our optimal sample size for the U.S. is 50, then 10 out of the 50 cities in the final stratified sample should have less than 20,000 inhabitants. To implement this, we collect the latest available population data on over 12,000 major cities18 in the 37 non-U.S. countries included in the 2012 IBDR. For the United States, we collect data for over 2500 cities from the 2010 U.S. census.19 We show the population proportion in each strata for the U.S. and non-U.S. cities20 in Appendix F, Tables 3a and b. Using the number of cities covered in the Ookla data, and the associated variance in download speed in those cities in 2011, we first determine the optimal sample of cities that we need. Next, we construct 4 population strata for cities. Very small cities have less than 25,000 inhabitants, small cities have greater than 25,000 and less than 50,000 inhabitants, medium cities have greater than 50,000 and less than 100,000 inhabitants, and large cities have greater than 100,000 inhabitants. Based on this, we determine the proportion of cities that falls under each stratum, in each country or U.S. state. These proportions combined with the optimal number of cities that need to be covered in each country determine the final stratified sample. Using the stratified sample we construct country speed ranks. Figure 3a shows this country ranking.21 We find these are consistent with our earlier results with Korea, Hong Kong and Sweden in the leading ranks, and United States ranked 18th out of 38 countries (12.5 Mbps). The data is presented in Appendix F Table 3c.   18 For most countries the latest available population data is from 2010 and 2011. The exceptions are: Australia (2006), Canada (2006), Chile (2002), France (2009), Ireland (2006), Republic of Korea (2009), Portugal (2008), UK (2008).The data is collected from “Thomas Brinkhoff: City Population, http://www.citypopulation.de ”. We collect data on over 6400 major cities from this website. The definition of major cities varies by country. For most countries it is cities with a population of 20,000 or more. For Iceland it is cities with greater than 500 inhabitants and Estonia has no lower limit. For New Zealand, it includes cities with population greater than 2500 inhabitants, for Luxembourg it is 3000, and for Ireland it is 3500. For Denmark, Lithuania and Slovenia it covers cities with greater than 5000 inhabitants. For Portugal it is 7500 inhabitants. For Australia, Canada, Norway and Sweden it is cities with greater than 10,000 inhabitants. For Germany, it is 15,000 inhabitant or more. For UK and Italy major cities are those with populations greater than 50,000 inhabitants. Additionally, there is another 5500 smaller cities and towns in the Ookla data set that are not present is the major city population data. We assume that the population of these smaller Ookla cities is lower than the minimum population cutoff reported in the population data. 19 US Census: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html 20 These are aggregate percentages for non-U.S. cities. However, the stratified sampling is done at the country level, and thus the proportions in each strata vary by country. 21 These rankings are based on average weighted download speeds. 8 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 Av era ge We igh ted Do wn loa d S pee d ( Mb ps) Figure 3a Average (Weighted) Speed Rankings by Country, 2011 (Based on stratified sampling)    Source: Based on Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by the sample size (Data drawn on Dec. 15, 2011)   Figure 3a, however, masks the considerable variation that exists amongst U.S. states. Comparing aggregate United States averages with those of other countries may be less meaningful than a more disaggregated approach that takes such variation into account. Therefore, we now implement a disaggregated stratified sampling approach for the U.S., where each state is the basis of the sample. Figure 3b, shows the speed rankings for the top and bottom 25% of the combined non-U.S. country and United States state data based on this approach. We find that Massachusetts is ranked 11th, Delaware 13th and the 15th, 16th and 17th place are taken by Rhode Island, Maryland, and New York. The data is presented in Appendix F Table 3c.         9 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Av era ge (W eig hte d) Do wn loa d S pee d ( Mb ps) Figure 3b Average (Weighted) Speed Rankings by US States and International Countries, 2011 Top and Bottom 25th Percentile (Based on stratified sampling) Source: Based on Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by the sample size (Data drawn on Dec. 15, 2011)   In addition to analyzing the overall speed ranks based on the stratified sampling approach, we can also show how each country ranks within each stratum. Appendix F Tables 4a-4d present these results. We find that Korea and Hong Kong command the top ranks in all population stratum in which they are present.22 The aggregate rank for Massachusetts (Figure 3b) is driven by the speed performance in less populated cities, i.e. the cities in stratum 1 and 2, where the average download speed is around 18.5 Mbps. In the large city stratum (Appendix Table 4d), Massachusetts is in the lowest 25th percentile, with an average speed of 10 Mbps. Delaware, which is ranked 13th in the aggregate (Figure 3b) shows a similar pattern. Assimilating the information about the significant variation amongst U.S. states, and in different population strata, may lead to a more nuanced understanding about the performance of broadband in the United States.   6. Advertised versus Actual Speed 22All countries/states may not be in this data if there are no cities in that particular population stratum for that particular country/state in 2011. 10 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 To investigate how actual speed data compares with the advertised speeds, we construct a shortfall index (Appendix Table 5) based on the Ookla promise index data.23 The data on advertised speed is collected by Ookla from a survey of the consumers who take the speed test. Thus, apart from the bias due to self- reporting, this method ties the advertised speeds to actual plans, and avoids the problem of picking up plans that may not have many subscribers, a criticism often targeted at web harvest data. The shortfall index shows the percentage difference between advertised and actual speed. From Figure 4, three things are obvious. First, the advertised download speeds in all countries are overstated. Second, there is a wide variance in the shortfall index and some countries, such as Greece, have large differences between the advertised and actual speed. Third, the shortfall index is lower for all countries in 2011 when compared to 2010. Therefore, indices that rank countries based on advertised speeds will overstate the rank for countries with a high shortfall index compared to countries with a low shortfall index. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Sh ort fal l In dex (% ) Figure 4 Shortfall Index in 2010 and 2011 (% Difference Between Advertised and Actual Speed) 2011 2010 United States Source: Promise Index from Net Index Data by Ookla (Data drawn on Dec. 15, 2011) OECD versus Ookla Data: Country Speed Comparisons i. September 2010 Data The OECD publishes data on advertised speeds by country. The data is constructed from surveys of broadband plans that are offered in each country, and the plans are chosen based on a market baskets approach. The Ookla data, as explained earlier, is obtained from actual speed tests by consumers. The advertised speeds in Ookla are obtained from surveying consumers who take the speed test. The 23 The promise index is the median ratio of actual download speed to the advertised download speed subscribed to by the consumer. The shortfall index is: 1 – (Actual Speed/ Advertised Speed). 11 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 OECD September 2010 data24 show that the U.S. is 29th out of 34 countries with an average advertised download speed25 of 14.6 Mbps. For the same month, the Ookla data shows an average actual download speed of 11.3 Mbps for the United States and has it ranked 18th out of 34 OECD countries. The rankings based on the advertised speeds obtained from Ookla are not much different than the rankings based on their average speed reports.26 Figure 5, shows the advertised and actual speeds for 2010. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Av era ge Do wn loa d S pee d ( Mb ps) Figure 5 Actual versus Advertised Speed, September 2010 Actual Speed (Ookla) Advertised Speed (Ookla) Advertised Speed (OECD) United States Source: Net Index data (Actual Download Speed, Promise Index) from Ookla and OECD data from the OECD Broadband Portal (Table 5a)27 ii. September 2011 Data The September 2011 data shows that when OECD (average) speeds are compared, the U.S. is ranked 18th out of 34 countries28 with an average advertised download speed29 of 29.4 Mbps.30 If we adjust 24 This data was originally in http://www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband, Table 5a. However, this has since been updated with the 2011 data and is no longer available on the OECD website. 25 The OECD data source notes that “The offers used to calculate the average speed include all combinations of single, double and triple-play offers in the survey. This is because some top-speed broadband subscriptions only are available as part of a package.” 26 The U.S. average advertised speed from Ookla is 12.2 Mbps for September 2010. 27 The data was available at http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3746,en_2649_34225_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html. It is no longer available and has been updated to 2011 data. 28 The rank would be 22nd if the countries in the IBDR were added to the list. 12 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 the OECD advertised speeds with the shortfall index (Appendix Table 5), then the U.S. rank is 16th.31 When ranked by mean actual speed (11.9 Mbps in September 2011), the U.S. ranks 15th out of 34 OECD countries based on the Ookla data. The IBDR includes four countries not in the OECD (Bulgaria, Hong Kong, Lithuania, and Singapore). If the ranking is based on the IBDR countries, then United States ranks 19th out of 37 countries. In the OECD data there is a large dispersion between the mean and median advertised speed for the United States: the mean is twice the median. Figure 6 shows the actual and advertised speeds obtained from Ookla,32 and the advertised speeds from the OECD data for 2011. 0 50 100 150 Av era ge Do wn loa d S pee d ( Mb ps) Figure 6 Actual versus Advertised Speed, September 2011 Ookla_Actual Ookla_Advertised OECD_Advertised United States Source: Net Index data (Actual Download Speed, Promise Index) from Ookla and OECD data from the OECD Broadband Portal (Table 5a).33 As is apparent in Figure 5 and 6 (Appendix F Table 6), both the actual and advertised speeds reported by Ookla are substantially lower than the OECD advertised speeds for all countries.34 One likely 29 The OECD data source notes that “The offers used to calculate the average speed include all combinations of single, double and triple-play offers in the survey. This is because some top-speed broadband subscriptions only are available as part of a package.” 30 When the median advertised download speeds are compared however, the U.S. rank is 19th, with the U.S. median speed being 15.7 Mbps. Thus the average speed appears to be influenced a few high speed offers. The median ranking may be a better comparison as it is unaffected by extreme values. 31 Japan and Korea are missing from the Promise Index data from Ookla. 32 The Net Index dataset publishes the Promise Index, which is a ratio between the median actual and advertised speeds. We have used this ratio to obtain the Ookla mean advertised speed based on the reported actual download speed. We calculate: Advertised Download Speed = Actual Download Speed/ median_download_ratio. Note that the median download ratio is based on the response of users who actually filled the survey after taking the speed test online, and is a much smaller subset of the number of people actually taking the speed test (between 0.2 and 3%). Additionally, this data is available only for 36 of the 38 IBDR countries for September 2011 (Japan and Korea are missing). 33 http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3746,en_2649_34225_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html 13 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 explanation is that the OECD survey is based on advertised speeds for all plans offered by broadband companies in a country, irrespective of uptake, while the Ookla data reports advertised speeds only plans that consumers have. For example, companies may offer a 100 Mbps plan, which few customers may actually buy. The OECD data weights the 100 Mbps speed equally with other plans, whereas the Ookla data does not. for ey take the test. 35 In addition, the OECD advertised speed is based on surveys administered by the OECD, while the Ookla data is based on self-reporting by users who take the speed test. One could argue that users do not often have good information about the advertised speed that their carrier had promised and may be filling in a number close to actual speed displayed when th We also note that there are large differences in the average speed data from September 2010 and 2011. For example, in the OECD data, the United States average speed doubled in just one year. The average speed for Japan is approximately 156 Mbps in 2011 as compared to 80 Mbps in 2010. For France, the average speed declined to 53 Mbps in 2011 from 67 Mbps in 2010. The differences in these speed ranks based on the OECD and Ookla data warrant a deeper analysis of data collection techniques and their comparability. 7. Other Quality Measures The focus of our discussion so far has centered on the speed of broadband connection, which measures the average rate at which information packets travel from a source to a destination. There are, however, other metrics of network quality that may provide insight about comparative broadband performance across countries. The data provided by Ookla for these performance measures are for some selected international cities only. The coverage is substantially lower than that of the speed data. In the speed data, there were approximately 7000 non-U.S. cities and over 4700 United States cities covered by Ookla. For the other quality metrics, the data covers 398 non-U.S. cities and 305 United States cities. All metrics are based on the average of all cities within each country, weighted by the number of total tests that generated the city average. We discuss three such metrics: latency, jitter, and packet loss. The data is presented in Appendix C Tables 7a-9b. i. Latency Latency refers to several types of delays typically incurred during network data processing, and is typically measured in milliseconds (ms). One common measure is round-trip latency, which measures the amount of time it takes a data packet to travel from a source to a destination and back. More precisely, it is measured as the sum of time from the start of packet transmission by a source to the start of packet reception by a destination plus the time that it takes for the packet to travel back from the receiving destination to the source.36 Latency is often affected by factors such as the properties of the physical medium through which the network packets are transmitted or processing delays which may occur when the packets need to pass through proxy servers. In Figure 7a, we plot the average (weighted) latency for the IBDR sample countries. Korea has the lowest latency and Mexico has the highest. The U.S. ranks 24th when ranked in terms on average 34 One caveat when comparing the rankings based on these data is that the two come from different sources. The actual speed data is from Ookla is obtained from people who take the speed test online. The OECD data is based on a limited number of offers and the associated advertised speeds. 35 Another explanation could be the method we used to obtain the advertised speed from the Ookla data. If the relation between the mean advertised and mean actual speeds is different from that of the median, it may create this difference. 36 This excludes the amount of time that a destination system spends processing the packet. 14 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 weighted latency. This ranking however, masks the substantial differences that exist within the U.S. Therefore in Figure 7b, we plot the U.S. states.37 We find that Rhode Island has the lowest latency, followed by Bulgaria, Korea and the Czech Republic. New Jersey has the highest latency, with New Hampshire, Iowa and Connecticut at the top of the distribution. We find that there is wide variation within the U.S, with about half of the states in both the upper and lower 25th percentile. Figure 7a Country Average (Weighted) Latency Rankings 2011 Bu lga ria Cz ech Re pub lic Slo vak ia Hu nga ry Lit hua nia Po rtu gal Be lgi um Au stri a Ho ng Ko ng Ne the rla nds Fin lan d Tu rke y Sw itze rla nd Ne w Z eal and No rw ay Un ited Ki ngd om Ge rm any Po lan d Ch ile Ire lan d Gr eec e Au stra lia Ita ly De nm ark Isr ael Sp ain Sin gap ore Slo ven ia Fra nce Ca nad a Sw ede n Est oni a Me xic o Ko rea U nit ed S ta tes 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Ave rag e (W eig hte d) Late nc y (m s) 37 The latency, jitter, and packet loss data is available for only 38 states. The states not included are: Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 15 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 ii. Jitter Jitter refers to the variance of latency over time, and is measured by the average deviation from the mean latency of the network. In Figure 8a, we plot the average (weighted) jitter for IBDR countries. The U.S. is again in the middle of the rankings. Korea has the lowest and Mexico has the highest jitter. It appears that countries that perform well in speed metrics also have low latency and low jitter. In Figure 8b, we disaggregate the data by U.S. states. We find that Iowa has the lowest jitter, followed by Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma. New Hampshire, New Jersey and Connecticut once again are at the very top of the distribution, with high jitter numbers. Massachusetts is in the upper 25th percentile for jitter, but it was ranked 8th in average speed. We also find that although Iowa has high latency (Figure 7a), it has low jitter (Figure 7b). 16 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Figure 8a Average (Weighted) Jitter Rankings 2011 Ko rea , R epu bli c o f Gr eec e Bu lga ria Slo vak ia Au stri a Ne w Z eal and Be lgi um Cz ech Re pub lic Ita ly Sp ain Hu nga ry Tu rke y Ire lan d De nm ark Ge rm any Po rtu gal Ho ng Ko ng Ne the rla nds Lit hua nia Po lan d Fin lan d Au stra lia Isr ael Fra nce Sw ede n Est oni a No rw ay Sw itze rla nd Slo ven ia Ch ile Un ited Ki ngd om Sin gap ore Ca nad a M e xic o Un ite d S tat es 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Ave rag e (W eig hte d) Jitte r (m s) iii. Packet Loss When packets of data travelling across the network fail to reach their destination, the phenomenon is termed packet loss. Packet loss can occur because of network congestion, signal degradation, faulty network drivers or networking hardware, and the distance between the origin of the transmitted data and the destination. When packet loss occurs due to these reasons, it can be used as a quality loss metric. In some cases, however, packet loss may be intentional, and intended to slow down specific services. Therefore, packet loss statistics, while still useful in measuring connection reliability, is more nuanced. 17 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 In Figure 9a, we plot the average (weighted) packet loss for the IBDR countries. Israel leads all other countries and has the lowest packet loss. Greece performs the worst in this metric. The U.S. is in the middle. To understand the variations within the U.S., we look at the states in Figure 9b. In Figure 9b, we plot the average (weighted) packet loss for the top and bottom 25th percentile of countries/states. We find that given our sample, Connecticut has the lowest packet loss, followed by Israel, New Jersey, Estonia and Korea. New Jersey and Connecticut, which had performed poorly in terms of latency and jitter, now perform well. Finland, Greece and Alabama are at the top of the distribution, with very high average packet loss. Depending on which characteristics were valued by consumers, the relative performance of the countries and states would be evaluated differently. Figure 9a Country Average (Weighted) Packet Loss Rankings 2011 Isr ael Est oni a Ho ng Ko ng Ko rea , R epu bli c o f Slo ven ia Lit hua nia Sw itze rla nd Sw ede n Ca nad a Slo vak ia Ch ile De nm ark Ne the rla nds No rw ay Ita ly Fra nce Sin gap ore Au stra lia Ge rm any Cz ech Re pub lic Un ited Ki ngd om Bu lga ria Po lan d Po rtu gal Ne w Z eal and Be lgi um Sp ain Ire lan d Hu nga ry Au stri a Me xic o Tu rke y Fi nla nd Gr eec e Un ite d S tat es 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Av era ge4 (W eig hte d) Pa cke t L oss 18 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 19 Figure 9b Country and US State Average (Weighted) Packet Loss Rankings 2011 (Top and Bottom 25th Percentile) Isr ael Est oni a Ko rea Slo ven ia Ho ng Ko ng Lit hua nia Sw itze rla nd Ca nad a Sw ede n Slo vak ia Ch ile De nm ark Po lan d Po rtu gal Ge org ia Ire lan d Sp ain Be lgi um Hu nga ry Au stri a Me xic o Tu rke y Co nn ect icu t Ne w J ers ey Ne b ra sk a Iow a Rh od e I sla nd Ut ah Ne w Z eal and Ida ho Te x as M iss ou ri No rth Ca rol ina Ala b a ma Fin lan d Gr eec e 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Av era ge (W eig hte d) Pa cke t L oss Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 1 Average (Weighted) Actual Download Speeds (2011): All Available Data Country Download Speed (Mbps) Rank Country Download Speed (Mbps) Rank Korea 32.01 1 Finland 15.49 20 Lithuania 30.81 2 Czech Republic 14.91 21 Hong Kong 28.39 3 Norway 14.00 22 Sweden 27.37 4 Austria 12.59 23 Netherlands 24.31 5 United States 11.64 24 Switzerland 21.24 6 United Kingdom 11.24 25 Bulgaria 19.85 7 Spain 11.05 26 Iceland 19.68 8 Canada 10.94 27 Japan 19.08 9 Poland 9.39 28 Germany 18.05 10 Slovenia 8.63 29 Singapore 17.12 11 Australia 8.46 30 Portugal 17.06 12 Ireland 8.27 31 Belgium 17.02 13 New Zealand 8.02 32 Denmark 17.01 14 Chile 6.46 33 France 16.60 15 Israel 6.32 34 Luxembourg 16.42 16 Greece 6.06 35 Estonia 15.97 17 Turkey 6.03 36 Hungary 15.83 18 Italy 5.03 37 Slovakia 15.60 19 Mexico 4.46 38 Note: Actual (average) weighted download speed data computed from the city level daily data from Ookla. The average weighted speed was obtained by averaging across cities using the sample size in each city as weights. 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 2a Average (Weighted) Download Speeds (2011): Non-US Capital Cities & US State Capitals and Washington D.C. Country City Average (Weighted) Download Speed (Mbps) Rank Korea, Republic of Seoul 31.9 1 Lithuania Vilnius 31.3 2 Hong Kong Hong Kong 28.4 3 Sweden Stockholm 24.7 4 Bulgaria Sofia 24.3 5 Finland Helsinki 23.4 6 Switzerland Bern 22.5 7 France Paris 21.4 8 Netherlands Amsterdam 21.2 9 Iceland Reykjavík 20.5 10 Germany Berlin 20.4 11 Portugal Lisbon 20.1 12 US - Delaware Dover 18.9 13 US - North Dakota Bismarck 18.4 14 Luxembourg Luxemburg 18.3 15 US - Washington Olympia 18.2 16 Slovakia Bratislava 17.3 17 Singapore Singapore 17.1 18 Denmark Copenhagen 17.0 19 Hungary Budapest 16.9 20 US - Maryland Annapolis 16.3 21 Estonia Tallinn 15.6 22 US - South Dakota Pierre 15.6 23 Japan Tokyo 15.5 24 US - Virginia Richmond 15.0 25 US - Florida Tallahassee 14.9 26 Norway Oslo 14.8 27 Austria Vienna 14.4 28 US - Wisconsin Madison 14.3 29 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 2a Continued Average (Weighted) Download Speeds (2011): Non-US Capital Cities & US State Capitals and Washington D.C. Country City Average (Weighted) Download Speed (Mbps) Rank US - Oregon Salem 14.3 30 US - Minnesota Saint Paul 14.2 31 US - Pennsylvania Harrisburg 13.7 32 Belgium Brussels 13.6 33 US - Rhode Island Providence 13.6 34 US - New Jersey Trenton 13.5 35 Czech Republic Prague 13.4 36 US - New Hampshire Concord 13.3 37 US - New York Albany 13.1 38 US - Nevada Carson City 13.1 39 US - Alabama Montgomery 13.1 40 US - Arizona Phoenix 12.4 41 US - Oklahoma Oklahoma City 12.1 42 US - Illinois Springfield 11.8 43 US - Texas Austin 11.7 44 US - Utah Salt Lake City 11.6 45 US - North Carolina Raleigh 11.1 46 US - Louisiana Baton Rouge 11.0 47 US - Missouri Jefferson City 10.9 48 US - Colorado Denver 10.8 49 US - Tennessee Nashville 10.8 50 United Kingdom London 10.7 51 Canada Ottawa 10.6 52 US - Wyoming Cheyenne 10.5 53 US - Kansas Topeka 10.5 54 US - New Mexico Santa Fe 10.1 55 US - Indiana Indianapolis 9.9 56 Spain Madrid 9.9 57 New Zealand Wellington 9.7 58 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 2a Continued Average (Weighted) Download Speeds (2011): Non-US Capital Cities & US State Capitals and Washington D.C. Country City Average (Weighted) Download Speed (Mbps) Rank US - Connecticut Hartford 9.7 59 Poland Warsaw 9.6 60 Ireland Dublin 9.4 61 US - Ohio Columbus 9.4 62 US - California Sacramento 9.3 63 US - Massachusetts Boston 9.3 64 Slovenia Ljubljana 9.3 65 US - Michigan Lansing 9.0 66 US - Arkansas Little Rock 9.0 67 US - Mississippi Jackson 8.9 68 US - D.C. Washington DC 8.7 69 US - Idaho Boise 8.7 70 US - Georgia Atlanta 8.4 71 US - South Carolina Columbia 8.1 72 US - Nebraska Lincoln 8.1 73 US - Maine Augusta 7.3 74 Chile Santiago 7.0 75 US - Montana Helena 6.8 76 US - Hawaii Honolulu 6.7 77 US - Iowa Des Moines 6.6 78 Turkey Ankara 6.3 79 Greece Athens 6.3 80 Australia Canberra 6.1 81 US - West Virginia Charleston 5.8 82 US - Vermont Montpelier 5.8 83 Mexico Mexico City 5.6 84 Israel Jerusalem 5.4 85 Italy Rome 5.2 86 US - Kentucky Frankfort 3.7 87 US - Alaska Juneau 3.0 88 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 2b Average (Weighted) Download Speeds (Mbps) (2011) of Two Cities within 100 miles of a Server for Non-US Countries Country City Down Speed Country City Down Speed Australia Caringbah 11.66 Italy Sacile 3.59 Australia Kingswood 10.10 Italy Beinasco 4.41 Austria Mattersburg 6.28 Japan Ageo 24.89 Austria Gmunden 10.20 Japan Hachioji 22.78 Belgium Hoogstraten 23.48 Korea Suwon 34.94 Belgium Temse 22.77 Korea Yongin 35.34 Bulgaria Gotse Delchev 20.22 Lithuania Plunge 21.44 Bulgaria Petric 22.20 Lithuania Utena 33.79 Canada Essex 2.73 Luxembourg Betzdorf 6.35 Canada Mont-Tremblant 6.45 Luxembourg Itzig 12.43 Chile Maipú 6.13 Mexico Mexicali 3.07 Chile Villa Alemana 6.67 Mexico Chicoloapan 5.91 Czech Republic Karviná 17.76 Netherlands Zaltbommel 17.31 Czech Republic Trebic 15.16 Netherlands Oud-Beijerland 27.27 Denmark Ballerup 21.79 New Zealand Lower Hutt 8.52 Denmark Viby 16.80 New Zealand Whangarei 7.90 Estonia Maardu 16.25 Norway Jessheim 15.04 Estonia Pärnu 8.32 Norway Øvre Årdal 17.69 Finland Karkkila 3.18 Poland Lubon 8.00 Finland Halikko 12.31 Poland Szczecin 9.91 France Conflans-Sainte-Ho 5.16 Portugal Mafra 13.61 France Torcy 16.22 Portugal Cartaxo 9.64 Germany Oberursel 18.13 Slovakia Komárno 9.99 Germany Neermoor 7.56 Slovakia Nová Dubnica 12.47 Greece Khalkís 5.10 Slovenia Medvode 7.35 Greece Iráklion 5.49 Slovenia Novo Mesto 9.71 Hong Kong Kowloon City 16.93 Spain Cardedeu 5.83 Hong Kong Lam Tin 39.57 Spain Alcalá DeHenares 17.31 Hungary Eger 18.84 Sweden Trelleborg 13.68 Hungary Farmos 8.75 Sweden Hässelby 26.19 Iceland Akranes 20.69 Switzerland Lutry 26.77 Iceland Keflavík 11.85 Switzerland Winterthur 24.85 Ireland Clare 3.38 Turkey Maltepe 4.23 Ireland Galway 8.05 Turkey Sakarya 4.47 Israel Qiryat Gat 7.36 UK East Molesey 13.80 Israel Qiryat Ono 7.19 UK Strawberry Hill 11.09 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 2c Average (Weighted) Download Speeds (Mbps) (2011) of Two Cities within 100 miles of a Server for Each US State State City Download Speed (Mbps) State City Download Speed (Mbps) Alabama Piedmont 16.68 Louisiana Gretna 12.37 Alabama Rainsville 5.44 Louisiana Marrero 21.68 Alaska Anchorage 4.18 Maine Rockland 9.10 Alaska Kenai 1.69 Maine Yarmouth 8.85 Arizona Laveen 15.90 Maryland Salisbury 13.27 Arizona Peoria 14.89 Maryland Walkersville 9.99 Arkansas West Memphis 15.88 Massachusetts Raynham 15.76 California Hermosa Beach 18.26 Massachusetts Scituate 17.02 California Huntington Beach 14.58 Michigan Dearborn 11.77 Colorado Parker 15.80 Michigan Grosse Pointe 14.37 Colorado Windsor 13.30 Mississippi Hernando 13.29 Connecticut Fairfield 14.16 Mississippi Horn Lake 15.94 Connecticut Southington 9.97 Missouri Ozark 8.36 Delaware Milford 18.28 Missouri Smithville 7.08 Delaware New Castle 15.60 Montana Billings 7.74 Florida Homestead 14.84 Montana Missoula 6.54 Florida Orange Park 12.31 Nebraska Norfolk 8.45 Georgia Evans 13.97 Nebraska Wayne 5.30 Georgia Maysville 4.87 Nevada Henderson 10.95 Hawaii Kapolei 9.05 Nevada Las Vegas 9.91 Hawaii Kihei 7.76 New Hampshire Londonderry 16.27 Idaho Coeur D Alene 6.91 New Hampshire Suncook 6.33 Idaho Rathdrum 4.09 New Jersey Bloomfield 11.59 Illinois Burbank 14.54 New Jersey Rockaway 15.97 Illinois Watseka 8.25 New Mexico Albuquerque 10.26 Indiana Brazil 8.63 New Mexico Placitas 11.54 Indiana Demotte 9.12 New York Bedford 18.96 Iowa Le Mars 3.62 New York Plainview 18.87 Iowa Sioux Center 5.87 North Carolina Arden 12.27 Kansas Kansas City 6.58 North Carolina Weaverville 11.69 Kansas Overland Park 9.81 North Dakota Grand Forks 20.47 Kentucky Newport 10.77 Ohio Oak Harbor 3.90 Kentucky West Liberty 7.76 Ohio West Milton 7.75 6 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 2c Continued State City Down Speed Oklahoma Collinsville 4.46 Oklahoma Tulsa 10.42 Oregon Eugene 13.11 Oregon Hood River 5.02 Pennsylvania Hollidaysburg 9.52 Pennsylvania Whitehall 2.11 Rhode Island East Providence 16.92 Rhode Island Lincoln 15.60 South Carolina Greenwood 4.86 South Carolina Taylors 11.37 South Dakota Vermillion 15.41 South Dakota Yankton 17.90 Tennessee Memphis 11.20 Tennessee Smyrna 13.05 Texas Corpus Christi 9.34 Texas Princeton 2.68 Utah Brigham City 11.82 Utah Logan 14.71 Vermont Colchester 10.48 Vermont Manchester Center 10.84 Virginia Oakton 18.04 Virginia Spotsylvania 11.58 Washington Washougal 13.08 Washington Wenatchee 12.86 West Virginia Chapmanville 3.56 West Virginia Inwood 13.44 Wisconsin Baraboo 17.77 Wisconsin Sussex 11.92 Wyoming Cody 8.97 7 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 3a Population Strata for Non- US Cities (2010-2011) (Based on City Population and Ookla Data) Strata No. of Cities in Stratum Proportion (%) Very Small Cities Less than 25,000 inhabitants 7144 57.3 Small Cities Greater than or equal to 25,000, but less than 50,000 inhabitants 1721 13.8 Medium Cities Greater than or equal to 50,000, but less than 100,000 inhabitants 2742 22.0 Large Cities Greater than 100,000 inhabitants 851 6.8 Total 12, 458 Appendix Table 3b Population Strata for US Cities (2011) (Based on City Population and Ookla data) Strata No. of Cities in Stratum Proportion Very Small Cities Less than 25,000 inhabitants 7303 30.4 Small Cities Greater than or equal to 25,000, but less than 50,000 inhabitants 8594 35.7 Medium Cities Greater than or equal to 50,000, but less than 100,000 inhabitants 5095 21.2 Large Cities Greater than 100,000 inhabitants 3072 12.8 Total 24, 064 8 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Table 3c Average (Weighted) Download Speeds by Country (2011) (Based on Strat ified Sampling) Country Average Weighted Download Speed (Mbps) Country Average Weighted Download Speed (Mbps) Korea 34.24 Norway 11.50 Hong Kong 31.26 Spain 11.35 Sweden 27.67 France 11.27 Lithuania 25.68 Canada 10.39 Netherlands 24.44 Finland 10.26 Switzerland 21.17 Hungary 10.08 Japan 20.25 Australia 9.68 Denmark 18.82 Austria 8.94 Bulgaria 18.76 United Kingdom 8.65 Singapore 17.12 Slovenia 8.37 Estonia 16.96 Poland 8.09 Belgium 16.59 Israel 6.55 Luxembourg 15.88 New Zealand 6.19 Iceland 14.66 Ireland 5.50 Portugal 14.63 Greece 5.34 Germany 14.21 Italy 4.78 Czech Republic 14.04 Chile 4.52 United States 12.53 Turkey 3.13 Slovakia 12.27 Mexico 2.88 9 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 3d Average (Weighted) Download Speeds by US States and International Countries (2011) (Based on Strat ified Sampling) Country Download Speed (Mbps) Country Download Speed (Mbps) Country Download Speed (Mbps) Korea, Republic of 34.24 Oregon 13.52 Georgia 10.28 Hong Kong 31.26 Colorado 13.48 Finland 10.26 Sweden 27.67 Florida 13.16 Hungary 10.08 Lithuania 25.68 Tennessee 13.13 Australia 9.68 Netherlands 24.44 Indiana 12.84 Mississippi 9.49 Switzerland 21.17 Pennsylvania 12.82 Nevada 9.37 Japan 20.25 Illinois 12.71 Texas 9.26 Denmark 18.82 New Jersey 12.62 Maine 9.21 Bulgaria 18.76 Connecticut 12.51 Austria 8.94 Singapore 17.12 New Hampshire 12.36 New Mexico 8.91 Massachusetts 17.23 Kansas 12.36 United Kingdom 8.65 Estonia 16.96 Slovakia 12.27 Missouri 8.48 Delaware 16.84 Arizona 12.17 Kentucky 8.40 Belgium 16.59 Alabama 11.96 Slovenia 8.37 Rhode Island 16.31 Louisiana 11.61 Poland 8.09 Maryland 16.19 Norway 11.50 Montana 7.95 New York 15.89 Ohio 11.42 Hawaii 7.89 Luxembourg 15.88 Spain 11.35 Wyoming 7.50 South Dakota 15.73 California 11.29 Iowa 7.32 Virginia 14.86 France 11.27 Israel 6.55 North Dakota 14.77 Michigan 11.23 Idaho 6.53 Minnesota 14.68 Oklahoma 11.21 New Zealand 6.19 Iceland 14.66 Nebraska 11.14 Ireland 5.50 Portugal 14.63 North Carolina 11.10 Greece 5.34 Germany 14.21 Vermont 10.88 Italy 4.78 Utah 14.10 South Carolina 10.86 Chile 4.52 Czech Republic 14.04 Canada 10.39 Alaska 3.90 Wisconsin 13.87 Arkansas 10.37 Turkey 3.13 Washington 13.69 West Virginia 10.33 Mexico 2.88 10 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 4a Average Download Speeds (2011) in Very Small Cities for a Country/State (Based on Strat ified Sampling) Country\State Download Speed (Mbps) Country\State Download Speed (Mbps) Country\State Download Speed (Mbps) Hong Kong 31.0 Czech Republic 13.5 Australia 9.8 Korea, Republic of 30.5 Oregon 13.5 Georgia 9.8 Sweden 26.4 Kansas 13.5 Finland 9.8 Netherlands 24.8 Germany 13.4 Nevada 9.5 Lithuania 24.2 Florida 13.4 Arkansas 9.1 Switzerland 20.9 Alabama 13.0 California 8.9 Denmark 19.2 Washington 12.7 Iowa 8.9 Massachusetts 18.7 Indiana 12.7 Austria 8.7 Bulgaria 18.3 Oklahoma 12.4 Hawaii 8.6 Delaware 17.9 New Hampshire 12.3 Mississippi 8.5 Luxembourg 17.6 Tennessee 12.2 Hungary 8.5 Estonia 17.4 Louisiana 12.1 Kentucky 8.3 Japan 17.2 Spain 12.0 North Dakota 8.2 Maryland 16.7 South Carolina 11.9 Texas 8.2 Belgium 16.1 Connecticut 11.7 Slovenia 8.1 New York 16.0 Colorado 11.6 Missouri 8.1 South Dakota 15.8 North Carolina 11.6 Israel 6.5 Virginia 15.5 Michigan 11.5 Greece 6.0 Pennsylvania 15.3 Vermont 11.4 Wyoming 5.6 Iceland 14.6 Norway 11.2 Poland 5.5 New Jersey 14.5 Nebraska 11.1 New Zealand 5.3 Portugal 14.4 Slovakia 11.1 Chile 4.9 Minnesota 14.3 France 11.0 Ireland 4.8 Rhode Island 14.2 Ohio 11.0 Idaho 4.1 Wisconsin 13.8 Canada 10.4 Alaska 4.1 Illinois 13.8 Maine 10.3 Turkey 2.6 Utah 13.7 Montana 10.3 Mexico 2.2 Arizona 13.5 West Virginia 9.9 Note: Very small cities are those with less than 25,000 inhabitants. These country/state average speed data are based on city samples drawn from Stratum 1 cities, according to the population proportions dictated by the stratified sampling approach. All countries/states may not be in this data if there are no cities in in the very small city category for that particular country/state in 2011. 11 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 4b Average Download Speeds (2011) in Small Cities for a Country/State (Based on Strat ified Sampling) Country\State Download Speed (Mbps) Country\State Download Speed (Mbps) Country\State Downloa d Speed (Mbps) Lithuania 31.8 Utah 14.1 Alabama 10.3 Sweden 30.1 Czech Republic 13.9 South Carolina 10.2 Netherlands 24.2 Connecticut 13.7 Vermont 9.9 Belgium 23.9 Tennessee 13.7 Arizona 9.8 Switzerland 23.5 Indiana 13.7 Poland 9.8 Bulgaria 19.5 Oregon 13.0 Missouri 9.5 Rhode Island 18.6 New Jersey 13.0 Spain 9.4 Massachusetts 18.3 Michigan 12.4 Finland 9.0 North Dakota 18.1 New Hampshire 12.4 Oklahoma 8.8 Germany 17.0 Louisiana 12.3 Wyoming 8.8 Delaware 17.0 California 12.3 New Mexico 8.8 New York 16.2 Ohio 12.2 Iowa 8.4 South Dakota 15.8 Kansas 12.0 Kentucky 8.3 Maryland 15.5 Florida 12.0 Hawaii 7.2 Minnesota 15.4 Mississippi 11.3 France 6.8 Slovakia 15.2 Pennsylvania 11.2 Montana 6.2 Portugal 15.0 North Carolina 11.1 Idaho 6.0 Iceland 14.9 Arkansas 11.1 Maine 5.9 Virginia 14.9 West Virginia 10.9 Turkey 3.9 Washington 14.9 Illinois 10.8 Australia 3.6 Denmark 14.8 Georgia 10.5 Nevada 3.5 Colorado 14.7 Nebraska 10.3 Alaska 3.4 Hungary 14.5 Ireland 10.3 Mexico 3.4 Wisconsin 14.1 Texas 10.3 Chile 2.9 Note: Small cities are those with greater than 25,000, but less than 50,000 inhabitants. These country/state average speed data are based on city samples drawn from Stratum 3 cities, according to the population proportions dictated by the stratified sampling approach. All countries/states may not be in this data if there are no cities in the small city group for that particular country/state in 2011. 12 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 4c Average Download Speeds (2011) in Medium Cities for a Country/State (Based on Strat ified Sampling) Country\State Download Speed (Mbps) Country\State Download Speed (Mbps) Country\State Download Speed (Mbps) Hong Kong 36.1 New Hampshire 14.5 Arkansas 10.2 Sweden 33.4 Kansas 14.3 Nevada 10.2 Netherlands 30.0 Colorado 14.3 Texas 10.1 Switzerland 26.2 Minnesota 14.2 Georgia 9.9 Japan 21.9 Nebraska 13.9 Poland 9.7 Portugal 20.9 Washington 13.7 Missouri 9.7 Bulgaria 19.7 Indiana 13.5 Michigan 9.1 North Dakota 19.1 Czech Republic 13.2 South Carolina 8.8 Hungary 17.7 Illinois 13.2 Wyoming 8.7 Maryland 17.4 Spain 12.8 New Mexico 8.6 Rhode Island 17.1 Ohio 12.6 Idaho 8.6 New York 16.2 Arizona 12.4 United Kingdom 8.3 Germany 16.2 Connecticut 12.1 Mississippi 8.3 Slovakia 16.0 Alabama 11.9 Pennsylvania 8.3 Massachusetts 15.4 Virginia 11.8 Iowa 8.2 Utah 15.1 Finland 11.5 Montana 7.8 Oregon 15.1 North Carolina 11.3 France 7.1 Florida 14.8 California 10.7 Kentucky 7.0 Tennessee 14.7 New Jersey 10.7 New Zealand 6.4 Delaware 14.6 Louisiana 10.4 Italy 4.8 Wisconsin 14.6 Oklahoma 10.4 Turkey 3.3 South Dakota 14.6 Maine 10.2 Note: Medium cities are those with greater than 50,000, but less than 75,000 inhabitants. These country/state average speed data are based on city samples drawn from Stratum 3 cities, according to the population proportions dictated by the stratified sampling approach. All countries/states may not be in this data if there are no cities in the medium city category for that particular country/state in 2011. 13 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 4d Average Download Speeds (2011) in Large Cities for a Country/State (Based on Strat ified Sampling) Country\State Download Speed (Mbps) Country\State Download Speed (Mbps) Country\State Download Speed (Mbps) Korea, Republic of 36.0 Utah 13.3 North Dakota 10.5 Hong Kong 35.2 Finland 13.1 Kentucky 10.3 Sweden 31.8 Spain 12.7 New Mexico 10.3 Lithuania 25.6 Oregon 12.5 Wisconsin 10.2 France 21.9 South Carolina 12.4 Massachusetts 10.1 Hungary 21.7 Tennessee 12.4 North Carolina 10.0 Japan 20.8 Michigan 12.4 Alabama 10.0 Czech Republic 18.8 Nebraska 12.2 Louisiana 9.9 Poland 18.4 California 12.2 Kansas 9.9 Bulgaria 18.3 New Jersey 12.1 Ohio 9.2 South Dakota 16.7 Georgia 12.1 Canada 8.9 Virginia 16.3 Portugal 12.0 Texas 8.7 Minnesota 15.3 Oklahoma 11.9 Montana 7.7 Germany 15.1 Florida 11.8 Indiana 7.2 Denmark 14.9 Illinois 11.8 Iowa 6.7 Switzerland 14.5 Connecticut 11.5 Missouri 5.0 Norway 13.6 Pennsylvania 11.4 Chile 4.3 Washington 13.6 New York 10.9 Alaska 4.2 Colorado 13.6 Nevada 10.7 Arizona 13.6 New Hampshire 10.7 Note: Large cities are those with greater than 100,000 inhabitants. These country/state average speed data are based on city samples drawn from Stratum 4 cities, according to the population proportions dictated by the stratified sampling approach. All countries/states may not be in this data if there are no cities in the large city category for that particular country/state in 2011. 14 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 5 Shortfall Index (%) (2010 and 2011 Country 2011 2010 Country 2011 2010 Slovakia 0.41 1.12 Turkey 14.88 Israel 0.45 Netherlands 16.41 17.64 Lithuania 1.02 1.46 Spain 16.93 Hungary 1.36 3.05 Singapore 17.16 Poland 2.61 Sweden 17.76 22.04 Switzerland 3.23 3.87 Luxembourg 18.04 17.94 Slovenia 3.66 Belgium 18.16 19.17 Bulgaria 4.42 4.16 Germany 18.18 16.95 Chile 4.99 Portugal 19.21 21.13 Norway 5.06 6.07 Austria 22.27 18.57 United States 6.80 7.06 Ireland 24.03 Estonia 6.96 New Zealand 28.80 Czech Republic 6.98 6.95 Iceland 29.26 Canada 11.72 11.94 Italy 31.80 Denmark 11.73 12.02 United Kingdom 32.83 39.27 Mexico 13.78 Australia 37.88 37.40 Hong Kong 14.13 France 40.57 41.70 Finland 14.17 14.38 Greece 55.77 Note: This measures the difference between the advertised and actual speeds based on the Promise Index data by Ookla 15 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 6 Ookla and OECD Actual and Advertised Average Download Speeds, 2010 and 2011 Country Ookla Actual Ookla Advertised OECD Advertised Country Ookla Actual Ookla Advertised OECD Advertised Korea 36.0 55.59 Hong Kong 35.1 41.0 Hong Kong 26.2 Korea 30.7 76.90 Japan 25.0 80.61 Lithuania 29.2 29.5 Sweden 24.8 31.2 85.61 Sweden 27.9 33.4 102.76 Lithuania 22.3 22.5 Netherlands 23.6 28.0 50.19 Netherlands 21.4 26.1 39.59 Japan 22.5 156.18 Switzerland 17.4 18.1 20.78 Switzerland 21.0 21.7 22.84 Bulgaria 16.2 16.8 Bulgaria 19.2 20.1 Iceland 14.6 27.05 Belgium 19.1 23.0 27.14 Germany 14.4 17.4 17.30 Denmark 18.8 21.2 36.97 Portugal 14.2 17.7 84.10 Singapore 17.3 21.0 Belgium 13.1 16.1 24.89 Iceland 15.9 22.2 21.32 Czech Rep. 12.5 13.6 26.32 Czech Rep. 14.9 16.1 24.20 United States 11.3 12.2 14.67 Estonia 14.8 15.9 38.45 Finland 10.9 12.8 30.67 Slovakia 13.7 13.7 30.23 Slovakia 10.9 11.0 48.00 Portugal 13.7 16.8 83.36 Denmark 10.5 11.9 25.77 Germany 13.3 16.4 19.17 Hungary 10.1 10.4 20.09 Norway 12.2 12.8 72.07 France 9.9 17.1 66.84 United States 11.9 12.8 29.44 Australia 9.8 15.6 32.40 Hungary 11.6 11.6 27.10 Estonia 9.7 22.80 Luxembourg 11.3 14.3 21.30 Norway 9.1 9.7 46.14 Spain 10.9 13.2 26.74 Austria 9.0 10.6 29.16 Finland 10.7 12.4 44.21 Canada 8.5 9.6 20.82 Canada 10.1 11.5 45.92 Luxembourg 8.1 9.9 13.18 Australia 9.9 16.0 35.47 Poland 7.7 23.82 France 9.7 16.1 53.22 Spain 7.7 14.51 UK 8.8 12.5 35.27 UK 7.3 12.1 26.62 Austria 8.1 10.8 18.43 Slovenia 7.1 61.77 Slovenia 8.0 8.3 79.91 Singapore 6.4 New Zealand 7.8 10.7 23.39 Greece 6.3 16.09 Poland 7.4 7.6 23.60 New Zealand 5.9 22.02 Israel 7.0 7.0 15.87 Ireland 5.6 9.64 Ireland 6.4 8.4 26.33 Israel 5.1 15.87 Greece 5.3 12.0 10.57 Chile 4.5 8.87 Chile 5.2 5.4 12.37 Italy 4.3 29.98 Turkey 4.7 5.5 36.25 Turkey 3.8 17.30 Italy 4.5 6.6 22.68 Mexico 2.0 2.98 Mexico 2.9 3.4 5.15 16 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 7a Average (Weighted) Late ncy by Country (2011) Country Latency (milliseconds) Country Latency (milliseconds) Korea 44.58 Germany 68.16 Bulgaria 44.92 Poland 68.21 Czech Republic 51.67 Chile 68.42 Slovakia 52.49 Ireland 68.60 Hungary 54.22 Greece 73.36 Lithuania 57.10 Australia 73.46 Portugal 60.12 United States 73.87 Belgium 60.35 Italy 74.17 Austria 60.93 Denmark 76.12 Hong Kong 61.16 Israel 78.50 Netherlands 64.54 Spain 81.89 Finland 65.81 Singapore 84.42 Turkey 66.13 Slovenia 84.95 Switzerland 67.34 France 91.04 New Zealand 67.44 Canada 92.94 Norway 67.55 Sweden 94.49 United Kingdom 68.13 Estonia 105.07 Mexico 113.84 Note: Latency (round-trip latency) measures the amount of time it takes a data packet to travel from a source to a destination and back. It is measured as the sum of time from the start of packet transmission by a source to the start of packet reception by a destination plus the time that it takes for the packet to travel back from the receiving destination to the source, and is measured in milliseconds. 17 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 7b Average (Weighted) Latency by US Stat es and International Countries (2011) Country Latency (milliseconds) Country Latency (milliseconds) Rhode Island 43.28 Oregon 69.71 Bulgaria 43.49 Texas 69.78 Korea, Republic of 46.28 Kansas 69.98 Czech Republic 51.84 Missouri 70.13 Slovakia 53.51 Arizona 70.68 Oklahoma 55.07 New York 72.31 Hungary 55.39 Ohio 72.84 Arkansas 56.68 Australia 72.88 Lithuania 57.58 Italy 73.15 Kentucky 57.74 Greece 73.20 Belgium 58.98 Tennessee 73.79 Indiana 59.39 Denmark 75.41 Virginia 59.88 South Carolina 77.09 Colorado 60.33 Israel 78.66 Florida 60.54 Nevada 79.48 Portugal 60.70 District of Columbia 80.25 Austria 61.13 California 80.97 Alabama 61.23 North Carolina 81.11 Hong Kong 61.84 Spain 81.69 Finland 64.57 Idaho 82.29 Washington 64.65 Nebraska 82.81 Netherlands 65.14 Singapore 85.36 Turkey 65.33 Utah 88.23 Michigan 65.49 Slovenia 88.84 Switzerland 65.57 Pennsylvania 88.95 Wisconsin 65.65 France 90.58 Chile 66.42 Sweden 90.74 United Kingdom 66.75 Canada 91.91 Germany 66.89 Maryland 97.36 Norway 67.27 Estonia 104.05 Poland 67.46 Massachusetts 104.58 New Zealand 67.87 Mexico 111.70 Illinois 68.01 Connecticut 119.53 Minnesota 68.19 Iowa 130.05 Ireland 68.63 New Hampshire 137.05 Georgia 69.56 New Jersey 172.11 18 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 8a Average (Weighted) Jitter by Country (2011) Country Jitter (milliseconds) Country Jitter (milliseconds) Korea 20.21 Netherlands 27.30 Greece 20.48 Lithuania 28.36 Bulgaria 20.62 Poland 28.89 Slovakia 21.63 United States 29.77 Austria 21.88 Finland 29.97 New Zealand 22.60 Australia 30.08 Belgium 22.86 Israel 30.18 Czech Republic 22.96 France 31.85 Italy 23.43 Sweden 33.17 Spain 23.62 Estonia 34.07 Hungary 24.79 Norway 34.20 Turkey 25.36 Switzerland 34.86 Ireland 25.88 Slovenia 35.08 Denmark 26.26 Chile 36.26 Germany 26.31 United Kingdom 39.02 Portugal 26.48 Singapore 39.42 Hong Kong 27.13 Canada 40.34 Mexico 41.06 Note: Jitter refers to the variance of latency over time, and is measured by the average deviation from the mean latency of the network, and is measured in milliseconds. 19 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 8b Average (Weighted) Jitter by US States and International Countries (2011) Country Jitter (milliseconds) Country Jitter (milliseconds) Iowa 16.43 Kansas 27.14 Arkansas 18.69 Ohio 27.23 Alabama 19.00 Netherlands 28.07 Oklahoma 19.10 Illinois 28.09 Bulgaria 19.63 Poland 28.39 Minnesota 20.13 Finland 28.94 Korea 20.18 Lithuania 29.01 Greece 20.36 Tennessee 29.42 Slovakia 20.96 Australia 29.66 Oregon 21.00 District of Columbia 29.88 Rhode Island 21.42 Virginia 30.05 Belgium 21.66 North Carolina 30.12 Austria 21.70 Israel 30.20 Indiana 21.79 Wisconsin 30.22 Colorado 22.01 Georgia 30.77 Italy 22.75 Nevada 30.85 Missouri 22.78 New York 31.33 Czech Republic 22.83 France 31.53 Utah 23.19 Sweden 31.87 New Zealand 23.30 Switzerland 33.76 Florida 23.44 Estonia 33.87 Spain 23.77 Pennsylvania 33.95 Turkey 24.50 Norway 34.02 Hungary 25.22 Chile 34.70 Nebraska 25.44 Slovenia 34.84 Arizona 25.46 California 35.30 Germany 25.57 Maryland 35.49 Ireland 25.65 United Kingdom 36.98 Idaho 25.82 Singapore 38.40 Kentucky 25.89 Canada 39.65 Texas 25.90 Mexico 40.06 Denmark 25.92 South Carolina 40.75 Michigan 26.19 Massachusetts 42.40 Washington 26.79 Connecticut 50.10 Hong Kong 26.84 New Jersey 74.40 Portugal 26.95 New Hampshire 114.52 20 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 Appendix Table 9a Average (Weighted) Packet Loss by Country (2011) Country Packet Loss Country Packet Loss Israel 1.08 Australia 3.26 Estonia 1.12 Germany 3.32 Hong Kong 1.21 United States 3.40 Korea 1.26 Czech Republic 3.46 Slovenia 1.28 United Kingdom 3.60 Lithuania 1.33 Bulgaria 3.62 Switzerland 1.38 Poland 3.64 Sweden 1.71 Portugal 3.67 Canada 1.80 New Zealand 3.91 Slovakia 1.82 Belgium 3.96 Chile 1.90 Spain 4.00 Denmark 1.97 Ireland 4.54 Netherlands 2.39 Hungary 4.84 Norway 2.44 Austria 5.01 Italy 2.63 Mexico 5.17 France 2.91 Turkey 6.15 Singapore 3.08 Finland 7.94 Greece 10.01 Note: When packets of data travelling across the network fail to reach their destination, the phenomenon is termed packet loss. Packet loss can occur because of network congestion, signal degradation, faulty network drivers or networking hardware, and the distance between the origin of the transmitted data and the destination. When packet loss occurs due to these reasons, it can be used as a quality loss metric. 21 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1334 22 Appendix Table 9b Average (Weighted) Packet Loss by US St ates and International Countries (2011) Country Packet Loss Country Packet Loss Connecticut 0.53 Maryland 2.90 Israel 1.03 France 2.90 New Jersey 1.07 Indiana 2.97 Estonia 1.12 Minnesota 2.99 Korea, Republic of 1.21 Colorado 3.00 Slovenia 1.21 Nevada 3.05 Hong Kong 1.24 New York 3.09 Lithuania 1.38 Singapore 3.14 Switzerland 1.40 Germany 3.21 Canada 1.77 Wisconsin 3.21 Nebraska 1.80 Florida 3.21 Sweden 1.81 Bulgaria 3.24 Slovakia 1.83 Australia 3.26 Iowa 1.89 United Kingdom 3.27 Rhode Island 1.90 Ohio 3.28 Chile 1.91 Massachusetts 3.29 Denmark 2.01 California 3.34 Utah 2.03 Czech Republic 3.53 Oklahoma 2.03 Poland 3.54 Arkansas 2.07 Portugal 3.55 Oregon 2.08 Georgia 3.62 District of Columbia 2.16 New Zealand 3.76 New Hampshire 2.18 Ireland 4.02 South Carolina 2.34 Idaho 4.02 Netherlands 2.39 Spain 4.07 Pennsylvania 2.39 Belgium 4.20 Norway 2.55 Texas 4.39 Washington 2.55 Hungary 4.59 Italy 2.55 Austria 4.95 Kansas 2.63 Mexico 4.95 Michigan 2.65 Missouri 5.08 Illinois 2.65 North Carolina 5.66 Tennessee 2.71 Turkey 5.97 Arizona 2.79 Alabama 6.89 Kentucky 2.82 Finland 7.92 Virginia 2.90 Greece 9.63