Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 1 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 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) GN Docket No. 14-126 FOURTH REPORT Adopted: January 29, 2015 Released: February 4, 2015 By the Chief, International Bureau: TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 2 III. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Fixed Broadband Coverage (European Union (EU) countries) ..................................................... 12A. Broadband Subscription (OECD Countries) .................................................................................. 19B. Fixed Broadband Speeds................................................................................................................ 23C. Broadband Pricing Plans................................................................................................................ 29D. Other Relevant Information and International Developments ....................................................... 42E. IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 61 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS................................................................................................................ 62 APPENDIX A: Country List APPENDIX B: Broadband Price Dataset APPENDIX C: Broadband Price Discussion and Tables APPENDIX D: Demographics Dataset APPENDIX E: Market and Regulatory Background APPENDIX F: Comparing International Fixed Broadband Speeds APPENDIX G: Broadband Deployment (European Union (EU) countries) I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is the International Bureau’s fourth International Broadband Data Report (IBDR or Report). Required under Section 103(b) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA), the IBDR provides comparative international information on broadband services. 1 Through the presentation of this 1 See 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 2 data, we have the opportunity to compare the state of broadband deployment in the United States and the country’s broadband speeds and prices to the international community. International data can serve as useful benchmarks for progress in fixed and mobile broadband deployment and accessibility. The available international broadband data, though not fully comparable to data on the United States, continue to suggest that the United States may lag behind a number of other developed countries with regard to some broadband metrics, and leads in some other metrics. On the pages that follow and in the appendices, we present a number of data points, including fixed broadband deployment data in the United States and European Union (EU) with a focus on rural areas, advertised and actual fixed broadband speeds in 40 countries around the world, including the United States, and broadband prices (both fixed and mobile plans) across the same 40 countries. 2 As with previous Reports, we also have gathered demographic and regulatory/market data for the countries (to the extent available) included in this Report. The majority of this information is presented in the appendices to this Report. II. BACKGROUND 2. The 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 for each of the data rate benchmarks for broadband service utilized by the Commission to reflect different speed tiers.” 3 The BDIA directs the Commission to assess broadband capability in international communities comparable to the communities in the United States with respect to population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile. 4 The Commission is also directed to include “a geographically diverse selection of countries” and “communities including the capital cities of such countries.” 5 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.” 6 We comply with the BDIA’s requirements, and include the highlights of our findings in this Report and 2 The countries we have selected for this Report are largely the same as those we included in the Third IBDR (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, 27 FCC Rcd 9884 (2012) (Third IBDR)). We have included Brazil and India, two influential economies in their respective regions that have rapidly growing broadband markets in this Report, and we have dropped three countries (Cyprus, Latvia and Romania), which were only partially included in the Third IBDR – price and speed data had not been collected for them previously. The Third IBDR, released in 2012, presented mostly 2011 data. This report includes data from 2012 and 2013, as available (and 2014, with regard to certain broadband pricing data as well as market and regulatory information). 3 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1). Several terms that we use in this Report, such as “broadband,” “advanced telecommunications capability,” and “availability” may have specialized meanings in other contexts, and nothing in this Report should be read to suggest that our use of terminology here is intended to affect the meanings of other specialized terms in the context of the 2015 Broadband Progress Report or in other proceedings. See, e.g., 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, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket Nos. 14-126, Broadband Progress Report and Notice of Inquiry on Immediate Action to Accelerate Deployment, FCC 15-10, para. 1 note 1 (rel. Feb. 4, 2015) (2015 Broadband Progress Report). The 2015 Broadband Progress Report incorporates by reference this IBDR to fulfill the obligation imposed by Section 103(b) of the BDIA. 4 Id. § 1303(b)(2). 5 Id. 6 Id. § 1303(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 3 present the detailed data and additional discussion in the relevant appendices. 3. In this Report, we focus our efforts on analysis of broadband deployment, speed, and price research. 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 for our research. 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. 7 4. The criteria we have used for choosing communities enable us to make reasonable international comparisons. In instructing us to include a “geographically diverse selection of countries,” 8 we do not believe that Congress intended for us to use a random sample of countries. Rather, the BDIA requires the Commission to 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. To that end, we have focused our research on 40 countries, including the United States, all OECD countries, and two new countries, Brazil and India, which have growing broadband (fixed and mobile) markets. 9 5. Comments and Data Sources. The 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry sought comment on how we could make improvements to the IBDR. 10 Though we received no comments regarding potential improvements to the IBDR, Professor Christopher Yoo of the University of Pennsylvania submitted a research paper comparing United States and European broadband deployment in 2011 and 2012. 11 6. As noted above, 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. 12 As in previous years, we understand the responsibility of gathering information on “the extent of broadband service capability” to require an inquiry into the deployment and availability of broadband service, which in turn includes factors such as price, quality, 7 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 A. 8 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(2)(A). 9 See e.g., “Mobile Data Use Doubles in India,” Total Telecom, May 22, 2013, available at http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=481392; “Brazil Hits 100mn Broadband Accesses Milestone in April, Says Telebrasil and Telefonica Head,” BNAmericas, May 23, 2013, available at http://www.bnamericas.com/news/telecommunications/brazil-hits-100mn-broadband-accesses-milestone-in-april- says-telebrasil-and-telefonica-head. 10 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, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 14-126, Tenth Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 29 FCC Rcd 9747, 9771, para. 51 (2014) (Tenth Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry). 11 Comments of Christopher S. Yoo, John H. Chestnut Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science, Founding Director of the Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition, University of Pennsylvania. (Prof. Yoo comments). 12 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 4 and adoption. 13 In preparing this IBDR, we have reviewed a number of data sources and analyzed various rankings that compare broadband deployment and service capability in the United States and other countries. 14 7. With respect to broadband coverage and subscription, the best currently available data comparing the United States to other countries is from the OECD, which collects data on broadband deployment, subscription, and usage and publishes rankings of its respective member countries. The European Union has published studies of fixed broadband coverage for 2011 and 2012. We compare this broadband coverage information for the European Union with the United States, including coverage by households and by rural and non-rural areas in Appendix G. 8. To comply with the BDIA’s requirement to present information on “data transmission speeds” for broadband services, we use publicly available speed data sources and present our findings in Appendix F. To present data on both advertised and actual broadband speeds in different countries, we use the publicly available raw speed test data (for fixed broadband in 2012 and 2013) provided by Ookla, proprietor of speedtest.net, on their Net Index site. 15 9. The previous IBDRs have compared broadband prices using exchange rates and purchasing power parity (PPP), but previous inquiries also have raised the question of whether prices should be compared to GDP per capita. 16 In this Report, we continue to use exchange rate and PPP as the bases for our price comparison. 17 We find that a comparison of prices to GDP per capita could have some value in demonstrating affordability across countries, but uneven income distribution might make comparisons less valuable. Median household income may be a better measure, but lack of comparable cross-country data prevents us from conducting such analysis. 18 With respect to pricing plans, we present data and discussion for broadband plans offered in 2012, 2013, and in some cases 2014, in Appendix C, 13 Cf. 2015 Broadband Progress Report at para. 65, Section IV.A. 14 Differences between which countries are included for each dataset in this Report are primarily due to data availability. See Appendix A infra. 15 See Appendix F for our discussion of the speed data. 16 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, 7386 (2011) and Third IBDR, 27 FCC Rcd 9884, 9897. See also 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, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 12-228, Ninth Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 27 FCC Rcd 10523, 10543, para. 53 (2012) (Ninth Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry) (describing Commission methodology for comparing broadband prices and asking whether prices should be compared to GDP per capita). We note that no comments were filed in response to the Ninth Broadband Notice of Inquiry’s questions about comparisons of broadband prices. In addition, the Commission has not issued a Report arising out of the Ninth Broadband Notice of Inquiry. 17 For further discussion of PPP, see Appendix C. 18 With respect to available pricing data sources, we note that Google publishes open source broadband price data (which includes both fixed and mobile prices for 106 countries). See Google, Policy by the Numbers, http://policybythenumbers.blogspot.com/2014/03/international-broadband-pricing-study.html. We also note that Google has recommended Commission use of this data in connection with the preparation of the FCC’s IBDRs. See Google Inc., reply comments at 2-3 filed in response to Ninth Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry. Google’s extensive price data is gathered through provider website research, the same way that we have gathered data on pricing plans for this Report. When we began researching prices for this Report in fall 2012, Google’s price dataset was already a few months older, and our own data provided more detailed information on bundle pricing and promotional discounts than Google’s dataset. We therefore continued with our original research. In the future, however, provided that Google’s dataset is updated on a cycle that corresponds with preparation for and release of the IBDR, we may consider using Google’s dataset as our primary source. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 5 for major fixed and mobile broadband providers (typically at least three of each) in each of the 40 countries. 19 We provide the raw price data (consisting of price points for thousands of plans) in Appendix B, available only online on the FCC website. 10. Further, we present updated demographic data for the 39 surveyed foreign countries on a sub-national basis, including the latest figures for such indicators as population size, population density, gross domestic product (GDP), and educational attainment in Appendix D of this Report. 20 Finally, we provide a detailed update of regulatory and market developments since our last Report for the surveyed countries in Appendix E. III. DISCUSSION 11. In this section, we present highlights of our findings. Our full presentation and discussion of the data, including tables, is in the relevant appendices. A. Fixed Broadband Coverage (European Union (EU) countries) 12. In Appendix G, we compare broadband deployment in the United States and Europe 21 and find that high-speed broadband, as defined below, is more widely deployed in the United States. According to data from both 2011 and 2012, the broadband coverage gap between rural and non-rural areas remains large across Europe and the United States. 22 13. Like the United States, the EU is tracking its progress in extending broadband coverage to all of its citizens. 23 One of the EU’s Digital Agenda objectives is to provide “Next Generation Access” (referred to herein as “high-speed broadband”), meaning broadband speeds of at least 30 Mbps, by 2020. 24 19 We gathered information on prices and features from the providers’ websites (e.g., monthly fees, activation charges, speeds, usage limits, promotional discounts, equipment charges) for stand-alone and bundled broadband packages. 20 Using this sub-national data, one can draw comparisons across both international and domestic cities states and regions. As is the case in the United States, intra-country variations are greater than the inter-country differences. In particular, differences in population density, dispersion, and income may create significant variations. The lower population density and greater size of the United States present unique challenges. We did not have sub-national demographic data for Brazil, Hong Kong, India, and Singapore. See Appendix A. In this year’s Report we changed the reported GDP data from current year dollars to a measure fixed in 2005 dollars. We made this change so that historical data did not vary from year to year depending on changes in exchange rates. 21 The European study countries include Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland, plus the 28 EU member countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Croatia, which joined the EU on July 1, 2013, is included in the study’s 2012 data but was not included in the study’s 2011 data. As of July 1, 2013, the EU has 28 member countries with the accession of Croatia. As the European study was compiled prior to this date, for purposes of this Fourth IBDR, EU countries refer to the then-existing 27 members plus the three additional countries just noted. 22 In this Report, we compare 2011 and 2012 data on broadband coverage in the United States and in the EU countries. As of November of 2014, the EU has not reported its 2013 coverage data. The most recent coverage data in the United States, including the data for 2013, can be found in the 2015 Broadband Progress Report. 23 See 2015 Broadband Progress Report at para. 6, Section I (“we also separately conclude that broadband is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion because it is not yet available to the majority of rural and Tribal Americans and not becoming available quickly enough”). 24 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A Digital Agenda for Europe, 2010, available at http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0245:FIN:EN:PDF. Another Digital Agenda objective is to provide all EU citizens with basic broadband coverage (at least 144 kbps download speed) by the end of 2013. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 6 For purposes of the comparison of high-speed broadband, we use the SBI 25 speed data for 25 Mbps, which most closely matches the 30 Mbps threshold in the European study. 26 Despite this difference, we think the comparison remains apt. 27 14. In 2013, the European Commission (EC) issued a study (EU study) on broadband coverage in Europe in the years 2011 and 2012. 28 The EU study includes 30 countries (EU study countries) for 2011 and 31 countries for 2012 and data at a sub-national level – corresponding to counties, departments, or provinces. 29 The sub-national data enable us to determine broadband capability in international communities comparable to U.S. communities with respect to population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile, as called for by the BDIA. 30 15. The 2011 and 2012 EU data show that, by the end of 2011, high-speed broadband was available to just over 50 percent of those homes. By the end of 2012, high-speed broadband reached 54 percent of total households in the EU study countries. The study also shows that broadband coverage lags in rural areas. 31 At the end of 2011, in EU study rural areas, high-speed broadband reached only 9 percent of total households. 32 By the end of 2012, that number had increased to 12 percent. To reach the EU’s 2020 goal, the EU study concludes that considerable investment in rural areas will still be necessary. 33 16. In the United States, different statistics are collected, but general comparisons can still be made. 34 In 2011, 72 percent of total U.S. households had high-speed broadband coverage. In 2012, high- Appendix G contains our discussion of the basic broadband coverage (including differences between the U.S. and European definitions of “basic broadband).” 25 Since July 2009, the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA), in coordination with the Commission, has been collecting data concerning where broadband is deployed across the United States as part of the State Broadband Initiative (SBI) Grant Program. See Department of Commerce, NTIA, State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program, Docket No. 0660-ZA29, Notice of Funds Availability, 74 Fed. Reg. 32545 (July 8, 2009)at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_broadbandmappingnofa_090708.pdf. For purposes of this Report, we call this data “SBI Data.” 26 Chairman Wheeler has said that a “25 Mbps connection is fast becoming ‘table stakes’ in 21st century communications” and that today “about 80 percent of American homes have access to a broadband connection that delivers 25 Mbps or better,” Prepared Remarks of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, “The Facts and Future of Broadband Competition”, 1776 Headquarters, Washington, D.C., September 4, 2014, available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-329161A1.pdf. 27 See http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/case-studies/mission-possible-evolutionary- approach-to-docsis-whitepaper.pdf (accessed June 5, 2013). 28 Broadband Coverage in Europe in 2012: Mapping Progress Towards the Coverage Objectives of the Digital Agenda, A Study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology, European Union, 2013, available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=3647. 29 The population of these sub-national areas (called NUTS-3 level units) range from 150,000 to 800,000. 30 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(2). 31 In the EU’s 27 countries, 24 percent of the population lives in NUTS-3 regions classified as “predominantly rural,” according to Europa statistics. According to U.S. census block data, the U.S. rural share of the population is similar: 19.3 percent of the U.S. population lives in rural areas. 32 Statistics for 2011 are from the 2013 report. A redefinition of “rural” in the 2013 report caused a revision of the statistics for 2011. 33 See EU study, p. 12. 34 Because the European data in its study was from December 2011 and 2012, we also use U.S. data from December 2011 and 2012 for comparison. The U.S. data for December 2011 and December 2012 discussed here is the same Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 7 speed broadband coverage expanded to 80 percent of all U.S. households. 17. Rural Coverage. Between December 2011 and December 2012, Europe’s high-speed broadband coverage grew from 55 to 61 percent for non-rural households and from 8 to 12 percent for rural households. The gap between non-rural and rural thus increased from 47 percentage points in 2011 to 49 percentage points in 2012. Between December 2011 and December 2012, high-speed broadband coverage in the United States increased from 81 to 89 percent for non-rural households and from 35 to 45 percent for rural households. The gap between non-rural and rural fell slightly from 46 percentage points to 44 percentage points. Although the gap between rural and non-rural high-speed broadband coverage is only a bit smaller in the United States than it is in the EU study countries, the absolute level of coverage of high-speed broadband is much higher in the United States in both rural and non-rural areas, and the United States is making slightly increased progress in closing the urban-rural gap for high-speed broadband. 18. Coverage Ranking by Country. In 2011, with an overall 72 percent high-speed broadband coverage, the United States ranked higher than 24 of the 30 EU study countries. In 2012, with an overall 80 percent high-speed broadband coverage, the United States ranked higher than 25 of the 31 EU study countries. Similarly, the EU study includes data for 2011 and 2012 on the status of rural high- speed broadband coverage by country. Appendix G discusses in detail status of rural high-speed broadband coverage across the EU study countries and the United States. Only four EU countries (Cyprus, Belgium, Malta, and Poland) had higher rural high-speed broadband coverage than the United States in 2011, and six EU countries (Cyprus, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands and Switzerland) had higher rural high-speed broadband coverage than the United States in 2012. B. Broadband Subscription (OECD Countries) 19. The OECD’s subscription metrics define transmission speeds of at least 256 kbps in one direction to be “broadband service” for both fixed (wired) and wireless Internet access. 35 This is considerably slower than the 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload speeds which the Commission considers as “advanced telecommunications capability” or “broadband” for purposes of the 2015 Broadband Progress Report. 36 In this section of the Report, we use the OECD’s broadband definition to present subscription statistics from OECD countries. 20. As the most populous member of the OECD, in terms of sheer number of wireless broadband subscribers, the United States ranked first out of OECD’s 34 countries with 316,440,000 subscriptions with data plans in 2013, (compared to 280,153,000 subscriptions for the first place rank in 2012). By comparison, Japan ranked second with 142,595,498 wireless broadband subscriptions in 2013 (108,948,995 in 2012). 37 The United States also ranked first in 2013 in the sheer number of fixed (wired) broadband subscriptions with 93,618,000 subscribers (90,006,000 subscriptions in 2012). Again, by comparison, Japan ranked second with 35,785,203 fixed (wired) subscriptions (and 35,295,337 fixed broadband mapping deployment data the Commission relied on in the 2015 Broadband Progress Report to present December 2011-2012 fixed deployment trends. 2015 Broadband Progress Report at para. 69, Tbl 7. However, the Commission presented estimates for different speed tiers (3 Mbps/768 kbps, 10 Mbps/768 kbps, and 25 Mbps/3 Mbps). 35 See OECD Broadband Portal, Broadband Methodology, http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/broadband- methodology.htm. OECD’s definition of “fixed (wired) broadband includes DSL, Cable, Fiber, and other wired technologies such as broadband over powerline. OECD’s definition of “wireless” broadband includes terrestrial fixed wireless, terrestrial mobile wireless, and satellite. See http://www.oecd.org/document/46/0,3746,en_2649_34225_39575598_1_1_1_1,00.html. 36 See 2015 Broadband Progress Report at para. 3. 37 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2012 and 2013). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 8 (wired) subscriptions in 2012). 38 21. The OECD’s 2013 subscription data also rank countries based on technology. 39 With respect to subscription in terms of the percentage of population, the United States ranks 16th out of 34 countries for overall fixed (wired) broadband subscriptions, with 29.8 broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants (15th out of 34 countries, with 28.8 broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in 2012). 40 Breaking the fixed (wired) subscription numbers down by technology, the U.S. ranking in these surveys ranges from 25th out of 34 in DSL subscription 41 to fourth out of 34 in cable modem subscription, 42 to 16th out of 34 in fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) subscription. 43 The United States ranks seventh overall out of the 34 OECD countries in total wireless broadband subscriptions, with 100.7 broadband wireless subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 44 (by comparison, Finland ranks first in 2013 with 123.8 wireless broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 45 ). The United States ranks sixth out of 34 countries in 2012 with 89.8 broadband wireless subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. 46 22. As the OECD notes, subscription is measured using different indicators and different reference dates across various countries. 47 Further, where a particular country falls in these rankings may be influenced by population density and dispersion, income, and other factors. As noted in the Third IBDR, the United States has about one-quarter the population density of Europe, one-tenth that of Japan, and one-fifteenth that of South Korea. 48 We recognize the need for better data on these issues and have initiated efforts to improve available data, both domestically and internationally. In the last section of this Report, we provide an update on international efforts to improve data on broadband. 49 C. Fixed Broadband Speeds 23. The BDIA requires the Commission to gather information on “data transmission speeds” for broadband services. 50 Speed is a quantitative description of the information transfer rate of a broadband Internet access service and can be defined as “data signaling rate,” as expressed in bits per 38 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2012 and 2013). 39 We reproduce the OECD’s most recent broadband subscription rankings in Appendix E. 40 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2012 and 2013). 41 Id. The U.S. ranking in this category remains unchanged from last year. 42 Id. The U.S. ranking in this category dropped one from last year, when the United States ranked third in cable modem subscribers. 43 Id. Last year the United States ranked 15th in FTTH. 44 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (December 2013). In the 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the Commission did not include mobile or satellite in its broadband deployment determination under section 1302(b) and considered fixed wireless to be a fixed service, much like cable or DSL. See 2015 Broadband Progress Report at para. 7. 45 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (December 2013). 46 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (June 2012). 47 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. 48 Third IBDR, 27 FCC Rcd at 9892-93 para. 22, citing USTelecom comments. 49 See Section III.E., para. 54, infra. 50 BDIA § 103(b); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 9 second. 51 Speed is an important indicator of the nature of broadband service. The 2015 Broadband Progress Report determines the appropriate speed benchmark to be 25 Mbps for downloads and 3 Mbps for uploads, finding that “[t]rends in deployment and adoption, the speeds that providers are offering today, and the speeds required to use high-quality video, data, voice, and other broadband applications” warrant a change from the Commission’s prior 4 Mbps down/1 Mbps up broadband benchmark. 52 24. As with our previous IBDRs, we have gathered data on advertised speed from broadband providers’ websites for this Report. We gathered advertised speeds from the publicly accessible websites of fixed broadband providers in 40 countries, and performed an analysis of actual speed data based on the publicly available data provided by Ookla, proprietor of speedtest.net, on its Net Index site. 53 In this report, we used Ookla data for 2012 and 2013. The 2012 data cover February 1 to December 5, including 40 countries with 3.8 million observations for 14,652 cities. For 2013, the data include 5.1 million observations for 16,372 cities from January 1 to December 15. 25. Appendix F contains our discussion of the actual fixed broadband speed data, which examines the data on both a country and city basis. We present fixed broadband speeds in 40 countries using Ookla data on actual speeds, as well as Ookla customer surveys of advertised speeds. 54 Using the aggregated data, we ranked 40 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. 55 We also compared the Commission's most recent Measuring Broadband America data for fixed broadband to the European Commission's actual broadband speed measurement data for Europe. 26. Based on the Ookla data, the United States ranked 25th of 40 countries in 2012 in terms of actual download speeds (14.50 Mbps) when weighted by sample size. In 2013, the United States ranked 26th with an average speed of 18.67 Mbps. Using the stratified sampling technique, 56 the United States ranked 26th (14.7 Mbps) in average weighted actual download speed in 2012. The ranking of the United States improved to 25th in 2013 using stratified sampling, with an average weighted download speed of 19.55 Mbps. We also compared the United States at the state level with the other IBDR countries in 2012 and 2013. Eight states appeared in the top quartile in 2012, a decrease of one from 2011. There were again eight states in the top quartile in 2013. The number of states in the bottom quartile was 13 in 2012 and 2013. 27. The Ookla shortfall index, or the median percentage difference between advertised and actual speed, remained stable in the United States, up slightly from 6.8 percent in 2011 to 6.9 percent in 2012. This number rose to 7.1 percent in 2013. Though this metric (which is based on self-reported data 51 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). 52 2015 Broadband Progress Report, para. 3. 53 Since January 2008, Ookla has collected data on over 6.5 billion speed tests. See https://www.ookla.com/. Ookla’s Net Index is available at http://www.netindex.com/. 54 The Ookla data in our study consists of only fixed broadband connections. Mobile data is not included in the dataset we obtained from Ookla. 55 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. 56 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. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 10 from consumers) suggests that actual speeds do not typically meet or exceed advertised speeds in the United States (though to a lesser extent than most of the other countries surveyed), the Commission’s most recent Measuring Broadband America report suggests otherwise. 57 Moreover, in the United States, broadband providers appear to be more effective than European providers in delivering (or exceeding) promised broadband speeds to consumers when comparing results of hardware-based speed tests. 28. In 2011, while jitter in the United States increased (as measured by Ookla), latency remained fairly constant, and packet loss decreased to 2.1 percent in 2012 from 3.4 percent in 2011. 58 In 2013, however, two of these metrics showed a reduction in performance, with jitter moving from 35.00 ms to 39.41 ms (ranking 35th), and latency from 75.49 ms to 80.33 ms (ranking 27th), though performance with respect to packet loss increased with packet loss decreasing to 1.39 percent, ranking fifth. A more detailed look at state measurements shows wide variations between states. 59 D. Broadband Pricing Plans 29. The BDIA directs the Commission to collect information regarding the price of broadband service capability. 60 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; 61 and broadband is frequently purchased as part of a bundle of services. 62 When broadband is bundled with other services, such as telephone or video service, it becomes even more difficult 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 v. a combination of upload and download traffic v. download traffic at peak/non-peak usage times); and consequences of exceeding usage limits (e.g., access speed reductions, surcharges, service cut-off). 30. In pursuit of a more comprehensive dataset to enable price comparisons, we gathered a dataset of publicly available advertised pricing information for residential broadband services in 40 countries (including the United States), most of which are members of the OECD. Our research this year generated a much richer dataset than those included previous IBDRs. In Appendix C, we list 1856 fixed plans for year 2012 and 2174 plans for year 2013. We list 2007 mobile plans for year 2012 and 2881 57 2014 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report: A Report on Consumer Fixed Broadband Performance in the U.S., FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, rel. June 19, 2014, available at http://www.fcc.gov/reports/measuring-broadband-america-2014. This report found that ISPs (i.e., those surveyed) serving the United States provide 101 percent of advertised speeds. 58 Latency (also known as ping) refers to several types of delays typically incurred during network data processing, and is typically measured in milliseconds. Jitter refers to the variance of latency over time, and is measured by the average deviation from the mean latency of the network. When packets of data traveling across the network fail to reach their destination, the phenomenon is termed packet loss. We discuss all three of these characteristics of network quality in more detail in Appendix F. 59 See Appendix F. 60 See 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1). 61 For example, the broadband service price often includes an installation charge, a monthly service fee, and possibly equipment rental charges. 62 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 15-132 11 plans for year 2013. 63 31. The fixed dataset includes a range of residential broadband offers by all major Internet service providers for these 40 countries. 64 The mobile dataset includes smartphone plans, wireless USB stick modem plans, and tablet plans offered by all major mobile providers in the surveyed countries. 65 In Appendix C, we have converted all prices to U.S. dollars based on both purchasing power parity (PPP) 66 and exchange rates. 67 Converting prices through both methods enables more meaningful comparisons. 68 32. For each broadband service offering (both fixed and mobile), the dataset includes upload and download speeds as available, allowances 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 access 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. Since fixed and mobile service bundles can have a wide assortment of 63 In this Report, “plans” mean advertised broadband service offerings to consumers. For fixed broadband plans, we gathered the data between September 2012 and December 2013 and between September 2013 and June 2014. For mobile broadband plans, we gathered the data between September 2012 and December 2012 and between November 2013 and August 2014. Although the collection of some of the data extended into 2014, for convenience purposes we refer to the collections as “2012” data and “2013” data. We assembled the data by visiting the websites of broadband providers serving the countries and communities in our sample. Our price data reflects only what a given provider was offering at the specific point in time we accessed its website. 64 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. 65 Id. 66 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. 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. 67 Exchange rates fluctuate on a daily basis. The exchange rates (2011 and 2012) were obtained from the World Bank: Official exchange rates (LCU per U.S.$, period average), available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.FCRF. The PPP conversion factors (2012 and 2013) we used for each country are annual rates and factors obtained from the International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2012 and 2013. 68 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. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 12 components, these variations present additional layers of complexity for comparison and analysis. 33. Fixed Broadband. Our price research is based on advertised prices. With regard to unlimited stand-alone fixed broadband pricing, our research indicates that U.S. plan prices tend to be higher than those in other countries surveyed. For plans with usage limits, however, U.S. plan prices divided by the number of GB of data allowed tend to be on the lower end. 34. The United States ranked 21st least expensive out of 34 countries in 2012 for unlimited standalone broadband plans and 31st least expensive out of 33 countries in 2013. The average advertised speed of the U.S. plans for unlimited standalone broadband plans, however, increased from 7.59 Mbps (28th of 34 countries) to 10.73 Mbps in 2013 (19th of 33). For all standalone plans with advertised download speeds of greater than 15 and up to and including 25 Mbps, the average price in the United States fell from $56.50 in 2011 to $50.02 in 2012. The average price in the United States in this category increased to $59.40 in 2013. While some countries also saw their standalone broadband prices fall from 2011 to 2012, a larger relative reduction in the United States increased its ranking in 2012 from 26th least expensive to 20th least expensive (out of 32 countries) by this measure. 69 In 2013, the United States ranked 24th least expensive of the 30 countries with plans of this type. 35. For standalone broadband plans with data usage limits and taking those limits into account by calculating price per GB of data allowed, the United States was the fifth least expensive in 2012 with a price of $1.25 per GB. It improved its ranking to fourth least expensive in 2013 with a price per GB of $1.65. By comparison, in 2013, New Zealand was the least expensive at $0.66 and Finland is the most expensive at $17.18 per GB. Many of the countries that have the lowest prices have much lower usage limits, thus becoming the most expensive on a price per GB basis. 36. Another useful metric for comparing broadband prices across different countries is the cost per unit of speed. Ookla’s Home Value Index, based on hundreds of thousands of survey and speed test results from speedtest.net (its web-based service), compares and ranks countries by the median cost in U.S. dollars per Megabit per second (Mbps). 70 The average weighted price per Mbps in the United States fell from $6.14 in 2011 to $5.39 in 2012, and again in 2013 to $4.30. By this metric, the United States ranked 21st least expensive out of 37 countries in 2012 and 23rd least expensive out of 37 countries in 2013, showing improvement from its 2011 ranking of 25th least expensive out of 35 countries surveyed. Bulgaria and Lithuania had the least expensive price per unit of speed for 2011, 2012, and 2013. Brazil and India were the most expensive in 2012, while India and Chile were the most expensive in 2013. 37. Mobile Broadband. Any discussion of mobile broadband pricing data must be prefaced with a word of caution. Mobile broadband pricing plans are complex and every country has different reporting and advertising standards. For example, advertising about the speed of the broadband appears to vary widely across countries. Most foreign carriers only list the theoretical maximum available speeds, i.e., they report 100 Mbps for 4G and 42.2 Mbps for 3G and HSPA+. In contrast, in the United States, the advertised speed for a 3G plan is often 3.1 Mbps and advertised speeds for 4G plans range from 5 Mbps to 42 Mbps. Moreover, 4G/LTE networks are more widespread in the United States than in most of the countries surveyed, but the data does not reflect that a provider’s 4G service may have only limited availability (e.g., in portions of a few cities). Plus, 3G and 4G/LTE plans are all grouped together. 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 voice minutes and text messages included in the plans. Also, mobile broadband can be purchased in pre-paid or post-paid plans, and we focused only on post-paid plans for purposes of this Report. Given these issues, and other limitations, meaningful international comparisons of mobile pricing are extremely difficult. We provide 69 Although there are 40 comparison countries in total, not all countries will be represented in every plan type and/or speed tier. 70 See http://www.netindex.com/value for more information. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 13 the data we have gathered on mobile broadband plans in the Appendix C. For the 40 countries we surveyed, the 2012 dataset includes 973 smartphone plans, 579 stick modem plans, and 455 tablet plans. The 2013 dataset includes 1,598 smartphone plans, 637 stick modem plans, and 646 tablet plans. 38. Smartphone plans. For smartphone plans with usage limits of less than 1 GB per month and limited voice minutes, the U.S. average monthly price of $60.74 was the second most expensive plan (out of 35 countries) for 2012, with an average usage limit of 0.3 GB. In 2012, Estonia had the lowest average monthly price at $4.48 for a 0.1 GB plan, and Greece had the highest at $66.57 with an average usage limit of 0.53 GB. Italy had the lowest average monthly price in 2013 at $5.79 with 0.25 GB of data, and Brazil had the highest average monthly price at $109.89 with an average usage limit of 0.46 GB. The United States did not have any plans in this category for 2013. For smartphone plans with data usage limits of 1<5 GB and unlimited minutes, the average monthly price for U.S. plans was $66.66 with an average usage limit of 3.33 GB (12th least expensive out of 20 countries). The average monthly price in the United States for a plan with 1<5 GB and unlimited minutes increased to $93.08 with an average usage limit of 2.38 GB in 2013 (second most expensive of 28 countries). Slovakia had the least expensive plans in this category in 2012 with an average monthly cost of $18.45 (for 1 GB) and Greece had the most expensive average cost at $165.29 (for 1.5 GB). In 2013, Lithuania had the least expensive average monthly price at $3.31 (for 1.5 GB), while Hungary had the most expensive plan at $129.26 with an average usage limit of 2.5 GB. The United States is one of a smaller group of countries that offer smartphone plans with unlimited data and unlimited minutes. Among countries with such plans, the United States ranked fifth least expensive out of nine countries in 2012 and fourth least expensive out of five countries in 2013. The average price for a smartphone plan with unlimited data and unlimited minutes in the United States in 2012 and 2013 was less expensive than the average price for surveyed plans that came with limits, except for plans with the most restrictive limits of less than 1 GB. The number of countries with plans with unlimited data and unlimited minutes decreased from nine to five, suggesting that many countries are moving away from fully unlimited plans; however, the number of plans sampled for the United States increased from eight to 13. 39. Stick modem plans. Among stick modem plans with data limits of 5 GB or more per month, the United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in terms of average monthly price ($56.75) with an average data limit of 8.92 GB in 2012. In 2013, the average monthly price increased to $131.16 (making the United States the most expensive country); however, the average usage limit also increased to 16.74 GB. In terms of price per GB, the United States ranked 27th in 2012 with an average all- inclusive price of $6.52 per GB. In 2013, the United States ranked 35th (of 38 countries) with an average price per GB of $8.49. 40. Tablet plans. Among tablet plans with data limits of 5 GB or more per month, the United States ranked 29th out of 31 countries in terms of average monthly price ($68.92) with an average data limit of 9.13 GB in 2012. In 2013, the United States ranked last (of 37 countries) with an average monthly price of $112.39; however, the average usage limit increased to 16.2 GB. In terms of price per GB, the United States ranked 23rd (of 30 countries) with an average all-inclusive price of $7.98 per GB. 71 In 2013, the United States ranked 29th of 37 countries with an average price per GB of $7.45. 41. Data Usage Limits. For fixed broadband plans, the United States had the seventh highest maximum usage limit of 24 countries in 2012 and the highest of 25 countries in 2013, while its average usage limit was fourth highest in 2012 and second highest in 2013. This indicates that most of the limited data plans in the United States have relatively high usage limits, compared with other countries with limited data plans. For mobile broadband (smartphone plans), about half of the countries in the sample offered unlimited smartphone plans in both 2012 and 2013. The United States had the second highest number of unlimited plans in each year. The United States had the highest maximum usage limit at 50 71 The all-inclusive per GB is calculated on an individual plan basis and then averaged. As a result, the average all- inclusive per GB is not identical to dividing the average monthly cost by the average data limit. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 14 GB in 2012 and again in 2013 at 75 GB. E. Other Relevant Information and International Developments 42. Community Level Comparison. In addition to requiring the Commission to gather data on broadband service capability, the BDIA directs the Commission to compare broadband development in communities similar to U.S. communities in terms of population size, density, and topographic profile. 72 Consistent with our approach in previous reports, we provide the most recent publicly available data for each variable in the community dataset in Appendix D. Data for communities not covered by the OECD and Eurostat datasets are drawn from national statistical agencies, communications ministries, and communications regulators. 73 43. Relevant Similarities and Differences. The BDIA also directs the Commission, for the foreign communities selected, to identify “relevant similarities and differences” across several criteria. 74 For each foreign country included in this IBDR, Commission staff gathered, information on (1) topography, (2) the regulatory environment, including national broadband plans, (3) the market structure, including the number of competitors, (4) broadband penetration, and the types of network technologies deployed, (5) types of applications and services used, and (6) other media, specifically television and radio outlets, available to consumers. Appendix E contains the detailed information on the 39 foreign countries that we selected to use in this Report. 44. Defining Broadband Goals. Many countries in our survey either define broadband service or set targets for certain levels of broadband service at speeds higher than the 4 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload standard that we used prior to increasing the benchmark to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps in the 2015 Broadband Progress Report. 75 In 2011 for instance, Canada’s Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) set a target for broadband Internet access services across Canada, defining broadband as service with speed of at least 5 Mbps for downloads and 1 Mbps for uploads. 76 Canada expects that its entire population will have access to such service by 2015. 77 The EU defines a broadband connection as one that enables a download speed higher than 144 kbps. 78 The EU deems download 72 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). 73 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. 74 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. 75 2015 Broadband Progress Report at para. 3. 76 CRTC sets speed target for broadband Internet and maintains obligation to provide basic home telephone service, May 3, 2011, http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2011/r110503.htm. 77 Id. 78 Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2014 Electronic Communications Market Indicators: Definitions, Methodology and Footnotes on Member State Data, available at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/pillar-4-fast-and-ultra-fast- Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 15 speeds above 144 Kbps and below 30 Mbps to be “basic broadband,” download connections between 30 Mbps and 100 Mbps “fast broadband,” and download connections above 100 Mbps “ultrafast broadband.” 79 The Digital Agenda for Europe sets goals of covering the entire EU with fast broadband by 2020, and ensuring that 50 percent of the EU subscribes to ultrafast broadband by 2020. 80 Australia’s government is committed to completing the National Broadband Network and providing 25 Mbps downloads to all premises and 50 Mbps downloads to 90 percent of premises as soon as possible. 81 45. Next Generation Fixed Networks. Public and private sector investment in next generation networks continues to make gigabit service a real choice for more consumers. Investment in high-speed fixed networks in the United States continues to rise, for example. At the time we released the Third IBDR, Google was readying the first affordable gigabit fiber network in the United States in Kansas City. Since then, Google Fiber has entered the market and offers symmetrical 1 Gbps broadband services in Kansas City, Austin, and Provo, Utah. 82 Cedar Falls, Iowa launched a municipal gigabit system, available to both business and residential customers, in May 2013. 83 Other gigabit systems are under development or already are operating in Vermont, 84 Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Omaha, among others. 85 In 2013, So-Net, an ISP affiliated with Sony, began offering 2 Gbps residential service to parts of Tokyo. 86 Several countries are developing government-backed fiber networks. The New Zealand government has pledged to invest up to NZ$1.35 billion (US$1.04 billion) to connect 75 percent of New Zealanders to ultra-fast broadband (100 Mbps download/50 Mbps upload) by 2020. 87 Singapore’s government-backed internet-access. In 2010, the European Commission estimated that the minimum download speed provided by most broadband providers was 1-2 Mbps. Id. 79 A Digital Agenda for Europe, European Commission, Brussels, 19.5.201, COM(2010)245 final, pp. 18, 40 available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/ALL/;ELX_SESSIONID=2kpQJTlJ2nFyTnQGhNZ9HrBNMMBnHJjvwtGLdl0Kn36QSrNzhlQG!2211 41805?uri=CELEX:52010DC0245R(01). See also Digital Agenda for Europe, About our Goals, http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/about-our-goals. 80 Id. 81 See Letter of Government Expectations from The Hon. Malcom Turnbull MP, Minister for Communication and Senator The Hon. Mathias Cormann to Dr. Ziggy Switkowski, Executive Chairman NBN Co. Limited, April 8, 2014, available at http://www.communications.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/221162/SOE_Shareholder_Minister_letter.pdf. 82 Google Fiber, Our Cities, https://fiber.google.com/ourcities/ (last visited Jan. 5, 2015) (Google Fiber Cities). 83 Google’s Not the Only One with Super-High-Speed Internet Plans, CNN-Money, June 18, 2013, available at http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/18/googles-not-the-only-one-with-super-high-speed-internet- plans/?section=money_topstories; Cedar Falls Leads Iowa with Online Speed; Offers 1 Gigabit-per-Second Downloads, DesMoinesRegister.com, May 29, 2013, available at http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130529/BUSINESS04/305290045/. 84 “Vermont Gets a Gigabit Network. And It Only Costs Residents $35 a Month,” Gigaom, April 26, 2013, available at https://gigaom.com/2013/04/26/vermont-gets-a-gigabit-network-and-it-only-costs-residents-35-a-month/. See also website of Vtel, the telecommunications provider offering gigabit service (http://www.vermontel.com/internet). 85 “Cox Will Start Its Gigabit Internet Rollout in Phoenix, Las Vegas and Omaha,” Engadget, May 24, 2014, available at http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/24/cox-gigabit-cities/. 86 “Sony-Backed ISP Unveils 2Gbps Internet Service in Japan,” PC mag.com, April 16, 2013, available at http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2417845,00.asp. See also http://www.so- net.ne.jp/access/hikari/nuro_hikari/. 87 Statement to the Commerce Commission Concerning Incentives for Businesses to Invest in Ultra-fast Broadband Infrastructure, Oct. 13, 2011, available at http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/technology- Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 16 Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network (with download speeds of up to 1 Gbps) was available to 95 percent of homes and businesses by July 2013. 88 Australia’s National Broadband Network will use a combination of technologies (fiber, satellite, fixed wireless) in order to make 25 Mbps download service available to all Australians as soon as possible. 89 Korea’s regulator, KCC, stated in 2009 that it would invest KRW34.1 trillion over five years (KRW1.3 trillion in government funds and the remainder from private sources) in the ultra broadband convergence network, with fixed download speeds of 1 Gbps and mobile download speeds of 10 Mbps. 90 46. Mobile Broadband. In the United States, mobile broadband network deployment 91 by multiple providers has continued to expand and, as of January 2014, 99.9 percent of the U.S. population lived in areas with coverage by at least one mobile broadband provider, up from approximately 98.5 percent in August 2010. 92 The percentage of the population covered by at least three mobile broadband providers increased from 82 percent in August 2010 to 93.4 percent in January 2014. The percentage of the population living in a census block with mobile wireless coverage by at least four providers has not changed significantly since 2012. 93 47. In the Third IBDR, we reported on global 4G/LTE trends, noting that the United States communication/pdf-docs-library/communications/broadband-policy/UFB-Government-Policy-Statement.pdf; Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, Ultra-Fast Broadband Initiative, http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors- industries/technology-communication/fast-broadband/ultra-fast-broadband-initiative. 88 Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network Fact Sheet, Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore, available at http://www.ida.gov.sg/~/media/Files/Infocomm%20Landscape/Infrastructure/Wired/NextGenNBNFACTSHEET.pd f; “Singapore is World No. 2 in Use of IT for Growth,” Straits Times, April 13, 2013. 89 See Letter of Government Expectations from The Hon. Malcom Turnbull MP, Minister for Communication and Senator The Hon. Mathias Cormann to Dr. Ziggy Switkowski, Executive Chairman NBN Co. Limited, April 8, 2014, available at http://www.communications.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/221162/SOE_Shareholder_Minister_letter.pdf. See also http://www.nbnco.com.au/about-the-nbn/network-technology.html#.VGvHL_nF_To. 90 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: South Korea (2014) (accessed Nov. 19, 2014); Korea Communications Commission, Important Issues, http://eng.kcc.go.kr/user.do?page=E02010100&dc=E02010100. 91 “Mobile broadband” for purposes of this section in this Report includes coverage and services offered using the following 3G and 4G technologies: EVDO, EVDO Rev A, WCDMA/HSPA, HSPA+, LTE, and mobile WiMAX. This is how the Commission defines mobile broadband in the Seventeenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report. See 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. 13-135, Seventeenth Report, DA 14-1862, para. 46 (2014) (Seventeenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report). 92 The Commission’s census block analysis using 2013-2014 Mosaik Solutions®, Coverage Rights Data (Mosaik). Mosaik provides data to the Commission under contract on facilities-based providers in the form of coverage boundary maps. The data is based on the coverage boundaries that mobile wireless network operators provide to Mosaik. SeeMosaik, About Us, http://www.mosaik.com/about-us/ (visited July. 7, 2014). This data likely overstate the coverage actually experienced by consumers, because the data set has certain limitations, including reflecting advertised coverage as reported by various mobile service providers, each of which uses a different definition or determination of coverage. See Seventeenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report, para. 47. The Commission estimates mobile deployment differently in the 2015 Broadband Progress Report. See 2015 Broadband Progress Report at p. 60. 93 The number of providers with coverage in a census block does not necessarily reflect the number of choices available to a particular individual or household for service subscription. See Seventeenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report, para. 47. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 17 led the way in adoption of this mobile technology. 94 The United States still leads the world in 4G/LTE adoption, two years later. The global LTE subscriber base reached more than 66 million at the end of 2012, 95 with U.S. subscribers accounting for over half of all 4G/LTE subscriptions globally. 96 Pyramid predicts that by 2017, 70 percent of mobile subscriptions in the United States will be LTE (262 million). 97 A May 2013 GSM Association (GSMA) report indicates that more than 10 percent of U.S. wireless connections were LTE, in contrast to less than one percent of E.U. wireless connections, by late 2012. 98 At the end of 2013, U.S. consumers comprised 50 percent of the world’s LTE connections, despite U.S. consumers representing only five percent of the world’s wireless connections. 99 The United States, Japan, and Korea will account for 82 percent of global LTE subscriptions at the end of 2014, with the United States having 99.4 million LTE subscriptions. 100 According to Ovum, the number of global LTE subscribers reached 250 million in the first quarter of 2014, with Verizon Wireless and AT&T accounting for 35 percent of global LTE subscriptions. 101 The United Kingdom leads both Western Europe and all of Europe in LTE subscriptions with over 6 million, while Russia leads Eastern Europe with more than 2 million. 102 There are 96 LTE networks in Europe. 103 48. Use of LTE networks is also on the rise. Cisco reports that global mobile data traffic in 2013 (1.5 exabytes/month) was up 81 percent over 2012 (820 petabytes/month, or 18 times the size of the entire Internet in 2000); 104 moreover, global mobile data traffic in 2012 was already up 70 percent over 2011. 105 Over half of all mobile data traffic in 2013 (53 percent) was mobile video. 106 Significantly, 94 We noted that by the end of 2011, U.S. LTE subscribers numbered 5.6 million, accounting for 64% of the roughly 9 million LTE subscribers worldwide. See Third IBDR, 27 FCC Rcd 9884, 9885 (2012). 95 Telegeography Research: Wireless Subscribers by Region, available at http://www.telegeography.com/products/globalcomms/world-and-regional-totals/wireless-subscribers-by- region/index.html (accessed April 22, 2013). 96 According to Informa Telecoms & Media World WCIS (World Cellular Information Service) data, at the end of 2012, the United States had approximately 35 million LTE subscribers. See http://www.informatandm.com/about/wcis/. 97 Report: U.S. LTE Subscribers Will Make Up 70% of Connections by 2017, FierceWireless, June 11, 2013, available at http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/report-us-lte-subscribers-will-make-70-connections-2017/2013-06- 11. 98 Mobile Wireless Performance in the EU & the US, May 2013, GSMA and Navigant Economics, available at http://www.gsmamobilewirelessperformance.com/GSMA_Mobile_Wireless_Performance_May2013.pdf, at 21(GSMA Report). 99 CTIA Mobile Sector Snapshot, Nov. 2013, http://blog.ctia.org/2013/11/13/mobile-sector-snapshot/. 100 Informa Telecoms and Media, Smartphone use transforming with the rise of 4G and Wi-Fi, September 2014, http://www.telecomsacademy.com/download-the-smartphone-use-transforming-with-the-rise-of-4g-and-wi-fi-white- paper/. 101 Ovum reveals global LTE subscriptions reach 250 million milestone, September 2014, Ovum, available at http://www.ovum.com/press_releases/ovum-reveals-global-lte-subscriptions-reach250-million-milestone/. 102 Id. 103 Id. 104 Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2013-2018, Feb. 5, 2014, available at http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index- vni/white_paper_c11-520862.html. (2014 Cisco VNI). 105 Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2012-2017, Feb. 6, 2013, p. 1, available at http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/white_paper_c11- 520862.pdf. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 18 Cisco points out that 4G connections generated 14.5 times more traffic than non-4G connections, accounting for 30 percent of all mobile data traffic (even though 4G connections were only 2.9 percent of mobile connections in 2013). 107 In addition, Cisco anticipates that global mobile data will expand eleven- fold between 2013 and 2018. 108 By the end of 2014, Cisco predicts that the number of mobile-connected devices will exceed the world’s population (1.4 devices per capita). 109 The GSMA reported that by the end of 2013, 256 LTE networks were in commercial operation in 100 countries (and GSMA predicts 500 LTE networks in 128 countries by 2017). 110 49. The rise of smartphones appears to be directly related to the increase in world-wide mobile data traffic. A Pew Research Center study revealed that as of May 2013, more than half of all American adults (56 percent) owned a smartphone -- up from 35 percent in 2011 and 48 percent in 2012. 111 Cisco reports that smart devices handled 88 percent of global mobile data traffic in 2013, while representing only 21 percent of all mobile devices in use. 112 Further evidence of the importance of smartphones and mobile data can be seen in American consumers’ spending habits. In 2012, for the first time, U.S. consumers spent more on mobile data, $94.8 billion (up from $71.1 billion in 2011), than on mobile voice services, $92.4 billion. 113 The International Data Corporation predicts that Americans will spend $118.6 billion on mobile data in 2013. 50. In the Third IBDR, we noted how the rise of the mobile app has been instrumental in the growth of mobile broadband. The mobile app sector continues to be strong. For example, Apple Computer’s App Store had 20 billion downloads in 2012 alone, 114 and 50 billion total from the store’s inception in 2008, to May 2013. 115 U.S.-created smartphone operating systems continue to dominate globally, with Android phones in 85 percent of worldwide smartphone shipments in the second quarter of 2014 (Apple’s iOS worldwide share was second with 12 percent and Microsoft Windows platform held 106 2014 Cisco VNI. 107 2014 Cisco VNI. Rapid expansion of LTE can be seen in the Verizon’s recent history. In January 2013, Verizon reported that almost half of its data traffic travels over its LTE network, a marked increase from the previous October when 35 percent of Verizon’s data moved across the LTE network. See Verizon: Almost 50 % of data traffic now goes over LTE network, FierceWireless, January 9, 2013, available at http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizon-almost-50-data-traffic-now-goes-over-lte-network/2013-01- 09#ixzz2RObTX1Ds. 108 See 2014 Cisco VNI. 109 See 2014 Cisco VNI. 110 GSMA REPORT: http://www.gsmamobileeconomy.com/GSMA_ME_Report_2014_R_NewCover.pdf, at p. 14. 111 Smartphone Ownership 2013, Pew Internet & American Life Project, June 5, 2013, available at http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Smartphone-Ownership-2013/Findings.aspx#. 112 See 2014 Cisco VNI. 113 Mobile Data Spending Outpaces Voice for First Time, Hayley Tsukayama, Washington Post, March 4, 2013, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/mobile-data-spending-outpaces-voice-for-first- time/2013/03/04/8bc6c542-84dd-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html. 114 “Apple App Store Hits 40 Billion Downloads; 20 Billion in 2012, Alone,” CNET News, Jan. 7 2013, available at http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57562400-37/apple-app-store-hits-40-billion-downloads-20-billion-in-2012- alone/. 115 “Apple Reached 50 Billionth App Download with Google on its Tail, Salvador Rodriguez, Los Angeles Times, May 16, 2013, available at http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-50-billionth-app-download- google-20130516,0,3158946.story. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 19 third place with 2.7 percent share). 116 51. Usage Trends. Sandvine, a provider of network equipment and traffic management systems, prepares The Global Internet Phenomena Report every six months, illustrating just how consumers are using broadband networks. These reports examine how people in different regions (Asia- Pacific, Europe, North America, and more recently Latin America and Africa) are using fixed and mobile broadband networks. For the first half of 2013, Sandvine reported that in Europe, monthly mobile data consumption (including both uploads and downloads) averaged 311 MB per subscriber, compared to 700.4 MB per subscriber in Asia-Pacific, and 390.1 MB per subscriber in North America. 117 For the first half of 2014, Sandvine reported increasing mean mobile data consumption figures for these regions: 394.4 MB per subscriber for Europe; 1.1 GB per subscriber for Asia-Pacific, and 465.2 MB per subscriber for North America. 118 Monthly data consumption (including both uploads and downloads) on fixed broadband networks in North America averaged 44.7 GB in the first half of 2013 119 and 51.4 GB for the first half of 2014. 120 52. For the first half of 2014, monthly fixed broadband networks averaged 39.6 GB per customer in Asia-Pacific and 20.4 GB in Europe. 121 A large portion, over 63 percent during peak periods, of North American fixed data traffic is real-time entertainment (e.g., Netflix and YouTube). 122 In Europe, 43.3 percent of peak download fixed traffic is real-time entertainment, though the depending on the country, the percentage ranges from 22 percent to 65 percent of downstream traffic. 123 Real-time entertainment accounts for around 50 percent of total downstream traffic during peak periods in Asia- Pacific. 124 53. American consumers are supplementing their traditional viewing habits with online content (e.g., via Netflix, Hulu, AmazonPrime). A growing number of consumers are turning to their broadband data connections for all video programming needs. In 2013, Nielsen reported that 5 million people in the United States no longer watch traditional television (that is, via over-the-air broadcast or 116 “The One-Horse Race: 85 percent Of The 300M Smartphones Shipped In Q2 Were Android,” TechCruch, July 30, 2014, available at http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/30/the-one-horse-race-android-represented-85-of-the-300m- smartphones-shipped-in-q2/. (Android controlled 75 percent of worldwide smartphone shipments in the first quarter of 2013 (Apple’s iOS worldwide market share was second with 17.3 percent and Microsoft Windows platform held third place with 3.2 percent market share). IDC: Android OEM Shipped 162M Smartphones in Q1, More than 4x Apple’s Rate; Windows Phone Now in (Distant) Third, TechCrunch, May 16, 2013, available at http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/16/idc-android-oems-shipped-162m-smartphones-in-q1-more-than-4x-apples-rate- windows-phone-now-a-distant-third/. 117 Global Internet Phenomena Report 1H 2013, Sandvine Intelligent Broadband Networks, 2013, pp. . 8, 16, 25, available at https://www.sandvine.com/downloads/general/global-internet-phenomena/2013/sandvine-global- internet-phenomena-report-1h-2013.pdf (2013 Sandvine Report). 118 Global Internet Phenomena Report 2H 2012, Sandvine Intelligent Broadband Networks, 2014, pp. 8, 14, 26, available at https://www.sandvine.com/downloads/general/global-internet-phenomena/2014/1h-2014-global- internet-phenomena-report.pdf (2014 Sandvine Report). 119 2013 Sandvine Report, p. 5. Sandvine did not provide aggregate fixed data use for Asia-Pacific in the first half of 2013. Europe’s aggregate average fixed data consumption per customer was 13.4 GB per month, significantly less than the U.S. figure. Id. at p. 12. 120 2014 Sandvine Report, p. 5 121 2014 Sandvine Report, pp. 11, 24. 122 2014 Sandvine Report, p. 5. 123 2014 Sandvine Report, p. 11. 124 2014 Sandvine Report, p. 24. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 20 cable/satellite subscription) and instead obtain video programming via smartphones, tablets, set-top devices (such as a Roku box), or computers, and in some cases, even if the person has a cable or satellite subscription. 125 54. Efforts to Improve International Broadband Data. As we indicated in the previous reports, available data 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. In the Third IBDR, we detailed steps that the OECD and U.S. government have taken to standardize broadband metrics. 126 In a joint effort with the U.S. Departments of Commerce and State, the Commission’s International Bureau initiated and advanced a U.S. government proposal within the OECD in mid-2011 to develop meaningful cross-sectional and longitudinal broadband data that can be used to gauge economic and societal impacts of broadband deployment and use within and across countries. 55. The OECD High Level meeting on the Internet Economy, held in June 2011 urged OECD member countries to develop a harmonized metrics framework for improving broadband benchmarking. The Ministers of OECD countries commended the U.S. initiative in proposing a new and revised set of metrics for broadband and the Internet Economy (the “Metrics Checklist”) that could be used to better gauge the level of broadband penetration in member countries and the economic and societal effects it enables. In October 2011, the United States hosted an initial OECD workshop on metrics for broadband and the Internet economy with a view to accelerating the development of the new metrics framework. The workshop made significant progress in examining the current approaches to measuring the broadband metrics, in understanding the need for such metrics, and further developing the metrics checklist. The outcome of the workshop was reported to the meeting of the Information, Computer and Communications Policy (ICCP) Committee held in October 2011 and the December 2011 meetings of the ICCP Working Parties, (i.e., Working Party on Communication Infrastructures and Service Policy (WPCISP), Working Party on the Information Economy, and Working Party on Indicators for the Information Society). At the December 2011 Working Party meetings, it was decided to hold a second workshop to further develop the work. The second workshop took place in London in June 2012. Following the second workshop, the technical papers were updated to include the recommendations. 127 56. In the December 2012 meetings, the ICCP Working Parties discussed the arguments, recommendations, and conclusions of the second workshop papers. Each Working Party considered whether to accept the recommendations and how to take forward the future work. The recommendations included: (a) a new proposed definition of broadband (tiered); (b) a subset of meaningful cross-sectional and time-series data that can be implemented quickly and that describe the deployment of broadband services, who adopts them and what services are adopted; and (c) comparable cross-sectional and time- series data, both qualitative and quantitative, that identify the drivers of Internet usage and its impact on innovation, productivity and entrepreneurship within and across countries. 57. As a result, all 34 OECD members, including the United States, agreed to adopt the initial set of short-term broadband metrics recommended ((a) and (b), above). Most OECD members are planning to submit the new metrics (specifically, data available under item “(a)” as noted above) as part of the OECD’s new flagship times-series publication, “The Digital Economy Outlook,” planned for release in spring 2015. 125 “More Americans opting to Cut Cord on Traditional TV,” CNET News, March 11, 2013, available at http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57573734-93/more-americans-opting-to-cut-cord-on-traditional-tv/. 126 Third IBDR, 27 FCC Rcd at 9901-02 (2012). 127 The papers are available at: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/internet/oecd/technical-workshop/. The second workshop was webcast and can be accessed at: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/internet/oecd/presentations/. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 21 58. Work is still underway pertaining to topics listed under item “(b),” above. At the most recent OECD meeting of the WPCISP, held in June 2013, several OECD members suggested that a third technical metrics workshop be held to determine how best to assist members in their implementation of the short-term broadband metrics outlined above, as well as advance work in other areas, including, notably, metrics related to pricing of broadband services using hedonic indices. 128 59. On September 12, 2014, the Commission hosted an OECD Roundtable entitled “Hedonic Price Analysis of Communication Services,” bringing together FCC experts from several bureaus as well as academics, statisticians and data analysts from the U.S. government, universities and international institutions. The forthcoming OECD paper (“Triple- and quadruple-play bundles of communications services”) served as the basis for the discussion. The aim of the workshop was two-fold: (i) to learn from past experiences in applying hedonic price analysis to goods and services other than communications and, (ii) to improve and develop tools for hedonic price analysis of communication services, including future research areas. 60. The set of longer-term metrics related to other macro-economic impacts of the Internet on national productivity (as described in “(c),” above) has yet to be finalized, but the OECD remains committed to continuing to focus on ICT metrics as it prepares for its next Ministerial in Mexico City in spring 2016. IV. CONCLUSION 61. In conjunction with the Commission’s adoption of the 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the release of this Report fulfills the obligation imposed by Section 103(b) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act. 129 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 62. 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 Report, with its associated Appendices A-G, is ADOPTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mindel De La Torre Chief, International Bureau 128 The OECD has been using the baskets methodology for comparing communication prices across countries for over 20 years. As concluded by the OECD project (“Towards a New OECD Metrics Checklist”), hedonic price analysis could complement the OECD baskets by adding a new perspective. A hedonic regression model estimates values for individual characteristics of a product or service. Hedonic models are based on the idea that products or services can be viewed as a bundle of characteristics that are valued by both buyers and sellers. Price represents the value of characteristics of the products or services. See, e.g., Jack E. Triplett, Economic Interpretation of Hedonic Methods, Survey of Current Business, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce, January 1986, 36- 40; see also OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms, available at http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=1225. 129 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 1 FOURTH INTERNATIONAL BROADBAND REPORT APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Country List APPENDIX B: Broadband Price Dataset APPENDIX C: Broadband Price Discussion and Tables APPENDIX D: Demographics Dataset APPENDIX E: Market and Regulatory Background APPENDIX F: Comparing International Fixed Broadband Speeds APPENDIX G: Broadband Deployment (European Union (EU) countries) Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 1 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 Brazil X X X Bulgaria X X X X Canada X X X X Chile X X 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 India 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 Lithuania X X X X Luxembourg X X X X Mexico X X X X Netherlands X X X X Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 2 New Zealand X X X X Norway X X X X Poland X X X X Portugal X X 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 X Turkey X X X X U.K. X X X X USA X X X Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 1 Appendix B: Broadband Price Dataset This dataset can be found on the FCC website at http://www.fcc.gov/reports/international- broadband-data-report-fourth. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 1 Appendix C Broadband Price Discussion and Tables 1. Introduction As we have noted in the previous IBDRs, complexity in the pricing of residential broadband services complicates any analysis of pricing across countries. 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. Further, identifying the price of broadband becomes even more complicated when broadband is bundled with other services, such as telephone or video service. 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 C provides a best-effort report on available fixed and wireless broadband plans for 40 countries, including all OECD countries, 3 the quality attributes of each plan, their advertised and promotional prices, and non-recurring charges associated with each plan. 4 In this Appendix C, we discuss the data on pricing plans in detail for fixed broadband and for 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 The 40 countries we examined for this report include the same 38 covered in the price data in the Third IBDR, along with the addition of two new countries, India and Brazil. Staff gathered data on the same plans as those used in the Third IBDR. For cases where the provider’s plan offerings changed, staff selected the most similar option to the previously selected plan. In addition to incorporating all previously gathered data on pricing plans, new plans were included to better represent the expanding selection of “high-end” plans. 4 The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s Seventeenth Annual Mobile Wireless Competition Report also provides an analysis of wireless service prices, though its focus is different than the IBDR’s. See Seventeenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report. See 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. 13-135, Seventeenth Report, DA 14-1862, (2014) (Seventeenth Wireless Competition Report). The Seventeenth Wireless Competition Report’s price analysis is primarily focuses on price rivalry and the various actions the providers have undertaken in the past years (e.g, introduction of equipment installment payment plans in lieu of the handset subsidy and contract plan approach). Id. at Section V., Pricing Levels and Trends. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 2 mobile broadband. Our discussion of fixed broadband pricing plans includes breakdowns and rankings of prices by advertised speed, not actual speed. An analysis of broadband prices based on actual speeds would result in improved rankings for those countries whose actual speeds are closer to advertised speeds (i.e., those countries with less gap between advertised and actual speeds would have better price rankings). For practical reasons, however, we are unable to independently determine actual speeds in each of the countries we researched, and providers are not uniform in disclosing actual speeds that customers experience. For fixed broadband, however, we evaluate prices per unit of speed, using Ookla’s Home Value Index, and compare countries based on speed-adjusted prices. 5 2. Data on Residential Fixed Broadband Prices The dataset comes in two parts. The first, for 2012, includes 1,856 residential post-paid fixed broadband offers by all major Internet service providers for 40 countries, including 140 U.S. plans. Staff gathered this pricing information between September 2012 and December 2012. 6 The second part includes information on 2,174 residential post-paid plans, including 201 plans in the United States. This information was collected between September 2013 and June 2014. 7 The dataset includes information on advertised monthly recurring charges and nonrecurring charges for four types of plans: standalone broadband plans, double play packages, triple play packages, and quad play packages. 8 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 also is included. 9 For each broadband service offering, the dataset includes upload and download speeds, limitations on data usage, and information on the types of technology offered. In the 2012 portion there are 597 DSL plans, 197 VDSL plans, 485 cable plans, 561 fiber plans, and 15 satellite plans. 10 The 5 Ookla Home Value Index. See section 3 for more detail. 6 We assembled the data by visiting 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. Our price data reflects only what a given provider was offering at the specific point in time we accessed the 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 this 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. 7 Although the collection of some of this data extended into 2014, for convenience purposes we refer to this collection as “2013” data in this report. 8 Double play packages consist of broadband paired with either home telephone or video service. Triple play packages consist of broadband, home telephone, and video services. Quad play packages include broadband, home telephone, video, and mobile broadband services. 9 We did not collect information on VATs (value added taxes) or sales tax. Provider websites varied regarding whether taxes were or were not included in their rates. 10 The DSL category includes DSL, ADSL, ADSL2+, XDSL, SHDSL, DSLD, LAN, XDSL, and SIOL Telephony; VDSL includes VDSL and VDSL2; cable includes regular cable and the upgraded DOCSIS3 technology; fiber includes, regular fiber, FTTH and NGN. Some plans did not list some characteristics and were dropped from the final dataset. The raw dataset, with complete pricing information for every fixed and mobile plan, is available on the Commission website at http://www.fcc.gov/reports/international-broadband-data-report-fourth. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 3 2013 portion includes information on 593 DSL plans, 124 VDSL plans, 418 cable plans, 731 fiber plans, and 21 satellite plans. Appendix C Table 1a shows the number of plans for each country, disaggregated by the type of broadband bundle. To compare prices across countries, we first construct an annual or monthly price that reflects all rebates, charges, and fees associated with each plan. This price reflects all recurring and nonrecurring charges associated with the plan. To accomplish this, we first estimate the total amount that the customer pays over the life of the contract 11 using the following formula: 12 All-inclusive price for the contract term 13 = (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. We then calculate the monthly all-inclusive price by dividing it by the length of the contract. Next, we convert all prices to U.S. dollars based on both current exchange rates 14 and purchasing power parity (PPP) ratios. 15 We use both approaches since each methodology has its own advantages and limitations. 16 In the Appendix C Tables 1b-1e, we report average monthly all-inclusive prices calculated by both PPP and exchange rate. 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 simple average price comparisons. 17 Also, our data collection does not include details 11 An alternative method would be to calculate the price a consumer would pay for the first 12 months of subscribing the fixed broadband service. However, this method may bias the resulting price variable as some of the one-time rebates will be deducted from the price over the first 12 month, rather than over the entire contract period, which is usually 18 months or more. This would 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 would bias prices upwards. 12 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. 13 The all-inclusive price includes both the monthly charges for data and voice usage paid by the consumer and the prorated amounts of any installation costs, set-up fees, and other one-time charges. 14 Exchange rates fluctuate on a daily basis. The exchange rates were obtained from the World Bank: Official exchange rates (LCU per U.S.$, period average), available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.FCRF. We used the World Bank’s 2011 exchange rates for the 2012 pricing data and its 2012 exchange rates for the 2013 pricing data. 15 The PPP conversion factors (2012) we used for each country were obtained from the International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2012. PPP conversion factors (2013) were obtained from the International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2013. 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. The PPP conversion is an accepted method of equalizing purchasing power in different countries, thereby enhancing comparative studies. 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. 16 See Rodney L. Ludema, “Nominal Prices, Real Prices and Faux Prices: The Perils of Comparing Individual Prices at Purchasing Power Parity Exchange Rates” (2010) available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1575745 17 For example, the U.S. data includes a wider offering of fiber plans in 2013 as compared to 2012. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 4 about variations in video offerings, such as number and types of channels. Thus, our ability to analyze pricing trends is limited by not having full knowledge of how non-broadband bundle components (e.g., video or telephone options) may be affecting broadband price. In addition to distinguishing fixed plans by their usage limits, we also classify them by advertised download speed, using the following distinctions: (1) up to and including 25 Mbps, (2) greater than 25 up to and including 50 Mbps, and (3) greater than 50 Mbps. The second and third speed categories are combined for limited data plans because the number of countries in each of these groupings is relatively small. To facilitate comparison with the Third IBDR, for standalone broadband plans, we create sub- groups of the first category of 1?5 Mbps, greater than 5 up to and including 15 Mbps, and greater than 15 up to and including 25 Mbps. 2.1. Standalone Broadband Plans Prices for different service tiers vary widely. Within the full sample of plans for 2012, the least expensive standalone broadband plan in the sample is DSL for $14.95 per month with a download speed of 768 Kbps and a data limit of 150 GB, while the most expensive plan in the sample is FTTP for $209.99 per month with a download speed of 300 Mbps and unlimited data. 18 For 2013, the least expensive plan was a cable plan with a 2 GB data limit and a download speed of 16 Mbps for $2.44 per month, while the most expensive plan is FTTP for $1600 for 1 Gbps symmetric with unlimited data. 19 In the United States, standalone broadband plans with unlimited data and advertised download speeds up to and including 25 Mbps had an average cost of $44 per month in 2012. 20 The average monthly cost increased to $69 in 2013 for broadband plans with unlimited data and advertised download speeds up to and including 25 Mbps. For the multi-country sample, average monthly standalone plan prices in 2012 for unlimited data ranged from $20 (Estonia), with an average advertised speed of those plans of 9.33 Mbps, to $194 (Switzerland), with an average advertised speed of those plans of 9.67 Mbps. While in 2013, the price range of the plans ran from $22 (Bulgaria with an average advertised speed of plans of 17.5 Mbps and Israel with an average advertised speed of plans of 11.75 Mbps) to $159 (India with an average advertised speed of plans of 4 Mbps). The United States ranked 21st least expensive out of 34 countries for unlimited standalone broadband plans in 2012 and 31st least expensive out of 33 countries in 2013. The average advertised speed of the U.S. plans in that category, however, increased from 7.59 Mbps (28 th of 34 countries) to 10.73 Mbps in 2013 (19 th of 33 countries). For all standalone plans with advertised download speeds of greater than 15 up to and including 25 Mbps, the average price in the United States fell from $56.50 in 2011 to $50.02 in 2012. 21 This average price includes plans for all technology types, except satellite. The average price in the United States increased to $59.40 in 2013. While some countries also saw their standalone broadband prices fall from 2011 to 2012, larger relative reduction in the United States increased its ranking in 2012 from 26th 18 Least expensive plan: AT&T DSL Direct Lite (United States); Most expensive plan: Verizon FiOS 300/65 (United States). 19 Least expensive plan: TelstraClear 2GB (Australia); Most expensive plan: T-2 FTTH (1 Gbps Symmetric) (Slovenia). Prices reported using Monthly Net Price ($PPP). 20 See Appendix C Table 4e. Appendix C Tables 4f and 4g contain data on unlimited data plans with 25<50 Mbps and 50+ Mbps, respectively. 21 See Appendix C Table 2c. Appendix Tables 2a, 2b, and 2d show the average monthly all-inclusive price of standalone broadband plans for 1?5 Mbps, greater than 5 up to and including 15 Mbps, and greater than 25 up to and including 50 Mbps, respectively. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 5 least expensive to 20th least expensive (out of 32 countries) by this measure. 22 In 2013, the United States ranked 24th least expensive of the 30 countries with plans of this type. For all standalone broadband plans with data usage limits and an advertised download speed up to and including 25 Mbps, 23 the United States had an average monthly cost of around $50 in 2012. 24 The average cost increased to $61 in 2013. Bulgaria had the highest average monthly cost in both 2012 and 2013 at $243 and $241, respectively. Hungary had the lowest at just under $14 in 2012 and approximately $18 in 2013. The data usage limits varied widely by country. Note: Average prices exclude satellite. Plans included in this figure have data usage limits and their average advertised download speed is up to and including 25 Mbps. Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom are excluded because they do not have plans in this category. Taking data usage limits into account by calculating price per GB of data, the United States ranked fifth least expensive in 2012 with a price of $1.25 per GB and improved its ranking to fourth least expensive in 2013 with a price per GB of $1.65. 25 In 2013, New Zealand is the least expensive at $0.66 and Finland is the most expensive at $17.18. All data for standalone broadband plans with speeds up to and including 25 Mbps are presented in Appendix C Table 4a. Data for plans with speeds greater than 25 Mbps are presented in Appendix C Table 4b. 26 Many of the countries that have the lowest prices have 22 Although there are 40 comparison countries in total, not all countries will be represented in every plan type and/or speed tier. 23 This includes all standalone broadband plans with speeds up to and including 25 Mbps (as opposed to restricting the sample to 15<25 Mbps). 24 See Figure 1. 25 See Figure 2. 26 Speed groupings more easily comparable to the previous IBDR are available in Appendix Tables 4c-4d. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 M o n th ly N e t P r ic e ( $ P P P ) Figure 1 Average Monthly Net Price ($PPP) of Residential Broadband, 2012-2013 Standalone Plans with Limited Data and Advertised Download Speed up to and Including 25 Mbps 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 6 much lower usage limits, thus becoming the most expensive on a price per GB basis. Slovakia in 2012, for example, had the second least expensive offerings, but the third most expensive on a per GB basis. Note: The monthly all-inclusive price per GB reflects the average price per month, including rebates, installation charges, equipment charges (e.g., modem rentals) and other fees, divided by the average usage limit. Average prices exclude satellite. Plans included in this figure have data usage limits and their average advertised download speed is less than 25 Mbps. Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom are excluded because they do not have plans in this category. For all standalone broadband plans with advertised download speeds greater than 25 Mbps up to and including 50 Mbps, the United States had an average cost of $70.17 in 2012, which decreased slightly to $68.65 in 2013. In both years the average advertised download speed of the plans was 45 Mbps. In 2012, Austria had the least expensive average cost at $20.76 with an average advertised download speed of 38 Mbps. Lithuania and Denmark had the least expensive plans in this category in 2013 at $20.03 (at 48 Mbps) and $20.60 (at 30 Mbps), respectively. India had the most expensive average cost in both years at $161.15 in 2012 and $135.93 in 2013. Appendix C Table 2d illustrates the data on all countries included in our pricing plans gathering effort for all standalone broadband plans with advertised download speeds greater than 25 Mbps up to and including50 Mbps. For plans with unlimited usage and advertised download speeds greater than 25 Mbps up to and including 50 Mbps, the United States ranked 24th out of 29 countries with an average monthly cost of $74.25 (average advertised download speed of 44 Mbps) in 2012. In 2013, the United States again ranked 24th out of 30 countries with an average monthly cost of $69.08 (average advertised download speed of 45 Mbps). Lithuania had the least expensive plan in this category in both years at $13.75 in 2012 and $20.03 in 2013. India had the most expensive average monthly cost in 2012 at $161.15, while Turkey had the most expensive monthly cost at $236.56 in 2013. Appendix C Table 4f illustrates the data on all countries, for plans with unlimited usage and advertised download speeds greater than 25 Mbps up to and including 50 Mbps. As more video content becomes available over the Internet, more consumers are choosing to give up subscription television service and subscribe only to broadband Internet (rather than a double or triple 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 M o n th ly N e t P r ic e p e r G B ( $ P P P /G B ) Figure 2 Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price per GB ($PPP/GB) of Residential Broadband, 2012-2013 Standalone Plans with Limited Data and Advertised Download Speed up to and Including 25 Mbps 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 7 play package). In November 2012, market research firm, TGD, reported that 11 million U.S. households did not subscribe to paid TV services. 27 This represents approximately 12.5 percent of all broadband subscribers, an increase over the 11.2 percent of broadband subscribers that did not subscribe to paid TV services in 2011. 2.2. Double Play Plans Double play plans consist of Internet paired with either home telephone or video (television) service. The average price for greater than 15 up to and including 25 Mbps double play plans with telephone service, fell from $73.52 in 2011 to $65.94 in 2012 in the United States, but then rose to $69.08 in 2013 (see Appendix C Table 3a). 28 Most countries had similarly-sized decreases in plan price in 2012; however, prices remained relatively flat (or increased) in 2013. For double play plans with video service, the average price increased or remained constant in the United States for all speed tiers from 2011 to 2012. For example, the 2012 average price of $107.96 for a double play plan with video and advertised download speeds greater than 15 up to and including 25 Mbps in the United States changed little from 2011’s figure of $105.99. In 2013, however, the average price of a double play video plan with download speeds greater than 15 up to and including 25 Mbps fell sharply in 2013 for the United States to $85.20. The number of countries offering double play plans with video increased from 14 to 17. Although double play video plan prices generally changed little between 2011 and 2012, many countries varied from this trend. Mexico had the largest reduction with an average plan costing $131.54 in 2011 and $88.63 in 2012. Italy had the largest increase in average price moving from $26.47 in 2011 to $54.71 in 2012. Using the metric of average monthly price, the United States ranked 13th least expensive out of 14 countries with a price of $82 for a residential double play broadband plan (either type) with limited data and advertised download speed up to and including 25 Mbps in 2012. The average price in the United States decreased to $78 in 2013. Turkey had the least expensive average monthly cost in 2012 ($32), while India had the most expensive ($181). 29 In 2013, Austria had the least expensive plans ($23) and India remained the most expensive plan ($89) with limited data and an advertised download speed up to and including 25 Mbps. Again, the picture is different when data limits are taken into account. Figure 3 presents the average monthly net price per GB for double play broadband packages of both types (telephone and video service). The United States ranked 2nd least expensive, with an average monthly price per GB of $1.19 in 2012 and 3rd least expensive in 2013 with an average monthly price per GB of $1.58. 30 Italy and Belgium were the most expensive in 2012, while New Zealand and Italy were the most expensive in 2013. 27 For more information see http://tdgresearch.com/pay-tv-refugees-now-account-13-us-broadband-households/ 28 See Appendix C Table 3a. 29 See Appendix C Table 4h. 30 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 8 Note: The monthly all-inclusive price per GB reflects the average price per month, including rebates, installation charges, equipment charges (e.g., modem rentals) and other fees, divided by the average usage limit. Average prices exclude satellite. Plans included in this figure have data limits and their advertised download speed is up to and including 25 Mbps. Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, and Switzerland are excluded from the above figure because they do not have plans in this category. When using the same speed category (up to and including 25 Mbps of advertised download speed) with unlimited data, the average monthly cost of a double play plan (broadband with telephone or video) in the United States was $67 in 2012, giving the United States a rank of 23rd least expensive out of 28 countries. 31 The average monthly cost increased to $87 in 2013; however, the average advertised download speed for those plans also increased from 10.7 GB to 13 GB. In 2012, Estonia had the least expensive average double play plan with unlimited data ($26) and India had the most expensive ($92). Estonia’s average advertised download speed is 3.67 Mbps, while India’s average download speed is 7.29 Mbps. In 2013, South Korea had the least expensive average monthly cost ($23) with an average advertised download speed of 10 Mbps and Chile had the most expensive average cost at $91 with an average advertised download speed of 15 Mbps. For all double play phone plans with advertised download speeds greater than 25 Mbps up to and including 50 Mbps, the United States had an average monthly cost of $78.96 in 2012. The average monthly cost decreased slightly to $77.06 in 2013. Hong Kong had the least expensive average monthly cost in both 2012 and 2013 at $25.10 and $24.45, respectively. In 2012, Brazil had the most expensive plans with an average monthly cost of $149.71. In 2013, Mexico had the most expensive average monthly cost at $110.29. 32 For all double play video plans with advertised download speeds greater than 25 Mbps up to and including 50 Mbps, the United States had an average monthly cost of $112.76 in 2012. The average cost 31 See Appendix C Table 4l. 32 See Appendix Table 3a for data on all sample countries. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 M o n th ly N e t P r ic e p e r G B ( $ P P P /G B ) Figure 3 Average Monthly Net Price per GB ($PPP/GB) of Residential Broadband, 2012-2013, Double Play Plans with Limited Data and Advertised Download Speed up to and Including 25 Mbps 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 9 decreased in 2013 to $104.32 for the United States. Bulgaria had the least expensive plans in this category with an average cost of $26.50 in 2012, while Mexico had the most expensive at $125.47. In 2013, Denmark had the least expensive plans at $32.88 and Chile had the most expensive with an average monthly cost of $113.73. 33 For double play plans with unlimited usage and advertised download speeds greater than 25 Mbps up to and including 50 Mbps, the United States ranked 21st out of 23 countries with an average monthly cost of $109.21 in 2012. While the United States ranked 22nd of 24 countries in 2013, the average monthly cost decreased to $97.62. In 2012, Bulgaria had the least expensive average monthly cost at $26.50 and Brazil had the most expensive at $149.71. Germany had the least expensive plans in 2013 with an average monthly cost of $29.01, while Chile had the most expensive plans at $113.73. For data on all countries, refer to Appendix Table 4m. 2.3 Triple Play Plans Triple play plans include Internet, video, and telephone services. The average monthly all- inclusive price of a triple play plan in the United States increased for plans with advertised download speeds 1?5 Mbps from $86.87 in 2011 to $98.45 in 2012 but fell in 2013 to $90.12, including those with and without usage limits. For plans with advertised download speeds greater than 5 Mbps up to and including 15 Mbps, the average monthly price in the United States increased from $118.20 in 2011 to $122.91 in 2012, but then decreased slightly to $120.10 in 2013. The price decreased for plans with advertised download speed greater than 15 Mbps up to and including 25 Mbps from $95.97 in 2011 to $80.61 in 2012 and then went up to $112.81 in 2013. 34 Of the 11 countries in our survey, average triple play plan prices remained relatively stable for most countries, although the average triple play plan price in Germany increased from $38.29 in 2011 to $51.31 in 2012 and in Hungary decreased from $64.71 in 2011 to $37.47 in 2012. For plans with usage limits and advertised download speed up to and including 25 Mbps, the United States ranked 7th out of the 11 countries in 2012, with an average monthly price of $81. 35 The average price in the United States for those plans increased to $105 in 2013. The United Kingdom was the least expensive in 2012 ($42), while Brazil was the most expensive ($135), in terms of average monthly cost for a plan with limited data allowance and advertised download speed up to and including 25 Mbps. In 2013, the United Kingdom continued to have the least expensive average monthly price at $62. Taking the data limits into account, however, with an average monthly all-inclusive price of $0.54 per GB in 2012, the United States ranked least expensive in terms of price per GB for plans of this type. The price per GB in the United States decreased to $0.52 in 2013; however, Australia surpassed the United States with a slightly lower price of $0.50 per GB (see Figure 4). 33 See Appendix Table 3b for data on all sample countries. 34 See Appendix C Table 3c. We note these are probably not entirely representative averages since the number of data points is fairly limited. Within the sample there are only 3 triple play plans in the 5<15 Mbps category for the United States. One of these plans is a U-Verse Triple Play (12 Mbps down) that has a monthly price of $160, which pulls up the average. 35 See Appendix C Table 4o. Appendix C Table 4p contains data on double play broadband plans with advertised download speeds of greater than Mbps. Speed groupings more easily comparable to the previous IBDR are available in Appendix C Tables 4q-4r. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 10 Note: The monthly all-inclusive price per GB reflects the average price per month, including rebates, installation charges, equipment charges (e.g., modem rentals) and other fees, divided by the average usage limit. Average prices exclude satellite. Plans included in this figure have data limits and their advertised download speed is up to and including 25 Mbps. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, India, Japan, South Korea, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, and Switzerland are excluded from the above figure because they do not have plans in this category. For triple play plans with unlimited data and advertised download speeds up to and including 25 Mbps, the United States ranked 25th least expensive out of 26 countries with an average monthly price of $118 in 2012. 36 In 2013, the average monthly price decreased to $101; however, the United States remained being the second most expensive country in our sample (21st least expensive out of 22 countries). The average download speed for U.S. triple play plans was 11 Mbps both 2012 and 2013, which ranked 16th fastest of 28 countries in 2012 and 11th fastest of 22 countries in 2013. Brazil was more expensive than the United States in both years. In Brazil, the average monthly price decreased from $131 per month in 2012 to $113 per month. Hungary had the least expensive average monthly price for an unlimited triple play plan in 2012 ($30), while Italy had the least expensive plan in 2013 at $27. For all plans with download speeds greater than 25 Mbps up to and including 50 Mbps, the average monthly price in the United States was $100.28 in 2012. The average price increased to $131.57 in 2013. The United Kingdom had the least expensive average monthly price in 2012 at $34.10, while Mexico had the most expensive plans at $166.77. Bulgaria had the least expensive plans in 2013 with an average monthly price of $39.60 and Belgium had the most expensive at $208.96. 37 For triple play plans with unlimited data and download speeds greater than 25 Mbps up to and including 50 Mbps, the average monthly price in the United States for this type of plan in 2012 was $112.96. The average monthly price within the United States for this type of plan increased to $128.65 in 2013. Slovakia had the least expensive plan in 2012 at $36.83, while Bulgaria had the least expensive 36 See Appendix C Table 4s. Appendix C Tables 4t and 4u contain data on unlimited data plans with 25<50 Mbps and 50+ Mbps, respectively. 37 See Appendix Table 3c for data on all countries. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 M o n th ly N e t P r ic e p e r G B ( $ P P P /G B ) Figure 4 Average Monthly Net Price per GB ($PPP/GB) of Residential Broadband, 2012, Triple Play Plans with Limited Data and Download Speed up to and Including 25 Mbps 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 11 plan in 2013 at $39.60. Mexico had the most expensive plan in this category in 2012 at $166.77. In 2013, Belgium had the most expensive average monthly cost at $249.96. 38 3. 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. Thus, another useful metric for comparing broadband prices across different countries is the cost per unit of speed. Ookla’s Home Value Index, based on hundreds of thousands of survey and speed test results from speedtest.net (its web-based service), compares and ranks countries by the median price in U.S. dollars per Megabit per second. 39 In contrast to our web-scraped 40 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. 41 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 often 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 prices (in U.S. dollars) per Mbps of download speed for consumers for 2011 through 2013. 42 Bulgaria and Lithuania continued to have the least expensive price per unit of speed for 2011 through 2013. Brazil and India were the most expensive in 2012, while India and Chile were the most expensive in 2013. The average weighted price per Mbps in the United States fell from $6.14 in 2011 to $5.39 in 2012, and again in 2013 to $4.30. Data for all countries is presented in Appendix C Table 5. By this metric, the United States ranked 21st least expensive out of 37 countries in 2012 and 23rd least expensive out of 37 countries in 2013, showing improvement from its 2011 ranking of 25th least expensive out of 35 countries surveyed. 38 See Appendix Table 4t for data on all sample countries. 39 See http://www.netindex.com/value for more information on data. 40 Web-scraped refers to the pricing data collection process. Information on broadband plans (i.e., pricing, contract length, minutes, data limits) is extracted from provider websites and compiled into spreadsheets for further analysis. 41 One potential bias is that, with this metric, more expensive plans (e.g., $100+ for 100 Mbps) may look cheaper than lower-price plans. That also means that to the extent the United States 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. 42 The Ookla data reports the median price per Mbps on a daily basis for each city in the dataset. We calculate the average of these prices. The Net Index price data does not include Japan, South Korea, or Luxembourg. Brazil and India were not comparison countries in the Third IBDR; thus, 2011 data is not presented for them. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 12 Source: Based on the Value Index from the Ookla Net Index database (data drawn on Dec. 6, 2012 and Dec. 15, 2013). The price per Mbps is weighted by the sample size for each city when constructing the country average. Japan and South Korea are not in this dataset. Brazil and India were not comparison countries in the Third IBDR, so data for 2011 was not calculated. The data presented in the figure above obscures the heterogeneity among U.S. states in speed adjusted prices. Figure 6a shows the top and bottom quartiles of countries and U.S. states for 2012. South Dakota, Delaware, and Rhode Island continue to be the U.S. states with the lowest price per Mbps, while Washington, D.C. and Alaska are on the top end of the distribution. It should be noted that these rankings do not control for the type of cities (and their respective population densities) that are generating data. Data for all countries and U.S. states are shown in Appendix C Table 6. 0 5 10 15 20 25 B u lg a ri a L it h u a n ia S lo v a k ia H u n g a ry Ic e la n d C z e c h R e p u b li c Is ra e l P o la n d D e n m a rk N e th e rl a n d s A u s tr ia F in la n d U n it e d K in g d o m G e rm a n y H o n g K o n g S w e d e n B e lg iu m E s to n ia S in g a p o re S w it z e rl a n d S lo v e n ia C a n a d a U n it e d S ta te s G re e c e P o rt u g a l F ra n c e T u rk e y N o rw a y It a ly S p a in Ir e la n d M e x ic o N e w Z e a la n d B ra z il A u s tr a li a C h il e In d ia A v e r a g e W e ig h te d S p e e d A d ju s te d P r ic e ( $ /M b p s ) Figure 5 Average Weighted Adjusted Price ($/Mbps), 2011-2013 2011 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 13 Source: Value Index from the Ookla Net Index database provided by Ookla (data drawn on Dec. 6, 2012). Japan and South Korea are not in this dataset. Figure 6b shows the top and bottom quartiles of countries and U.S. states for 2013. South Dakota continues to be the U.S. state with the lowest price per Mbps. Nevada, Arizona, and Connecticut join the upper quartile, while Washington, D.C. and Alaska remain on the top end of the distribution. Data for all countries and U.S. states are shown in Appendix C Table 6. 0 5 10 15 20 25 B u lg a ri a L it h u a n ia H u n g a ry H o n g K o n g S lo v a k ia S o u th D a k o ta C z e c h R e p u b li c Ic e la n d Is ra e l D e la w a re R h o d e I s la n d P o la n d N e th e rl a n d s N e w J e rs e y D e n m a rk S w e d e n U n it e d K in g d o m V ir g in ia M a ry la n d M a s s a c h u s e tt s N e w Y o rk E s to n ia It a ly L u x e m b o u rg W e s t V ir g in ia P o rt u g a l N e w M e x ic o Id a h o N e w Z e a la n d S p a in V e rm o n t F ra n c e M is s is s ip p i Io w a M o n ta n a Ir e la n d A u s tr a li a C h il e D is tr ic t o f C o lu m b ia M e x ic o A la s k a B ra z il In d ia A v e r a g e W e ig h te d P r ic e p e r M b p s o f D o w n lo a d S p e e d (U S $ /M b p s ) Figure 6a Average Weighted Speed Adjusted Price, 2012 Top and Bottom 25th Percentile Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 14 Source: Value Index from the Ookla Net Index database provided by Ookla (data drawn on Dec. 15, 2013). Japan and South Korea are not in this dataset. 4. Mobile Broadband Pricing Mobile broadband pricing plans are complex and every country has different reporting and advertising standards. Usage limits, differing peak and off-peak speeds, all affect price comparisons. For example, advertising about the speed of the broadband appears to vary widely across countries. Most carriers only list the theoretical maximum available speeds, i.e., they report 100 Mbps for 4G and 42.2 Mbps for 3G HSPA+. In contrast, in the United States, the advertised speed for a 3G plan is often 3.1 Mbps and advertised speeds for 4G plans range from 5 Mbps to 42 Mbps. Some carriers also list typical speeds; however, due to limited reporting of typical download speeds, we gathered maximum advertised speeds. These are reported in Appendix C tables. 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 voice minutes and text messages included in the plans. Given these issues, meaningful international comparisons of mobile pricing are extremely difficult. Below we compare pricing for mobile plans offering broadband, while controlling for voice minutes (when applicable) and data limits. We use both average monthly plan price and price per GB of data as metrics. These data should be treated with caution, however. It is challenging to estimate the true cost of a GB of data when promotions are in terms of increasing usage limits. 43 Additionally, usage patterns may be relevant when attempting to calculate a volume-adjusted price, i.e., instead of dividing the price by the usage limit, one could divide price by the 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. 43 In cases where the promotion increases the usage limit for a limited period in the contract (e.g., three months), we construct a weighted average usage limit. More specifically, the weighted average usage limit is based on the following formula. Final Usage Limit = {(Promo Usage Limit * Promo Length) + [Usage Limit * (Contract Length – Promo Length)]} / Contract Length 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 B u lg a ri a L it h u a n ia S lo v a k ia H u n g a ry Ic e la n d C z e c h R e p u b li c Is ra e l P o la n d D e n m a rk S o u th D a k o ta N e th e rl a n d s A u s tr ia F in la n d U n it e d K in g d o m N e v a d a G e rm a n y H o n g K o n g A ri z o n a O re g o n C o n n e c ti c u t S w e d e n A rk a n s a s N o rw a y O k la h o m a In d ia n a N e w H a m p s h ir e M a ry la n d Id a h o It a ly M o n ta n a Il li n o is S p a in Ir e la n d M e x ic o N e w Z e a la n d M is s is s ip p i B ra z il A la s k a D is tr ic t o f C o lu m b ia A u s tr a li a C h il e In d ia A v e r a g e W e ig h te d P r ic e p e r M b p s o f D o w n lo a d S p e e d (U S $ /M b p s ) Figure 6b Average Weighted Speed Adjusted Price, 2013 Top and Bottom 25th percentile Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 15 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. For example, 3G and 4G plans are grouped together. Thus, comparing prices in a country where 4G service is widely available with a country with limited or possibly no 4G service is not an apples to apples comparison. Similarly, comparing prices in a country where operators subsidize devices, for example offering a free device for a contractual commitment, with a country where operators charge the full price for a device or customers buy their device separately is also not an apples to apples comparison. Given these and other limitations, the data should be treated with caution. We nevertheless provide this detailed data on mobile broadband plans as an initial step for future analysis and encourage other parties to use our data, which includes information on the technology used and device charges, to conduct their own price analyses. For this Report, we have compiled an updated dataset of publicly available advertised pricing information for mobile broadband services in 40 countries (including the United States), most of which are members of the OECD. We gathered this pricing information between September 2012 and December 2012 and between November 2013 and August 2014. 44 While efforts were made to include the same plans as previous years, many carriers changed their offerings or modified the data limits of existing plans between the previous IBDR and this Report, leading to some potential incomparability. These datasets include information on advertised monthly recurring charges and nonrecurring charges such as connection fees for three types of devices (smartphones, stick modems, and tablets), to allow for a more complete pricing analysis of each mobile broadband offering. For 2012, we have fairly complete information on 2,007 mobile plans for the 40 countries, out of which 127 are United States plans. There are 973 smartphone plans, 579 stick modem plans, and 455 tablet plans. Netbook plans, though analyzed in the last IBDR, were not analyzed this time due to declining popularity and limited offerings of netbook plans by carriers during this round of data collection. The 2013 dataset includes information on 2,881 mobile plans for the 40 countries, including data on 322 plans in the United States. There are 1,598 smartphone plans, 637 stick modem plans, and 646 tablet plans. The dataset also includes information on 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 included. This allows for a more nuanced analysis of the price that a customer pays for a mobile broadband plan. The dataset includes advertised upload and download speeds, 45 limitations on data usage, and information on the type of technology, e.g., whether it is 3G, GSM, and 4G. 46 Additionally, the usage limits on each plan and the consequences of reaching those limits, such as the extra charges customers may incur, or 44 Although the collection of some of the data extended into 2014, for convenience purposes we refer to the collections as “2012” data and “2013” data. 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. 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. 45 In some cases, providers did not indicate upload speeds on their websites. 46 We generally only collect “the best” advertised technology; 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 customers on a 4G plan could easily spend most of their time using the 3G network. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 16 whether they experience a slowdown of their speeds, are reported. The dataset also includes the number of voice minutes associated with the plan, if applicable. 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. 47 We do not include the device charges that accompany the costs of the plan (data, voice and SMS) in the calculation. We do not include VAT or sales tax. If a plan incorporates the cost of the device into the monthly charge, the price for bandwidth will appear to be more expensive than a plan that charges the customer a flat fee upfront for the device. We then calculate the monthly all-inclusive price by dividing the total contract amount 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. 48 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 this 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 overage charges or speed slowdowns are classified as unlimited. 49 4.1. Smartphone Plans Approximately one-half of the countries in the full sample had unlimited smartphone plans in both 2012 and 2013. Switzerland had the highest number of unlimited plans in 2012 with 19 plans in the sample. Both the United States and Hong Kong had 12 unlimited plans. South Korea had the largest number of unlimited plans in 2013, followed by the United States and Japan. For limited data plans, the United States had the highest maximum usage limit in 2012 at 50 GB. A large number of countries had maximum monthly usage limits around 30 GB, including Chile, Estonia, and Iceland. Estonia and Luxembourg have the highest average usage limits (15.52 GB and 11.33 GB, respectively). 50 Usage limits increased for most countries in 2013. The United States remained at the top with a usage limit of 75 GB, although this is most likely due to the increase in shared data plans. In 2013, Sweden and Luxembourg had maximum usage limits of 50 GB and 60 GB, respectively. Analysis for all countries is available in Appendix C Table 10b. Because the datasets contained information about both usage limits and minutes, we were able to construct illustrative groupings for comparing mobile broadband prices across countries. Plans were grouped into four levels of data limits: (1) less than 1 GB, (2) 1-5 GB inclusive, (3) greater than 5 GB, and (4) unlimited data. Smartphone plans in the United States tended to have either limits of around 450 47 All-inclusive 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. In the case of smartphones, the all-inclusive price does not include the device price. While we collected information on device prices, not all carriers offered the same devices. We excluded device price information to ensure that the all-inclusive prices would be comparable. 48 The discussion below focuses only on the prices derived using the PPP conversion. 49 Unlimited plans are compared solely on the basis of average monthly price. 50 Usage limit comparisons are calculated using only limited data plans. In addition to the maximum and minimum, a simple mean usage limit is calculated. An important caveat to interpreting the mean usage limit: there is no subscriber information, so the “average usage limit” does not accurately reflect what consumers actually have. Rather, it reflects the mean of the distribution of usage limits among plans. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 17 voice minutes or unlimited voice minutes in 2012. In 2013, however, none of the smartphone plans for the United States have limited minutes. We divided each of the data usage limit categories into those with limited and unlimited minutes. Figure 7a shows the average monthly price for smartphone plans that have a usage limit of less than 1 GB and limited minutes. The U.S. average monthly price of $60.74 was the second most expensive plan (out of 35 countries) for 2012, with an average usage limit of 0.3 GB. In 2012, Estonia had the lowest average monthly price at $4.48 for a 0.1 GB plan and Greece had the highest at $66.57 with an average usage limit of 0.53 GB. Italy had the lowest average monthly price in 2013 at $5.79 with 0.25 GB of data and Brazil had the highest average monthly price at $109.89 with an average usage limit of 0.46 GB. The United States did not have any plans in this category for 2013,. 51 Note: The monthly all-inclusive price reflects the average price per month, including rebates and other fees, but excluding the cost of the device. Plans included in this figure have data limits of less than 1 GB and limited minutes. Greece, Brazil, and Turkey have been excluded from this figure because their data are inconsistent from year to year. For plans with less than 1 GB of data and unlimited minutes, the United States had the most expensive average monthly price in 2012 at $47.50 with an average usage limit of 0.23 GB. In 2013, the average monthly price for the United States increased to $70.12 with an average usage limit of 0.38 GB. The number of plans offered in this category within the United States increased from two to 18. 52 Slovakia had the least expensive average monthly price in both years. The average monthly price increased slightly from $20.15 in 2012 to $21.90 in 2013 (this average is based on one plan with a data cap of 0.5 GB). Figure 7b presents the average monthly price for smartphone plans with 1<5 GB of data and 51 See Appendix C Table 7b for data on all sample countries. Appendix C Tables 7a and 7c present data on plans with average data limits of less than 1 GB and less than 450 minutes or unlimited voice minutes, respectively. 52 An important caveat is that while every effort is made to ensure that the datasets for each year are representative, the number of plans offered may not have increased; rather, more plans were captured in the 2013. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 It a ly D e n m a rk L it h u a n ia In d ia J a p a n P o la n d F ra n c e S w it z e rl a n d F in la n d B e lg iu m Ic e la n d A u s tr ia S w e d e n B u lg a ri a A u s tr a li a N e w Z e a la n d S lo v e n ia P o rt u g a l L u x e m b o u rg M e x ic o H u n g a ry N e th e rl a n d s C z e c h R e p u b li c K o re a Ir e la n d G e rm a n y S lo v a k ia S p a in H o n g K o n g S in g a p o re U n it e d K in g d o m E s to n ia N o rw a y C a n a d a C h il e U n it e d S ta te s A v e r a g e P r ic e P e r M o n th ( $ P P P ) Figure 7a Smartphone - Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price, 2012-2013 Less than 1 GB and Limited Minutes 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 18 limited minutes. For this category, plans in the United States had an average monthly price of $84.54 for an average of 3.28 GB and 450 minutes in 2012. Estonia has the least expensive average monthly price at $9.40 for 1.5 GB and 126 minutes, while Greece has the most expensive plan at $103.31 for 1.38 GB and 838 minutes. The United States did not have any plans in this category for 2013. Country rankings were also calculated using average monthly all-inclusive price per GB of data. 53 Note: The monthly all-inclusive price reflects the average price per month, including rebates and other fees, but excluding the cost of the device. Plans included in this figure have data limits of 1<5 GB and limited minutes. Greece, Brazil, and Turkey have been excluded from this figure because their data are inconsistent from year to year. For plans with 1<5 GB and unlimited minutes, the number of plans included in the sample for the United States increased from 9 to 50. In 2012, the average monthly price for U.S. plans was $66.66 with an average usage limit of 3.33 GB. The average monthly price in the United States for a plan with 1<5 GB and unlimited minutes increased to $93.08 with an average usage limit of 2.38 GB. The average download speed for U.S. plans in this category decreased from 24.6 Mbps in 2012 to 15.6 Mbps. Slovakia had the least expensive plans in this category in 2012 with an average monthly cost of $18.45 (for 1 GB at 12.6 Mbps) and Greece had the most expensive average cost at $165.29 (for 1.5 GB at 42.2 Mbps). In 2013, Lithuania had the least expensive average monthly price at $3.31 (for 1.5 GB with an unknown download speed), while Hungary had the most expensive plan at $129.26 with an average usage limit of 2.5 GB (at 105 Mbps). 54 Figure 7c displays the average monthly price for plans with 5 or more GB of data (excluding unlimited data) and limited minutes. For the United States in 2012, the average monthly price is $133.59 with an average usage limit of 8.5 GB and download speed of 16.7 Mbps. The United States has no plans in this category within the 2013 dataset. Slovenia had the least expensive average monthly price in 2012 at $29.32 (for 15 GB at 42 Mbps), while Chile had the most expensive at $170.85 (for 32 GB at 8 Mbps). In 2013, the Netherlands had the least expensive average monthly price at $15.28 for an average usage 53 See Table 7c 54 See Table 7d for data on all sample countries. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 L it h u a n ia Is ra e l S w it z e rl a n d F ra n c e It a ly L u x e m b o u rg D e n m a rk B e lg iu m A u s tr ia C z e c h R e p u b li c In d ia G e rm a n y E s to n ia S p a in P o la n d Ic e la n d S w e d e n S lo v e n ia N e th e rl a n d s N e w Z e a la n d A u s tr a li a P o rt u g a l Ir e la n d S in g a p o re K o re a H o n g K o n g U n it e d K in g d o m B u lg a ri a M e x ic o H u n g a ry C h il e S lo v a k ia F in la n d N o rw a y C a n a d a U n it e d S ta te s A v e r a g e P r ic e P e r M o n th ( $ P P P ) Figure 7b Smartphone - Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price, 2012-2013 1<5 GB and Limited Minutes 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 19 limit of 10 GB and download speed of 50 Mbps. Greece had the most expensive average monthly price in 2013 at $289.86 for an average 10 GB usage limit (the download speed is unknown). 55 Note: The monthly all-inclusive price reflects the average price per month, including rebates and other fees, but excluding the cost of the device. Plans included in this figure have data limits of 5+ GB and limited minutes. Greece, Brazil, and Turkey have been excluded from this figure because their data are inconsistent from year to year. In the category of plans with 5 or more GB of data and unlimited minutes, the average monthly price in the United States increased from $114.99 in 2012 to $225.84 in 2013. The average usage limit also more than doubled in the United States from 10 GB to 22.7 GB during this same time period. In 2012, the least expensive plans were in Belgium with an average monthly price of $51.42 with an average usage limit of 33.75 GB, while Korea had the most expensive average monthly price at $155.01 and an average usage limit of 25 GB. Denmark had the least expensive average monthly price in 2013 of $30.36 with an average usage limit of 13 GB. The United States had the most expensive plans in 2013. For high end plans with unlimited data and unlimited minutes, the average monthly cost in the United States increased from $60.00 in 2012 to $83.88 in 2013. Thus, the average price for a smartphone plan with unlimited data and unlimited minutes in the United States in 2012 and 2013 was less expensive than the average price for plans that came with limits, except for plans with the most restrictive limits of less than 1 GB. The least expensive plans were in Hong Kong with an average monthly price of $21.85 in 2012, while the most expensive average monthly price was in Portugal ($150.07). In 2013, Switzerland had the lowest average monthly price at $56.96, while Korea had the most expensive average monthly price at $106.20. The number of countries with plans in this category decreased from nine to five, suggesting that many countries are moving away from fully unlimited plans; however, the number of plans sampled for the United States increased from eight to 13. In 2012, the United States ranked 5th least expensive out of 9 countries and 4th least expensive out of 5 countries in 2013. 4.2. Stick Modem Plans Estonia, Finland, and Switzerland had the largest number of unlimited data plans in 2012, 55 See Table 7e for data on all sample countries. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 F in la n d N e th e rl a n d s D e n m a rk S lo v e n ia Ic e la n d It a ly S w it z e rl a n d S p a in C z e c h R e p u b li c A u s tr ia S w e d e n J a p a n L u x e m b o u rg In d ia Ir e la n d H o n g K o n g S in g a p o re M e x ic o E s to n ia B e lg iu m K o re a C h il e B u lg a ri a P o rt u g a l H u n g a ry U n it e d S ta te s A v e r a g e P r ic e P e r M o n th ( $ P P P ) Figure 7c Smartphone - Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price, 2012-2013 5 or more GB and Limited Minutes 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 20 although only 10 countries had unlimited stick modem data plans. In 2013, Finland and Hong Kong had the largest number of unlimited plans. While there were no unlimited data plans for stick modem in 2012, the United States had two plans in the dataset in 2013. The average monthly price was $85.92. Comparatively, Italy had the least expensive plan at a price of $10.42 per month, while Portugal surpassed the United States with an average monthly price of $110.15. The United States had the second highest number of limited data plans at 35 plans in 2012. Poland surpassed the United States with 36 limited data plans for stick modems in 2012. In 2013, the number of United States plans captured in the sample increased to 59. Because of the wide range in the data limits of stick modem plans, we distinguish limited plans from unlimited plans in this Report. Plans with data limits were divided into two groups: (1) Less than 5 GB and (2) 5 or more GB. 56 In addition, some countries offer stick modem data plans with unlimited data; however, U.S. carriers did not offer this type of plan in 2013. Data and country rankings for each category are presented in Appendix C Tables 8a-8c. Figure 8a shows the average monthly price for stick modem limited data plans with at least 5 GB of data. Slovenia and Italy had the lowest prices in 2012, with an average price of $14 per month. Slovenia remained the least expensive in 2013 with an average monthly price of $13. The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in terms of average monthly price ($56.75) with an average data limit of 8.92 GB in 2012. In 2013, the average monthly price increased to $131.16 (making the United States the most expensive country); however, the average usage limit also increased to 16.74 GB. Note: The monthly all-inclusive price reflects the average price per month, including rebates and other fees, but excluding the cost of the device. Plans included in this figure have data limits of at least 5 GB, but not unlimited data. Belgium, Estonia, Singapore, and Switzerland are excluded from the above figure because they do not have plans in this category. Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet = 128 bytes. Country rankings in terms of price per GB for both 2012 and 2013 are shown in Figure 8b. In 56 While technically unlimited, we also consider plans with “soft” data caps (where slower speeds are implemented when the user reaches the monthly limit) to be limited. 0 50 100 150 200 250 S lo v e n ia F in la n d Is ra e l Ir e la n d Ic e la n d P o la n d L it h u a n ia U n it e d K in g d o m F ra n c e G e rm a n y D e n m a rk T u rk e y N o rw a y S p a in A u s tr ia B u lg a ri a L u x e m b o u rg B e lg iu m E s to n ia S in g a p o re P o rt u g a l A u s tr a li a H u n g a ry G re e c e N e th e rl a n d s C z e c h R e p u b li c N e w Z e a la n d K o re a S w e d e n S lo v a k ia H o n g K o n g B ra z il C h il e In d ia C a n a d a It a ly M e x ic o U n it e d S ta te s A v e r a g e P r ic e P e r M o n th ( $ P P P ) Figure 8a Stick Modem - Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price, 2012-2013 5 or more GB 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 21 terms of price per GB, the United States ranked 27th in 2012 with an average all-inclusive price of $6.52 per GB. In 2013, the United States ranked 35th (of 38 countries) with an average price per GB of $8.49. Sweden has the lowest price per GB at $1.31 in 2012, although the top six countries all had an average all-inclusive price per GB under $2. In 2013, Estonia had the lowest price per GB at $0.89. Hong Kong was the most expensive in both 2012 and 2013 at $12.60 per GB (average monthly cost was $63) and $12.28 per GB (average monthly cost was $61), respectively. Note: The monthly all-inclusive price reflects the average price per month, including rebates and other fees, but excluding the cost of the device, divided by the average data usage limit. Plans included in this figure have data limits of at least 5 GB, but not unlimited data. Belgium, Estonia, Singapore, and Switzerland are excluded from the above figure because they do not have plans in this category. Japan charges by the amount of packets sent, so we assumed 1 packet = 128 bytes. 4.3 Tablet Data Plans Relatively few countries have unlimited data plans for tablets. In our sample, Switzerland and Estonia had the largest number of plans with unlimited data for tablets in 2012. Finland and Portugal had the largest number of such plans in 2013. In 2012, our sample did not include any unlimited data plans for tablets in the United States. In 2013, however, there were two plans in this category. The United States had the largest number of limited data plans in both years with 34 plans and 76 plans, respectively. The average monthly price for U.S. unlimited data plans in 2013 was $85.92. Luxembourg had the least expensive average monthly cost at $18.69 in 2013. Because of the wide range in the data limits of tablet plans, we report limited plans and unlimited plans separately. Similar to the stick modem plans, we report tablet plans with data limits in two groups: (1) Less than 5 GB and (2) 5 or more GB. 57 Data and country rankings for each category are presented in Appendix C Tables 9a-9c. Figure 9a shows the average monthly price for limited data plans with at least 5 GB of data for 57 While technically unlimited, we also consider plans with “soft” usage limits (where slower speeds are implemented when the user reaches the monthly limit) to be limited. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 E s to n ia S lo v e n ia F in la n d D e n m a rk Ir e la n d Ic e la n d L u x e m b o u rg N o rw a y P o la n d F ra n c e S p a in L it h u a n ia A u s tr ia Is ra e l P o rt u g a l H u n g a ry B u lg a ri a U n it e d K in g d o m S lo v a k ia A u s tr a li a T u rk e y G re e c e C z e c h R e p u b li c S w e d e n In d ia S in g a p o re G e rm a n y N e th e rl a n d s K o re a B ra z il B e lg iu m C h il e M e x ic o C a n a d a U n it e d S ta te s It a ly N e w Z e a la n d H o n g K o n g P r ic e p e r G B o f D a ta ( $ P P P /G B ) Figure 8b Stick Modem - Average Monthly Net Price per GB of Data, 2012- 2013 5+ GB 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 22 both 2012 and 2013. Lithuania and Finland had the lowest average monthly price in 2012 at $16.57 and $18.21, respectively. In 2013, Finland and Israel had the least expensive plans with an average monthly price of $17.86 and $18.39, respectively. The United States ranked 29th out of 31 countries in terms of average monthly price ($68.92) with an average data limit of 9.13 GB in 2012. In 2013, the United States ranked last (of 37 countries) with an average monthly price of $112.39; however, the average usage limited increased to 16.2 GB. . Note: The monthly all-inclusive price reflects the average price per month, including rebates and other fees, but excluding the cost of the device. Plans included in this figure have data limits of at least 5 GB, but not unlimited data. Hong Kong, Iceland, and Japan are excluded from the above figure because they do not have plans in this category. Country rankings in terms of price per GB are shown in Figure 9b. In terms of price per GB, the United States ranked 23rd (of 30 countries) with an average all-inclusive price of $7.98 per GB. 58 In 2013, the U.S ranked 29th of 37 countries with an average price per GB of $7.45. Finland had the lowest price per GB in both 2012 and 2013 at $0.91 and $0.89 respectively. France was the most expensive at $10.50 per GB (average monthly cost was $52.48) in 2012 and the Czech Republic was the most expensive in 2013 at $11.10 per GB (average monthly cost was $110.96). 58 The all-inclusive per GB is calculated on an individual plan basis and then averaged. As a result, the average all- inclusive per GB is not identical to dividing the average monthly cost by the average data limit. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 F in la n d Is ra e l L u x e m b o u rg S p a in P o rt u g a l Ir e la n d F ra n c e N o rw a y L it h u a n ia D e n m a rk S w it z e rl a n d It a ly S w e d e n B u lg a ri a B e lg iu m E s to n ia A u s tr a li a G e rm a n y S in g a p o re U n it e d K in g d o m S lo v e n ia H u n g a ry C a n a d a N e th e rl a n d s G re e c e A u s tr ia N e w Z e a la n d B ra z il S lo v a k ia C h il e T u rk e y K o re a In d ia P o la n d M e x ic o C z e c h R e p u b li c U n it e d S ta te s A v e r a g e P r ic e P e r M o n th ( $ P P P ) Figure 9a Tablet - Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price, 2012-2013 5 or more GB 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 23 Note: The monthly all-inclusive price reflects the average price per month, including rebates and other fees, but excluding the cost of the device, divided by the average data cap. Plans included in this figure have data limits of at least 5 GB, but not unlimited data. Hong Kong, Iceland, and Japan are excluded from the above figure because they do not have plans in this category. 5. Broadband Plan Usage Limits Our broadband price research yielded a rich data set, containing details for thousands of fixed and mobile broadband plans. These details include information about data consumption and whether data use is limited or capped. 59 In addition to comparing broadband plans on price, we believe that consumers may also benefit from learning how countries compare with regard to the amount of data broadband customers may use on a monthly basis. Fixed Broadband. In 2012, in our sample, South Korea and Norway had the largest number of unlimited data plans (132 for Korea and 121 for Norway). Slovenia and Luxembourg had the largest offering of unlimited data plans in 2013 at 113 and 108 plans, respectively. In the United States, there was a fairly equal balance of unlimited and limited plan offerings in both 2012 and 2013. Australia and New Zealand had only limited data plans in both years. Iceland did not have unlimited plans in 2012, but had 20 unlimited plans in 2013. The United States had the 7th highest maximum usage limit of 24 countries in 2012 and the highest of 25 countries in 2013, while its average usage limit was 4th highest in 2012 and second highest in 2013. 60 This indicates that most of the limited data plans in the United States have relatively high usage limits, compared with other countries with limited data plans. 59 There are several “Share Everything” data plans (i.e., plans that permit multiple users to share in the monthly allotment of data) in the sample that have very large usage limits (30, 40, or 50 GB limits), but we do not have subscriber numbers for any plans. These high-cap shared plans may be contributing to higher averages where present. Usage limits for shared plans are reported as the cap for all sharing phones rather than dividing up the data allotment on a per phone basis. 60 Figure 10a. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 F in la n d E s to n ia D e n m a rk S w e d e n S lo v e n ia N o rw a y F ra n c e Ir e la n d L u x e m b o u rg L it h u a n ia Is ra e l P o rt u g a l It a ly H u n g a ry S w it z e rl a n d S lo v a k ia A u s tr a li a S p a in B u lg a ri a G re e c e S in g a p o re U n it e d K in g d o m N e th e rl a n d s G e rm a n y B ra z il C h il e B e lg iu m M e x ic o U n it e d S ta te s T u rk e y K o re a A u s tr ia C a n a d a N e w Z e a la n d P o la n d In d ia C z e c h R e p u b li c P r ic e p e r G B o f D a ta ( $ P P P /G B ) Figure 9b Tablet - Average Monthly Net Price per GB of Data, 2012-2013 5+ GB 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 24 Mobile Broadband – Smartphones. About half of the countries in the sample had unlimited smartphone plans in both years. The United States had the second highest number of unlimited plans in each year. The United States had the highest maximum usage limit at 50 GB in 2012 and again in 2013 at 75 GB. From 2012 to 2013, maximum usage limits increased for the majority of countries. Estonia and Luxembourg had the highest average usage limits in 2012 (15.52 and 11.33 GB, respectively). In 2013, the United States had the highest average usage limit at 14.05 GB. 61 61 Figure 10b. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 A u s tr a li a U n it e d S ta te s L it h u a n ia C a n a d a G e rm a n y B e lg iu m Ic e la n d Ir e la n d B ra z il T u rk e y In d ia N e w Z e a la n d B u lg a ri a U n it e d K in g d o m F in la n d H u n g a ry A u s tr ia C h il e S lo v a k ia It a ly S p a in P o rt u g a l J a p a n A v e r a g e U s a g e L im it ( G B ) Figure 10a Average Usage Limit for Fixed Broadband Plans (All Types) 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 25 Mobile Broadband – Stick Modems. Estonia, Finland, and Switzerland had the largest number of unlimited data plans in 2012, while Finland and Hong Kong had the largest number in 2013. In 2012, ten countries had unlimited stick modem plans. This number increased to 11 in 2013. The United States had the second highest number of limited data plans at 35 in 2012 (surpassed by Poland at 36). In 2013, the number of plans offered in the United States increased to 61. Slovakia and Sweden had the highest maximum usage limits in 2012 at 100 GB and 80 GB, respectively. In 2013, Denmark had the highest maximum usage limit at 500 GB with Estonia following at 120 GB. The United States falls in the middle in terms of both maximum usage limit and average usage limit for both 2012, but moves to the upper one-third in 2013. 62 62 Figure 10d. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 U n it e d S ta te s L u x e m b o u rg S w e d e n E s to n ia S in g a p o re C a n a d a D e n m a rk C h il e In d ia F ra n c e K o re a U n it e d K in g d o m C z e c h R e p u b li c N o rw a y H o n g K o n g A u s tr ia Ir e la n d Is ra e l Ic e la n d G re e c e S w it z e rl a n d A u s tr a li a B e lg iu m G e rm a n y It a ly B ra z il T u rk e y N e th e rl a n d s M e x ic o S lo v a k ia S lo v e n ia N e w Z e a la n d S p a in B u lg a ri a P o rt u g a l L it h u a n ia P o la n d H u n g a ry F in la n d J a p a n A v e r a g e U s a g e L im it ( G B ) Figure 10b Smartphone - Average Usage Limit for Mobile Broadband Plans 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 26 Mobile Broadband – Tablets. In 2012, in our sample, Switzerland and Estonia had the largest number of unlimited data plans for tablets. Norway and Luxembourg had the largest number of unlimited plans in 2013 at seven and six, respectively. Only nine countries offered unlimited data plans in 2012. This number increased to 12 in 2013. Our sample did not have any unlimited data plans for tablets for the United States in 2012 and had only two such plans for 2013. The United States had the largest number of limited data plans for tablets and ranked in the middle for both the maximum and average usage limits for both 2012 and 2013. Italy had the highest maximum usage limit at 50 GB in 2012, while Denmark had the highest maximum usage limit at 500 GB in 2013. Austria had the highest average usage limit in 2012 (18.33 GB). In 2013, Denmark had the highest average usage at 65.9 GB. 63 63 Figure 10c. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 D e n m a rk E s to n ia Ic e la n d S w e d e n L u x e m b o u rg Ir e la n d S lo v a k ia F in la n d U n it e d S ta te s N o rw a y P o la n d S lo v e n ia F ra n c e M e x ic o G re e c e It a ly In d ia A u s tr ia K o re a P o rt u g a l H u n g a ry S in g a p o re C h il e A u s tr a li a T u rk e y L it h u a n ia B ra z il Is ra e l C z e c h R e p u b li c B u lg a ri a C a n a d a U n it e d K in g d o m G e rm a n y H o n g K o n g B e lg iu m N e th e rl a n d s S p a in N e w Z e a la n d S w it z e rl a n d J a p a n A v e r a g e U s a g e L im it ( G B ) Figure 10d Stick Modem - Average Usage Limit for Mobile Broadband Plans 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 27 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 D e n m a rk E s to n ia S w e d e n N o rw a y U n it e d S ta te s F ra n c e S lo v e n ia S lo v a k ia M e x ic o P o la n d Ir e la n d G re e c e P o rt u g a l It a ly F in la n d H u n g a ry S in g a p o re L u x e m b o u rg L it h u a n ia In d ia C h il e A u s tr a li a B ra z il Is ra e l K o re a G e rm a n y B u lg a ri a U n it e d K in g d o m T u rk e y S w it z e rl a n d N e th e rl a n d s C z e c h R e p u b li c A u s tr ia B e lg iu m S p a in N e w Z e a la n d C a n a d a H o n g K o n g Ic e la n d J a p a n A v e r a g e U s a g e L im it ( G B ) Figure 10c Tablet - Average Usage Limit for Mobile Broadband Plans 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 28 Appendix C Table 1a Number of Total, Unbundled, and Bundled Broadband Plans 2012 Country Total Number of Plans in the Sample Number of Standalone Broadband Plans Number of Double Play Plans Number of Triple Play Plans Number of Quad Play Plans Australia 69 49 10 10 Austria 26 13 8 5 Belgium 21 9 9 3 Brazil 121 29 35 57 Bulgaria 24 11 7 6 Canada 29 25 4 Chile 38 18 10 10 Czech Republic 33 21 12 Denmark 37 10 22 5 Estonia 21 10 5 6 Finland 21 17 4 France 16 1 15 Germany 22 2 16 4 Greece 24 3 15 4 2 Hong Kong 30 19 9 2 Hungary 21 9 12 Iceland 22 22 India 44 20 24 Ireland 37 12 22 3 Israel 23 20 3 Italy 28 7 16 5 Japan 74 74 Korea 137 71 33 24 9 Lithuania 45 45 Luxembourg 56 17 18 21 Mexico 29 7 15 6 1 Netherlands 41 10 17 14 New Zealand 35 5 25 5 Norway 121 26 35 60 Poland 77 24 40 12 1 Portugal 28 4 14 10 Singapore 68 14 3 51 Slovakia 30 17 8 5 Slovenia 86 48 38 Spain 20 9 9 2 Sweden 55 22 21 12 Switzerland 63 18 14 11 20 Turkey 62 46 11 5 United Kingdom 33 11 18 4 United States 140 67 49 24 Total 1907 842 533 483 49 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 29 Table 1a (continued) 2013 Country Total Number of Plans in the Sample Number of Standalone Broadband Plans Number of Double Play Plans Number of Triple Play Plans Number of Quad Play Plans Australia 108 58 38 12 Austria 28 11 11 6 Belgium 43 11 15 17 Brazil 48 21 3 24 Bulgaria 30 22 4 4 Canada 46 29 4 12 1 Chile 34 16 8 10 Czech Republic 21 11 7 3 Denmark 25 4 16 5 Estonia 27 13 8 6 Finland 19 15 4 France 58 7 12 39 Germany 19 3 16 Greece 32 4 20 6 2 Hong Kong 27 16 9 2 Hungary 21 9 12 Iceland 25 25 India 48 22 26 Ireland 60 22 31 7 Israel 18 10 2 6 Italy 42 12 23 7 Japan 62 62 Korea 80 54 21 5 Lithuania 61 61 Luxembourg 108 50 58 Mexico 35 11 17 7 Netherlands 37 6 17 14 New Zealand 38 7 26 5 Norway 52 17 35 Poland 65 12 40 12 1 Portugal 23 4 14 5 Singapore 66 12 3 51 Slovakia 27 17 6 4 Slovenia 113 66 47 Spain 45 10 21 14 Sweden 46 26 9 11 Switzerland 45 19 13 13 Turkey 55 48 6 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 30 United Kingdom 40 5 11 16 8 United States 197 56 95 46 Total 1974 820 620 503 31 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 31 Appendix C Table 1b Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price of a Standalone Broadband Package in U.S. Dollars (PPP and Exchange Rate Conversion) 2012 Country Price $ (PPP) Price $ (Ex. Rate) Rank (PPP) Rank (Ex. Rate) Germany 18.85 21.91 1 2 France 22.98 29.17 2 7 Austria 25.49 30.62 3 9 Lithuania 27.43 19.35 4 1 Italy 28.10 33.40 5 10 Hungary 29.97 21.96 6 3 Netherlands 33.96 40.52 7 14 Slovakia 35.12 26.65 8 5 Estonia 35.15 29.34 9 8 Poland 36.04 24.13 10 4 Sweden 36.96 53.90 11 20 Korea 37.99 27.64 12 6 Finland 40.28 55.00 13 21 Japan 40.44 52.65 14 19 Greece 42.51 42.87 15 15 Denmark 47.28 76.50 16 31 Ireland 47.62 57.01 17 23 Czech Republic 47.73 36.43 18 11 Australia 50.18 81.37 19 33 Belgium 50.28 62.99 20 26 Luxembourg 50.60 71.75 21 27 Mexico 52.06 37.54 22 12 New Zealand 54.46 74.22 23 30 Hong Kong 56.90 40.48 24 13 Israel 58.87 60.68 25 24 Chile 60.79 51.49 26 18 United States 60.86 60.86 27 25 Iceland 63.02 73.14 28 29 Turkey 63.90 50.74 29 17 Brazil 74.91 84.19 30 34 Canada 76.27 96.27 31 35 Portugal 80.25 76.57 32 32 Singapore 86.76 72.08 33 28 Norway 90.27 169.12 34 37 India 104.90 45.14 35 16 Bulgaria 106.11 56.66 36 22 Slovenia 124.16 105.97 37 36 Switzerland 147.75 273.52 38 38 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 32 Table 1b (continued) 2013 Country Price $ (PPP) Price $ (Ex. Rate) Rank (PPP) Rank (Ex. Rate) Poland 31.60 20.18 4 1 Lithuania 32.64 22.14 7 2 Korea 32.41 23.65 6 3 Slovakia 34.08 24.80 9 4 Hungary 40.09 26.33 13 5 Estonia 34.93 28.38 10 6 Austria 25.87 29.99 2 7 New Zealand 22.71 30.58 1 8 Germany 28.66 31.96 3 9 Czech Republic 48.05 33.50 20 10 Bulgaria 66.82 34.23 26 11 Israel 33.10 35.08 8 12 Greece 39.24 35.95 12 13 India 104.71 40.41 37 14 Italy 35.92 41.21 11 15 Hong Kong 61.57 45.12 23 16 Japan 43.12 45.15 15 17 United Kingdom 44.44 47.17 17 18 Denmark 31.86 49.29 5 19 France 43.78 52.84 16 20 Chile 65.86 54.94 25 21 Mexico 82.47 58.09 34 22 Finland 45.82 60.96 19 23 Turkey 86.53 61.17 35 24 Sweden 45.61 64.01 18 25 Belgium 54.45 65.57 22 26 Brazil 73.43 67.26 29 27 Singapore 81.97 69.83 33 28 Iceland 64.49 72.08 24 29 Switzerland 42.55 74.87 14 30 United States 75.47 75.47 30 31 Netherlands 68.48 78.83 27 32 Australia 54.40 81.40 21 33 Slovenia 103.52 85.91 36 34 Ireland 77.91 90.51 32 35 Canada 77.62 93.01 31 36 Norway 69.07 126.05 28 37 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 33 Appendix C Table 1c Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price of a Double Play Package in U.S. Dollars (PPP and Exchange Rate Conversion) 2012 Country Price $ (PPP) Price $ (Ex. Rate) Rank (PPP) Rank (Ex. Rate) Bulgaria 29.29 15.64 1 1 Singapore 31.48 26.16 2 2 Estonia 32.27 26.93 3 4 Germany 35.27 41.00 4 9 Korea 36.27 26.39 5 3 Finland 39.04 53.30 6 17 Denmark 41.64 67.36 7 22 Italy 42.17 50.13 8 12 Czech Republic 42.21 32.22 9 6 Slovakia 42.42 32.20 10 5 Austria 42.44 50.99 11 15 Sweden 43.37 63.24 12 20 United Kingdom 44.12 47.64 13 11 Turkey 47.71 37.88 14 8 Hong Kong 48.49 34.50 15 7 Greece 50.26 50.68 16 13 Netherlands 51.16 61.03 17 19 Australia 52.23 84.69 18 26 Spain 54.68 57.41 19 18 Norway 58.00 108.66 20 30 Belgium 58.22 72.93 21 24 Ireland 59.52 71.26 22 23 Luxembourg 62.25 88.27 23 27 Poland 66.98 44.85 24 10 New Zealand 68.86 93.84 25 29 Mexico 72.59 52.34 26 16 Switzerland 73.79 136.60 27 31 Chile 78.45 66.45 28 21 Brazil 79.34 89.16 29 28 United States 84.12 84.12 30 25 India 117.97 50.76 31 14 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 34 Table 1c (continued) 2013 Country Price $ (PPP) Price $ (Ex. Rate) Rank (PPP) Rank (Ex. Rate) Bulgaria 31.26 16.02 3 1 Korea 27.92 20.37 1 2 Estonia 32.13 26.11 4 3 Israel 30.03 31.83 2 4 India 87.20 33.65 33 5 Turkey 51.04 36.09 10 6 Slovakia 52.85 38.45 12 7 Germany 34.62 38.61 6 8 Czech Republic 55.99 39.03 15 9 Austria 33.81 39.19 5 10 Poland 66.60 42.52 26 11 Hong Kong 61.30 44.92 21 12 Italy 41.83 47.99 9 13 Mexico 71.04 50.04 29 14 Singapore 59.72 50.88 20 15 Finland 38.30 50.95 8 16 Portugal 56.79 51.27 18 17 Spain 52.87 51.66 13 18 United Kingdom 51.41 54.57 11 19 Denmark 36.43 56.36 7 20 Greece 67.22 61.58 27 21 Ireland 56.58 65.73 17 22 Brazil 74.76 68.48 30 23 Luxembourg 53.12 75.46 14 24 Belgium 64.11 77.20 23 25 France 64.46 77.80 24 26 Netherlands 69.88 80.44 28 27 Chile 104.96 87.56 35 28 United States 88.55 88.55 34 29 Sweden 63.42 89.01 22 30 Australia 66.19 99.05 25 31 Switzerland 56.52 99.45 16 32 Canada 85.84 102.86 32 33 Norway 57.49 104.92 19 34 New Zealand 81.71 110.03 31 35 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 35 Appendix C Table 1d Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price of a Triple Play Package in U.S. Dollars (PPP and Exchange Rate Conversion) 2012 Country Price $ (PPP) Price $ (Ex. Rate) Rank (PPP) Rank (Ex. Rate) Korea 34.52 24.12 1 2 Estonia 38.00 31.72 2 4 France 38.03 48.28 3 9 Hungary 39.49 28.93 4 3 United Kingdom 41.64 44.97 5 7 Bulgaria 41.99 22.42 6 1 Sweden 42.20 61.54 7 13 Germany 51.31 59.64 8 12 Slovakia 52.76 40.04 9 5 Austria 52.94 63.60 10 14 Denmark 53.34 86.30 11 24 Luxembourg 57.88 82.07 12 22 Hong Kong 59.41 42.27 13 6 Italy 59.41 70.63 14 19 Turkey 59.85 47.52 15 8 Switzerland 59.99 111.06 16 29 Netherlands 60.81 72.55 17 20 Spain 62.35 65.46 18 15 Slovenia 67.32 57.46 19 11 Greece 68.33 68.90 20 16 Norway 72.38 135.60 21 33 Portugal 72.75 69.42 22 17 Belgium 75.32 94.36 23 25 Australia 76.34 123.78 24 30 Poland 84.18 56.37 25 10 Ireland 85.85 102.78 26 27 Singapore 87.61 72.79 27 21 Mexico 97.39 70.23 28 18 New Zealand 99.20 135.18 29 31 Chile 99.20 84.02 30 23 United States 99.53 99.53 31 26 Israel 100.44 103.52 32 28 Canada 114.01 143.91 33 34 Brazil 120.43 135.34 34 32 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 36 Table 1d (continued) 2013 Country Price $ (PPP) Price $ (Ex. Rate) Rank (PPP) Rank (Ex. Rate) Turkey 36.40 25.74 1 1 Hungary 39.59 26.00 4 2 Bulgaria 50.83 26.04 7 3 Korea 39.56 28.86 3 4 Estonia 37.31 30.32 2 5 Slovakia 49.08 35.71 6 6 Czech Republic 58.82 41.00 14 7 Hong Kong 57.88 42.42 10 8 Poland 83.27 53.17 23 9 Italy 48.80 55.99 5 10 Slovenia 69.78 57.91 17 11 Spain 62.51 61.08 15 12 Mexico 91.45 64.42 25 13 Austria 56.84 65.88 9 14 France 54.94 66.30 8 15 Greece 73.21 67.07 19 16 Singapore 88.71 75.57 24 17 United Kingdom 72.02 76.45 18 18 Netherlands 67.33 77.51 16 19 Israel 76.74 81.34 21 20 Sweden 58.60 82.24 13 21 Ireland 74.90 87.01 20 22 Chile 104.90 87.51 28 23 Portugal 98.12 88.59 27 24 Denmark 57.91 89.60 11 25 Switzerland 58.45 102.85 12 26 Brazil 114.68 105.05 31 27 Luxembourg 81.03 115.12 22 28 United States 124.97 124.97 32 29 Canada 111.09 133.11 30 30 Australia 94.06 140.75 26 31 New Zealand 108.98 146.75 29 32 Belgium 224.55 270.41 33 33 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 37 Appendix C Table 1e Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price of a Quad Play Package in U.S. Dollars (PPP and Exchange Rate Conversion) 2012 Country Price $ (PPP) Price $ (Ex. Rate) Rank (PPP) Rank (Ex. Rate) Korea 28.71 20.89 1 1 Greece 37.05 37.36 2 2 United Kingdom 59.98 64.77 3 3 Portugal 98.89 94.36 4 6 Mexico 105.94 76.39 5 4 Spain 112.30 117.92 6 7 Poland 119.46 79.99 7 5 Switzerland 125.73 232.76 8 8 2013 Country Price $ (PPP) Price $ (Ex. Rate) Rank (PPP) Rank (Ex. Rate) Greece 38.99 35.72 1 1 Poland 114.19 72.91 5 2 Spain 77.41 75.65 2 3 United Kingdom 97.02 102.99 4 4 Canada 92.56 110.92 3 5 Portugal 129.40 116.83 6 6 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 38 Appendix C Table 2a Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price of a Standalone Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Technology Advertised Download Speed ?1 to ?5 Mbps 2012 Country All† DSL Cable Fiber Hybrid Satellite Average Download Speed Lithuania 13.75 13.75 2.33 Poland 15.07 15.07 1.00 Hong Kong 21.08 21.08 1.50 Czech Republic 23.44 37.02 16.66 16.66 1.33 Slovakia 23.96 23.96 5.00 Canada 24.58 20.77 28.38 4.00 Hungary 24.89 24.89 2.95 Mexico 25.00 25.00 3.67 Estonia 26.20 26.62 25.78 26.62 4.00 Sweden 26.29 26.29 2.00 Finland 26.82 26.70 27.08 2.33 Ireland 28.07 28.07 2.33 Singapore 29.37 29.37 3.00 Luxembourg 29.51 29.51 5.00 Chile 35.13 39.04 29.27 2.20 Japan 35.57 39.01 28.68 1.17 Turkey 40.91 40.91 2.17 Belgium 47.21 47.21 2.50 Brazil 47.48 50.72 34.52 2.60 Slovenia 48.73 50.99 45.84 2.63 Australia 54.81 54.81 1.50 Norway 57.73 34.99 91.83 3.20 India 65.30 65.30 2.36 Israel 66.09 89.43 19.42 5.00 Switzerland 98.86 30.61 303.63 3.00 †The simple average is calculated by excluding satellite. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 39 Table 2a (continued) 2013 Country All† DSL Cable Fiber Hybrid Satellite Average Download Speed Brazil 36.73 39.19 54.20 2.11 Bulgaria 208.28 2.00 Canada 30.89 21.03 30.75 4.33 Chile 37.50 40.53 34.47 2.25 Czech Republic 33.17 33.17 2.00 Estonia 25.73 26.14 25.32 26.14 4.00 Finland 26.32 26.19 26.57 2.33 France 32.99 32.99 1.00 Hong Kong 20.54 20.54 1.50 Hungary 36.69 36.69 5.00 India 60.77 60.77 2.57 Ireland 50.67 50.67 4.00 Israel 16.53 16.53 5.00 Japan 44.04 51.48 29.16 1.17 Lithuania 38.65 19.22 41.42 2.88 Mexico 26.93 26.93 3.00 Norway 37.54 38.57 34.46 4.00 Poland 19.77 19.77 4.00 Slovakia 25.51 25.51 5.00 Slovenia 44.02 70.93 52.75 42.40 2.50 Switzerland 25.42 25.42 4.25 Turkey 68.06 68.06 4.00 United States 48.45 53.64 39.41 56.12 93.16 3.00 †The simple average is calculated by excluding satellite. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 40 Appendix C Table 2b Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price of a Standalone Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Technology Advertised Download Speed >5 to ?15 Mbps 2012 Country All DSL Cable Fiber Hybrid Satellite Average Download Speed Bulgaria 19.71 19.71 19.71 242.68 10.67 Austria 22.31 21.22 23.94 8.84 France 22.98 22.98 8.00 Portugal 23.60 23.60 15.00 Lithuania 24.46 28.04 20.88 10.00 Finland 25.67 25.79 29.23 18.21 101.92 9.71 Denmark 25.71 26.33 25.10 15.00 Poland 26.09 30.16 22.19 25.75 11.40 Sweden 27.44 30.15 25.84 25.54 8.70 Italy 28.10 26.96 31.54 8.75 Netherlands 30.07 30.07 8.00 Japan 30.74 30.11 38.31 10.46 Hungary 33.49 43.45 13.58 11.67 Slovakia 34.89 39.66 20.59 11.25 Korea 37.78 37.78 10.00 New Zealand 38.23 38.23 15.00 Czech Republic 42.10 61.75 30.54 25.91 10.20 Luxembourg 42.63 42.63 11.25 Canada 43.09 44.96 35.59 10.80 Australia 43.13 43.13 12.00 Singapore 43.69 43.69 8.00 Israel 44.14 27.77 93.22 22.34 11.71 Hong Kong 45.65 62.09 29.21 9.00 Ireland 46.08 46.08 7.65 Chile 51.94 52.11 51.24 10.20 Slovenia 52.32 44.79 35.83 58.63 9.75 Turkey 52.35 52.35 8.00 Belgium 60.14 60.14 12.00 Norway 68.72 33.24 87.35 48.31 11.00 Brazil 69.71 68.14 74.41 11.25 Iceland 70.10 70.10 11.14 Mexico 70.47 70.47 8.00 India 131.09 131.09 9.60 Switzerland 279.77 26.21 343.17 8.80 Greece 66.32 10.00 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 41 Table 2b (continued) 2013 Country All DSL Cable Fiber Hybrid Satellite Average Download Speed Australia 46.11 46.11 12.00 Austria 22.70 22.74 22.64 8.84 Brazil 51.81 51.17 54.38 12.00 Bulgaria 20.93 20.93 20.93 168.54 13.60 Canada 56.09 59.53 38.86 10.67 Chile 53.09 50.22 56.25 55.64 11.25 Denmark 22.90 32.68 31.58 22.90 15.00 Finland 26.47 25.30 41.61 14.87 223.37 9.67 France 45.58 48.10 32.99 8.23 Greece 69.78 10.00 Hong Kong 28.46 28.46 10.00 Hungary 37.14 17.63 46.90 13.33 Iceland 58.32 58.32 11.40 India 103.98 103.98 9.33 Ireland 56.85 56.85 134.55 9.25 Israel 24.40 24.56 28.46 20.19 14.00 Italy 30.89 30.89 8.33 Japan 38.85 38.84 38.95 10.67 Korea 33.84 33.84 10.00 Lithuania 36.38 25.45 8.50 52.96 11.00 Mexico 48.70 48.70 11.25 Netherlands 42.10 42.10 8.00 New Zealand 22.71 22.71 15.00 Norway 36.26 32.46 40.05 10.00 Poland 25.10 24.88 25.31 13.50 Slovakia 24.78 37.34 19.14 15.04 11.00 Slovenia 51.05 56.00 82.98 36.80 9.57 Sweden 30.56 30.73 30.05 10.00 Switzerland 33.15 80.51 26.42 10.00 Turkey 55.68 55.68 8.00 United States 60.69 63.90 50.09 61.17 94.37 10.67 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 42 Appendix C Table 2c Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price of a Standalone Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Technology Advertised Download Speed between >15 to ?25 Mbps 2012 Country All DSL Cable Fiber Hybrid Satellite Average Download Speed Austria 18.87 26.18 4.25 16.26 Hungary 22.06 22.06 25.00 Bulgaria 22.37 22.37 22.37 20.00 Netherlands 24.92 24.92 21.67 Germany 25.76 25.76 16.00 Korea 25.98 25.98 20.00 Italy 28.08 28.08 20.00 Poland 30.21 32.04 24.70 20.00 Greece 30.61 30.61 24.00 Israel 31.72 36.58 26.86 20.00 Finland 31.78 31.78 20.00 Sweden 33.89 34.74 32.18 20.83 Estonia 36.18 33.28 39.08 20.00 Denmark 36.30 36.30 20.00 Turkey 39.97 38.96 40.52 18.59 Singapore 43.02 48.72 37.32 20.50 Canada 44.75 45.33 43.59 21.00 Norway 45.08 41.09 53.07 20.33 Australia 49.46 50.64 46.31 23.55 Slovakia 53.02 53.02 20.00 Ireland 59.65 59.65 24.00 Chile 61.01 61.03 61.00 20.00 Czech Republic 65.05 74.93 45.29 18.83 Slovenia 65.15 64.33 45.60 72.20 20.00 Hong Kong 69.31 69.31 18.00 Luxembourg 72.21 72.21 20.00 Iceland 73.41 73.41 16.00 Mexico 78.03 78.03 20.00 India 86.46 86.46 16.00 Brazil 101.01 101.01 20.00 Switzerland 141.92 37.99 245.84 21.25 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 43 Table 2c (continued) 2013 Country All DSL Cable Fiber Hybrid Satellite Average Download Speed Australia 46.11 46.11 12.00 Austria 22.70 22.74 22.64 8.84 Brazil 51.81 51.17 54.38 12.00 Bulgaria 20.93 20.93 20.93 168.54 13.60 Canada 56.09 59.53 38.86 10.67 Chile 53.09 50.22 56.25 55.64 11.25 Denmark 22.90 22.90 15.00 Estonia 32.13 32.68 31.58 11.00 Finland 26.47 25.30 41.61 14.87 223.37 9.67 France 45.58 48.10 32.99 8.23 Greece 69.78 10.00 Hong Kong 28.46 28.46 10.00 Hungary 37.14 17.63 46.90 13.33 Iceland 58.32 58.32 11.40 India 103.98 103.98 9.33 Ireland 56.85 56.85 134.55 9.25 Israel 24.40 24.56 28.46 20.19 14.00 Italy 30.89 30.89 8.33 Japan 38.85 38.84 38.95 10.67 Korea 33.84 33.84 10.00 Lithuania 36.38 25.45 8.50 52.96 11.00 Mexico 48.70 48.70 11.25 Netherlands 42.10 42.10 8.00 New Zealand 22.71 22.71 15.00 Norway 36.26 32.46 40.05 10.00 Poland 25.10 24.88 25.31 13.50 Slovakia 24.78 37.34 19.14 15.04 11.00 Slovenia 51.05 82.98 36.80 56.00 9.57 Sweden 30.56 30.73 30.05 10.00 Switzerland 33.15 29.41 26.42 51.09 10.00 Turkey 55.68 55.68 8.00 United States 60.69 63.90 50.09 61.17 94.37 10.67 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 44 Appendix C Table 2d Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price of a Standalone Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Technology Advertised Download Speed between >25 to ?50 Mbps 2012 Country All DSL Cable Fiber Hybrid Satellite Average Download Speed Austria 20.76 27.77 25.92 8.58 38.33 Slovakia 26.57 26.57 30.00 Lithuania 27.44 30.86 13.75 50.00 Bulgaria 29.69 29.69 40.00 Sweden 30.52 30.52 30.00 Hungary 31.09 31.09 50.00 Netherlands 32.03 38.80 29.77 47.50 Poland 34.38 32.27 28.49 39.00 38.33 Japan 35.96 34.55 52.94 40.85 Korea 37.13 37.13 50.00 Estonia 39.00 44.72 33.28 50.00 Denmark 39.18 38.87 39.49 40.00 Belgium 42.65 42.65 30.00 Finland 42.71 42.71 35.00 Hong Kong 43.59 69.31 17.88 40.00 Czech Republic 47.10 34.47 59.73 40.00 Portugal 47.16 47.16 30.00 Iceland 49.32 49.32 50.00 Ireland 49.59 49.59 50.00 Australia 50.27 46.67 52.67 42.00 Luxembourg 55.05 55.05 36.67 Canada 61.25 60.57 64.01 38.00 Israel 62.12 39.29 104.21 31.44 34.00 Switzerland 62.34 55.91 81.61 40.00 Singapore 67.58 77.92 46.89 36.67 Turkey 68.08 68.08 50.00 Chile 71.38 69.96 75.65 37.50 Norway 78.23 99.16 50.33 35.71 Slovenia 89.98 84.69 63.52 105.86 40.00 Brazil 139.52 139.52 42.50 India 161.15 161.15 40.00 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 45 Table 2d (continued) 2013 Country All DSL Cable Fiber Hybrid Satellite Average Download Speed Australia 57.60 58.63 56.67 36.32 Austria 30.43 30.43 30.00 Belgium 42.63 42.63 34.29 Brazil 88.14 56.91 74.63 132.86 38.33 Bulgaria 27.31 26.36 27.55 42.00 Canada 78.71 85.87 42.91 40.00 Chile 71.99 70.19 80.45 65.33 40.00 Czech Republic 47.61 51.72 30.91 76.89 42.50 Denmark 20.60 20.60 30.00 Estonia 38.48 41.01 35.95 40.00 Finland 39.51 39.51 40.00 Germany 32.88 32.88 50.00 Greece 36.23 36.23 50.00 Hong Kong 23.54 23.54 50.00 Hungary 24.44 24.44 30.00 Iceland 65.79 59.24 73.97 50.00 India 135.93 134.46 138.88 37.33 Ireland 44.97 47.09 42.86 40.00 Israel 31.64 30.83 39.72 24.37 36.67 Japan 45.22 44.15 53.82 42.11 Korea 27.42 29.07 26.59 50.00 Lithuania 20.03 39.63 13.49 47.50 Mexico 103.13 103.13 43.33 Netherlands 63.68 53.63 73.72 45.00 Norway 50.43 50.16 51.25 35.00 Poland 29.31 28.88 29.84 29.65 40.00 Singapore 62.51 62.51 50.00 Slovakia 30.97 39.22 26.84 46.67 Slovenia 93.30 102.40 84.59 65.60 43.33 Sweden 39.08 84.82 39.08 50.00 Switzerland 62.45 84.82 54.99 36.25 Turkey 108.28 177.90 44.38 United Kingdom 41.61 39.68 43.54 34.00 United States 68.65 43.60 69.23 132.26 45.00 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 46 Appendix C Table 3a Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price of a Double Phone Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Speed Tier 2012 Country <5 Mbps ?5 to <15 Mbps ?15 to ?25 Mbps >25 to ?50 Mbps Australia 52.23 Austria 35.09 57.36 33.11 Belgium 46.38 60.24 61.83 Brazil 58.63 81.01 86.33 149.71 Bulgaria 34.35 Chile 63.44 68.93 77.48 80.53 Czech Republic 49.73 Denmark 25.58 34.49 46.90 Estonia 18.29 28.27 36.59 Germany 34.78 29.23 37.34 36.38 Greece 47.39 41.03 58.99 Hong Kong 25.10 India 56.14 122.36 192.91 Ireland 58.96 54.39 67.32 58.87 Italy 43.31 36.06 Korea 26.66 Luxembourg 36.00 68.67 60.42 Mexico 44.26 72.00 88.63 125.47 Netherlands 34.92 22.85 39.79 New Zealand 73.96 Norway 52.56 59.22 68.75 Poland 50.38 91.63 Slovakia 40.58 42.16 Spain 44.15 35.65 51.88 Sweden 25.16 37.40 34.54 44.91 Switzerland 35.94 41.72 Turkey 64.56 40.00 United Kingdom 35.28 41.29 40.43 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 47 Table 3a (continued) 2013 Country <5 Mbps ?5 to <15 Mbps ?15 to ?25 Mbps >25 to ?50 Mbps Australia 58.67 65.85 69.06 Austria 29.48 30.71 35.92 Belgium 34.17 26.36 58.11 Chile 78.03 87.71 Chile 87.71 Denmark 33.37 36.33 36.15 Estonia 17.96 31.60 35.93 France 107.25 43.05 Germany 36.92 28.57 39.47 Greece 78.69 56.56 86.31 Hong Kong 24.45 India 84.09 85.82 123.77 Ireland 58.08 50.22 81.31 47.29 Israel 28.94 31.12 Italy 42.38 36.12 Korea 26.29 Luxembourg 43.69 48.23 48.59 Mexico 43.24 65.46 110.29 Netherlands 34.60 22.64 51.76 New Zealand 81.71 Norway 51.60 50.79 64.78 Poland 51.06 87.12 Portugal 29.40 44.10 127.93 Spain 50.38 47.86 51.19 Sweden 40.36 Switzerland Turkey 41.65 58.69 United Kingdom 38.24 51.27 United States 65.46 72.39 69.08 77.06 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 48 Appendix C Table 3b Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price of a Double Video Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Speed Tier 2012 Country <5 Mbps ?5 to <15 Mbps ?15 to ?25 Mbps >25 to ?50 Mbps Austria 28.93 44.67 Bulgaria 29.03 21.11 26.50 Chile 82.97 92.73 Czech Republic 24.06 32.95 48.09 42.76 Denmark 22.91 28.67 40.18 Estonia 31.61 Hong Kong 52.18 Italy 54.71 54.71 Korea 35.96 Luxembourg 42.90 75.56 62.81 Mexico 45.09 55.70 88.63 125.47 Netherlands 46.94 49.48 58.18 New Zealand 43.01 Norway 39.79 46.46 55.98 Poland 56.49 66.09 70.58 Slovakia 38.44 Sweden 41.63 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 49 Table 3b (continued) 2013 Country <5 Mbps ?5 to <15 Mbps ?15 to ?25 Mbps >25 to ?50 Mbps Austria 31.19 Belgium 56.33 Brazil 35.34 Bulgaria 28.87 35.63 Chile 87.71 100.72 113.73 Czech Republic 45.21 49.38 Denmark 27.12 32.88 Estonia 30.82 France 72.50 33.71 Hong Kong 50.84 Ireland 67.43 Italy 40.32 40.32 Korea 38.81 Luxembourg 56.92 Mexico 55.49 104.08 Netherlands 46.50 77.28 94.64 Norway 59.16 59.16 73.15 Poland 55.50 67.32 72.20 Portugal 25.72 41.88 Sweden 41.35 Switzerland 33.11 42.31 54.57 66.83 United States 81.81 106.40 85.20 104.23 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 50 Appendix C Table 3c Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price of a Triple Play Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Speed Tier 2012 Country <5 Mbps ?5 to <15 Mbps ?15 to ?25 Mbps >25 to ?50 Mbps Australia 74.43 74.43 Austria 48.41 36.73 54.07 Brazil 69.64 149.32 141.53 162.07 Bulgaria 45.01 33.75 39.81 Canada 87.99 120.02 160.05 Chile 79.31 95.79 101.28 109.01 Denmark 51.46 54.59 Estonia 18.29 38.70 42.86 France 36.05 Germany 51.31 Greece 62.44 74.21 Hong Kong 59.41 Hungary 27.77 37.47 39.65 Ireland 82.95 Israel 91.04 95.97 Italy 52.43 69.90 Korea 31.44 Luxembourg 42.62 58.43 58.71 Mexico 61.39 78.77 119.88 166.77 Netherlands 51.51 38.71 57.53 New Zealand 82.97 Norway 64.54 71.21 80.81 Poland 74.77 80.71 85.31 Portugal 53.83 66.15 52.06 Singapore 81.30 65.49 78.05 Slovakia 36.83 Slovenia 61.41 67.89 84.34 97.56 Spain 47.65 33.33 41.20 Sweden 40.52 41.84 Switzerland 50.49 57.19 75.20 Turkey 64.29 42.11 United Kingdom 24.36 33.89 34.10 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 51 Table 3c (continued) 2013 Country <5 Mbps ?5 to <15 Mbps ?15 to ?25 Mbps >25 to ?50 Mbps Australia 94.06 94.06 Austria 35.03 32.35 Belgium 208.96 Brazil 84.05 117.00 120.94 117.46 Bulgaria 44.77 39.60 Canada 94.58 109.83 130.10 Chile 77.23 99.82 103.14 127.35 Czech Republic 45.38 Denmark 66.81 43.53 Estonia 17.96 38.01 42.09 45.74 France 56.52 53.76 Greece 74.38 67.19 78.06 Hong Kong 57.88 Hungary 27.84 37.57 39.75 Ireland 69.43 Israel 64.15 Italy 23.03 55.15 Korea 38.18 Luxembourg 74.46 100.84 72.57 Mexico 73.06 137.43 Netherlands 49.88 30.57 67.12 New Zealand 95.38 Poland 74.50 80.43 83.87 Portugal 84.69 Singapore 79.70 64.20 76.51 Slovakia 42.44 Slovenia 60.04 67.23 74.67 81.12 Spain 69.71 57.74 59.66 Sweden 48.41 52.48 Switzerland 42.31 38.23 60.70 63.58 Turkey 36.40 United Kingdom 53.74 61.63 United States 90.12 120.10 112.81 131.57 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 52 Appendix C Table 4a Standalone Broadband Plans with Usage Limits – Download Speed <25 Mbps 2012 Price per GB Rank Average Monthly Price Rank Country Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Data Limit Plan Count 1 11 Ireland 0.49 50.14 12.33 166.7 6 2 10 Australia 0.93 49.74 16.57 236.5 27 3 6 New Zealand 1.10 38.23 15.00 40.0 3 4 8 Canada 1.24 39.47 11.11 73.3 9 5 12 United States 1.25 50.42 9.10 169.3 29 6 13 Brazil 1.31 56.45 7.88 52.5 4 7 1 Hungary 2.72 13.58 10.00 5.0 1 8 14 Iceland 5.38 70.32 11.47 54.1 15 9 4 Turkey 5.49 31.82 13.55 21.5 20 10 5 Luxembourg 5.78 34.22 6.67 172.3 3 11 15 Finland 7.84 101.92 10.00 13.0 1 12 3 Chile 8.13 24.39 1.00 3.0 1 13 7 India 8.61 38.77 2.50 5.5 4 14 2 Slovakia 10.09 20.18 6.67 2.0 3 15 16 Bulgaria 25.35 242.68 8.50 12.5 4 16 9 Belgium 45.36 45.36 1.00 1.0 1 2013 Price per GB Rank Average Monthly Price Rank Country Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Data Limit Plan Count 1 3 New Zealand 0.66 22.71 15.00 36.00 7 2 9 Australia 0.71 53.30 18.22 305.74 27 3 8 Canada 1.44 41.42 9.44 52.22 9 4 10 United States 1.65 61.04 9.27 156.67 25 5 7 Turkey 2.75 40.37 19.76 28.88 17 6 11 India 3.42 76.21 8.40 48.07 15 7 1 Hungary 3.53 17.63 15.00 5.00 1 8 12 Ireland 4.01 96.79 14.93 45.71 14 9 4 Germany 5.48 27.42 16.00 5.00 1 10 2 Slovakia 9.45 18.91 12.50 2.00 4 11 5 Chile 9.88 29.63 1.00 3.00 1 12 6 Brazil 10.75 33.48 3.50 25.50 4 13 14 Bulgaria 12.61 241.39 11.50 25.00 4 14 13 Finland 17.18 223.37 10.00 13.00 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 53 Appendix C Table 4b Standalone Broadband Plans with Usage Limits – Download Speed ?25 Mbps 2012 Price per GB Rank Average Monthly Price Rank Country Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Data Limit Plan Count 1 7 Australia 0.10 51.54 112.00 500.0 1 3 11 Canada 0.40 88.16 97.86 322.1 14 4 1 Lithuania 0.47 31.14 103.75 120.0 16 5 9 Turkey 0.57 76.44 75.00 208.3 6 6 10 New Zealand 0.64 78.81 100.00 125.0 2 7 3 Luxembourg 0.68 47.01 50.00 75.0 2 8 6 Denmark 0.68 50.72 53.18 372.5 22 9 12 Brazil 1.45 218.03 100.00 150.0 1 10 5 Iceland 1.49 49.32 50.00 67.5 8 11 2 Japan 170.04 34.01 100.00 0.2 2 12 4 Belgium 218.10 48.59 54.00 70.4 5 2013 Price per GB rank Average Monthly Price Rank Country Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Data Limit Plan Count 1 1 Lithuania 0.21 30.61 185.00 162.50 8 2 10 United States 0.27 73.95 67.50 275.00 8 3 5 Belgium 0.39 41.65 36.00 110.00 5 4 11 Canada 0.41 84.99 92.50 279.21 14 5 8 Turkey 0.65 65.35 56.36 148.50 11 6 7 Australia 1.02 55.36 46.45 316.77 31 7 12 Brazil 1.04 165.77 70.00 150.00 3 8 6 Ireland 1.19 43.63 60.00 93.33 6 9 9 Iceland 1.61 70.29 100.00 112.00 5 10 2 Germany 2.19 32.88 50.00 15.00 1 11 13 India 2.32 166.89 86.17 90.83 6 12 4 Slovakia 19.61 39.22 50.00 2.00 1 13 3 Japan 108.05 34.58 100.00 0.32 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 54 Appendix C Table 4c Standalone Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed <10 Mbps 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Poland 15.07 1.00 1 2 Lithuania 15.18 3.75 4 3 Austria 21.22 8.06 3 4 France 22.98 8.00 1 5 Hungary 24.89 2.95 3 6 Estonia 26.20 4.00 4 7 Finland 26.45 3.75 4 8 Slovakia 27.94 5.00 2 9 Sweden 28.11 6.38 4 10 Ireland 29.00 3.87 3 11 Netherlands 30.07 8.00 1 12 Luxembourg 30.71 5.00 2 13 Japan 32.60 4.54 10 14 Singapore 34.15 4.50 2 16 Italy 38.30 7.50 2 17 Czech Republic 38.77 4.00 5 18 Chile 40.83 3.67 6 19 Hong Kong 41.58 4.75 2 20 Slovenia 47.01 2.59 20 21 Mexico 48.38 5.00 5 22 Belgium 49.06 4.00 1 23 Brazil 50.72 3.00 4 24 Israel 54.92 5.75 4 25 Norway 57.73 3.20 5 26 Turkey 64.95 6.83 12 27 India 78.71 3.00 8 28 Switzerland 205.64 4.33 6 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 55 Table 4c (continued) 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Israel 16.53 5.00 1 2 Poland 19.77 4.00 1 3 Hong Kong 20.54 1.50 1 4 Iceland 22.62 6.00 1 5 Austria 22.74 8.06 3 6 Switzerland 25.42 4.25 4 7 Slovakia 25.51 5.00 1 8 Estonia 25.73 4.00 4 9 Finland 25.95 3.75 4 10 Czech Republic 33.17 2.00 1 11 Hungary 36.69 5.00 1 12 Norway 37.54 4.00 4 13 Lithuania 37.60 3.70 10 14 Mexico 39.15 5.50 2 15 Chile 41.29 3.50 4 16 Brazil 41.84 2.50 6 17 Netherlands 42.10 8.00 1 18 Slovenia 42.83 2.79 30 19 Japan 43.71 4.58 6 20 Italy 44.21 7.50 2 21 France 45.58 5.90 6 22 Turkey 63.61 7.00 12 23 United States 63.78 3.40 5 24 India 159.15 4.00 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 56 Appendix C Table 4d Standalone Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed ?10 to ?25 Mbps 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Austria 20.90 13.75 5 2 Bulgaria 21.04 17.50 4 3 Portugal 23.60 15.00 1 4 Italy 24.02 16.00 5 5 Netherlands 24.92 21.67 3 6 Germany 25.76 16.00 1 7 Lithuania 26.12 10.67 3 8 Finland 26.75 11.67 6 9 Poland 27.92 15.22 9 10 Denmark 29.24 16.67 3 11 Sweden 30.55 16.50 5 12 Japan 30.95 12.00 8 13 Korea 35.01 12.35 17 14 Estonia 36.18 20.00 2 15 Hungary 36.32 16.67 3 16 Greece 42.51 19.33 3 17 Slovakia 43.00 13.75 4 18 Israel 43.88 14.25 8 19 Singapore 44.83 17.00 3 20 Turkey 48.41 17.60 5 21 Hong Kong 49.26 14.00 2 23 Czech Republic 53.03 16.44 9 24 Luxembourg 56.85 15.83 6 25 Chile 57.59 15.80 5 26 Slovenia 58.76 14.62 13 27 Norway 59.86 14.50 8 28 Belgium 60.14 12.00 1 29 Mexico 61.29 15.00 2 30 Brazil 68.14 11.67 3 31 India 135.08 11.20 5 32 Switzerland 161.16 16.43 7 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 57 Table 4d (continued) 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Bulgaria 21.38 18.33 9 2 Israel 24.40 14.00 3 3 Poland 24.64 15.67 3 4 Germany 25.67 20.00 1 5 Austria 26.08 13.60 5 6 Finland 27.74 12.00 5 7 Korea 28.02 14.29 7 8 Hong Kong 28.46 10.00 1 9 United Kingdom 30.04 16.00 1 10 Denmark 30.46 17.50 2 11 Sweden 32.96 12.80 5 12 France 32.99 15.00 1 13 Lithuania 33.11 14.40 5 14 Estonia 34.21 14.00 3 15 Italy 35.52 18.57 7 16 Japan 36.59 12.00 6 17 Norway 39.90 14.40 5 18 Greece 40.24 19.33 3 19 Switzerland 40.40 14.44 9 20 Slovakia 42.51 15.00 3 21 Czech Republic 46.93 20.00 3 22 Singapore 47.20 25.00 2 23 Ireland 48.57 24.00 1 24 Hungary 50.30 16.67 3 25 Brazil 51.81 15.00 5 26 Mexico 57.87 14.25 4 27 Chile 58.80 15.80 5 28 Slovenia 59.53 14.85 20 29 Iceland 64.61 12.40 10 30 United States 68.86 18.00 7 31 Turkey 78.60 18.00 4 32 Canada 98.71 18.33 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 58 Appendix C Table 4e Standalone Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – <25 Mbps 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Lithuania 19.87 6.71 7 2 Austria 21.02 11.62 8 3 Bulgaria 21.04 17.50 4 4 Netherlands 22.98 16.00 3 5 France 22.98 8.00 1 6 Portugal 23.60 15.00 1 7 Germany 25.76 16.00 1 8 Finland 26.63 8.50 10 9 Poland 26.63 13.80 10 10 Italy 28.10 13.57 7 11 Ireland 29.00 3.87 3 12 Denmark 29.24 16.67 3 13 Sweden 29.46 12.00 9 14 Estonia 29.53 9.33 6 15 Japan 31.87 7.86 18 16 Hungary 32.31 6.77 5 17 Korea 35.01 12.35 17 18 Slovakia 37.98 10.83 6 19 Singapore 41.37 8.75 4 20 Greece 42.51 19.33 3 21 United States 44.11 7.59 17 22 Hong Kong 45.42 9.38 4 23 Israel 47.56 11.42 12 24 Czech Republic 47.64 11.00 13 25 Chile 48.45 9.18 11 26 Luxembourg 50.32 13.13 8 27 Slovenia 51.64 7.33 33 28 Mexico 52.06 7.86 7 29 Belgium 54.60 8.00 2 30 Brazil 58.18 6.71 7 31 Norway 59.53 8.92 12 32 Turkey 60.09 10.00 17 33 India 100.39 6.15 13 34 Switzerland 194.09 9.67 12 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 59 Table 4e (continued) 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Bulgaria 21.59 17.50 8 2 Israel 22.43 11.75 4 3 Poland 23.42 12.75 4 4 Hong Kong 24.50 5.75 2 5 Austria 24.82 11.52 8 6 Germany 25.67 20.00 1 7 Finland 26.94 8.33 9 8 Korea 28.02 14.29 7 9 Estonia 29.37 8.29 7 10 United Kingdom 30.04 16.00 1 11 Denmark 30.46 17.50 2 12 Sweden 32.96 12.80 5 13 Switzerland 35.79 11.31 13 14 Lithuania 36.11 7.27 15 15 Italy 37.45 16.11 9 16 Slovakia 38.26 12.50 4 17 Norway 38.85 9.78 9 18 Japan 40.15 8.29 12 19 Greece 40.24 19.33 3 20 Netherlands 42.10 8.00 1 21 Czech Republic 43.49 15.50 4 22 Hungary 43.50 10.00 3 23 France 43.78 7.20 7 24 Brazil 45.57 6.50 10 25 Ireland 48.57 24.00 1 26 Slovenia 49.19 7.26 49 27 Chile 51.02 10.33 9 28 Mexico 51.63 11.33 6 29 Iceland 60.79 11.82 11 30 Turkey 67.36 9.75 16 31 United States 68.62 10.73 11 32 Canada 83.92 15.00 2 33 India 159.15 4.00 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 60 Appendix C Table 4f Standalone Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed ?25 to ?50 Mbps 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Lithuania 13.75 50.00 1 2 Austria 20.76 38.33 3 3 Slovakia 26.57 30.00 2 4 Bulgaria 29.69 40.00 2 5 Sweden 30.52 30.00 1 6 Hungary 31.09 50.00 1 7 Netherlands 32.03 47.50 4 8 Poland 34.38 38.33 6 9 Japan 35.96 40.85 13 10 Korea 37.13 50.00 7 11 Estonia 39.00 50.00 2 12 Denmark 39.18 40.00 4 13 Finland 42.71 35.00 2 14 Hong Kong 43.59 40.00 2 15 Czech Republic 47.10 40.00 4 16 Portugal 47.16 30.00 1 17 Ireland 49.59 50.00 1 18 Belgium 55.03 30.00 1 19 Luxembourg 61.52 40.00 2 20 Israel 62.12 34.00 5 21 Switzerland 62.34 40.00 4 22 Singapore 67.58 36.67 3 23 Chile 71.38 37.50 4 25 Turkey 75.34 50.00 1 26 Norway 78.23 35.71 7 27 Slovenia 89.98 40.00 4 28 Brazil 139.52 42.50 2 29 India 161.15 40.00 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 61 Table 4f (continued) 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Lithuania 20.03 47.50 4 2 Denmark 20.60 30.00 1 3 Hong Kong 23.54 50.00 1 4 Hungary 24.44 30.00 1 5 Slovakia 26.84 45.00 2 6 Bulgaria 27.31 42.00 5 7 Korea 27.42 50.00 9 8 Poland 29.31 40.00 4 9 Austria 30.43 30.00 1 10 Israel 31.64 36.67 3 11 Greece 36.23 50.00 1 12 Estonia 38.48 40.00 4 13 Sweden 39.08 50.00 2 14 Finland 39.51 40.00 2 15 United Kingdom 41.61 34.00 2 16 Japan 45.22 42.11 9 17 Czech Republic 47.61 42.50 4 18 Norway 50.43 35.00 4 19 Belgium 51.00 40.00 3 20 Switzerland 62.45 36.25 4 21 Singapore 62.51 50.00 1 22 Netherlands 63.68 45.00 2 23 Iceland 65.79 50.00 9 24 United States 69.08 45.00 4 25 Chile 71.99 40.00 3 26 Slovenia 93.30 43.33 6 27 Brazil 94.89 42.50 2 28 Mexico 103.13 43.33 3 29 Canada 143.84 50.00 1 30 Turkey 236.57 42.50 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 62 Appendix C Table 4g Standalone Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed >50 Mbps 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Lithuania 27.78 147.62 21 2 Korea 40.10 105.58 43 3 Hungary 41.41 120.00 1 4 Slovakia 42.57 90.00 6 5 Sweden 43.11 182.92 12 6 Japan 43.81 112.49 37 7 Czech Republic 47.57 93.33 3 8 Switzerland 48.10 100.00 1 9 Estonia 48.15 100.00 2 10 Poland 49.05 95.00 8 11 Austria 50.47 100.00 2 12 Bulgaria 53.00 100.00 1 13 Netherlands 53.36 90.00 2 14 Finland 57.80 190.00 4 15 Hong Kong 62.48 440.77 13 16 Ireland 67.00 125.00 2 17 Luxembourg 68.96 110.00 2 18 Denmark 88.42 87.50 2 19 Israel 98.74 100.00 3 21 Portugal 125.12 80.00 2 22 Chile 125.69 100.00 2 23 Singapore 134.84 275.00 6 24 Canada 158.66 175.00 2 25 Norway 171.99 130.00 6 26 India 238.34 90.00 2 27 Brazil 301.31 100.00 1 28 Turkey 373.76 550.00 2 29 Slovenia 387.13 252.00 10 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 63 Table 4g (continued) 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Austria 27.80 75.00 2 2 Italy 31.32 100.00 3 3 Lithuania 33.07 210.00 34 4 Korea 34.40 175.79 38 5 Poland 42.07 90.00 4 6 Slovakia 42.97 183.33 6 7 Hungary 43.72 140.00 3 8 Bulgaria 43.84 112.50 4 9 Japan 43.98 206.69 39 10 Denmark 45.92 90.00 1 11 Switzerland 46.65 112.50 2 12 Estonia 47.28 100.00 2 13 Finland 47.46 183.33 3 14 Ireland 48.57 70.00 1 15 Israel 48.79 100.00 3 16 Sweden 49.63 376.84 19 17 United Kingdom 54.46 80.00 2 18 Czech Republic 54.72 153.33 3 19 Hong Kong 70.19 440.77 13 20 Belgium 79.24 96.67 3 21 Netherlands 80.48 133.33 3 22 Singapore 91.86 311.11 9 23 Chile 116.36 93.33 3 24 Canada 124.12 175.00 2 25 Mexico 144.01 100.00 2 26 United States 147.33 192.86 7 27 Norway 155.71 147.50 4 28 Brazil 210.92 100.00 1 29 Slovenia 379.72 254.00 10 30 Turkey 598.59 550.00 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 64 Appendix C Table 4h Double Play Broadband Plans with Usage Limits – Download Speed <25 Mbps 2012 Price per GB Rank Average Monthly Price Rank Country Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Data Limit Plan Count 1 10 Ireland 0.94 58.35 11.00 177.1 14 2 13 United States 1.19 82.45 12.48 190.5 20 3 9 Australia 1.47 52.23 24.00 242.5 10 4 5 United Kingdom 2.22 34.91 15.50 25.0 4 5 1 Turkey 2.98 31.88 17.33 29.8 6 6 14 India 4.14 181.72 11.71 88.2 7 7 7 Sweden 4.18 41.78 8.50 10.0 4 8 2 Germany 6.07 31.91 16.00 16.3 4 9 4 Austria 11.34 34.03 8.00 3.0 1 10 3 Slovakia 16.53 33.06 6.67 2.0 3 11 12 New Zealand 19.24 68.86 15.00 36.8 11 12 11 Brazil 35.36 66.38 4.25 4.4 16 13 6 Italy 41.76 41.76 15.00 1.0 4 14 8 Belgium 43.61 43.61 1.00 1.0 1 2013 Price per GB Rank Average Monthly Price Rank Country Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Data Limit Plan Count 1 2 Denmark 0.14 27.12 15.00 200.00 1 2 8 Ireland 0.84 53.76 8.73 115.45 11 3 10 United States 1.59 78.21 9.85 196.00 30 4 5 Germany 2.58 37.40 12.50 135.00 4 5 7 Canada 3.29 49.39 5.00 15.00 1 6 9 Australia 3.36 62.58 19.33 243.94 18 7 12 India 3.41 89.46 6.76 55.36 25 8 3 United Kingdom 3.53 35.27 16.00 10.00 1 9 6 Turkey 3.71 46.51 16.00 28.00 2 10 1 Austria 7.79 23.38 8.00 3.00 1 11 11 New Zealand 18.84 81.71 12.00 41.46 26 12 4 Italy 36.83 36.83 15.00 1.00 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 65 Appendix C Table 4i Double Play Broadband Plans with Usage Limits – Download Speed ?25 Mbps 2012 Price per GB Rank Average Monthly Price Rank Country Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Data Limit Plan Count 1 6 United States 0.32 80.30 35 250.0 4 2 5 Ireland 0.32 66.71 75 283.3 3 3 3 Belgium 0.55 54.97 30 100.0 2 4 4 Turkey 0.65 65.04 75 100.0 2 5 2 United Kingdom 1.01 40.43 38 40.0 1 6 1 Italy 29.21 29.21 100 1.0 3 2013 Price per GB Rank Average Monthly Price Rank Country Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP/GB) Average Download Speed Data Limit Plan Count 1 3 Denmark 0.04 39.01 63.33 1200.00 3 2 9 United States 0.34 87.05 36.67 252.78 18 3 5 Belgium 0.45 52.58 30.00 120.00 5 4 7 Ireland 1.02 54.29 66.67 136.67 12 5 6 Turkey 1.07 53.31 50.00 121.25 4 6 10 Canada 1.07 97.99 28.33 93.33 3 7 2 Germany 1.09 37.98 54.17 205.00 6 8 4 United Kingdom 1.19 47.66 38.00 40.00 1 9 8 Australia 2.50 69.44 28.25 198.50 20 10 1 Italy 28.94 28.94 100.00 1.00 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 66 Appendix C Table 4j Double Play Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed <10 Mbps 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Denmark 21.38 6.00 1 2 Czech Republic 24.06 1.00 2 3 Estonia 26.06 3.67 3 4 Singapore 28.61 6.00 1 5 Finland 29.40 4.00 1 6 Germany 31.08 5.00 3 7 Luxembourg 32.55 5.00 2 8 Austria 34.24 8.06 3 9 Sweden 38.31 6.80 5 10 Netherlands 40.93 8.00 2 11 Slovakia 44.99 5.00 1 12 Italy 45.64 7.60 5 13 Greece 47.39 2.00 2 14 Norway 48.28 5.00 7 16 Belgium 49.15 4.00 1 17 Mexico 54.92 5.20 10 18 Ireland 55.10 8.00 1 19 Chile 64.05 5.00 2 20 Brazil 69.48 5.00 3 21 Turkey 77.22 8.00 2 22 India 81.18 4.62 13 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Portugal 27.56 2.00 2 2 Finland 28.84 4.00 1 3 Estonia 29.23 4.33 6 4 India 30.54 0.51 1 5 Austria 31.04 8.00 5 6 Luxembourg 34.98 7.57 7 7 Switzerland 39.24 6.00 3 8 Netherlands 40.55 8.00 2 9 Italy 46.33 7.60 5 10 Mexico 48.57 5.00 6 11 Norway 52.51 5.00 7 12 United States 69.82 3.17 6 13 Greece 78.69 4.00 3 14 France 86.40 5.64 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 67 Appendix C Table 4k Double Play Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed ?10 to ?25 Mbps 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Bulgaria 26.40 16.25 4 2 Sweden 29.38 17.00 2 3 Italy 30.35 20.00 2 4 Denmark 31.67 16.09 11 5 Singapore 32.92 12.50 2 6 Korea 34.92 10.00 14 7 Czech Republic 40.52 13.75 4 8 Greece 41.03 24.00 6 9 Germany 41.69 16.00 5 10 Spain 42.03 13.00 4 11 Finland 42.25 14.67 3 12 Netherlands 45.04 20.00 6 13 United Kingdom 48.03 15.00 2 14 Turkey 49.02 16.00 1 15 Norway 54.47 15.00 14 16 Slovakia 58.72 10.00 1 17 Luxembourg 59.24 15.00 4 18 Poland 59.87 16.80 25 19 Austria 59.92 18.00 2 20 Belgium 60.24 12.00 1 21 Ireland 66.71 24.00 1 22 Switzerland 79.13 20.42 12 23 Chile 80.77 15.00 5 24 United States 80.83 18.00 9 25 Brazil 83.67 12.50 6 26 Mexico 96.26 16.67 3 27 India 125.06 16.00 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 68 Table 4k (continued) 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Korea 23.47 10.00 8 2 Germany 24.84 16.00 3 3 Israel 28.94 12.00 1 4 Bulgaria 29.80 15.00 3 5 Austria 30.71 20.00 2 6 Denmark 35.34 15.83 6 7 Brazil 35.34 10.00 1 8 Italy 35.94 20.00 8 9 France 38.96 15.83 6 10 United Kingdom 39.72 16.00 2 11 Sweden 40.86 10.00 2 12 Finland 41.45 14.67 3 13 Czech Republic 45.21 20.00 2 14 Spain 49.12 15.00 4 15 Greece 50.42 24.00 10 16 Luxembourg 51.30 19.07 28 17 Norway 51.58 15.00 14 18 Switzerland 54.57 15.00 2 19 Poland 59.65 16.31 26 20 Singapore 63.47 15.00 1 21 Netherlands 68.17 20.00 6 22 Mexico 69.64 10.57 7 23 United States 82.95 17.95 19 24 Portugal 86.01 15.00 2 25 Chile 90.98 15.00 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 69 Appendix C Table 4l Double Play Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed <25 Mbps 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Estonia 26.06 3.67 3 2 Bulgaria 28.14 13.33 3 3 Denmark 30.81 15.25 12 4 Singapore 31.48 10.33 3 5 Korea 34.92 10.00 14 6 Czech Republic 35.03 9.50 6 7 Sweden 35.76 9.71 7 8 Germany 37.71 11.88 8 9 Finland 39.04 12.00 4 10 Italy 41.27 11.14 7 11 Spain 42.03 13.00 4 12 Greece 42.62 18.50 8 13 Netherlands 44.01 17.00 8 14 Austria 45.54 12.04 5 15 United Kingdom 48.03 15.00 2 16 Luxembourg 50.34 11.67 6 17 Slovakia 51.86 7.50 2 18 Norway 52.41 11.67 21 19 Belgium 54.69 8.00 2 20 Poland 59.87 16.80 25 21 Ireland 60.90 16.00 2 22 Mexico 64.46 7.85 13 23 United States 67.10 10.67 12 24 Turkey 67.82 10.67 3 25 Chile 76.00 12.14 7 26 Brazil 78.94 10.00 9 27 Switzerland 83.06 20.00 11 28 India 91.73 7.29 17 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 70 Table 4l (continued) 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Korea 23.47 10.00 8 2 Germany 24.84 16.00 3 3 Israel 28.94 12.00 1 4 Bulgaria 29.80 15.00 3 5 Austria 30.71 20.00 2 6 Denmark 35.34 15.83 6 7 Brazil 35.34 10.00 1 8 Italy 35.94 20.00 8 9 France 38.96 15.83 6 10 United Kingdom 39.72 16.00 2 11 Sweden 40.86 10.00 2 12 Finland 41.45 14.67 3 13 Czech Republic 45.21 20.00 2 14 Spain 49.12 15.00 4 15 Greece 50.42 24.00 10 16 Luxembourg 51.30 19.07 28 17 Norway 51.58 15.00 14 18 Switzerland 54.57 15.00 2 19 Poland 59.65 16.31 26 20 Singapore 63.47 15.00 1 21 Netherlands 68.17 20.00 6 22 Mexico 69.64 10.57 7 23 United States 82.95 17.95 19 24 Portugal 86.01 15.00 2 25 Chile 90.98 15.00 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 71 Appendix C Table 4m Double Play Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed >25 to ?50 Mbps 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Bulgaria 26.50 50.00 1 2 Germany 36.38 38.00 3 3 Estonia 36.59 40.00 1 4 Hong Kong 38.64 50.00 2 5 Austria 38.89 35.00 2 6 Slovakia 40.30 30.00 2 7 Switzerland 41.72 50.00 2 8 Czech Republic 42.76 40.00 2 9 Denmark 44.02 40.71 7 10 Sweden 44.91 30.00 3 11 Netherlands 47.14 42.00 5 12 Ireland 51.04 50.00 1 13 Spain 51.88 36.67 3 14 Greece 58.99 44.29 7 15 Luxembourg 61.45 38.57 7 16 Belgium 65.26 30.00 4 17 Italy 65.57 30.00 2 18 Norway 66.38 35.00 14 19 Poland 77.60 42.22 9 20 Chile 80.53 35.00 2 21 United States 109.21 44.00 10 22 Mexico 125.47 30.00 2 23 Brazil 149.71 42.50 6 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 72 Table 4m (continued) 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Germany 29.01 50.00 1 2 Israel 31.12 30.00 1 3 Bulgaria 35.63 50.00 1 4 Austria 35.92 32.50 2 5 Estonia 35.93 40.00 1 6 Denmark 36.15 39.00 5 7 Hong Kong 37.65 50.00 2 8 Slovakia 41.88 50.00 1 9 Czech Republic 49.38 45.00 2 10 Luxembourg 49.98 33.33 6 11 Spain 51.19 38.33 3 12 United Kingdom 52.47 35.33 3 13 Ireland 59.00 50.00 2 14 Belgium 62.50 38.75 8 15 Norway 65.90 35.00 14 16 Switzerland 66.83 30.00 2 17 Netherlands 68.91 42.00 5 18 Italy 69.59 30.00 3 19 Sweden 77.50 50.00 1 20 Poland 77.79 43.75 8 21 Greece 86.31 44.29 7 22 United States 97.62 46.92 13 23 Mexico 107.18 40.00 4 24 Chile 113.73 40.00 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 73 Appendix C Table 4n Double Play Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed >50 Mbps 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Brazil 8.86 100.00 3 2 Germany 25.76 100.00 1 3 Bulgaria 36.48 125.00 2 4 Korea 37.26 100.00 19 5 Estonia 46.57 150.00 1 6 Sweden 51.22 232.86 7 7 Hong Kong 51.31 337.14 7 8 Slovakia 55.90 60.00 1 9 Czech Republic 56.21 93.33 3 10 Ireland 59.74 125.00 2 11 United Kingdom 60.46 118.00 2 12 Netherlands 70.47 190.00 4 13 Luxembourg 77.65 98.00 5 14 Denmark 79.36 91.67 3 15 Poland 80.66 76.67 6 16 Spain 84.17 100.00 2 17 United States 89.99 75.00 1 18 Chile 91.51 80.00 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 74 Table 4n (continued) 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Korea 30.65 100.00 13 2 Germany 36.45 150.00 2 3 Estonia 45.74 150.00 1 4 Denmark 45.92 90.00 1 5 Slovakia 55.04 200.00 5 6 Spain 59.54 100.00 3 7 Austria 60.01 150.00 1 8 United Kingdom 61.42 78.00 4 9 Switzerland 62.37 108.33 6 10 Ireland 65.52 130.00 6 11 Czech Republic 67.59 153.33 3 12 Hong Kong 68.05 337.14 7 13 Sweden 68.60 243.17 6 14 Luxembourg 74.97 235.56 9 15 Poland 81.80 76.67 6 16 Netherlands 88.32 190.00 4 17 Brazil 94.46 150.00 2 18 Belgium 99.36 85.00 2 19 France 107.80 1000.00 1 20 Chile 135.52 115.00 2 21 United States 137.24 127.78 9 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 75 Appendix C Table 4o Triple Play Broadband Plans with Usage Limits – Download Speed <25 Mbps 2012 Price per GB Rank Average Monthly Price Rank Country Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Data Limit Plan Count 1 7 United States 0.54 81.45 12.17 208.3 6 2 10 Canada 0.67 98.67 13.33 150.0 3 3 1 United Kingdom 1.63 26.85 16.00 20.0 6 4 9 Israel 1.75 91.04 12.00 52.0 1 5 11 Brazil 2.15 134.76 9.42 68.3 12 6 8 New Zealand 2.47 82.97 15.00 40.0 3 7 6 Australia 3.31 74.43 20.00 226.3 4 8 2 Turkey 5.65 48.12 10.67 9.7 3 9 3 Germany 51.51 51.51 16.00 1.0 3 10 4 Spain 66.01 66.01 10.00 1.0 1 11 5 Italy 69.90 69.90 20.00 1.0 1 2013 Price per GB Rank Average Monthly Price Rank Country Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Data Limit Plan Count 1 4 Australia 0.50 94.06 20.00 266.67 3 2 7 United States 0.52 104.66 11.33 225.00 6 3 5 Canada 2.30 94.58 8.33 88.33 3 4 6 New Zealand 2.84 95.38 15.00 40.00 3 5 1 United Kingdom 30.99 61.98 16.00 2.00 1 6 2 Italy 55.36 63.27 20.00 1.00 3 7 3 Spain 88.92 65.63 20.00 1.08 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 76 Appendix C Table 4p Triple Play Broadband Plans with Usage Limits – Download Speed ?25 Mbps 2012 Price per GB Rank Average Monthly Price Rank Country Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Data Limit Plan Count 1 5 United States 0.35 87.09 43.75 250 4 2 7 Canada 0.40 160.05 50.00 400 1 3 1 United Kingdom 0.85 34.10 38.00 40 1 4 6 New Zealand 1.01 123.55 100.00 125 2 5 3 Australia 2.30 77.61 53.33 267.5 6 6 2 Italy 61.14 61.14 100.00 1 2 7 4 Spain 79.23 79.23 100.00 1 1 2013 Price per GB Rank Average Monthly Price Rank Country Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Data Limit Plan Count 1 1 Turkey 0.49 36.40 25.00 75.00 1 2 7 Australia 0.50 94.06 28.33 266.67 9 3 6 Belgium 0.55 73.30 37.50 137.50 4 4 11 United States 0.57 151.18 65.00 268.18 11 5 9 Canada 0.98 114.84 30.63 151.25 8 6 10 New Zealand 1.06 129.38 100.00 125.00 2 7 3 United Kingdom 1.32 52.94 38.00 40.00 1 8 5 Ireland 2.30 69.00 85.00 30.00 2 9 2 Italy 49.00 49.00 100.00 1.00 2 10 4 Spain 124.13 61.60 46.43 0.71 7 11 8 Singapore 109.52 200.00 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 77 Appendix C Table 4q Triple Play Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed <10 Mbps 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Estonia 23.28 3.00 2 2 Luxembourg 36.23 5.00 3 3 Portugal 38.50 6.00 1 4 Sweden 40.52 8.33 6 5 Switzerland 43.80 5.00 1 6 Austria 48.41 9.00 1 7 Netherlands 50.35 8.00 1 8 Italy 52.43 7.50 2 9 Slovenia 59.37 2.23 23 10 Greece 62.44 2.00 2 11 Norway 62.63 5.00 12 12 Mexico 74.42 5.50 4 13 Turkey 77.44 8.00 2 14 Chile 83.38 4.00 3 15 Brazil 83.51 2.00 2 16 Singapore 84.14 6.00 8 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Estonia 22.86 3.00 2 2 Italy 23.03 7.00 1 3 Austria 35.03 8.00 1 4 Switzerland 39.25 5.75 4 5 Netherlands 49.88 8.00 1 6 Slovenia 57.74 2.54 21 7 Mexico 57.96 5.50 2 8 Luxembourg 65.62 5.25 12 9 Greece 74.38 4.00 2 10 Chile 77.23 2.67 3 11 Singapore 82.48 6.00 8 12 Brazil 84.05 2.00 2 13 United States 99.79 3.50 6 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 78 Appendix C Table 4r Triple Play Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed ?10 to ?25 Mbps 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Spain 31.32 16.00 2 2 Korea 31.44 10.00 10 3 Hungary 34.24 18.33 6 4 France 36.05 23.00 5 5 Austria 36.73 25.00 1 6 Bulgaria 37.51 18.33 3 7 United Kingdom 44.79 15.33 3 8 Netherlands 45.69 15.00 2 9 Estonia 49.13 12.00 1 10 Germany 50.71 16.00 1 11 Denmark 51.46 17.50 2 12 Luxembourg 55.30 17.56 9 13 Switzerland 55.85 17.00 5 14 Portugal 63.05 13.00 3 15 Singapore 66.49 14.44 9 16 Norway 68.83 15.00 24 17 Greece 74.21 24.00 2 18 Slovenia 75.48 13.69 13 19 Poland 77.74 15.00 6 21 Chile 100.87 15.00 3 22 Mexico 119.88 20.00 1 23 Brazil 137.47 13.00 15 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 79 Table 4r(continued) 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Netherlands 30.57 20.00 1 2 Italy 30.81 20.00 1 3 Austria 32.35 25.00 1 4 Hungary 34.33 18.33 6 5 Korea 38.18 10.00 2 6 Bulgaria 44.77 10.00 1 7 Estonia 48.25 12.00 1 8 Sweden 48.41 10.00 1 9 United Kingdom 51.68 16.00 4 10 Spain 55.85 15.00 4 11 France 56.52 16.18 17 12 Switzerland 60.70 15.00 2 13 Singapore 65.18 14.44 9 14 Denmark 66.81 20.00 1 15 Greece 67.19 24.00 2 16 Slovenia 73.31 15.94 18 17 Poland 77.46 15.00 6 18 Mexico 83.12 10.67 3 19 Luxembourg 92.42 15.28 25 20 United States 101.27 16.70 10 21 Chile 102.04 15.00 3 22 Brazil 117.47 11.76 17 23 Canada 130.54 25.00 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 80 Appendix C Table 4s Triple Play Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed <25 Mbps 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Hungary 30.14 15.00 4 2 Spain 31.32 16.00 2 3 Korea 31.44 10.00 10 4 Estonia 31.90 6.00 3 5 France 34.90 20.00 2 6 Bulgaria 39.68 15.00 2 7 Sweden 40.52 8.33 6 8 United Kingdom 44.79 15.33 3 9 Netherlands 47.24 12.67 3 10 Austria 48.41 9.00 1 11 Luxembourg 50.53 14.42 12 12 Germany 50.71 16.00 1 13 Denmark 51.46 17.50 2 14 Italy 52.43 7.50 2 15 Portugal 56.91 11.25 4 16 Switzerland 56.93 13.00 5 17 Slovenia 65.19 6.37 36 18 Norway 66.76 11.67 36 19 Greece 68.33 13.00 4 20 Singapore 74.79 10.47 17 21 Turkey 77.44 8.00 2 22 Poland 77.74 15.00 6 23 Mexico 83.52 8.40 5 24 Chile 92.12 9.50 6 25 United States 118.16 11.00 6 26 Brazil 131.12 11.71 17 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 81 Table 4s (continued) 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Italy 26.92 13.50 2 2 Hungary 30.22 15.00 4 3 Estonia 31.32 6.00 3 4 Austria 35.03 8.00 1 5 Korea 38.18 10.00 2 6 Netherlands 40.22 14.00 2 7 Bulgaria 44.77 10.00 1 8 Switzerland 46.40 8.83 6 9 Sweden 48.41 10.00 1 10 United Kingdom 51.68 16.00 4 11 Spain 55.85 15.00 4 12 France 56.52 16.18 17 13 Slovenia 64.66 8.30 38 14 Denmark 66.81 20.00 1 15 Greece 70.79 14.00 4 16 Mexico 73.06 8.60 5 17 Singapore 73.32 10.47 17 18 Poland 77.46 15.00 6 19 Luxembourg 83.73 12.03 37 20 Chile 89.63 8.83 6 21 United States 100.52 10.87 15 22 Brazil 113.13 9.06 17 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 82 Appendix C Table 4t Triple Play Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed ?25 to ?50 Mbps 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Slovakia 36.83 30.00 1 2 Hungary 39.65 40.00 4 3 Bulgaria 39.81 50.00 1 4 Spain 41.20 40.00 2 5 Sweden 41.84 30.00 3 6 Estonia 42.86 45.00 2 7 Portugal 52.06 36.67 3 8 Austria 54.07 50.00 2 9 Denmark 54.59 36.67 3 10 Netherlands 57.53 37.50 4 11 Luxembourg 58.71 38.00 5 12 Hong Kong 59.41 50.00 1 13 Switzerland 75.20 50.00 3 14 Singapore 78.05 50.00 12 15 Norway 80.81 35.00 24 16 Ireland 82.95 50.00 2 17 Poland 85.31 33.33 3 18 Israel 95.97 30.00 1 19 Slovenia 97.56 30.00 1 20 Chile 109.01 36.67 3 22 Brazil 162.07 42.50 18 23 Mexico 166.77 30.00 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 83 Table 4t (continued) 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Bulgaria 39.60 50.00 1 2 Hungary 39.75 40.00 4 3 Estonia 42.09 45.00 2 4 Slovakia 42.44 50.00 1 5 Denmark 43.53 35.00 2 6 Czech Republic 45.38 40.00 1 7 Spain 48.78 50.00 2 8 Sweden 52.48 50.00 1 9 France 53.76 50.00 7 10 Hong Kong 57.88 50.00 1 11 United Kingdom 63.37 34.80 5 12 Switzerland 63.58 31.67 3 13 Israel 64.15 30.00 4 14 Netherlands 67.12 36.00 5 15 Ireland 71.43 50.00 1 16 Luxembourg 72.57 32.67 15 17 Singapore 76.51 50.00 12 18 Greece 78.06 40.00 2 19 Slovenia 81.12 50.00 5 20 Poland 83.87 33.33 3 21 Portugal 84.69 30.00 5 22 Brazil 117.46 32.00 5 23 Chile 127.35 40.00 2 24 United States 128.65 47.14 7 25 Mexico 137.43 40.00 2 26 Belgium 249.96 35.00 10 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 84 Appendix C Table 4u Triple Play Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed >50 Mbps 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Brazil 8.86 100.00 9 2 Korea 36.73 100.00 13 3 France 39.02 100.00 10 4 Sweden 45.89 60.00 3 5 Estonia 46.57 150.00 1 6 Bulgaria 49.80 125.00 2 7 United Kingdom 53.27 76.00 2 8 Hungary 54.92 120.00 2 9 Switzerland 55.65 100.00 2 10 Slovakia 56.74 95.00 4 11 Hong Kong 59.41 130.00 1 12 Netherlands 68.50 140.00 7 13 Austria 71.41 100.00 1 14 Luxembourg 78.89 97.50 4 15 Spain 90.28 100.00 3 16 Portugal 90.67 140.00 7 17 Ireland 91.65 100.00 1 18 Poland 95.92 86.67 3 19 Singapore 102.72 188.64 22 20 Chile 112.26 80.00 1 21 Slovenia 113.84 80.00 1 22 Israel 114.31 100.00 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 85 Table 4u (continued) 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Korea 40.48 100.00 3 2 Estonia 45.74 150.00 1 3 Slovakia 51.30 166.67 3 4 France 53.69 318.67 15 5 Hungary 55.07 120.00 2 6 Hong Kong 57.88 130.00 1 7 Bulgaria 59.47 125.00 2 8 Sweden 60.41 194.44 9 9 Czech Republic 65.54 180.00 2 10 Denmark 67.84 105.00 2 11 Austria 68.42 137.50 4 12 Switzerland 72.68 125.00 4 13 Spain 74.51 100.00 4 14 Netherlands 75.23 152.86 7 15 Ireland 78.71 115.00 4 16 Luxembourg 85.53 270.00 6 17 Poland 94.30 86.67 3 18 Israel 101.93 100.00 2 19 United Kingdom 102.78 77.60 5 20 Portugal 105.58 144.44 9 21 Singapore 107.15 188.10 21 22 Slovenia 113.97 86.67 3 23 Chile 128.26 115.00 2 24 United States 157.57 129.17 6 25 Belgium 341.49 96.67 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 86 Appendix C Table 5 Average Price (US$) per Mbps of Download Speed by Country, 2011-2013 Country $/Mbps 2011 $/Mbps 2012 $/Mbps 2013 Australia 11.6 10.36 10.60 Austria 4.55 4.71 2.76 Belgium 5.61 4.45 3.59 Brazil 15.48 7.41 Bulgaria 0.69 0.65 0.48 Canada 6.22 6.05 4.16 Chile 11.25 11.15 10.88 Czech Republic 2.96 2.67 1.82 Denmark 3.59 3.59 2.23 Estonia 5.02 4.22 3.69 Finland 4.49 4.75 2.93 France 5.4 8.59 4.98 Germany 3.54 4.33 3.16 Greece 5.87 5.67 4.58 Hong Kong 2.31 2.3 3.27 Hungary 2.16 2.15 1.14 Iceland 3.3 2.85 1.71 India 21.53 13.10 Ireland 7.02 8.87 6.23 Israel 3.51 3.01 1.93 Italy 7.06 7.14 5.66 Lithuania 1.33 1.29 0.72 Mexico 12.8 11.94 6.65 Netherlands 3.41 3.42 2.74 New Zealand 9.3 8.26 6.68 Norway 6.21 6.45 5.22 Poland 3.15 3.27 2.06 Portugal 6.43 7.8 4.91 Singapore 5.01 4.79 3.75 Slovakia 2.03 2.47 1.01 Slovenia 5.36 5.84 4.12 Spain 8.13 8.3 5.95 Sweden 4.48 3.67 3.40 Switzerland 3.91 4.46 3.77 Turkey 5.77 5.61 5.06 United Kingdom 3.54 3.67 2.95 United States 6.14 5.39 4.30 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 87 Appendix C Table 6 Average Weighted Price (US$) per Mbps of Download Speed by U.S. States and International Countries 2012 Lowest 25 th Price Percentile Middle 50 Percent Highest 25 th Price Percentile Country Price US$/Mbps Country Price US$/Mbps Country Price US$/Mbps Country Price US$/Mbps Bulgaria 0.65 Germany 4.33 North Dakota 5.43 Wyoming 7.07 Lithuania 1.29 Belgium 4.45 Nebraska 5.49 Italy 7.14 Hungary 2.15 Switzerland 4.46 Georgia 5.53 Luxembourg 7.14 Hong Kong 2.30 Washington 4.52 Kansas 5.53 West Virginia 7.32 Slovakia 2.47 Wisconsin 4.54 Turkey 5.61 Portugal 7.80 South Dakota 2.59 Minnesota 4.63 Utah 5.64 New Mexico 8.02 Czech Republic 2.67 Oregon 4.63 Greece 5.67 Idaho 8.13 Iceland 2.85 Austria 4.71 Slovenia 5.84 New Zealand 8.26 Israel 3.01 Connecticut 4.74 Louisiana 5.88 Spain 8.30 Delaware 3.11 Finland 4.75 Nevada 5.93 Vermont 8.32 Rhode Island 3.26 Florida 4.78 Canada 6.05 France 8.59 Poland 3.27 Singapore 4.79 Ohio 6.05 Mississippi 8.62 Netherlands 3.42 Arizona 4.96 Indiana 6.09 Iowa 8.63 New Jersey 3.58 Colorado 5.08 Michigan 6.13 Montana 8.69 Denmark 3.59 New Hampshire 5.10 Pennsylvania 6.23 Ireland 8.87 Sweden 3.67 Hawaii 5.12 Missouri 6.27 Australia 10.36 United Kingdom 3.67 Tennessee 5.13 Alabama 6.28 Chile 11.15 Virginia 3.83 California 5.16 Norway 6.45 District of Columbia 11.39 Maryland 3.91 Kentucky 5.27 Illinois 6.49 Mexico 11.94 Massachusetts 4.02 North Carolina 5.29 Oklahoma 6.52 Alaska 12.17 New York 4.08 South Carolina 5.36 Arkansas 6.72 Brazil 15.48 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 88 Table 6 (continued) 2013 Lowest 25th 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 0.48 Minnesota 3.46 Florida 4.21 Arkansas 5.19 Lithuania 0.72 New Jersey 3.50 Georgia 4.23 Norway 5.22 Slovakia 1.01 Wisconsin 3.53 Kentucky 4.31 Oklahoma 5.27 Hungary 1.14 Rhode Island 3.53 California 4.44 Indiana 5.28 Iceland 1.71 Washington 3.54 West Virginia 4.45 New Hampshire 5.32 Czech Republic 1.82 Virginia 3.54 Texas 4.50 Maryland 5.38 Israel 1.93 New York 3.55 Ohio 4.52 Idaho 5.54 Poland 2.06 Hawaii 3.55 Louisiana 4.53 Italy 5.66 Denmark 2.23 Belgium 3.59 Alabama 4.55 Montana 5.68 South Dakota 2.34 Estonia 3.69 Greece 4.58 Illinois 5.80 Netherlands 2.74 Singapore 3.75 Nebraska 4.62 Spain 5.95 Austria 2.76 Switzerland 3.77 Maine 4.65 Ireland 6.23 Finland 2.93 Tennessee 3.77 New Mexico 4.75 Mexico 6.65 United Kingdom 2.95 North Carolina 3.82 Iowa 4.85 New Zealand 6.68 Nevada 3.13 Wyoming 3.86 Massachusetts 4.88 Mississippi 6.93 Germany 3.16 South Carolina 3.88 Portugal 4.91 Brazil 7.41 Hong Kong 3.27 Colorado 3.91 North Dakota 4.94 Alaska 7.47 Arizona 3.30 Utah 3.92 Pennsylvania 4.97 District of Columbia 8.41 Oregon 3.37 Slovenia 4.12 France 4.98 Australia 10.60 Connecticut 3.40 Canada 4.16 Turkey 5.06 Chile 10.88 Sweden 3.40 Missouri 4.20 Michigan 5.07 India 13.10 Kansas 5.11 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 89 Appendix C Table 7a Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: <1 GB and Limited Minutes 2012 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price Per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Average Minutes Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 2 Poland 18.45 5.86 0.37 100.00 80.00 2.52 7.56 3 2 15 Portugal 37.51 22.50 0.60 7.20 100.00 22.50 22.50 1 3 1 Estonia 40.77 4.08 0.10 21.60 136.00 4.08 4.08 1 4 12 Italy 55.30 21.42 0.42 14.40 333.33 11.68 33.88 3 5 20 Japan 57.36 28.68 0.50 50.00 28.68 28.68 1 6 5 India 64.55 10.31 0.34 7.28 10.00 4.98 24.85 6 7 11 Switzerland 65.49 20.68 0.37 7.20 65.00 0.00 37.51 6 8 19 France 65.58 27.17 0.44 13.23 82.11 10.83 43.65 19 9 4 Turkey 70.10 7.41 0.19 7.20 228.57 2.26 21.80 7 10 14 Australia 78.99 22.11 0.39 5.00 237.75 8.91 31.81 8 11 18 Hungary 82.64 26.03 0.37 5.50 157.00 3.78 58.38 10 12 21 Netherlands 86.48 29.03 0.35 4.40 0.00 7.28 44.33 7 13 26 Brazil 91.24 36.04 0.38 2.54 240.00 7.98 132.45 13 14 31 Ireland 96.59 46.27 0.51 19.47 200.00 23.58 64.86 14 15 32 Spain 97.47 47.04 0.52 6.49 144.38 10.58 119.05 16 16 3 Luxembourg 97.94 7.10 0.16 65.00 0.98 19.59 4 17 13 Iceland 108.86 21.45 0.29 7.20 443.75 0.67 59.59 8 18 30 Mexico 118.73 45.10 0.41 20.00 485.00 22.21 81.38 6 19 8 Belgium 119.73 17.74 0.38 7.20 112.50 8.87 26.61 4 20 35 Greece 134.02 66.57 0.53 30.53 1100.00 61.98 75.76 3 21 27 United Kingdom 137.21 38.86 0.33 6.28 341.30 19.29 60.83 23 22 29 Czech Republic 138.53 42.40 0.34 21.85 65.00 17.69 73.96 4 23 17 Germany 140.15 24.63 0.21 21.47 95.00 8.96 44.44 6 24 33 Chile 143.09 54.28 0.43 2.00 142.50 45.11 63.44 2 25 9 Norway 152.94 18.65 0.30 41.00 238.33 11.33 26.57 6 26 25 New Zealand 169.34 35.50 0.34 6.88 162.31 14.64 86.96 13 27 34 United States 202.47 60.74 0.30 31.00 450.00 51.49 69.99 2 28 7 Finland 207.10 16.17 0.17 16.00 300.00 14.14 18.21 2 29 28 Canada 226.19 41.61 0.27 125.00 1000.00 36.81 44.81 3 30 16 Austria 244.94 24.49 0.10 12.50 1000.00 15.88 33.11 2 31 24 Bulgaria 254.59 35.01 0.29 34.36 805.45 15.71 93.21 11 32 10 Slovenia 387.08 19.07 0.25 14.34 254.04 4.89 64.50 25 33 22 Hong Kong 1335.53 31.25 0.29 23.07 1630.77 14.45 50.56 13 34 6 Lithuania 1778.56 13.38 0.11 21.00 335.56 3.43 29.05 9 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 90 35 23 Korea 2074.17 34.06 0.30 75.00 3128.14 6.20 76.14 28 2013 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price Per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Average Minutes Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 4 India 17.16 8.84 0.53 21.00 666.67 5.89 12.53 6 2 2 Denmark 22.49 6.75 0.30 71.00 30.00 6.11 7.54 3 3 1 Italy 23.15 5.79 0.25 14.40 120.00 5.79 5.79 1 4 6 Poland 38.64 10.74 0.34 82.31 2.37 24.73 13 5 16 New Zealand 39.55 23.75 0.60 7.20 266.00 17.66 35.93 5 6 8 Switzerland 58.51 15.13 0.34 83.78 12.22 6.13 26.98 9 7 11 Iceland 59.49 20.03 0.35 7.20 150.00 13.84 25.56 4 8 14 Bulgaria 65.71 22.38 0.40 42.00 783.00 10.58 34.30 10 9 27 Slovakia 80.27 40.14 0.50 40.10 125.00 36.50 43.78 2 10 15 Australia 81.29 23.23 0.32 8.00 251.20 16.13 32.26 5 11 30 Singapore 90.35 45.18 0.50 112.50 350.00 26.56 63.79 2 12 22 Netherlands 92.77 33.14 0.42 25.73 179.17 7.21 57.96 12 13 20 Mexico 100.89 26.81 0.28 18.50 85.00 21.01 44.24 4 14 13 Sweden 102.89 21.21 0.35 27.73 72.22 5.36 53.49 9 15 25 Ireland 107.20 37.26 0.39 21.00 260.00 21.71 51.43 10 16 18 Portugal 108.27 25.55 0.30 12.00 105.00 18.82 36.62 4 17 21 Hungary 110.38 31.72 0.31 80.90 85.00 21.71 50.98 6 18 32 Greece 115.94 86.96 0.75 1500.00 86.96 86.96 3 19 10 Belgium 123.59 18.25 0.26 20.00 156.00 9.92 31.97 5 20 28 Spain 126.06 40.67 0.41 10.54 115.00 12.23 80.22 10 21 17 Slovenia 128.04 24.21 0.27 42.00 189.64 6.40 55.99 28 22 26 Germany 133.89 38.31 0.38 24.70 137.50 31.00 51.57 8 23 31 United Kingdom 141.38 53.84 0.42 300.00 50.56 55.96 3 24 24 Korea 158.91 36.46 0.45 150.00 122.56 13.77 81.37 41 25 7 France 187.49 13.46 0.23 89.06 120.00 5.49 20.62 14 26 23 Czech Republic 217.48 33.44 0.17 70.29 102.86 10.92 36.58 14 27 9 Finland 218.98 17.37 0.17 100.00 0.00 14.87 19.86 2 28 34 Brazil 250.23 109.89 0.46 2.60 354.50 35.90 283.04 20 29 12 Austria 256.99 20.46 0.08 2.67 1000.00 12.88 32.81 3 30 19 Luxembourg 941.33 25.70 0.22 3.60 50.00 4.67 32.71 6 31 3 Lithuania 1239.86 8.06 0.17 18.00 186.67 2.83 28.82 12 32 33 Turkey 2941.31 103.58 0.29 21.60 1100.00 26.00 203.55 16 33 29 Hong Kong 4634.88 42.55 0.30 15.50 1461.54 17.24 78.82 13 34 5 Japan 8793.42 10.26 0.00 0.00 3.82 20.55 6 Appendix C Table 7b Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: <1 GB and Unlimited Minutes 2012 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 91 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price Per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 1 Slovakia 20.15 10.07 0.50 0.51 10.07 10.07326 1 2 2 Italy 38.16 10.51 0.33 14.40 5.84 14.01869 3 3 5 Israel 60.74 30.37 0.50 7.20 26.84 33.89371 2 4 8 France 78.95 39.48 0.50 9.60 27.33 50.21882 6 5 6 Korea 110.37 31.45 0.37 18.60 42.16348 7 6 9 Germany 117.88 44.94 0.43 11.70 35.84 61.21814 4 7 7 Poland 148.69 37.17 0.25 21.60 37.17 37.17238 1 8 10 United States 217.48 47.50 0.23 42.00 40.00 54.99 2 9 4 Luxembourg 1208.78 10.77 0.15 0.98 27.42409 4 10 3 Japan 1290.03 10.73 0.01 3.75 20.21174 6 2013 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price Per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 1 Slovakia 21.90 10.95 0.50 14.40 10.95 10.95 1 2 10 Spain 59.44 47.55 0.80 1.50 47.55 47.55 2 3 5 Switzerland 67.44 33.72 0.50 100.00 33.72 33.72 1 4 7 Slovenia 75.21 37.60 0.50 100.00 37.60 37.60 1 5 8 Iceland 87.73 43.87 0.50 7.20 43.87 43.87 2 6 4 France 97.51 25.01 0.41 72.18 13.19 31.62 10 7 12 Canada 106.70 53.35 0.50 129.55 18.74 81.04 11 8 13 Hungary 135.59 67.80 0.50 64.00 40.77 95.23 3 9 3 Italy 188.66 21.99 0.18 14.40 10.42 33.56 2 10 14 United States 193.98 70.12 0.38 16.03 5.00 125.00 18 11 9 Germany 222.47 46.73 0.37 16.89 16.06 67.54 14 12 6 Czech Republic 243.85 36.58 0.15 100.00 36.58 36.58 1 13 11 Portugal 256.62 51.32 0.20 51.32 51.32 1 14 2 Norway 494.82 13.90 0.09 6.00 9.23 18.56 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 92 Appendix C Table 7c Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: ?1 to <5 GB and Limited Minutes 2012 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price Per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Average Minutes Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 2 Iceland 5.58 11.69 3.00 7.20 400.00 8.10 16.27 6 2 1 Estonia 7.34 9.40 1.50 11.80 125.50 8.24 10.57 2 3 7 Switzerland 7.43 20.28 3.00 0.00 9.12 30.41 6 4 4 Sweden 8.36 17.42 2.40 13.70 1221.60 4.74 59.07 10 5 6 Denmark 8.62 18.50 3.00 47.00 312.00 11.40 24.54 5 6 5 Slovakia 9.23 18.47 2.00 1.02 0.00 18.47 18.47 1 7 3 Lithuania 9.93 13.05 1.58 21.00 80.83 2.29 28.00 12 8 11 India 11.55 29.32 2.51 11.03 6.67 12.45 124.44 18 9 10 Poland 11.80 27.46 2.67 25.08 373.33 15.07 39.82 6 10 8 Slovenia 14.27 21.58 1.88 30.15 920.88 2.44 43.97 17 11 9 Luxembourg 17.14 22.85 1.33 81.67 9.79 34.28 3 12 14 Austria 17.42 36.50 2.50 15.33 2250.00 21.66 50.56 8 13 25 Singapore 19.05 57.19 3.00 37.20 240.00 37.86 95.60 5 14 19 France 19.10 45.02 2.50 28.20 60.00 38.18 54.60 4 15 22 Brazil 19.31 50.14 3.33 2.67 257.78 22.87 148.40 9 16 12 Finland 19.43 32.96 2.00 16.00 950.00 25.33 40.59 2 17 15 Spain 22.60 37.62 1.78 5.93 162.22 19.84 69.94 9 18 13 Italy 22.77 33.08 1.63 18.51 968.75 5.84 68.93 8 19 21 Turkey 22.78 47.33 2.45 7.20 1709.09 7.14 112.03 11 20 17 Australia 26.88 43.75 1.73 16.67 425.54 21.63 63.61 13 21 16 Norway 28.50 41.57 1.65 41.00 1650.00 33.24 57.05 4 22 20 Korea 28.79 46.36 1.69 75.00 4423.85 12.40 68.21 13 23 35 United States 30.10 84.54 3.28 21.50 450.00 50.00 119.99 9 24 24 Bulgaria 31.02 55.79 2.44 36.75 1531.25 13.32 133.02 8 25 30 Canada 31.14 66.72 3.00 42.00 0.00 56.04 80.06 3 26 18 Belgium 33.40 43.79 1.50 14.40 317.50 33.26 53.22 4 27 28 Ireland 34.23 63.24 2.39 19.03 459.09 31.45 92.81 22 28 26 Hong Kong 37.03 59.23 2.40 57.75 3066.67 51.82 72.05 3 29 23 Portugal 37.88 52.89 1.33 54.80 298.33 23.60 90.04 3 30 37 Mexico 42.39 90.12 2.79 20.00 792.50 27.80 232.08 12 31 34 Chile 46.23 83.44 2.40 8.00 338.00 48.80 102.47 5 32 32 Hungary 48.60 72.97 1.86 12.40 364.29 17.64 141.81 7 33 31 Netherlands 49.24 69.33 1.55 12.04 0.00 31.28 148.43 29 34 27 New Zealand 51.56 60.76 1.64 6.27 66.67 28.96 96.04 9 35 33 Czech Republic 55.48 73.96 1.60 42.00 75.00 36.94 110.98 2 36 36 Germany 60.21 87.45 1.50 100.00 120.00 65.95 108.96 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 93 37 29 United Kingdom 64.54 64.54 1.00 7.20 975.00 53.41 75.67 4 38 38 Greece 75.18 103.31 1.38 15.95 837.50 75.76 137.74 4 2013 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price Per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Average Minutes Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 2 Israel 3.61 18.03 5.00 300.00 18.03 18.03 1 2 1 Lithuania 6.49 12.22 2.24 18.00 480.00 5.67 28.20 14 3 12 Germany 10.85 31.00 3.50 42.20 100.00 31.00 31.00 4 4 13 Estonia 11.90 31.31 3.70 7.15 386.00 8.79 60.39 5 5 11 India 12.35 29.89 2.60 20.78 855.17 12.52 66.20 29 6 5 Italy 13.77 25.65 2.18 40.08 363.64 10.42 56.71 11 7 3 Switzerland 14.37 20.99 1.64 53.60 17.14 9.20 40.87 7 8 9 Austria 14.89 29.07 2.33 9.00 1333.33 21.43 38.62 3 9 6 Luxembourg 14.95 25.70 2.50 7.20 45.00 9.35 42.06 4 10 8 Belgium 15.39 28.81 2.00 34.87 208.00 13.23 49.61 15 11 16 Iceland 16.76 34.18 3.67 21.87 66.67 16.04 61.37 6 12 24 Singapore 18.22 57.07 3.13 112.50 290.00 33.31 94.11 8 13 10 Czech Republic 18.28 29.25 2.00 42.00 0.00 25.58 32.91 2 14 17 Sweden 18.68 37.72 2.80 43.71 166.67 10.84 93.96 15 15 7 Denmark 19.14 26.30 1.70 56.00 222.00 20.60 36.31 10 16 4 France 21.99 21.99 1.00 42.00 120.00 21.99 21.99 2 17 14 Spain 25.41 32.91 1.38 7.20 200.00 14.01 45.86 9 18 15 Poland 25.79 33.04 1.36 381.82 7.43 56.94 11 19 19 Netherlands 27.86 39.41 2.11 25.29 211.11 10.67 72.09 9 20 18 Slovenia 28.38 38.76 1.75 42.00 757.50 14.40 135.19 16 21 21 Australia 30.01 44.44 1.72 24.00 571.44 25.81 67.10 9 22 28 Bulgaria 31.59 62.54 2.39 42.00 2508.89 34.42 132.44 9 23 20 New Zealand 32.44 43.38 1.31 5.40 483.33 23.75 72.47 9 24 26 Hong Kong 33.57 60.21 2.40 57.75 1750.00 19.35 114.00 8 25 22 Portugal 36.94 53.38 1.80 21.60 2098.00 24.85 102.79 5 26 23 Ireland 38.00 53.71 1.50 21.00 250.00 44.57 62.86 4 27 30 Hungary 38.10 84.59 2.33 60.00 400.00 40.84 131.98 3 28 25 Korea 38.23 59.79 1.81 117.86 166.38 38.81 143.96 36 29 31 Chile 42.97 86.18 2.25 9.12 463.08 48.38 145.20 13 30 33 Brazil 44.22 118.51 3.00 3.91 301.82 75.44 176.71 11 31 32 Turkey 49.18 88.58 2.51 14.15 1998.65 28.23 259.29 74 32 29 Mexico 53.46 81.15 1.63 18.36 669.17 31.01 155.50 24 33 34 Greece 56.28 122.43 2.45 7.20 2605.26 72.46 173.91 19 34 27 United Kingdom 62.35 62.35 1.00 1200.00 62.35 62.35 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 94 Appendix C Table 7d Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: ?1 to <5 GB and Unlimited Minutes 2012 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price Per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 2 Luxembourg 3.92 19.59 5.00 19.59 19.59 1 2 4 Denmark 8.85 34.21 4.00 25.00 30.18 38.24 2 3 5 Japan 15.83 47.50 3.00 75.00 47.50 47.50 1 4 16 Belgium 16.63 83.15 5.00 83.15 83.15 1 5 6 Australia 17.92 53.75 3.00 40.00 43.89 63.61 2 6 1 Slovakia 18.45 18.45 1.00 12.56 12.80 29.29 4 7 17 Ireland 18.47 92.37 5.00 7.20 92.37 92.37 1 8 11 France 21.14 60.80 3.10 33.72 32.80 83.04 20 9 12 United States 24.89 66.66 3.33 24.60 50.00 94.99 9 10 3 Israel 25.64 32.81 1.67 7.20 29.56 36.61 3 11 9 Poland 29.48 58.96 2.00 2.49 22.68 100.30 9 12 15 Germany 30.36 76.90 2.50 35.55 56.74 97.06 2 13 18 Brazil 31.56 92.45 3.50 1.00 87.13 97.77 2 14 13 Spain 31.60 68.34 2.17 7.20 46.30 92.59 3 15 10 Canada 32.10 60.19 2.60 120.00 51.22 68.83 5 16 8 Korea 40.92 57.87 1.50 52.08 66.97 3 17 7 Italy 42.11 57.63 1.83 14.40 11.68 133.18 6 18 14 United Kingdom 48.10 73.26 1.69 5.12 54.90 97.92 8 19 19 Portugal 77.95 155.91 2.00 150.00 155.91 155.91 1 20 20 Greece 110.19 165.29 1.50 42.20 82.64 241.05 3 2013 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price Per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 1 Lithuania 2.20 3.31 1.50 3.31 3.31 1 2 7 France 9.55 32.88 3.60 80.35 21.99 50.59 20 3 2 Denmark 11.03 21.80 2.85 71.00 19.45 24.80 13 4 3 Estonia 11.83 23.66 2.00 3.50 23.66 23.66 1 5 6 Switzerland 12.65 29.09 3.00 7.20 18.80 40.87 3 6 5 Israel 13.07 24.95 2.50 4.00 18.03 31.09 4 7 4 Norway 14.76 24.56 2.00 14.29 18.56 32.55 7 8 14 Belgium 16.93 57.54 3.50 37.72 35.28 82.69 8 9 13 Australia 16.97 57.51 3.71 14.40 41.94 86.45 7 10 9 Austria 17.03 41.05 3.00 16.71 18.61 67.17 7 11 15 Ireland 17.19 59.43 3.50 21.00 56.00 62.86 4 12 22 Korea 17.21 78.86 4.67 75.00 63.84 86.37 3 13 17 Slovakia 21.34 62.65 2.67 36.13 14.60 100.35 3 14 10 Slovenia 21.36 42.39 2.25 61.33 31.98 47.20 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 95 15 11 Italy 26.15 48.96 2.18 76.27 17.25 97.80 11 16 12 United Kingdom 27.15 51.05 2.45 30.93 76.58 11 17 19 Iceland 28.89 65.84 2.88 7.20 51.19 80.48 4 18 8 Spain 32.76 40.92 1.63 4.92 27.17 68.99 7 19 20 Poland 33.27 71.84 2.29 39.64 98.61 11 20 24 New Zealand 36.19 83.78 2.57 6.15 60.29 109.01 7 21 18 Canada 36.36 65.61 2.36 121.15 22.79 105.35 39 22 16 Czech Republic 38.08 62.30 2.06 76.92 51.24 73.23 26 23 21 Germany 39.13 78.05 2.86 77.46 24.99 111.89 14 24 25 Netherlands 47.31 91.40 2.29 38.57 69.13 134.08 7 25 27 United States 48.80 93.08 2.38 15.60 35.00 145.00 50 26 28 Hungary 53.29 129.26 2.50 105.00 122.45 136.07 2 27 23 Portugal 60.18 80.74 2.00 58.68 102.79 4 28 26 Singapore 75.05 91.93 1.25 75.00 82.55 101.31 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 96 Appendix C Table 7e Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: ?5 GB and Limited Minutes 2012 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price Per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Average Minutes Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Coun t 1 3 Sweden 1.48 30.48 29.38 44.38 637.69 10.56 69.63 16 2 1 Slovenia 1.95 29.32 15.00 42.00 51.00 29.32 29.32 1 3 2 Iceland 1.96 30.02 17.25 7.20 325.00 23.70 37.08 4 4 6 Poland 2.39 46.32 21.00 100.00 0.00 25.15 80.59 5 5 11 Hungary 3.15 58.03 22.50 27.30 187.50 41.58 79.09 4 6 5 Denmark 3.41 39.34 11.67 61.67 1840.00 34.42 47.56 3 7 10 Portugal 3.52 52.84 15.00 100.00 0.00 48.39 57.30 2 8 14 Italy 4.54 90.83 20.00 21.60 3000.00 90.83 90.83 1 9 16 Hong Kong 4.81 99.13 22.50 100.00 3000.00 90.10 108.16 2 10 7 Spain 4.96 49.60 10.00 21.75 15.00 46.30 52.91 2 11 9 Bulgaria 5.19 51.93 10.00 42.00 0.00 51.93 51.93 1 12 4 Austria 5.29 36.65 8.00 2.00 1500.00 24.70 48.60 2 13 20 Chile 5.34 170.85 32.00 8.00 1200.00 170.85 170.85 1 14 8 Turkey 6.48 51.88 8.00 500.00 51.88 51.88 1 15 13 Mexico 6.69 66.87 10.00 20.00 60.00 66.87 66.87 1 16 12 India 7.03 64.23 9.20 12.72 6.00 42.33 79.62 5 17 17 Korea 9.08 101.24 12.73 75.00 1781.82 76.89 148.81 11 18 15 Brazil 9.30 93.04 10.00 6.00 0.00 93.04 93.04 1 19 18 United States 16.21 133.59 8.50 16.75 450.00 121.46 141.46 4 20 19 Singapore 16.23 163.04 10.00 54.00 1566.67 95.27 197.67 3 2013 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price Per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Average Minutes Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 2 Netherlands 1.53 15.28 10.00 50.00 300.00 15.28 15.28 1 2 13 Luxembourg 1.69 56.07 35.00 53.60 100.00 51.40 65.42 3 3 4 Slovenia 1.78 30.64 17.50 42.00 0.00 29.28 32.00 2 4 3 Denmark 2.75 22.67 9.20 71.00 108.00 17.15 34.41 5 5 5 Iceland 2.87 43.06 15.00 50.00 100.00 43.06 43.06 1 6 7 Switzerland 4.70 47.01 10.00 30.00 37.81 56.20 2 7 8 Spain 4.76 47.55 10.00 42.00 150.00 47.55 47.55 1 8 9 Czech Republic 4.76 47.57 10.00 100.00 0.00 47.57 47.57 1 9 19 Estonia 5.32 89.26 18.33 83.33 316.67 71.85 102.88 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 97 10 11 Sweden 5.58 53.52 19.73 52.53 666.67 21.77 98.34 15 11 16 Hong Kong 6.05 81.13 18.33 57.75 2514.29 34.83 159.92 7 12 6 Italy 6.66 46.64 7.00 100.00 0.00 46.64 46.64 2 13 14 India 7.31 56.08 7.98 22.88 1062.50 36.85 72.18 16 14 10 Austria 8.35 50.07 6.00 42.00 3000.00 50.07 50.07 1 15 21 Korea 8.61 100.35 13.11 140.63 711.11 57.58 150.22 18 16 18 Mexico 8.87 88.70 10.00 20.00 40.00 88.70 88.70 1 17 17 Singapore 8.95 81.66 9.17 27.60 503.33 39.62 179.73 6 18 15 Ireland 14.29 56.65 6.00 391.67 29.04 85.71 6 19 20 Belgium 16.54 99.23 6.00 86.00 250.00 99.23 99.23 1 20 22 Turkey 17.71 106.24 6.00 7.20 6000.00 92.87 110.70 4 21 23 Chile 18.13 150.04 8.50 9.26 1042.86 116.15 169.40 7 22 25 Greece 28.99 289.86 10.00 10000.00 289.86 289.86 2 23 24 Brazil 34.94 209.62 6.00 5.00 612.50 141.27 293.16 8 24 1 Finland 13.63 12.32 60.00 4.89 19.76 5 25 12 Japan 54.94 75.00 0.00 29.16 71.34 10 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 98 Appendix C Table 7f Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: ?5 GB and Unlimited Minutes 2012 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price Per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 1 Luxembourg 1.57 51.42 33.75 21.47 29.38 73.46 4 2 2 Denmark 3.73 52.63 15.00 25.00 44.00 61.27 2 3 8 Korea 6.20 155.01 25.00 155.01 155.01 1 4 4 Austria 7.36 73.57 10.00 42.00 73.57 73.57 1 5 3 Japan 8.59 60.13 7.00 75.00 57.60 62.66 2 6 6 United States 11.50 114.99 10.00 42.00 104.99 124.99 2 7 7 Germany 12.10 120.96 10.00 50.00 120.96 120.96 1 8 5 France 16.41 98.46 6.00 42.00 98.46 98.46 1 2013 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price Per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 1 Denmark 2.99 30.36 13.00 71.00 25.20 36.31 6 2 4 Switzerland 4.31 43.12 10.00 7.20 36.79 49.46 2 3 5 Norway 5.95 44.21 7.50 35.00 37.22 55.87 4 4 3 Austria 6.14 39.60 6.67 61.33 30.06 55.80 3 5 7 Australia 6.45 64.52 10.00 8.00 64.52 64.52 1 6 6 United Kingdom 6.99 59.40 11.33 53.02 69.22 3 7 11 Czech Republic 8.99 89.85 10.00 76.92 88.18 109.88 13 8 12 France 10.05 101.89 10.50 108.94 52.79 182.61 16 9 9 Ireland 10.13 69.29 7.33 21.00 62.86 80.00 8 10 14 Korea 10.15 104.84 11.19 75.00 73.86 123.93 8 11 8 Belgium 10.84 65.05 6.00 65.05 65.05 1 12 13 Canada 11.47 103.26 9.87 135.00 55.21 149.92 30 13 15 Germany 11.52 115.19 10.00 75.00 95.23 134.41 4 14 17 United States 12.00 225.84 22.69 17.09 75.00 601.46 96 15 10 Netherlands 14.01 84.05 6.00 50.00 83.33 84.78 2 16 16 Singapore 17.13 205.59 12.00 112.50 185.74 225.44 2 17 2 Hong Kong 37.41 14.40 32.72 43.98 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 99 Appendix C Table 7g Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: Unlimited Data and Limited Minutes 2012 Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Average Monthly Charge Advertised Average Download Speed Average Minutes Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 Finland 12.56 21.25 0.00 4.98 20.14 2 2 Lithuania 13.96 21.43 2.86 28.57 7 3 Estonia 23.60 9.45 57.50 10.57 41.51 6 4 Slovakia 33.56 16.40 0.00 23.79 43.94 3 5 Hungary 38.01 600.00 38.01 38.01 1 6 Switzerland 46.73 27.28 30.00 5.47 138.76 5 7 Italy 47.12 14.40 1466.67 22.20 70.09 3 8 United Kingdom 51.93 1500.00 50.45 53.41 2 9 Luxembourg 53.87 13.00 24.49 73.46 5 10 Ireland 54.24 420.00 29.48 94.34 5 11 Japan 55.92 50.00 52.55 57.60 3 12 Hong Kong 56.08 28.75 3044.44 17.70 79.27 9 13 Norway 56.10 80.00 0.00 56.10 56.10 1 14 Korea 78.89 550.00 53.32 116.57 8 15 United States 94.99 25.00 450.00 79.99 109.99 2 16 Portugal 145.56 150.00 0.00 145.56 145.56 1 2013 Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Average Monthly Charge Advertised Average Download Speed Average Minutes Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 Poland 20.43 182.50 14.82 29.73 4 2 Luxembourg 23.36 0.00 23.36 23.36 1 3 Portugal 23.59 83.33 0.00 19.30 28.95 3 4 Lithuania 28.34 0.00 28.34 28.34 1 5 United States 50.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 6 6 Korea 56.98 139.29 365.44 11.02 117.67 38 7 United Kingdom 57.44 1666.67 54.49 60.38 3 8 Hong Kong 64.92 0.00 52.60 77.23 2 9 Austria 78.71 100.00 400.00 78.71 78.71 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 100 Appendix C Table 7h Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: Unlimited Data and Unlimited Minutes 2012 Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Average Monthly Charge Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 Hong Kong 21.85 14.40 17.03 28.59 3 2 Sweden 32.33 30.00 32.33 32.33 1 3 Japan 42.47 13.73 56.85 4 4 Switzerland 52.91 19.83 19.26 116.59 15 5 United States 60.00 42.00 40.00 89.99 8 6 Belgium 66.52 7.20 66.52 66.52 1 7 United Kingdom 75.67 7.20 75.67 75.67 1 8 Ireland 112.03 112.03 112.03 1 9 Portugal 150.07 7.20 150.07 150.07 1 2013 Average Monthl y Charge Rank Country Average Monthly Charge Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 Switzerland 56.96 40.86 33.72 103.62 10 2 Slovenia 63.59 71.00 63.20 63.98 2 3 United Kingdom 69.71 69.71 69.71 1 4 United States 83.88 29.16 60.00 111.50 13 5 Korea 106.20 195.00 63.84 155.22 6 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 101 Appendix C Table 8a Stick Modem Data Plans with Usage Limits: <5 GB 2012 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price per GB Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 2 Switzerland 2.03 6.08 3.0 6.08 6.08 1 2 12 Finland 4.04 12.11 3.0 16.00 12.11 12.11 1 3 6 Sweden 4.88 9.75 2.0 15.67 8.34 10.45 3 4 10 Poland 5.17 11.30 2.3 19.14 4.99 20.11 8 5 11 Lithuania 5.77 11.80 2.2 15.12 5.14 16.93 5 6 4 Austria 6.74 6.74 1.0 2.00 6.74 6.74 1 7 5 Iceland 8.10 8.10 1.0 7.20 8.10 8.10 2 8 19 Singapore 8.61 17.22 2.0 41.10 11.48 22.97 2 9 20 Slovakia 8.69 17.38 2.0 7.20 17.38 17.38 1 10 8 Norway 9.29 9.90 1.5 24.35 3.71 18.95 4 11 14 Slovenia 9.77 14.12 1.7 42.00 8.14 19.54 3 12 21 Turkey 10.22 17.44 2.3 7.20 14.29 26.32 5 13 9 Ireland 10.94 10.94 1.0 18.80 9.27 11.77 3 14 24 Australia 11.24 22.35 2.8 28.33 12.69 32.30 4 16 22 India 12.33 18.98 1.7 11.68 4.98 37.35 20 17 13 Korea 12.40 12.40 1.0 12.40 12.40 1 18 26 Belgium 13.39 23.37 1.8 12.00 0.00 40.65 5 19 7 Denmark 13.76 9.79 1.5 42.33 5.64 15.60 6 20 18 Greece 13.77 17.22 1.5 42.20 10.33 20.66 3 21 23 Bulgaria 14.24 19.00 1.4 42.00 9.79 31.96 6 22 35 Portugal 14.62 26.78 2.5 3.50 20.46 33.46 4 23 34 New Zealand 17.41 26.50 1.9 7.43 11.59 46.38 7 24 30 Germany 18.72 24.68 1.5 9.77 11.95 46.23 7 25 15 Luxembourg 19.96 15.13 1.6 7.20 3.92 34.28 5 26 3 Estonia 22.44 6.16 1.1 11.80 4.08 8.24 2 27 38 Czech Republic 22.81 32.38 2.1 11.68 22.50 39.39 5 28 39 Chile 23.18 42.07 2.1 5.00 31.49 63.22 6 29 29 Spain 23.31 24.18 1.3 9.21 10.58 33.07 13 30 37 Mexico 24.69 30.31 1.8 20.00 22.21 44.54 8 31 25 France 30.07 23.33 1.4 35.65 5.47 40.48 12 32 27 Netherlands 31.04 23.98 1.2 13.17 11.64 36.99 7 33 31 Brazil 34.27 24.87 1.2 1.43 7.98 47.82 10 34 28 United Kingdom 35.13 24.10 1.3 4.00 11.13 39.32 8 35 17 Hungary 35.21 16.02 1.8 7.83 3.78 25.39 7 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 102 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price per GB Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 36 40 Hong Kong 44.96 44.96 1.0 100.00 44.96 44.96 1 37 1 Italy 58.41 5.84 0.1 21.60 5.84 5.84 1 38 36 Canada 81.19 29.47 1.1 107.00 18.39 42.41 6 39 33 Israel 228.76 26.12 0.4 9.67 16.00 46.37 3 40 16 Japan 807.82 16.00 0.0 16.00 16.00 1 2013 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Country Price per GB Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 8 Finland 3.96 11.88 3.00 16.00 11.88 11.88 1 2 3 Lithuania 4.63 8.85 1.89 57.33 1.70 16.70 9 3 6 Italy 4.68 11.09 2.50 50.00 10.42 11.77 2 4 1 Slovenia 5.51 3.73 1.33 24.13 0.00 16.00 9 5 13 Poland 6.09 13.85 2.40 61.80 7.38 16.01 5 6 22 France 7.33 21.99 3.00 131.25 16.49 27.49 2 7 11 Israel 7.56 12.27 2.00 10.43 14.11 2 8 12 United Kingdom 8.05 13.14 1.79 7.20 0.00 29.46 14 9 10 Ireland 8.28 11.99 1.50 21.00 9.13 14.85 4 10 7 Norway 8.29 11.77 1.50 7.65 9.62 13.92 2 11 9 Denmark 9.33 11.89 1.92 34.67 7.54 15.21 6 12 16 Belgium 9.45 17.32 2.00 58.65 11.03 33.07 7 13 19 Australia 10.30 19.96 2.69 27.00 12.90 32.79 16 14 20 Singapore 10.32 20.64 2.00 150.00 20.64 20.64 1 15 4 Turkey 10.40 10.40 1.00 21.60 10.40 10.40 1 16 17 India 10.67 17.98 1.83 21.53 4.42 33.17 15 17 5 Bulgaria 13.56 10.88 1.23 42.00 3.84 18.41 12 18 18 New Zealand 13.66 19.14 1.65 76.41 9.14 30.45 20 19 28 Greece 14.49 28.99 2.00 28.99 28.99 3 20 15 Spain 14.97 17.28 1.07 7.20 0.00 47.55 7 21 27 Czech Republic 15.99 27.88 2.25 54.00 19.72 37.32 6 22 29 Chile 16.82 29.74 2.09 8.00 21.78 38.48 8 23 23 Germany 17.54 22.26 1.35 27.05 5.35 33.58 13 24 36 Sweden 18.90 67.19 3.25 47.33 10.83 201.71 4 25 24 Brazil 22.33 24.00 1.39 2.18 0.00 36.41 11 26 26 Mexico 27.66 27.68 1.50 20.00 22.12 33.23 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 103 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Country Price per GB Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 27 25 Netherlands 29.21 25.30 1.23 40.22 9.80 46.08 10 28 33 United States 33.39 47.49 2.19 26.53 22.25 85.00 12 29 2 Luxembourg 41.08 7.01 0.75 5.40 0.93 14.02 8 30 14 Austria 41.21 16.69 2.03 9.00 10.97 22.42 3 31 32 Hong Kong 43.81 43.81 1.00 100.00 43.81 43.81 1 32 34 Iceland 47.53 47.53 1.00 8.40 47.53 47.53 1 33 37 Hungary 69.20 71.64 1.38 31.40 21.03 142.19 13 34 31 Switzerland 72.35 36.17 0.50 7.20 36.17 36.17 1 35 30 Portugal 94.90 32.22 0.53 64.40 16.07 43.97 3 36 21 Canada 231.30 21.16 0.78 116.67 8.10 37.65 9 37 35 Japan 1710.81 50.46 0.16 42.00 13.80 81.68 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 104 Appendix C Table 8b Stick Modem Data Plans with Usage Limits: ?5 GB 2012 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price per GB Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 12 Sweden 1.31 28.22 33.82 48.96 15.73 42.13 11 2 4 Finland 1.60 22.58 18.33 32.33 13.02 32.45 3 3 5 Ireland 1.63 24.04 20.31 18.36 11.59 35.37 16 4 3 Poland 1.67 22.25 16.00 16.67 7.56 40.27 14 5 13 Austria 1.70 29.13 17.82 40.07 7.89 72.61 14 6 8 Denmark 1.96 26.02 15.00 54.71 11.40 38.63 7 7 2 Italy 2.01 16.13 16.40 21.60 10.61 23.36 6 8 10 Iceland 2.17 26.84 16.00 7.20 14.79 38.56 9 9 6 Slovakia 2.47 25.63 38.33 54.33 21.96 27.47 3 10 16 Luxembourg 2.57 32.84 22.43 15.76 24.39 58.67 7 11 14 Australia 2.82 31.05 11.36 12.00 15.87 70.47 14 12 36 Lithuania 2.99 205.84 8.33 18.36 16.57 834.29 5 13 9 United Kingdom 3.24 26.33 10.00 12.43 22.26 37.09 4 14 18 Korea 3.39 34.72 21.00 75.00 18.60 62.01 5 15 24 Portugal 3.43 51.39 15.00 71.47 40.93 61.40 3 16 15 Norway 3.50 31.98 12.44 43.18 14.19 66.67 9 17 7 Turkey 3.91 25.75 6.50 7.20 18.05 36.84 4 18 17 Singapore 4.07 32.96 8.42 19.76 0.00 66.03 12 19 21 Hungary 4.28 44.48 12.36 20.03 31.76 62.29 7 20 1 Slovenia 4.56 11.40 5.00 42.00 0.00 29.32 4 21 19 Greece 5.05 35.10 11.00 35.20 30.99 41.32 5 22 33 Czech Republic 5.07 65.47 16.67 21.93 55.82 74.04 3 23 11 Israel 5.42 27.09 5.00 2.80 27.09 27.09 1 24 25 Germany 5.62 51.46 10.44 47.21 23.89 87.45 8 25 22 Bulgaria 5.70 45.65 10.00 32.80 35.09 55.06 6 26 23 Spain 6.31 46.08 8.00 26.94 38.58 52.91 5 28 34 New Zealand 7.25 86.96 12.00 7.20 86.96 86.96 1 29 28 India 7.25 59.07 8.73 9.47 37.35 79.62 11 30 20 Netherlands 7.57 44.17 6.00 18.00 44.11 44.24 2 31 35 Mexico 7.75 90.92 12.73 20.00 47.89 189.66 11 32 29 Chile 8.45 62.25 9.78 14.27 24.17 97.40 15 33 31 Canada 8.50 64.23 8.33 94.50 50.81 82.83 6 34 32 Brazil 8.90 65.12 7.50 2.30 31.91 106.33 4 35 26 France 10.45 52.25 5.00 42.00 21.77 72.21 5 36 30 Hong Kong 12.60 63.02 5.00 100.00 63.02 63.02 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 105 Table 8b (continued) 2013 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price per GB Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 19 Estonia 0.89 36.37 48.00 44.90 12.17 81.70 5 2 1 Slovenia 1.27 13.02 23.33 48.58 0.00 80.00 9 3 2 Finland 1.38 21.23 18.33 32.33 10.00 31.84 3 4 11 Denmark 1.50 29.07 87.56 71.00 16.00 47.82 9 5 4 Ireland 1.60 23.55 20.00 20.47 11.42 39.99 14 6 5 Iceland 1.70 24.00 20.25 7.65 7.98 38.01 8 7 17 Luxembourg 2.04 33.84 26.00 32.69 18.69 70.00 12 8 13 Norway 2.19 30.01 16.63 47.41 18.94 46.93 8 9 6 Poland 2.23 27.20 15.11 56.41 0.00 45.75 18 10 9 France 2.35 28.53 14.40 77.70 16.39 43.89 5 11 14 Spain 2.38 32.16 7.50 102.40 0.00 57.07 6 12 7 Lithuania 2.54 27.85 13.75 57.33 16.46 39.12 4 13 15 Austria 2.84 32.19 13.33 59.83 12.65 59.54 6 14 3 Israel 3.01 23.26 8.00 20.64 25.87 2 15 21 Portugal 3.14 38.59 16.67 150.00 25.72 51.46 3 16 23 Hungary 3.18 44.54 16.86 61.43 27.16 65.00 7 17 16 Bulgaria 3.69 32.41 10.17 42.00 18.41 52.85 6 18 8 United Kingdom 3.78 28.34 8.75 22.09 44.18 4 19 30 Slovakia 3.97 57.46 15.75 42.00 32.83 89.40 4 20 22 Australia 4.23 43.09 10.14 32.20 29.03 71.50 14 21 12 Turkey 4.41 29.16 6.75 32.40 17.83 43.83 4 22 24 Greece 4.63 45.38 11.67 42.00 21.59 65.22 15 23 26 Czech Republic 4.68 46.79 10.00 80.67 37.02 55.79 3 24 29 Sweden 4.85 56.87 19.21 43.68 13.02 223.58 19 25 34 India 4.91 63.29 79.05 23.79 33.17 212.21 19 26 20 Singapore 5.18 37.65 7.50 150.00 28.05 47.20 4 27 10 Germany 5.36 28.63 5.75 81.38 11.90 44.30 10 28 25 Netherlands 5.75 45.86 8.33 50.00 32.87 57.61 3 29 28 Korea 6.04 51.32 9.00 75.00 37.55 62.59 4 30 32 Brazil 6.86 61.57 10.56 4.11 45.06 80.96 9 31 18 Belgium 6.98 34.91 5.00 31.30 33.08 38.59 3 32 33 Chile 7.08 62.45 9.50 8.80 38.48 86.89 10 33 37 Mexico 7.33 108.81 16.00 20.00 49.91 188.84 5 34 35 Canada 7.99 63.92 8.60 120.00 52.67 86.27 5 35 38 United States 8.49 131.16 16.74 20.19 32.25 390.00 47 36 36 Italy 8.74 66.03 11.40 52.32 0.00 288.97 10 37 27 New Zealand 9.74 48.72 5.00 150.00 48.72 48.72 2 38 31 Hong Kong 12.28 61.40 5.00 100.00 61.40 61.40 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 106 Appendix C Table 8c Stick Modem Data Plans with Unlimited Usage 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Charge Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 Finland 22.70 42.00 10.07 43.44 8 2 Estonia 38.02 27.89 8.30 166.39 12 3 Switzerland 38.50 27.28 5.47 138.76 10 4 India 47.31 14.40 47.31 47.31 2 5 Hong Kong 48.45 24.76 34.13 82.88 9 6 Sweden 50.58 48.00 24.18 76.98 2 7 Portugal 60.03 82.20 43.65 72.77 8 8 Lithuania 60.55 21.60 33.98 87.12 2 9 Slovakia 63.78 42.00 43.02 86.06 3 10 Slovenia 247.56 42.00 247.56 247.56 1 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Charge Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 Italy 10.42 50.00 10.42 10.42 1 2 Finland 19.45 37.85 4.89 39.84 10 3 Luxembourg 23.36 23.36 23.36 1 4 Lithuania 30.19 12.00 26.67 33.71 2 5 Austria 31.55 40.00 19.52 53.89 4 6 Slovakia 33.44 23.40 23.70 43.78 3 7 Japan 39.20 42.00 38.18 40.21 2 8 Hong Kong 45.77 47.80 14.43 80.75 7 9 Turkey 51.26 28.80 43.83 58.69 3 10 United States 85.92 21.60 82.25 89.59 2 11 Portugal 110.15 80.40 43.97 146.91 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 107 Appendix C Table 9a Tablet Data Plans with Usage Limits: <5 GB 2012 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price per GB Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 1 Lithuania 4.48 8.29 2.00 21.00 5.14 11.43 2 2 5 Finland 5.71 11.09 2.33 16.40 9.05 12.11 3 3 9 Australia 8.68 16.13 2.20 22.50 12.09 25.07 5 4 10 Sweden 8.98 16.44 1.75 26.50 3.06 29.46 6 5 3 Denmark 10.52 10.15 1.25 80.00 7.27 13.02 2 6 28 Israel 11.66 34.98 3.00 10.00 34.98 34.98 1 7 2 Ireland 12.40 9.03 0.83 17.75 5.79 11.77 4 8 11 Norway 13.28 17.29 1.17 43.00 7.52 36.10 3 9 18 Hungary 13.53 27.39 2.17 8.80 10.12 54.24 6 10 13 India 13.60 23.18 1.93 19.11 12.45 37.35 7 11 7 Bulgaria 14.15 15.73 1.21 42.00 7.86 26.63 4 12 15 Portugal 14.46 26.49 2.50 16.80 19.09 33.46 6 13 14 Belgium 15.32 25.94 1.83 14.40 11.09 40.65 6 14 4 Switzerland 17.74 10.95 1.13 7.20 3.04 23.72 7 15 8 Greece 18.37 16.07 1.00 42.20 6.89 27.55 3 16 30 Singapore 19.14 38.28 2.00 48.00 38.28 38.28 2 17 12 Spain 22.42 22.47 1.21 12.13 11.90 33.07 12 18 6 Luxembourg 25.57 13.06 0.93 9.79 19.59 3 19 27 Chile 26.83 34.54 1.88 22.00 24.17 43.69 4 20 21 Italy 27.29 31.22 1.33 14.40 23.56 35.05 3 21 29 Slovakia 27.98 37.65 1.38 26.40 10.99 73.24 4 22 20 France 29.71 28.92 1.56 37.24 5.47 57.99 16 23 16 Mexico 31.12 26.68 1.20 20.00 22.21 33.38 5 24 26 Korea 36.58 34.41 1.82 75.00 6.20 66.97 22 25 33 Germany 36.74 42.31 1.50 9.77 30.40 59.22 7 26 19 Brazil 37.40 28.53 1.31 2.18 0.00 58.46 14 27 25 Turkey 40.88 32.81 2.10 7.20 11.28 66.45 14 29 31 Czech Republic 50.41 39.60 1.00 11.90 22.50 59.18 4 30 24 United Kingdom 54.46 32.81 1.39 3.98 15.15 45.99 9 31 17 New Zealand 431.10 27.25 0.83 7.43 16.91 46.38 7 32 23 Canada 514.75 32.01 0.66 90.75 18.39 44.04 8 33 22 Netherlands 1028.35 31.56 1.16 6.17 5.82 156.76 16 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 108 Table 9a (continued) 2013 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price per GB Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 2 Finland 5.60 10.88 2.33 16.40 8.88 11.88 3 2 10 Lithuania 5.65 16.96 3.00 16.96 16.96 1 3 4 Sweden 5.77 11.92 2.40 68.00 5.36 21.77 5 4 15 France 6.18 18.55 3.00 131.25 16.49 20.62 2 5 11 Belgium 7.35 17.64 2.30 70.37 0.00 33.07 10 6 5 Israel 7.56 12.27 2.00 10.43 14.11 2 7 13 Australia 8.24 18.06 2.88 40.00 12.90 29.30 12 8 17 Italy 8.87 21.51 2.50 31.90 10.42 34.72 4 9 1 Norway 9.23 9.23 1.00 6.00 9.23 9.23 1 10 14 Denmark 10.51 18.29 2.15 71.00 11.39 22.90 13 11 6 Bulgaria 10.60 13.09 1.55 42.00 7.81 18.41 13 12 28 Korea 13.45 34.69 2.71 135.00 15.65 56.33 12 13 3 Switzerland 14.13 11.83 1.15 69.07 4.60 22.48 5 14 24 Greece 14.49 28.99 2.00 28.99 28.99 3 15 9 Portugal 15.38 15.38 1.00 85.00 14.69 16.07 2 16 22 Chile 15.39 28.85 2.24 10.40 21.78 38.48 5 17 23 United Kingdom 16.29 28.92 1.97 7.36 54.49 15 18 18 New Zealand 18.70 21.75 1.29 129.60 12.18 30.45 7 19 21 Brazil 21.56 27.87 1.67 2.39 17.72 36.41 9 20 27 Netherlands 22.93 31.14 1.68 30.71 5.77 51.13 7 21 12 Slovakia 26.01 17.95 0.75 14.40 16.12 19.77 2 22 29 Turkey 27.10 42.15 2.18 7.20 11.14 76.52 11 23 20 Mexico 27.66 27.68 1.50 20.00 22.12 33.23 3 24 26 Spain 28.01 30.55 1.20 38.93 8.22 57.54 10 25 25 United States 32.16 30.45 1.86 19.70 10.00 76.20 26 26 30 India 42.03 63.53 1.67 15.60 11.06 198.90 6 27 8 Slovenia 44.59 14.73 1.11 21.90 6.40 21.96 12 28 19 Austria 54.34 27.45 2.22 10.20 12.88 44.34 10 29 7 Luxembourg 55.61 13.27 0.92 7.20 0.93 42.06 5 30 32 Germany 67.57 85.09 1.50 71.87 5.35 232.98 9 31 33 Hungary 146.18 146.90 1.92 31.43 10.14 809.34 9 32 31 Czech Republic 177.77 82.52 1.51 74.62 19.72 133.21 42 33 16 Canada 497.65 19.11 0.63 100.00 4.05 44.57 12 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 109 Appendix C Table 9b Tablet Data Plans with Usage Limits: ?5 GB 2012 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price per GB Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 2 Finland 0.91 18.21 20.00 21.00 18.21 18.21 2 2 4 Denmark 1.87 23.72 15.00 52.00 11.40 36.05 4 3 11 Italy 2.03 33.99 21.67 24.80 22.38 52.57 6 4 5 Ireland 2.09 25.44 15.00 15.36 20.03 34.79 10 5 6 Sweden 2.24 26.94 12.44 29.00 15.73 36.85 9 6 3 Norway 2.45 21.20 10.00 58.00 14.19 28.48 5 7 15 Austria 2.46 40.01 18.33 39.83 19.23 73.57 6 8 14 Portugal 2.55 38.20 15.00 43.20 38.20 38.20 1 9 7 Australia 2.65 31.38 12.36 12.00 15.87 63.24 14 10 1 Lithuania 3.31 16.57 5.00 21.00 16.57 16.57 1 11 13 Singapore 3.44 35.66 10.33 12.60 28.61 40.20 3 12 8 Luxembourg 3.55 31.78 13.67 7.20 24.39 58.67 6 13 9 United Kingdom 4.04 32.15 10.00 3.90 22.26 37.09 3 14 17 Netherlands 4.15 44.40 11.67 14.40 26.68 71.02 3 15 10 Switzerland 4.74 32.58 5.00 23.72 37.00 3 16 12 Slovakia 5.08 35.01 7.50 31.50 31.58 38.44 2 17 18 Bulgaria 5.33 45.84 11.25 42.00 35.09 55.06 4 18 24 Czech Republic 5.58 55.82 10.00 2.20 55.82 55.82 1 19 21 India 6.08 50.39 8.82 16.20 18.25 79.62 11 20 19 Spain 6.82 46.50 7.50 33.30 40.51 52.91 4 21 31 Mexico 7.56 94.30 13.57 20.00 47.89 189.66 7 22 27 Germany 7.71 66.47 10.44 47.21 41.75 98.21 8 24 26 Poland 8.38 65.84 11.08 29.33 45.31 90.99 12 25 20 Hungary 8.42 49.15 5.75 21.00 37.27 61.03 2 26 23 Chile 8.66 54.68 6.50 22.00 48.58 60.78 2 27 16 Israel 8.81 44.06 5.00 25.00 40.40 47.72 2 28 25 Canada 8.90 64.70 8.17 94.50 50.42 82.44 6 29 30 Korea 9.01 70.69 8.40 75.00 60.77 97.97 5 30 28 Brazil 9.97 67.40 7.00 2.33 44.68 106.33 5 31 22 France 10.50 52.48 5.00 42.00 21.82 72.21 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 110 Table 9b (continued) 2013 $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price per GB Average Monthly Charge Data Cap Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 1 Finland 0.89 17.86 20.00 21.00 17.86 17.86 2 2 16 Estonia 0.97 35.29 41.25 44.90 12.17 81.70 8 3 10 Denmark 1.75 29.40 112.00 71.00 16.00 47.82 22 4 13 Sweden 2.10 31.34 20.67 69.00 16.30 54.58 12 5 21 Slovenia 2.14 42.50 23.89 50.46 24.00 66.76 9 6 8 Norway 2.37 26.82 14.29 58.57 16.70 37.22 7 7 7 France 2.38 26.06 14.40 77.70 7.22 38.49 5 8 6 Ireland 2.57 25.70 10.00 22.85 34.27 6 9 3 Luxembourg 2.62 22.20 13.75 7.20 18.69 28.04 4 10 9 Lithuania 2.83 28.30 10.00 28.30 28.30 1 11 2 Israel 2.86 18.39 6.50 25.00 13.52 25.87 4 12 5 Portugal 2.97 25.42 14.00 111.67 0.00 51.46 6 13 12 Italy 3.08 30.81 13.13 40.53 9.26 58.06 8 14 22 Hungary 3.18 44.54 16.86 55.86 27.16 65.00 7 15 11 Switzerland 3.69 29.77 8.33 100.00 21.46 37.81 3 16 29 Slovakia 3.97 57.46 15.75 42.00 32.83 89.40 4 17 17 Australia 3.99 35.90 9.00 40.00 29.03 61.56 9 18 4 Spain 4.35 23.76 7.50 102.40 11.51 32.61 3 19 14 Bulgaria 4.42 33.38 8.25 42.00 18.41 46.23 8 20 25 Greece 4.95 48.31 11.67 28.99 65.22 12 21 19 Singapore 5.13 37.20 7.50 112.50 28.14 47.20 4 22 20 United Kingdom 5.17 38.78 9.17 22.09 61.86 6 23 24 Netherlands 5.49 44.99 8.67 50.00 16.15 62.67 6 24 18 Germany 6.17 36.18 7.00 50.67 11.90 118.69 9 25 28 Brazil 6.85 54.77 8.89 3.67 19.75 80.96 9 26 30 Chile 6.89 58.65 9.00 12.00 38.48 72.37 6 27 15 Belgium 6.98 34.91 5.00 31.30 33.08 38.59 3 28 35 Mexico 7.33 108.81 16.00 20.00 49.91 188.84 5 29 37 United States 7.45 112.39 16.20 25.64 32.25 346.46 50 30 31 Turkey 7.81 63.71 8.75 7.20 29.72 97.33 4 31 32 Korea 7.82 67.91 9.00 112.50 37.55 98.89 4 32 26 Austria 8.56 48.62 6.00 69.67 30.06 72.90 6 33 23 Canada 8.91 44.57 5.00 100.00 36.47 60.78 3 34 27 New Zealand 9.74 48.72 5.00 150.00 48.72 48.72 2 35 34 Poland 10.04 74.08 10.40 38.10 29.68 108.97 20 36 33 India 10.88 69.86 9.00 13.60 11.94 309.54 9 37 36 Czech Republic 11.10 110.96 10.00 78.33 37.02 151.68 15 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 111 Appendix C Table 9c Tablet Data Plans with Unlimited Usage 2012 Rank Country Average Monthly Charge Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 Luxembourg 19.23 7.20 18.51 19.59 3 2 Finland 22.89 43.00 13.12 30.42 5 3 Austria 35.16 10.00 35.16 35.16 1 4 Estonia 42.98 30.66 8.30 166.39 10 5 Switzerland 43.41 27.28 5.47 138.77 11 6 Portugal 43.65 28.80 43.65 43.65 2 7 Israel 56.40 20.00 53.96 61.28 3 8 Hong Kong 59.41 15.50 39.73 71.87 4 9 India 69.30 14.40 68.05 70.54 2 2013 Rank Country Average Monthly Charge Advertised Average Download Speed Min. Average Monthly Charge Max. Average Monthly Charge Plan Count 1 Luxembourg 18.69 18.69 18.69 1 2 Finland 22.46 43.00 12.87 29.84 5 3 Switzerland 23.91 44.80 5.52 42.31 4 4 Lithuania 33.97 33.97 33.97 1 5 Slovakia 35.41 31.50 31.76 39.06 2 6 Portugal 38.22 20.00 14.69 44.10 5 7 Hong Kong 60.76 15.50 43.98 70.02 3 8 Netherlands 74.51 50.00 67.14 83.72 3 9 Austria 78.71 100.00 78.71 78.71 1 10 United States 85.92 21.60 82.25 89.59 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 112 Appendix C Table 10a Number of Unlimited and Limited Data Plans for Residential Fixed Broadband Plans with Data Cap Comparisons for Limited Data Plans 2012 Country Number of Unlimited Data Plans Number of Limited Data Plans Minimum Data Cap (GB) Maximum Data Cap (GB) Average Data Cap (GB) Korea 132 0 Norway 121 0 Slovenia 85 0 Poland 77 0 Brazil 72 33 0.5 150 37.9 United States 71 69 10 400 197.4 Singapore 68 0 Japan 68 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Switzerland 63 0 Sweden 51 4 10 10 10 Luxembourg 51 5 2 500 133.4 Netherlands 41 0 Chile 37 1 3 3 3 Denmark 36 1 500 500 500 Czech Republic 33 0 India 33 11 2.5 250 58.1 Hong Kong 30 0 Mexico 29 0 Lithuania 29 16 10 310 120 Portugal 28 0 Austria 25 1 3 3 3 Turkey 25 37 1 500 56.4 Greece 24 0 Slovakia 24 6 2 2 2 Israel 22 1 52 52 52 Estonia 21 0 Hungary 20 1 5 5 5 Bulgaria 20 4 4 25 12.5 Finland 20 1 13 13 13 Italy 18 10 1 1 1 Spain 18 2 1 1 1 France 16 0 Germany 14 7 1 50 9.7 Ireland 14 23 10 500 188.3 United Kingdom 13 12 10 40 25 Belgium 9 9 0.05 150 61.6 Canada 2 27 5 1024 222.9 New Zealand 0 21 1 150 54.5 Iceland 0 23 1 140 64.3 Australia 0 69 5 1000 282.8 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 113 Table 10a (continued) 2013 Country Number of Unlimited Data Plans Number of Limited Data Plans Minimum Data Cap (GB) Maximum Data Cap (GB) Average Data Cap (GB) Slovenia 113 0 Luxembourg 108 0 United States 103 94 10 400 219.8 Korea 80 0 Singapore 66 0 Poland 65 0 Japan 60 2 0.32 0.32 0.32 France 58 0 Lithuania 53 8 50 300 162.5 Norway 52 0 Sweden 46 0 Switzerland 45 0 Brazil 41 7 1 200 78.9 Netherlands 37 0 United Kingdom 36 4 2 40 23 Mexico 35 0 Chile 33 1 3 3 3 Italy 32 10 1 1 1 Greece 32 0 Belgium 29 14 100 150 121.4 Austria 27 1 3 3 3 Hong Kong 27 0 Estonia 27 0 Bulgaria 26 4 8 50 25 Denmark 25 0 Slovakia 22 5 2 2 2 Spain 22 23 0.2 2 0.93 Turkey 21 34 4 250 76.2 Czech Republic 21 0 Portugal 20 3 0.04 1 0.41 Hungary 20 1 5 5 5 Iceland 20 5 10 250 112 Israel 18 0 Finland 18 1 13 13 13 Ireland 15 45 8 350 92.7 Germany 11 8 5 300 130 Canada 7 39 10 1024 158.1 India 2 46 3 250 57.6 New Zealand 0 38 2 160 44.7 Australia 0 108 1 1000 274.4 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 114 Appendix C Table 10b Number of Unlimited and Limited Data Plans for Smartphone Data Plans with Data Cap Comparisons for Limited Data Plans 2012 Country Number of Unlimited Data Plans Number of Limited Data Plans Minimum Data Cap (GB) Maximum Data Cap (GB) Average Data Cap (GB) Switzerland 19 11 0.15 5 1.79 Hong Kong 12 26 0.002 30 2.41 United States 12 46 0.1 50 7.51 Korea 8 62 0.005 25 3.34 Ireland 6 37 0.3 5 1.75 Japan 6 11 0.004 7 1.76 Chile 5 14 0.25 32 3.95 Estonia 3 6 0.1 30 15.52 Finland 3 4 0.04 3 1.09 Italy 3 18 0.25 20 2.43 United Kingdom 3 37 0.1 3 0.76 Lithuania 2 24 0.002 5 0.93 Portugal 2 9 0.6 5 1.58 Belgium 1 9 0.025 5 1.39 Germany 1 15 0.05 10 1.40 Hungary 1 23 0.03 26 3.21 Luxembourg 1 19 0.005 50 11.33 Spain 1 35 0.1 11 1.73 Sweden 1 21 0.1 20 4.86 Australia 0 30 0.05 4 1.39 Austria 0 12 0.1 10 3.02 Brazil 0 24 0.15 5 1.49 Bulgaria 0 19 0.005 5 0.75 Canada 0 11 0.1 5 2.07 Czech Republic 0 20 0.15 30.3 2.87 Denmark 0 13 1 20 6.85 France 0 50 0.2 6 1.79 Greece 0 10 0.35 1.5 1.16 Iceland 0 18 0.015 30 4.96 India 0 29 0.1 12 3.21 Israel 0 5 0.5 3 1.20 Mexico 0 19 0.2 10 2.42 Netherlands 0 33 0.2 2.5 1.21 New Zealand 0 22 0.05 4.5 0.94 Norway 0 11 0.05 4 1.13 Poland 0 26 0.1 5 1.98 Singapore 0 12 2 12 6.83 Slovakia 0 5 0.5 1 0.90 Slovenia 0 47 0.01 20.03 1.73 Turkey 0 28 0.01 8 1.86 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 115 Table 10b (continued) 2013 Country Number of Unlimited Data Plans Number of Limited Data Plans Minimum Data Cap (GB) Maximum Data Cap (GB) Average Data Cap (GB) Korea 25 125 0.01 25 4.0 United States 19 164 0.25 75 14.0 United Kingdom 4 18 0.25 20 3.5 Portugal 3 14 0.2 5 1.3 Switzerland 2 32 0.1 10 2.7 Slovenia 1 52 0.05 20 1.6 Luxembourg 1 13 0.005 50 8.9 Lithuania 1 27 0.002 5 1.3 Germany 0 44 0.1 500 27.3 Hungary 0 14 0.15 4 1.1 Norway 0 13 0.02 10 3.4 Slovakia 0 6 0.5 4 1.6 Czech Republic 0 57 0.15 10 3.5 Hong Kong 0 33 0.002 30 3.3 Australia 0 22 0.2 10 2.4 Denmark 0 37 0.3 20 4.8 Italy 0 27 0.1 7 2.3 Belgium 0 30 0.05 6 2.4 Iceland 0 17 0.3 15 3.0 India 0 51 0.3 12 4.0 Spain 0 29 0.2 10 1.4 Chile 0 20 1 10 4.4 Bulgaria 0 19 0.1 5 1.3 Netherlands 0 31 0.2 10 2 France 0 62 0.02 16 4.0 Israel 0 5 1 5 3 Estonia 0 9 1.5 25 8.4 Ireland 0 32 0.2 10 3.1 Greece 0 24 0.75 10 2.9 Brazil 0 39 0.3 6 2.3 Austria 0 18 0.05 8 3.2 Finland 0 7 0.04 0.3 0.2 Mexico 0 29 0.2 10 1.7 Canada 0 80 0.5 15 4.9 Japan 0 16 0.0005 0.005 0.001 Poland 0 39 0.025 4 1.3 Turkey 0 94 0.01 6 2.3 Singapore 0 20 0.5 12 5.4 New Zealand 0 21 0.5 4 1.6 Sweden 0 39 0.1 60 8.7 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 116 Appendix C Table 10c Number of Unlimited and Limited Data Plans for Stick Modem Data Plans with Data Cap Comparisons for Limited Data Plans 2012 Country Number of Unlimited Data Plans Number of Limited Data Plans Minimum Data Cap (GB) Maximum Data Cap (GB) Average Data Cap (GB) Estonia 12 2 0.1 2 1.05 Finland 10 6 3 30 14.5 Switzerland 10 1 3 3 3 Hong Kong 9 2 1 5 3 Portugal 8 11 1 15 9.44 Slovakia 3 4 2 100 29.25 Sweden 2 33 2 80 27.71 India 2 31 0.3 15 4.19 Lithuania 2 10 1 10 4.5 Slovenia 1 7 1 5 3 Poland 0 36 1 38 11.79 United States 0 35 1 20 7.1 Chile 0 21 1 15 6.7 Brazil 0 20 0.15 10 3.48 Ireland 0 19 1 60 17.26 Mexico 0 19 0.5 30 8.11 Australia 0 18 1 20 9.44 Spain 0 18 0.5 10 3.17 France 0 17 0.1 5 2.47 Austria 0 15 1 40 16.42 Germany 0 15 0.5 30 6.27 Hungary 0 14 0.03 26 7.06 Singapore 0 14 2 10 7.5 Denmark 0 13 0.2 30 8.75 Norway 0 13 1 30 9.08 Bulgaria 0 12 0.5 20 5.71 Canada 0 12 0.1 15 4.73 Luxembourg 0 12 0.1 50 13.76 United Kingdom 0 12 0.25 15 4.23 Iceland 0 11 1 30 13.27 Netherlands 0 9 0.2 7 2.3 Turkey 0 9 1 8 4.14 Czech Republic 0 8 0.5 30 7.56 Greece 0 8 0.5 30 7.44 New Zealand 0 8 0.512 12 3.16 Italy 0 7 0.1 50 13.68 Korea 0 7 1 50 17.67 Belgium 0 5 1 4 1.8 Israel 0 4 0.05 5 1.53 Japan 0 2 0.02 0.02 0.02 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 117 Table 10c (continued) 2013 Country Number of Unlimited Data Plans Number of Limited Data Plans Minimum Data Cap (GB) Maximum Data Cap (GB) Average Data Cap (GB) Australia 0 30 1 15 6.2 Austria 0 13 0.1 30 9.6 Belgium 0 10 1 5 2.9 Brazil 0 20 0.3 20 5.5 Bulgaria 0 18 0.1 20 4.2 Canada 0 14 0.01 15 3.6 Chile 0 18 1 16 6.2 Czech Republic 0 9 1 10 4.8 Denmark 0 15 0.5 500 53.3 Estonia 0 5 15 120 48 Finland 0 14 3 30 14.5 France 0 7 3 32 11.1 Germany 0 23 0.5 10 3.3 Greece 0 18 2 20 10.1 Hong Kong 0 9 1 5 3 Hungary 0 20 0.2 30 6.8 Iceland 0 9 1 32 18.1 India 0 34 0.3 1215 45.0 Ireland 0 18 1 60 15.9 Israel 0 4 1 10 5 Italy 0 13 2 30 9.9 Japan 0 6 0.00267 0.4272 0.2 Korea 0 4 5 13.5 9 Lithuania 0 15 1 30 5.5 Luxembourg 0 21 0.005 50 15.9 Mexico 0 8 0.5 30 10.6 Netherlands 0 13 0.25 10 2.9 New Zealand 0 22 0.5 5 2.0 Norway 0 10 1 30 13.6 Poland 0 23 1 35 12.3 Portugal 0 10 0.3 30 8.6 Singapore 0 5 2 10 6.4 Slovakia 0 7 6 25 15.8 Slovenia 0 18 0.1 45 12.3 Spain 0 13 0.5 10 2.5 Sweden 0 23 2 60 16.4 Switzerland 0 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 Turkey 0 8 1 10 5.6 United Kingdom 0 18 1 15 3.3 United States 0 61 0.3 50 13.8 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 118 Appendix C Table 10d Number of Unlimited and Limited Data Plans for Tablet Data Plans with Data Cap Comparisons for Limited Data Plans 2012 Country Number of Unlimited Data Plans Number of Limited Data Plans Minimum Data Cap (GB) Maximum Data Cap (GB) Average Data Cap (GB) Switzerland 11 10 0.1 5 1.61 Estonia 10 0 Finland 5 5 1 20 9.40 Hong Kong 4 0 Luxembourg 3 9 0.3 30 9.42 Israel 3 3 3 5 4.33 India 2 18 1 15 6.14 Portugal 2 7 1 15 4.29 Austria 1 6 5 30 18.33 United States 0 34 0.25 20 6.85 Korea 0 27 0.1 15 3.04 Netherlands 0 25 0.01 15 2.77 France 0 21 0.1 5 2.38 Australia 0 19 1 20 9.68 Brazil 0 19 0.15 10 2.81 Spain 0 16 0.5 10 2.78 Germany 0 15 0.5 30 6.27 Sweden 0 15 0.5 16 8.17 Turkey 0 15 0.1 8 2.49 Canada 0 14 0.01 15 3.88 Ireland 0 14 0.3 30 10.95 Mexico 0 12 0.5 30 8.42 Poland 0 12 5 35 11.08 United Kingdom 0 12 0.25 15 3.54 Denmark 0 10 0.5 30 10.42 Hungary 0 10 0.5 40 6.75 Italy 0 9 1 50 14.89 Bulgaria 0 8 0.6 20 6.23 Norway 0 8 1 20 6.69 New Zealand 0 7 0.02 2 0.83 Belgium 0 6 1 4 1.83 Chile 0 6 0.5 8 3.42 Slovakia 0 6 0.5 10 3.42 Czech Republic 0 5 0.5 10 2.80 Singapore 0 5 2 11 7.00 Greece 0 3 0.5 2 1 Lithuania 0 3 1 5 3.00 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 119 Table 10d (continued) 2013 Country Number of Unlimited Data Plans Number of Limited Data Plans Minimum Data Cap (GB) Maximum Data Cap (GB) Average Data Cap (GB) United States 2 78 0.1 50 11.3 Czech Republic 0 57 0.15 10 3.7 Denmark 0 35 1 500 65.9 United Kingdom 0 21 0.5 15 4.0 Bulgaria 0 21 0.5 12 4.1 Slovenia 0 21 0.1 45 10.9 Australia 0 21 1 15 5.5 Poland 0 20 5 35 10.4 Germany 0 18 0.5 13 4.3 Brazil 0 18 0.5 20 5.3 Austria 1 17 0.05 8 3.6 Sweden 0 17 1 60 15.3 Korea 0 16 1 15 4.3 Hungary 0 16 0.5 30 8.5 Netherlands 3 16 0.25 10 3.8 India 0 15 1 15 6.1 Greece 0 15 2 20 9.7 Turkey 0 15 1 15 3.9 Canada 0 15 0.01 5 1.5 Portugal 5 13 1 30 9.7 Belgium 0 13 1 5 2.9 Spain 0 13 0.5 10 2.3 Italy 0 12 2 30 9.6 Switzerland 4 12 0.25 10 3.8 Chile 0 11 1 15 5.9 Luxembourg 1 10 0.005 25 6.6 Finland 5 10 1 20 9.4 New Zealand 0 9 0.5 5 2.1 Mexico 0 8 0.5 30 10.6 Estonia 0 8 15 120 41.3 Norway 0 8 1 30 12.6 Slovakia 2 8 0.5 25 10.8 France 0 7 3 32 11.1 Ireland 0 6 10 10 10 Israel 0 6 1 10 5 Singapore 0 4 5 10 7.5 Lithuania 1 3 3 10 6.5 Hong Kong 3 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 1 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 containing historical data going back several years is available at http://www.fcc.gov/reports/international-broadband-data-report- fourth. Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) (constant real prices 2005) GDP per cap, (US$) PPP (constant real prices 2005) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) ALA0 Australia 77 23127747 3 844925 37187 40 ALA1 New South Wales 75 7407682 9 261109 35741 42 ALA2 Victoria 77 5737615 25 188456 33464 43 ALA3 Queensland 78 4658557 3 162653 35602 34 ALA4 South Australia 75 1670834 2 52723 31832 35 ALA5 Western Australia 79 2517165 1 136997 56234 37 ALA6 Tasmania 72 513012 8 13865 27070 30 ALA7 Northern Territory 79 239507 0.2 10658 45312 36 ALA8 Australian Capital Territory 85 383375 160 18466 49226 57 AT0 Austria 80 8451860 103 303700 36136 21 AT11 Burgenland 78 286691 78 6932 24331 17 AT12 Lower Austria 74 1618592 86 48032 29797 18 AT13 Vienna 83 1741246 4408 79104 46148 32 AT21 Carinthia 75 555473 59 17188 30789 18 AT22 Styria 81 1210971 75 37971 31365 18 AT31Upper Austria 81 1418498 121 51432 36409 17 AT32 Salzburg 78 531898 75 22182 41717 21 AT33 Tyrol 83 715888 57 26484 37299 19 AT34 Vorarlberg 83 372603 147 14260 38548 19 BE0 Belgium 79 11161642 368 364167 33104 40 BE1 Brussels Capital Region 76 1174624 7296 68931 60637 47 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 2 BE2 Flemish Region 81 6404726 479 209426 33107 40 BE3 Wallonia 75 3582292 213 85571 24185 37 BG0 Bulgaria 54 7284552 67 50827 6864 BG3 Severna I iztochna Bulgaria 48 3693421 55 19042 5148 No Data BG4 Yugozapadna I yuzhna tsentralna Bulgaria 60 3591131 86 31784 8844 No Data Canada 77 35158304 4 1554950 44741 CA1 Newfoundland And Labrador 76 526702 1 28905 54864 27 CA2 Prince Edward Island 79 145237 26 4741 32661 20 CA3 Nova Scotia 73 940789 18 32819 34727 21 CA4 New Brunswick 75 756050 11 26961 35616 25 CA5 Quebec 76 8155334 6 305875 37837 20 CA6 Ontario 78 13537994 15 576506 42984 24 CA7 Manitoba 72 1265015 2 49784 39826 30 CA8 Saskatchewan 72 1108303 2 66609 61247 22 CA9 Alberta 77 4025074 6 266590 68554 22 CA10 British Columbia 82 4581978 5 188037 41388 24 Yukon Territory No data 36700 0.1 2249 62041 No Data Northwest Territories No Data 43537 3996 91607 No Data Nunavut No data 35591 1879 54137 34 Chile 36 17556815 24 215238 12368 32 CL01 Tarapaca 38 336121 8 5265 16008 39 CII Antofagasta 54 594555 5 23017 39136 27 CIII Atacama 32 286642 4 5646 19836 28 CIV Coquimbo 25 749374 18 6874 9299 36 CV Valparaiso 38 1814079 111 17660 9834 24 CVI O'Higgins 18 908553 55 9654 10725 20 CVII Maule 16 1031622 34 7599 7423 28 CVIII Bio-Bio 25 2074094 56 17049 8270 23 CIX Araucania 17 994380 31 4816 4882 29 CX Los Lagos 23 867315 18 5464 6376 28 CXI Aisen 21 107915 1 1096 10250 39 CXII Magallanes y Anta(a)rtica 33 160164 1 1823 11417 41 CRMS Santiago 50 7069645 459 105121 15001 24 CL14 Los Rios 21 382741 21 2739 7174 29 CL15 Arica Y Parinacota 49 179615 11 1417 7811 No data Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 3 CZ0 Czech Republic 63 10516125 136 252993 24125 21 CZ01 Prague 70 1246780 2569 62924 50990 40 CZ02 Central Bohemian Region 65 1291816 120 27444 21695 20 CZ03 Southwest 61 1209298 71 25248 20917 19 CZ04 Northwest 58 1128490 133 21115 18649 13 CZ05 Northeast 67 1507980 123 29841 19779 18 CZ06 Southeast 66 1679857 122 36555 21812 23 CZ07 Central Moravia 57 1225302 134 23943 19480 17 CZ08 Moravia- Silesia 61 1226602 231 25923 20995 19 DK0 Denmark 84 5627235 130 174065 31192 32 DK01 Capital (DK) 86 1749405 680 68508 39956 42 DK02 Zealand 82 816726 113 18457 22566 27 DK03 Southern Denmark 80 1202509 98 34450 28676 27 DK04 Central Jutland 85 1277538 98 36760 29020 30 DK05 North Jutland 86 581057 74 15890 27397 26 Estonia 79 1320174 30 24389 18198 39 FI0 Finland 88 5426674 18 172735 32135 39 FI13 Western Finland 85 1370384 24 39517 29056 37 FI18 Helsinki- Uusimaa 92 1566835 172 65199 42550 47 FI19 Southern Finland 88 1161486 37 32688 28238 36 FI1A Eastern and Northern Finland 86 1299468 6 34175 26342 35 FI20 Ĺland 64 28501 18 1074 38363 32 France 78 65588117 103 1958737 31056 35 FR1 Île de France 85 11978363 995 595674 50256 45 FR2 Bassin Parisien 77 10802440 74 265970 24698 No Data FR3 Nord - Pas-de- Calais 74 4052156 326 98173 24288 34 FR4 Est 77 5389583 112 133820 24890 No Data FR5 Ouest 76 8710169 102 217975 25356 No Data FR6 Sud-Ouest 78 6990946 67 178876 25929 No Data FR7 Centre-Est 78 7749100 111 221630 29031 No Data FR8 Méditerranée 79 7986851 118 210564 26652 No Data FR 9 Departements d'outre-mer 67 1928509 22 No Data No Data No Data DE0 Germany 85 82020578 230 2744846 34640 28 DE1 Baden- Württemberg 83 10840832 303 398172 38885 30 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 4 DE2 Bayern 85 12669492 180 478436 39747 29 DE3 Berlin 88 3545685 3994 109439 31922 37 DE4 Brandenburg 71 2491514 85 58849 24642 30 DE5 Bremen 91 663543 1583 29631 44562 27 DE6 Hamburg 87 1814597 2403 102143 57136 32 DE7 Hessen 84 6114686 290 244538 40720 31 DE8 Mecklenburg- Vorpommern 75 1627901 70 37863 23595 27 DE9 Niedersachsen 89 7916913 166 238182 30939 24 DEA Nordrhein- Westfalen 87 17848113 524 607845 35028 26 DEB Rheinland-Pfalz 85 3998702 201 120377 31355 26 DEC Saarland 83 1009506 393 32255 33816 23 DED Sachsen 79 4132291 224 101658 25108 33 DEE Sachsen-Anhalt 81 2295657 112 55159 24078 26 DEF Schleswig- Holstein 86 2841433 180 79232 29054 24 DEG Thüringen 87 2209713 137 51068 23738 30 GR0 Greece 55 11062508 85 252068 22287 30 GR1 Northern Greece 50 3559848 63 62373 17373 28 GR2 Central Greece 40 2396346 45 43917 17696 23 GR3 Athens 68 3920124 1030 121261 29475 39 GR4 Aegean Islands and Crete 47 1186190 68 24516 21812 23 HU0 Hungary 71 9908798 107 171943 17219 25 HU10 Central Hungary 80 2953883 427 83949 28254 35 HU21 Central Transdanubia 73 1074702 97 16555 15131 20 HU22 Western Transdanubia 73 985279 87 17436 17529 19 HU23 Southern Transdanubia 66 925180 65 10761 11441 22 HU31 Northern Hungary 66 1189441 89 12186 10200 20 HU32 Northern Great Plain 63 1491659 84 16219 10945 20 HU33 Southern Great Plain 63 1288654 70 14837 11339 21 Iceland 93 325671 3 10696 33587 31 IS01 Capital Region 93 208752 197 41 IS02 Other Regions 91 116919 1 25 Ireland 65 4591087 67 36173 39911 43 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 5 IE01 Border - Midlands and Western 59 1236009 39 24076 27766 38 IE02 Southern and Eastern 70 3355078 92 40664 44392 45 Israel 71 7984500 369 No Data No Data 58 IL01 Jerusalem 54 987400 1512 No Data No Data 46 IL02 Northern 61 1320800 295 No Data No Data 39 IL03 Haifa 69 939000 1084 No Data No Data 47 IL04 Central 78 1931000 1492 No Data No Data 48 IL05 Tel Aviv 77 1318300 7665 No Data No Data 50 IL06 Southern 71 1146600 81 No Data No Data 40 IT0 Italy 68 59685227 202 1644465 27125 19 ITC1 Piemonte 65 4374052 176 131104 29413 18 ITC2 Aosta Valley 67 127844 39 4503 35120 17 ITC3 Liguria 64 1565127 294 45781 28316 22 ITC4 Lombardia 71 9794525 430 350826 35374 19 ITD1 Province of Bolzano-Bozen 74 509626 69 20014 39423 15 ITD2 Province of Trento 71 530308 86 17234 32551 18 ITD3 Veneto 74 4881756 278 155587 31509 17 ITD4 Friuli-Venezia Giulia 70 1221860 162 38113 30840 19 ITD5 Emilia- Romagna 75 4377487 203 148389 33478 19 ITE1 Toscana 72 3692828 163 110310 29417 18 ITE2 Umbria 73 886239 107 22406 24717 21 ITE3 Marche 72 1545155 162 42534 27172 19 ITE4 Lazio 71 5557276 329 179227 31286 23 ITF1 Abruzzo 69 1312507 123 31292 23311 19 ITF2 Molise 59 313341 72 6674 20870 18 ITF3 Campania 60 5769750 431 97430 16700 18 ITF4 Puglia 60 4050803 211 72810 17797 16 ITF5 Basilicata 65 576194 59 11179 19028 19 ITF6 Calabria 59 1958238 133 34395 17100 18 ITG1 Sicilia 58 4999932 197 87359 17295 17 ITG2 Sardegna 70 1640379 69 34416 20542 16 JP0 Japan 75 127297000 341 4063407 31732 35 JPA Hokkaido/Tohoku 61 5431000 65 151082 27440 27 JPB Tohoku 62 9095000 137 254218 27233 23 JPC Northern-Kanto, 68 9870000 279 308024 30799 29 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 6 Koshin JPD Southern- Kanto 90 35793000 2730 1311822 36830 46 JPE Hokoriku 69 5360000 164 168435 30945 27 JPF Toukai 74 15050000 674 507227 33565 33 JPG Kansai Region 81 20802000 793 632683 30268 38 JPH Chugoku 66 7470000 238 227803 30121 32 JPI Shikoku 59 3905000 209 110165 27707 29 JPJ Kyushu, Okinawa 60 14521000 332 391948 26851 28 KR0: Korea 84 50219669 505 .. .. 42 KR01: Capital region 90 24887674 2126 660105 26718 47 KR02: Gyeongnam region 78 7813967 634 244771 31348 38 KR03: Gyeonbuk region 73 5113686 257 134183 26209 38 KR04: Jeolla region 76 5083414 248 142716 28058 37 KR05: Chungcheong region 88 5255702 317 172990 33124 38 KR06: Gangwon region 74 1504986 91 34496 22953 33 KR07: Jeju 72 560240 303 13175 23582 40 Lithuania 64 2971905 48 40865 13464 Luxembourg (Grand-Duché) 70 537039 203 34997 68374 43 Mexico 28 118395053 60 1522414 13006 21 ME01 Aguacalienetes 34 1252265 223 16430 13315 23 ME02 Baja California Norte 43 3381080 47 42867 12878 20 ME03 Baja California Sur 47 718196 10 11253 16181 22 ME04 Campeche 25 880299 15 76746 88583 22 ME05 Coahuila 29 2890108 19 51589 18074 25 ME06 Colima 37 698295 124 8645 12614 22 ME07 Chiapas 11 5119186 69 27607 5466 14 ME08 Chihuahua 31 3635966 15 41803 11616 19 ME09 Distrito Federal 48 8893742 5993 249685 28018 33 ME10 Durango 18 1728429 14 18739 10960 19 ME11 Guanajuato 23 5719709 187 59454 10489 15 ME12 Guerrerro 14 3523858 55 21799 6229 16 ME13 Hidalgo 16 2806334 135 25355 9157 16 ME14 Jalisco 31 7742303 98 95106 12442 21 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 7 ME15 Mexico 27 16364210 733 139894 8686 20 ME16 Michoacan 15 4529914 77 35532 7905 15 ME17 Morelos 30 1874188 383 17813 9624 20 ME18 Nayarit 27 1178403 42 9774 8459 21 ME19 Nuevo Leon 44 4941059 77 108946 22376 28 ME20 Oaxaca 12 3959042 42 24977 6354 14 ME21 Puebla 22 6067607 177 49426 8235 18 ME22 Queretaro 301 1943889 167 30554 15973 23 ME23 Quintana Roo 36 1484960 35 22811 15840 20 ME24 San Luis Potosi 24 2702145 44 29781 11132 20 ME25 Sinaloa 32 2932313 51 31556 10860 26 ME26 Sonora 42 2851462 16 44623 15881 23 ME27 Tabasco 23 2334493 94 53039 22970 21 ME28 Tamaulipas 33 3461336 43 45304 13249 23 ME29 Tlaxcala 16 1242734 311 8499 6940 19 ME30 Veracruz 24 7923198 110 82048 10441 18 ME31 Yucatan 23 2064151 52 22386 10991 19 ME32 Zacatecas 20 1550179 21 18376 11959 17 NL0 Netherlands 83 16779575 498 618703 37146 33 NL1 Northern Netherlands 85 1718485 207 63543 36992 29 NL2 Eastern Netherlands 87 3553582 366 109980 31146 30 NL3 Western Netherlands 88 7914606 916 309484 39525 36 NL4 Southern Netherlands 85 3592902 509 129715 36265 30 NZ0 New Zealand 75 4470800 17 114128 25745 38 NZ1 North Island 75 3422000 30 87866 25889 38 NZ2 South Island 75 1048200 7 26262 25288 36 NO0 Norway 88 5109056 17 180247 47102 38 NO01 Oslo and Akershus 92 1210220 238 56428 48160 50 NO02 Hedmark and Oppland 90 382253 8 9980 26078 30 NO03 South-Eastern Norway 86 969519 29 26802 27815 34 NO04 Agder and Rogaland 84 751850 31 28133 37003 35 NO05 Western Norway 86 875741 19 30898 35874 36 NO06 Trřndelag 91 441339 11 13541 31141 36 NO07 Northern 85 478134 4 14465 33 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 8 Norway PL0 Poland 69 38533299 123 692212 17966 30 PL1 Centralny 69 7826411 146 197035 25230 No Data PL2 Poludniowy 70 7969947 290 144442 18119 No Data PL3 Wschodni 67 6768287 90 84999 12514 No Data PL4 Pólnocno- Zachodni 71 6206918 93 105860 17091 No Data PL5 Poludniowo- Zachodni 64 3924565 134 73999 18808 No Data PL6 Pólnocny 70 5837171 96 88878 15250 No Data PT0 Portugal 58 10487289 114 228780 21640 20 PT11 North (PT) 61 3666234 172 65074 17615 18 PT15 Algarve 55 444390 89 9562 21190 18 PT16 Central Portugal 72 2298938 82 42285 18144 17 PT17 Lisbon 51 2818388 939 84990 30106 28 PT18 Alentejo 66 748699 24 14785 19495 17 PT20 Azores (PT) 64 247549 107 4965 20124 14 PT30 Madeira (PT) 58 263091 328 6873 25641 18 SK0 Slovakia 55 5410836 110 112773 20913 21 SK01 Bratislava 70 612682 298 31100 51839 38 SK02 West Slovakia 72 1838136 123 36804 20015 17 SK03 Central Slovakia 73 1348611 83 22105 16383 19 SK04 East Slovakia 65 1611407 102 22766 14189 18 Slovenia 74 2058821 102 51602 25169 30 ES0 Spain 69 46727890 93 1240303 26874 36 ES11 Galicia 64 2761989 94 66311 24231 36 ES12 Asturias 70 1067797 101 26638 25236 42 ES13 Cantabria 74 590036 112 15118 26128 41 ES21 Basque Counry 72 2177006 302 76881 35920 52 ES22 Navarra 71 638948 62 21508 34572 43 ES23 La Rioja 64 318647 63 9467 30230 38 ES24 Aragón 67 1338316 28 39482 30026 37 ES30 Comunidad de Madrid 78 6414620 806 223380 35072 47 ES41 Castile and León 66 2518560 27 65589 26326 37 ES42 Castile-la Mancha 63 2094406 27 43993 21495 28 ES43 Extremadura 61 1100970 27 20097 18552 28 ES51 Catalonia 71 7480921 234 230303 31404 36 ES52 Valencia 67 4987011 216 117794 23538 33 ES53 Balearic Island 68 1110112 222 30782 28279 27 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 9 ES61 Andalusia 66 8393175 97 167854 20330 29 ES62 Murcia 66 1461983 129 32215 21943 30 ES63 Ceuta 82 84539 4380 1777 23453 25 ES64 Melilla 65 83620 6240 1586 21409 28 ES70 Canary Islands 67 2105234 283 48267 22982 29 SE0 Sweden 79 9555893 23 329417 34986 35 SE11 Stockholm 84 2127006 326 99623 48494 44 SE12 East Middle Sweden 79 1589821 41 47234 30100 34 SE21 Smĺland with Is 75 815792 25 24905 30686 28 SE22 South Sweden 80 1415403 102 41667 29835 36 SE23 West Sweden 79 1904563 65 61953 32957 35 SE31 North Middle Sweden 78 826272 13 24312 29405 27 SE32 Central Norrland 73 368182 5 11891 32198 29 SE33 Upper Norrland 76 508854 3 17739 34926 33 CH0 Switzerland 81 8039060 201 311067 39525 37 CH01 Lake Geneva Region 82 1519189 183 60300 40642 38 CH02 Espace Mitteland 79 1788791 183 59700 34004 34 CH03 Northwestern Switzerland 83 1091302 560 47031 43921 39 CH04 Zurich 83 1408575 848 68016 49536 44 CH05 Eastern Switzerland 81 1123672 99 36602 33165 30 CH06 Central Switzerland 81 765879 179 27445 36619 34 CH07 Ticino 69 341652 125 11872 35571 33 TUR Turkey 46 75627384 98 994251 13486 19 TR10 Istanbul 63 13854740 2666 270017 20370 26 TR21 Thrace 63 1593247 85 26937 17706 18 TR22 Southern Marmara - West 41 1654422 68 21302 12967 17 TR31 Izmir 57 4005459 333 65614 16616 22 TR32 Southern Aegean 39 2808243 87 34662 12654 14 TR33 Northern Aegean 32 2965800 66 35697 11877 11 TR41 Eastern Marmara - South 55 3682037 129 63545 17674 20 TR42 Eastern Marmara - North 54 3376330 167 62458 19241 22 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 10 TR51 Ankara 55 4965542 203 85822 17985 34 TR52 Central Anatolia - West and South 40 2287705 48 23306 10374 16 TR61 Mediterranean region - West 50 2763541 77 39535 14722 18 TR62 Mediterranean region - Middle 36 3808483 130 39347 10540 17 TR63 Mediterranean region - East 38 3038983 130 25746 8569 14 TR71 Central Anatolia - Middle 44 1501311 48 15362 10267 17 TR72 Central Anatolia - East 40 2351714 39 22735 9662 19 TR81 Western Black Sea - West 49 1020108 107 12706 12276 13 TR82 Western Black Sea – Middle and East 37 745525 28 7086 9536 13 TR83 Middle Black Sea 35 2717970 72 26743 9758 13 TR90 Eastern Black Sea 35 2545274 72 24239 9633 14 TRA1 Northeastern Anatolia - West 28 1071878 26 9154 8568 17 TRA2 Northeastern Anatolia - East 41 1154277 38 6641 5858 9 TRB1 Eastern Anatolia - West 41 1673852 47 13869 8534 13 TRB2 Eastern Anatolia - East 15 2082470 50 10362 5124 10 TRC1 Southeastern Anatolia - West 31 2519139 165 17535 7261 15 TRC2 Southeastern Anatolia - Middle 20 3354242 99 20100 6296 11 TRC3 Southeastern Anatolia - East 28 2085092 80 13733 6916 14 UK0 United Kingdom 87 63256141 261 2063148 33002 39 UKC North East 77 2618012 305 62450 23870 31 UKD North West 85 7033454 499 193854 27862 35 UKE Yorkshire and The Humber 84 5336192 346 140164 26334 34 UKF East Midlands 89 4545216 291 120826 26872 34 UKG West Midlands 82 5564350 428 147184 26916 33 UKH Eastern 89 5907790 309 173229 29542 36 UKI London 94 8136284 5175 459903 58344 56 UKJ South East 90 8665938 4540 297299 34727 42 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 11 UKK South West 93 5330841 224 152190 28748 37 UKL Wales 83 3034975 146 70400 23379 35 UKM Scotland 85 5268247 68 160615 30661 44 UKN Northern Ireland 87 1814842 134 44053 24429 34 US0 United States 73.4 313873685 35 13637131 43442 27 US01 Alabama 63.5 4817528 37 160802 33347 21 US02 Alaska 79 730307 0.5 45433 62113 25 US04 Arizona 73.9 6551149 23 233818 35680 25 US05 Arkansas 60.9 2949828 22 95981 32545 19 US06 California 77.9 37999878 95 1755208 46139 28 US08 Colorado 79.4 5189458 20 240088 46281 34 US09 Connecticut 77.5 3591765 287 200900 55956 34 US10 Delaware 74.5 917053 183 57807 63033 27 US11 Dist. of Columbia 73.4 633427 4066 96187 152118 48 US12 Florida 74.3 19320749 140 680858 35246 25 US13 Georgia 72.2 9915646 67 379841 38291 25 US15 Hawaii 78.6 1390090 84 63449 45571 27 US16 Idaho 73.2 1595590 8 51026 31976 23 US17 Illinois 74 12868192 89 609084 47307 29 US18 Indiana 69.7 6537782 71 261619 40019 21 US 19 Iowa 72.2 3075039 21 133546 43441 24 US 20 Kansas 73 2885398 14 121734 42182 27 US 21 Kentucky 68.5 4379730 43 151970 34693 20 US 22 Louisiana 64.8 4602134 41 213119 46311 20 US 23 Maine 72.9 1328501 17 47007 35365 26 US 24 Maryland 78.9 5884868 234 278311 47295 34 US 25 Massachusetts 79.6 6645303 330 353781 53231 36 US 26 Michigan 70.7 9882519 67 350874 35501 24 US 27 Minnesota 76.5 5379646 26 258206 48001 31 US 28 Mississippi 57.4 2986450 25 88913 29787 18 US 29 Missouri 69.8 6024522 34 226758 37655 24 US 30 Montana 72.1 1005494 3 35413 35232 27 US 31 Nebraska 72.9 1855350 9 87220 47006 27 US 32 Nevada 75.6 2754354 10 117030 42419 20 US 33 New Hampshire 80.9 1321617 57 56680 42916 32 US 34 New Jersey 79.1 8867749 463 445051 50206 34 US 35 New Mexico 64.4 2083540 7 70612 33858 23 US 36 New York 75.3 19576125 161 1056491 53985 31 US 37 North Carolina 70.8 9748364 78 399469 40962 25 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 12 US 38 North Dakota 72.5 701345 4 40314 57622 25 US 39 Ohio 71.2 11553031 109 446269 38657 23 US 40 Oklahoma 66.7 3815780 22 141008 36963 21 US 41 Oregon 77.5 3899801 16 174079 44643 27 US 42 Pennsylvania 72.4 12764475 110 526434 41245 26 US 44 Rhode Island 76.5 1050304 389 44642 42504 29 US 45 South Carolina 66.6 4723417 61 154380 32682 23 US 46 South Dakota 71.1 834047 4 37202 44641 24 US 47 Tennessee 67 6454914 61 242706 37592 22 US 48 Texas 71.8 26060796 39 1224207 46978 24 US 49 Utah 79.6 2854871 14 114316 40037 27 US 50 Vermont 75.3 625953 26 23913 38200 32 US 51 Virginia 75.8 8186628 81 390623 47719 32 US 53 Washington 78.9 6895318 40 329170 47726 29 US 54 West Virginia 64.9 1856680 30 60782 32760 17 US 55 Wisconsin 73 5724554 41 229137 40014 25 US 56 Wyoming 75.5 576626 2 33661 58397 22 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 13 Appendix D Sources % households with broadband Population Total Population density GDP total GDP per cap, PPP Education Australia 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2013, OECD Austria 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Belgium 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Bulgaria 2013, Eurostat 2013, Eurostat 2012, Eurostat 2011, Eurostat 2011, Eurostat Canada 2013, CRTC 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2013, OECD Chile 2012, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2013, OECD Czech Republic 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Denmark 2013, OECD 2014, OECD 2013, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2013, OECD Estonia 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Finland 2013, OECD for Aland, 2007, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD France 2013, Eurostat 2013, Eurostat 2012, Eurostat 2011, OECD 2009, OECD 2013, OECD Germany 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Greece 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Hungary 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Iceland 2012, OECD 2014, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2012, OECD Ireland 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Israel 2012, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD Italy 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Japan 2012, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2010, OECD 2010, OECD 2010, OECD Korea 2009, KCC 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2013, OECD Lithuania 2013, Eurostat 2013, Eurostat 2012, Eurostat 2011, Eurostat 2011, Eurostat Luxembourg 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 14 Mexico 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2010, OECD Netherlands 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD New Zealand 2012, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD Norway 2013, OECD 2014, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Poland 2013, Eurostat 2013, Eurostat 2012, Eurostat 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Portugal 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Slovakia 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Slovenia 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Spain 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Sweden 2012, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Switzerland 2011, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Turkey 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD United Kingdom 2013, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD United States 2013, Census Bureau 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 1 Appendix E Market and Regulatory Background This Appendix contains updated information on regulatory and market developments for the 39 countries for which we obtained pricing data in Appendix C. 1 We also include topography and broadcast information in this Appendix for Brazil and India, the two countries included here that were not included in the Appendix E of the Third IBDR. 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 of various foreign countries. Much of the information reported in Appendix E of our earlier IBDRs has not changed. We incorporate by reference Appendix E from both the Second and Third IBDRs as supplemented by the new information contained herein. Table 1: OECD Rankings 2 Fixed (Wired) Broadband Subscriptions per 100 Inhabitants by Technology (December 2013) Source: OECD Broadband Portal Table 1d(1) 1 Because we only include countries for which we obtained pricing data in this Appendix, we have dropped three countries from this Appendix E that were included in previous reports: Cyprus, Latvia and Romania. 2 Although this Appendix E includes information on 39 countries, OECD Rankings Tables provide information only for the OECD member states. See OECD Broadband Portal at http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/oecd broadbandportal.htm. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 DSL Cable Fibre/LAN Other OECD Fixed (wired) broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by technology, December 2013 OECD average Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 2 Table 2: OECD Rankings Wireless Broadband Subscriptions per 100 inhabitants (December 2013) Source: OECD Broadband Portal Table 1d(2) 1. Australia Regulation: The development and roll-out of the National Broadband Network (NBN) has dominated the Australian telecommunications arena in recent years. 3 Initiated in 2009, the NBN is an Australia-wide project to upgrade the existing fixed line phone and Internet network infrastructure. 4 In April 2010, the Australian government established the National Broadband Network Company (NBN Co) to design, build, and operate the NBN. 5 The change of government in September 2013 from the Labour Party to the Coalition government had a significant impact on the NBN. While the original NBN relied almost solely on fiber-to-the- premises (FTTP) connections, a strategic review conducted by the Ministry of Communications in February 2014 recommended a switch to a mixed technology approach. 6 In April 2014, the new Coalition government officially changed the focus of the NBN to this mixed technology approach, which combines FTTP technology with newly-built fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) technology and existing hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC) infrastructure. The Australian government 3 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Australia (2014) (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 4 National Broadband Network Co. (NBN Co), Learn About the NBN, http://www.nbnco.com.au/about-the- nbn.html#.VBhRDfldXTo (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 5 NBN Co, About NBN Co, http://www.nbnco.com.au/corporate-information/about-nbn- co.html#.VBhTrPldXTo (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 6 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Australia (2014) (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 0 25 50 75 100 125 OECD wireless broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, December 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 3 expects that the mixed technology approach will allow 91percent of Australians in the fixed line rollout area to get downlink speeds of up to 50 Mbps by 2019. 7 In October 2012, the Australia Communications & Media Authority (ACMA), the telecommunications regulatory agency, announced it would make available 10 megahertz of spectrum in the 800 MHz band for the deployment of a nationally interoperable public safety mobile broadband network and 50 megahertz of spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band for nationwide use by public safety agencies. 8 In January 2013, the Department of Broadband, Communications, and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) published its schedule for restacking UHF television channels 52 to 69 to free 126 megahertz of 700 MHz band spectrum. The process is scheduled to end by December 31, 2014. 9 In April 2013, ACMA auctioned spectrum in the 700 MHz and the 2.5 GHz bands, which are both currently occupied by television providers. ACMA auctioned the bands together due to their complementary nature (700 MHz spectrum excels at penetrating buildings, while 2.5 GHz spectrum is more efficient for high-speed traffic). 10 Market and Competition: In December 2013, Telstra, Australia’s dominant wireless, fixed line, and broadband provider, reported that its 4G network reached 85 percent of the population and it aimed to switch its focus to LTE-Advanced (LTE-A) deployment in 2014. 11 To this end, in February 2013, Telstra renewed its longstanding partnership with Ericsson to develop LTE infrastructure and conduct a trial launch of LTE-A carrier aggregation and LTE heterogeneous networks, as well as a subsequent commercial deployment of LTE-A in the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz bands. 12 In May 2014, Telstra and Ericsson deployed LTE-A carrier aggregation, using combined spectrum in the 1800 MHz and 2600 MHz bands to achieve download speeds of 450 Mbps. 13 7 Telegeography CommsUpdate, NBN Project Officially Switched to Multi-Technology Mix Approach (Apr. 10, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/04/10/nbn-project- officially-switched-to-multi-technology-mix-approach/ (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 8 Telegeography CommsUpdate, ACMA Outlines Plans For Emergency Spectrum Allocation (Oct. 29, 2012), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/10/29/acma-outlines-plans-for- emergency-spectrum-allocation/ (accessed Jan. 14, 2014). 9 DBCDE Summary, Achieving the Digital Dividend – Channel Changes, http://www.dbcde.gov.au/television/ achieving_the_digital_dividend_-_restack (accessed Jan. 14, 2014). 10 ACMA Summary, Digital Dividend Auction, http://engage.acma.gov.au/digitaldividend/ (accessed Jan. 14, 2014). 11 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Telstra Switches on 3,500th 4G Base Station to Reach 85% Population Coverage (Dec. 19, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/12/19/telstra-switches-on-3500th-4g- base-station-to-reach-85-population-coverage/ (accessed Jan. 14, 2014). 12 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Telstra and Ericsson Renew LTE partnership, Trial LTE Broadcast, Expand Fibre Backbone (Feb. 26, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/02/26/telstra-and-ericsson-renew-lte- partnership-trial-lte-broadcast-expand-fibre-backbone/ (accessed Jan. 14, 2013). 13 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Telstra Notches Download Speeds of 450Mbps in LTE-A Carrier Aggregation Test (May 15, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/05/15/telstra-notches-download- speeds-of-450mbps-in-lte-a-carrier-aggregation-test/ (accessed Oct. 21, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 4 In February 2013, NBN Co updated its three-year rollout plan to improve Australia’s broadband infrastructure. The plan aimed to increase broadband rural access speeds to 25 Mbps/5 Mbps for fixed-wireless users by mid-2013 and for rural satellite users by 2015. NBN Co rolled out a 1 Gbps wholesale service at the end of 2013. 14 Alongside these broadband improvements, NBN Co planned to set the same wholesale price for ISPs reselling NBN Co services to rural broadband users as for fiber users in cities. 15 In June 2013, a number of alternative ISPs launched plans offering speeds of 25 Mbps over the fixed-wireless network element of the NBN. As of June 2014, NBN Co reports that over 604,000 premises were covered by broadband services. 16 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 17 26.0 0.7 4.1 21.2 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 18 6,009,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 19 77.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 20 114.4 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 21 26,460,000 2. Austria Regulation: In September 2013, Austria’s digital dividend auction of 28 blocks of spectrum in the 800 MHz, 900 MHz, and 1800 MHz bands raised EUR2.01 billion (US$2.75 billion), nearly four times their minimum target price. A1 Telekom Austria paid a total of EUR1.03 billion (US$1.41 million) for 2×20 megahertz blocks in the 800 MHz band, 2×15 megahertz blocks in the 900 MHz band, and 2×35 megahertz blocks in the 1800 MHz band. Deutsche Telekom’s T- Mobile Austria paid EUR655 million (US$893.62 million) for 2×10 megahertz blocks in the 800 MHz band, 2×15 megahertz blocks in the 900 MHz band, and 2×20 megahertz blocks in the 1800 MHz band. Lastly, Hutchison Drei Austria (formerly H3G) paid EUR330 million (US$450.22 14 Global TD-LTE Initiative, NBN Co Launches 1 Gbps Service, http://www.lte-tdd.org/news/ind/2013-12- 18/1831.html (accessed Jan. 31, 2014). 15 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Australia (2014) (accessed Jan. 14, 2014). 16 NBN Co, National Broadband Network – Rollout Information, http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/ documents/nbnco-rollout-metrics-04092014.pdf (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 17 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 18 Id. 19 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 20 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 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. 21 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 5 million) for 2×5 megahertz blocks of 900 MHz band spectrum and 2×20 megahertz of 1800 MHz band spectrum. The licenses are all technology-neutral, although Austria’s regulator, the Regulatory Authority for Telecoms and Broadcasting (Rundfunk & Telekom Regulierungs, or RTR) has stipulated that they should be used for FDD duplex technologies. A1 Telekom Austria acquired one frequency block in the 800 MHz band that includes a coverage obligation requiring the provision of broadband download speeds of at least 1 Mbps to 360 specified municipalities within three years. 22 In August 2013, prior to the auction, T-Mobile Austria filed a legal challenge relating to the terms of the auction, arguing that it currently holds the usage rights of some of the frequencies available at the auction, through 2019. 23 Austrian courts are expected to take around two years to rule on T-Mobile’s challenge, during which time the winning operators will move ahead with plans to build their LTE networks on the frequencies in question with the risk that they may be reallocated in the future. 24 Following the auction, Hutchison Drei Austria announced its intention to appeal the results, asserting the auction was illegal in form and substance and caused financial harm due to the exorbitant prices paid. 25 On July 29, 2014, Hutchison Drei Austria confirmed that it decided not to appeal the result of the multi-band spectrum auction, though it maintains that the auction was illegal. 26 Market and Competition: The rapid uptake of mobile broadband in Austria continues. Fixed line operators are finding that they need to upgrade their networks and service portfolios to counter pressure from the country’s increasingly data-centric cell companies, leading to widespread fixed-mobile substitution. As of March 2014, former fixed line monopoly A1Telekom Austria remained the dominant provider, accounting for 56.6 percent of the market. The country’s second-largest provider, UPC Austria (with a 17.6 percent market share), utilizes cable and fiber optic networks to provide cable television, telephone and Internet services reaching 1.299 million homes across Austria. The third notable operator in the market is Tele2 Austria (with a 6 percent market share), the local division of the Swedish telecom group of the same name. Its market share has declined in recent years (118,000 broadband subscribers as of December 2013, down from a peak of 179,000 in March 2008) as popular service bundles from fixed line competitors and mobile broadband operators have eroded its customer base. 27 22 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Austria (2014) (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). 23 Telegeography CommsUpdate, T-Mobile Challenges Rules of Upcoming Spectrum Auction (Aug. 5, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/08/05/t-mobile-challenges- rules-of-upcoming-spectrum-auction/ (accessed Oct. 22, 2014). 24 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Austria (2014) (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). 25 Telegeography CommsUpdate, H3G to Spearhead Austrian Spectrum Appeal (Nov. 28, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/11/28/h3g-to-spearhead-austrian- spectrum-appeal/ (accessed Oct. 22, 2014). 26 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Hutch Withdraws Austrian Spectrum Appeal (July 29, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/07/29/hutch-withdraws-austrian- auction-appeal/ (accessed Oct. 22, 2014). 27 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Austria (2014) (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 6 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 28 26.1 0.3 8.2 17.6 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 29 2,214,428 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 30 80.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 31 64.7 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 32 5,481,818 3. Belgium Regulation: In November 2013, Belgium concluded its 800 MHz digital dividend auction, during which Belgium’s three mobile network operators all won spectrum licenses: incumbent Belgacom, Orange’s Mobistar, and KPN’s BASE all won 2×10 megahertz paired licenses for EUR120 million (US$161.25 million) each. All three 20-year licenses were sold for the reserve price after one round of bidding. The Belgian government netted EUR360 million (US$491.8 million). All three licenses require the operators to offer mobile broadband speeds of at least 3 Mbps to 30 percent of the population within two years, and to 98 percent of the population in six years. Mobistar’s license includes an additional obligation that requires Mobistar to cover 98 percent of underserved rural regions (where no operator currently has satisfactory 3G coverage) within three years. 33 Strong mobile competition and adverse macroeconomic conditions appeared to have discouraged new entrants from participating in the 800 MHz auction. 34 Cable operator Telenet did not participate in the auction, and its mobile plans seem to have stalled, despite winning a 3G license in 2011 in the 2100 MHz band with fellow cable operator Tecteo. Other operators that did not participate in the 800 MHz auction included BUCD and Craig Wireless Belgium, which both participated in the 2011 auction, when BUCD won 45 megahertz of TDD spectrum. In April 2013, the Belgian Institute for Post and Telecommunication (BIPT), Belgium’s regulator, confirmed that it had fined the joint venture between Telenet and Tecteo (Tecteo Telenet Bidco, or TTB) for failure to launch commercial services over its own network by January 15, 2013 as required by its license conditions. 35 In June 2014, BIPT announced it will redistribute the 75 megahertz of unused 2G and 3G spectrum in the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz bands held by TTB. BIPT will allocate the spectrum among the three existing main players (Proximus, Mobistar, and 28 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 29 Id. 30 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 31 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 32 Id. 33 IHS Global Insight: Europe - Belgium: Analyst Commentary (accessed Dec. 16, 2013). 34 Id. 35 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Belgium (2014) (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 7 BASE Company) or hold an auction pending interest from potential new entrants. 36 Market and Competition: Belgium’s broadband market benefits from widely deployed DSL and cable networks. DSL remains the most popular access technology among high-speed Internet users, with Belgacom, the former Belgian monopoly, providing virtually universal coverage. Cable broadband is gaining market share; by mid-2012, cable accounted for an estimated 46 percent of all high-speed Internet connections in Belgium. Belgacom’s principal competitor is cable network operator Telenet. As of March 2014, Belgacom led the market with 1.692 million subscribers (44.5 percent market share) followed by Telenet with 1.481 million subscribers (38.9 percent). 37 In October 2012, Belgian fixed line incumbent Belgacom and French-U.S. vendor Alcatel-Lucent announced a partnership to conduct large-scale customer trials of VDSL2 vectoring technology, the next generation VDSL2 broadband network. 38 In December 2013, after the conclusion of the trial, Belgacom began using the technology in Mechelen. By the beginning of 2014, Belgacom had activated a nationwide broadband access network based on VDSL2 vectoring. Belgacom plans to initially use the network to boost data rates on its copper infrastructure from 30 to 70 Mbps via vectored VDSL2 and its new modem, the B-BOX3. Belgacom expects to complete the nationwide rollout in 2016. 39 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 40 34.4 0.0 17.6 16.8 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 41 3,819,393 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 42 79.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 43 46.0 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 44 5,113,490 36 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Belgium’s Bidco Set to Lose Unused 2G and 3G Spectrum (June 11, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/06/11/belgiums-bidco-set-to- lose-unused-2g-and-3g-spectrum/ (accessed Oct. 22, 2014). 37 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Belgium (2014) (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). 38 Id. 39 Belgacom Switches on VDSL2 Vectoring Network (Feb. 20, 2014), http://www.lightwaveonline.com/articles/ 2014/02/belgacom-switches-on-vdsl2-vectoring-network.html (accessed Oct. 22, 2014). 40 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 41 Id. 42 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 43 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 44 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 8 4. Brazil Regulation: The Ministério das Comunicaçőes (Ministry of Communications) is the executive agency responsible for the development of policies for telecommunications, broadcasting, and postal services. The Ministry of Communications oversees auctions for radio and TV licenses, regulates broadcasting services, implements policies aimed at universal access to telecommunications services, and generally oversees the activities of the regulator, Agęncia Nacional de Telecomunicaçőes (Anatel). 45 Anatel, an independent agency, regulates the national telecommunications sector and manages the national radio spectrum. Anatel was created in 1997 in conjunction with a unified regulatory framework that established the conditions for privatization of the state-owned incumbent Telecomunicaçőes Brasileiras (Telebrás), and is responsible for licensing, enforcement of compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and all technical aspects related to regulation of the telecommunications sector. 46 The telecommunications sector was fully liberalized in January 2002. In May 2010, Brazil announced its National Broadband Plan. 47 The goal of the plan, known as Plano Nacional da Banda Larga (PNBL), is to provide high-speed Internet access to 40 million households (about 60 percent of the population) by 2014 by, among other things, adding over 28,000 kilometers of fiber optic lines to Brazil’s existing fiber optic backbone. The government will ensure that broadband service with speeds up to 1 Mbps is available for no more than approximately US$20 per month. By June 2011, four of the country’s main providers (Oi, Telefónica, Algar Telecom and Sercomtel) committed to the goals of the National Broadband Plan, and as of October 2011, were delivering broadband services at a minimum speed of 1 Mbps for approximately US$18 per month in 344 municipalities. 48 By January 2012, 692 municipalities had low-cost wireline broadband services. 49 As of August 2013, this low-cost basic wireline broadband service was available in 3,214 municipalities. 50 As of March 2014, the PNBL covered 4,633 out of 5570 municipalities (83 percent of municipalities). 51 Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo mentioned in 2012 that the government plans to launch PNBL v.2.0 in 2014, the goal of which is to provide 90 percent of all households with high-speed broadband access of at least 4-5 Mbps within the next five years. 52 In June 2012, Anatel concluded a spectrum auction of the 450 MHz and 2.5 GHz bands for 4G 45 Ministry of Communications, http://www.mc.gov.br/o-ministerio (accessed Mar. 19, 2014). 46 Anatel, http://www.anatel.gov.br (accessed Mar. 19, 2014). 47 InfoDev, Broadband in Brazil: A Multipronged Public Sector Approach to Digital Inclusion (2011), http://www.infodev.org/en/Document.1128.pdf (accessed Mar. 19, 2014). 48 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Brazil (2014) (accessed Mar. 19, 2014). 49 Id. 50 Ministry of Communications, Programa Nacional de Banda Larga (PNBL), http://www.mc.gov.br/acoes-e-programas/programa-nacional-de-banda-larga-pnbl (accessed Dec. 11, 2013). 51 Ministry of Communications, Programa Nacional de Banda Larga (PNBL) – Balanço Junho 2014, http://www.mc.gov.br/programa-nacional-de-banda-larga-pnbl (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 52 Telesintese, Bernardo Quer PNBL Com Velocidade Mínima de 10 Mbps em 2014 (Aug. 29, 2012), http://www.telesintese.com.br/bernardo-quer-pnbl-com-velocidade-minima-de-10-mbps-em-2014/ (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 9 mobile broadband use. 53 Anatel and the Ministry of Communications committed to ensuring the deployment of 4G technology before Brazil hosted the 2014 World Cup. President Dilma Rousseff announced in September 2011 that the Brazilian government had earmarked US$117 million to ensure that the 12 host cities for the 2014 World Cup would be able to offer 4G/LTE services. 54 By the start of the World Cup in June 2014, all 12 host cities had LTE services. Anatel concluded the auction of the 700 MHz band on September 30, 2014, and licenses were won by the three main mobile operators, Vivo, TIM Brasil and Claro. 55 The 700 MHz band is currently used by television broadcasters, who are under pressure to complete the digital television migration by 2018. The Minister of Communications has expressed the government’s desire to have the analog switch-off within a year of the 700 MHz auction so that 4G services can be deployed in the band. 56 Brazil is leading the efforts of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) countries to construct and install a fiber optic broadband ring for South America in order to integrate the region, increase broadband connection speeds, and decrease connection costs. It is estimated that 75-85 percent of data circulating in South America, including local content, is routed through Miami. In October 2012, Alcatel-Lucent entered into a consortium with Seaborn Networks to build the first direct U.S.-Brazil submarine cable network, called Seabras-1, which is expected to be launched in 2015. 57 Market and Competition: The main mobile broadband providers are Claro, Vivo, TIM Brasil and Oi, and other providers include CTBC and Sercomtel Celular. Claro is the market leader in terms of subscriptions to WCDMA handsets and in M2M terminals (i.e., credit card machines, security systems) while Vivo leads in broadband data terminals. 58 Since the 4G auction in June 2012 and as of August 2014, 38.8 percent of the population had access to 4G services. Claro is the market leader in 4G coverage, with a 4G network that can reach 36.8 percent of the population, followed by Vivo (35.4 percent), and TIM and Oi (each with 31 percent). 59 The main fixed broadband access technologies are DSL (60.5 percent) and cable (33 percent). 60 As of June 2014, Claro held 30.6 percent of the fixed broadband market, followed by Oi (26.7 53 Anatel, Concorrentes oferecem R$ 2,7 bilhőes no primeiro dia da licitaçăo de 2,5 GHz e de 450 MHz (June 12, 2012), http://www.anatel.gov.br/Portal/exibirPortalNoticias.do?acao=carregaNoticia&codigo=25623 (accessed Mar. 19, 2014). 54 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Brazil (2014) (accessed Mar. 19, 2014). 55 Telegeography CommsUpdate, 700 MHz Spectrum Auction Underwhelms; Two Lots Go Unsold (Oct. 1, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/10/01/700mhz-spectrum- auction-underwhelms-two-lots-go-unsold/ (accessed Oct. 3, 2014). 56 Tecnologia, 4G: O Governo quer 700 MHz Livre em Grandes Regiőes em Um Ano (May 16, 2014), http://tecnologia.terra.com.br/4g-governo-quer-700-mhz-livre-em-grandes-regioes-em-um- ano,2db1b87cd9106410VgnCLD2000000ec6eb0aRCRD.html (accessed Oct. 3, 2014). 57 Seaborn Networks, Seaborn Networks Receives Coface Guarantee for Brazil-US Cable Project (Oct. 21, 2013), http://www.seabornnetworks.com/pdf/press_releases/en/211013-seaborn-press-release-en.pdf (accessed Dec. 11, 2013). 58 Teleco Report, 3G: 3 rd Generation Cellular in Brazil (Nov. 2012), http://www.teleco.com.br/en/en_3g_brasil.asp (accessed Dec. 17, 2012). 59 Teleco Report, 4G: 4 th Generation Cellular in Brazil (Sept. 10, 2014), http://www.teleco.com.br/4g_cobertura.asp (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 60 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Brazil (2014) (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 10 percent), Telefônica (17.9 percent), Global Village Telecom (GVT) (12.8 percent), and Algar Telecom (1.7 percent). 61 More than 50 percent of the population have access to fixed Internet access in their homes at speeds above 2 Mbps. 62 Given Brazil’s vast geography and its dispersed communities in its more remote northern parts, the government is also encouraging the use of satellite-based broadband delivery systems to improve Internet access. Global satellite services provider O3B Networks is seeking to extend broadband coverage to remote areas of Brazil by partnering with Telebrás, the state-owned telecommunications entity that was revived in 2010 by the Ministry of Communications to be the entity responsible for the infrastructure supporting Brazil’s National Broadband Plan. 63 Brazil is planning the launch of its first geostationary satellite by 2016, led jointly by Telebrás and Embraer, which would make broadband access available to the entire country using the Ka-band. 64 Other Media: Media ownership in Brazil is highly concentrated. National conglomerates, such as Globo, Brazil’s largest broadcaster, lead the market and run television and radio networks, newspapers, and pay-TV operations. Globo reports that it is the most ubiquitous broadcaster in the country, covering 98.5 percent of the Brazilian territory and reaching 99.5 percent of the population. 65 There are more than 200 TV channels and more than 10,000 radio stations in operation. 66 Topography: Brazil is the largest country in South America, and occupies an area that is slightly smaller than the United States. The terrain is mostly flat with rolling lowlands and the Amazon rainforest in the north, a tropical savanna and wetland in the central west part, highlands in the center, and a narrow coastal belt of beaches that feature mangroves, lagoons and dunes. Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 67 10.08 n/a n/a n/a n/a 61 Id. 62 Teletime, Mais da metade dos brasileiros tem acesso fixo com mais de 2 Mbps (Dec. 19, 2013), http://www.teletime.com.br/19/12/2013/mais-da-metade-dos-brasileiros-tem-acesso-fixo-com-mais-de-2- mbps/tt/364760/news.aspx (accessed Dec. 29, 2013). 63 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Satellite Provider O3B Seeking to Extend Broadband Coverage to Remote Parts of Brazil (July 8, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/07/08/satellite-provider-o3b-seeking- to-extend-broadband-coverage-to-remote-parts-of-brazil/ (accessed Oct. 22, 2014). 64 Veja, Brasil lançará satellite para levar banda larga a todo país (Mar. 28, 2012), http://veja.abril.com.br/noticia /vida-digital/brasil-lancara-satelite-para-levar-banda-larga-a-todo-pais (accessed Aug. 2, 2013). See also Conexăo MiniCom, Brasil constrói seu primeiro satélite geoestacionário (July 6, 2012), http://www.conexaominicom.mc. gov.br/materias-especiais/946-brasil- constroi-seu-primeiro-satelite-geoestacionario (accessed Aug. 2, 2013); Ministry of Communications, Satélite geoestacionários (Feb. 20, 2014), http://www.mc.gov.br/ infraestrutura/satelites-geoestacionarios (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 65 See Rede Globo, http://redeglobo.globo.com/Portal/institucional/foldereletronico/ingles/g_tv_globo.html (accessed Mar. 19, 2014). 66 Teleco Statistics, http://www.teleco.com.br (accessed Mar. 19, 2014). 67 See ITU, ICT Statistics Database (2014), http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx (ITU Statistics Database) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 11 Fixed broadband subs (2013) 68 20,190,871 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014) 69 35.8 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 70 52.0 Mobile wireless broadband subs (2014) 71 104,277,000 5. Bulgaria Regulation: Under the European Union’s (EU) Radio Spectrum Policy Program, member states were expected to free up the “digital dividend” 800 MHz band for electronic communications services via the transition from analog to digital television by the start of 2013, but Bulgaria missed the deadline. Bulgaria received permission to delay the frequency relocation until 2017, as part of the 800 MHz band is occupied by the military. 72 The country’s first regular digital broadcast started on March 1, 2013, and analog signals in Bulgaria officially ceased on September 30, 2013. Terrestrial TV broadcasting in Bulgaria is now digital-only. 73 Market and Competition: Bulgaria’s former fixed line incumbent Vivacom (formerly, the Bulgarian Telecommunications Company) reported having over 4.23 million subscribers as of June 30, 2013, 1.6 million of which subscribed to its fixed network, including roughly 450,000 fixed broadband subscribers. 74 The total number of mobile user accounts in Bulgaria reached 10.68 million at the end of March 2014, down by 7.5 percent in the last 12 months. The three licensed mobile operators are MobilTel (M-Tel), Cosmo Bulgaria (GloBul) and Vivacom. Competition has led to lower prices and bundled discount offers involving various combinations of cellular voice/data, fixed broadband, fixed telephony and pay-TV services. The availability of mobile number portability (MNP) has helped the newest licensee, Vivacom, gain 300,000 users between June 2012 and 2013. By the end of March 2014, M-Tel had 38.5 percent of the market in terms of subscribers followed by GloBul (37.2 percent), and Vivacom (24.3 percent). The entry of a new market player, WiMAX operator Max Telecom, which introduced LTE services at the end of May 2014, is likely to shake up the market. 75 68 Id. 69 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Brazil (2014) (accessed Oct. 29, 2014). 70 ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators 2014, Economy Tables (accessed Oct. 29, 2014). 71 Id. 72 European Commission, Press Release: Europeans Suffering Because Most Member States Are Too Slow Delivering 4G Mobile Broadband Spectrum (July 23, 2013), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13- 726_en.htm (accessed Oct. 22, 2014). 73 NURTS, DVB-T (Digital Video Broadcasting – Terrestrial), http://nurts.bg/en/uslugi/???????-??????- ?????????-dvb-t (accessed Feb. 7, 2014). 74 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Bulgaria (2014) (accessed Apr. 15, 2014). 75 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 12 In January 2012, M-Tel began rolling out a test LTE network in the 1800 MHz band, after receiving a temporary concession from Bulgaria’s regulator, the Communications Regulation Commission (CRC). M-Tel began offering LTE services to business customers in the capital, Sofia, at the end of March 2012. Although the operator pledged to gradually increase the number of covered locations throughout 2012, and to introduce commercial LTE data services in Q3 2012, this did not occur. 76 In July 2012, M-Tel announced that it had increased transmission speeds throughout its network to up to 42 Mbps in 19 cities. In January 2012, Vivacom received permission from the CRC to conduct LTE testing in the 1800 MHz band. At that time, Vivacom said it would begin rolling out trial infrastructure in Sofia. 77 In March 2013, Vivacom stated that its 1800 MHz band LTE network was in deployment, but stopped short of announcing a prospective launch for commercial services. 78 In January 2013, the CRC granted Bulsatcom a mobile license. Bulsatcom announced that it would launch its 4G LTE mobile broadband services by the end of 2013. However, the company missed that deadline and has not set a new timeframe for its launch. 79 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 80 18.97 n/a n/a n/a n/a Fixed broadband subs (2011) 81 1,370,098 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 82 54 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 83 58.57 Mobile wireless broadband subs (2014) 84 4,230,000 6. Canada Regulation: In March 2012, Industry Canada announced that the government would exempt telecommunications network operators with less than 10 percent share of total telecommunications market revenue from foreign investment restrictions. Previously, non- Canadians were restricted from owning more than 46.7 percent voting shares of a Canadian telecommunications operator. This proposed amendment to the Telecommunications Act became 76 Id. 77 Id. 78 Id. 79 Id. 80 ITU Statistics Database (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 81 Id. 82 Eurostat, http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=isoc_r_broad_h&lang=en (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 83 ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators 2014, Economy Tables (accessed Oct. 29, 2014). 84 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 13 effective in June 2012. In addition, the government applied spectrum caps in the January 2014 4G auction of the 700 MHz band and intends to apply spectrum caps in the 2015 auction of the 2.5 GHz band so that prime spectrum can be reserved for new entrants and smaller regional providers. Furthermore, rural rollout obligations will apply to operators purchasing more than one regional block of 700 MHz spectrum. 85 Seeking to improve competition in the mobile sector, Industry Canada also passed a new wireless spectrum license transfer framework in June 2013, which would promote at least four wireless providers in every region of the country. 86 Currently, over 99 percent of Canadians households have broadband access at speeds of 1.5 Mbps. In July 2014, Industry Canada launched the Digital Canada 150 program; one of the program’s main goals is to extend broadband access at speeds of at least 5 Mbps to 98 percent of Canadian households, mainly in rural and remote communities, by 2017. 87 Market and Competition: As of June 2014, there were five main companies providing broadband services in Canada. The largest broadband provider, by subscribers, is Bell Canada, with 17.9 percent market share, followed by Rogers Communications (16.3 percent), Shaw Communications (15.6 percent), Telus Communications (11.6 percent), and Videotron (11.5 percent). 88 In July 2011, Rogers Communications launched Canada’s first commercial 4G LTE mobile broadband network in Ottawa using the 1700/2100 MHz bands, which it subsequently expanded to Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver in September 2011, reaching 35 percent of the country’s population in April 2012. By December 2012 Rogers Communications’ 4G LTE service reached 60 percent of Canada’s population, and in March 2013 the company announced that it plans to expand its 4G LTE mobile network to 44 additional markets in mid-2013, reaching a total of 95 markets by the end of 2013. 89 Bell Canada introduced its commercial 4G LTE service in the 2100 MHz band in Greater Toronto in September 2011, and Telus Communications started its commercial 4G LTE services in February 2012, also using the 2100 MHz band. As of October 2013, Telus Communications’ 4G LTE service covered approximately 80 percent of the population. 90 85 Government of Canada, Harper Government Takes Action to Support Canadian Families (Mar. 14, 2012), http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?nid=662619 (accessed Oct. 23, 2014). 86 Market Wired, Harper Government Releases Spectrum Licence Transfer Framework (June 28, 2013), http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/harper-government-releases-spectrum-licence-transfer- framework-1806992.htm (accessed Dec. 11, 2013). 87 Government of Canada, Digital Canada 150: Connecting Canadians, http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/028.nsf/eng/h_00587.html (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 88 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Canada (2014) (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 89 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Rogers Posts 3% Revenue Growth (Feb. 15, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/02/15/rogers-posts-3-revenue-growth/ (accessed Oct. 23, 2014). 90 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Telus Nearing 80% LTE Coverage (Oct. 31, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/10/31/telus-nearing-80-lte-coverage/ (accessed Oct. 23, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 14 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 91 33.5 1.1 18.8 13.5 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 92 11,675,481 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 93 77.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 94 53.3 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2012) 95 18,581,921 7. Chile Regulation: In May 2012, Chilean telecommunications regulator, the Sub-Secretaria de Telecomunicaciones (Subtel), announced the completion of its public-private initiative to deliver broadband services to remote rural communities. The project, launched in December 2009, rolled out wireless broadband networks to 1,474 towns and villages providing easier Internet access to three million Chileans. The project cost US$110 million, with Entel providing US$65 million, and US$45 million coming from the Telecommunications Development Fund (FDT) and the Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications (MTT). 96 In October 2013, Subtel launched a tender for 4G licenses in the 700 MHz band, which resulted in the award of spectrum licenses in March 2014 to three mobile operators, Entel, Movistar and Claro. 97 Under the terms of their licenses, auction winners must deploy mobile telephony and Internet services in 1,281 remote communities. Upon completion of the deployment, mobile voice and Internet services are expected to cover 98 percent of Chile’s population, including inhabitants in remote and isolated areas. Winners of the 700 MHz license must also provide data transmission and public Internet services to 503 educational institutions free of charge for two 91 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 92 Id. 93 Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), CRTC Communications Monitoring Report, Fig. 5.3.14 (2014), http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/PolicyMonitoring/2014/cmr.htm (accessed Nov. 21, 2014). 94 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 95 Id. 96 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Subtel and Entel Complete Rural Connectivity Project (May 16, 2012), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/05/16/subtel-and-entel-complete- rural-connectivity-project/ (accessed Oct. 29, 2012). 97 Subtel, Subtel Publica Llamado a Concurso Público para Banda de 700 MHz (Oct. 2, 2013), available at http://www.subtel.gob.cl/images/stories/apoyo_articulos/concurso_700/llamado_concurso_700_mhz.pdf (accessed Dec. 11, 2013). See also Subtel, Licitación 700 MHz: Subtel Define Frecuencias para Subtel, Movistar y Claro (Feb. 28, 2014), http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/5246-licitacion-700-mhz-subtel- define-frecuencias-para-entel-movistar-y-claro (accessed Mar. 19, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 15 years. 98 In May 2014, the Chilean Senate announced plans to discuss legislation that would guarantee minimum Internet speeds for fixed and mobile connections. Pursuant to the legislation, fixed Internet service providers must guarantee 70 percent of their advertised speeds for national connections and 50 percent in the case of international connections. Mobile ISPs must guarantee 60 percent of their advertised speeds for national connections and 40 percent for international connections. Subtel would be in charge of determining the minimum speeds and implementing the initiative. 99 Chile is in the midst of creating a new agency, the Superintendency of Telecommunications. The legislation to create the new Superintendency of Telecommunications was submitted to the Senate in June 2013, 100 approved by the Committee of Transportation and Telecommunications of the Senate upper house on January 22, 2014, and has been sent to the Finance Committee of the upper house for approval. 101 The new Superintendency of Telecommunications will not replace Subtel, but exist alongside it. The new legislation will delineate the responsibilities of the new regulator vis ŕ vis the existing consumer protection authority, the National Consumer Service (Sernac), and will include a new framework for sanctions and financial penalties. The Superintendency of Telecommunications will be responsible for all technical issues, while Sernac will continue to handle matters relating to consumer law. 102 Market and Competition: As of June 2014, Telefónica Chile (Movistar) was the largest fixed broadband provider in terms of subscribers, with 38.6 percent market share, followed by VTR (38.2 percent), Claro Chile (11.6 percent), Grupo GTD (7.8 percent) and Entel (1.4 percent). 103 As of June 2014, the top three mobile operators by subscribers were Movistar (39 percent), Entel PCS (38.4 percent), and Claro Chile (21.7 percent). In July 2012, Subtel awarded spectrum in the 2.6 GHz band to these three operators to provide 4G services. Under the terms of the concession, they each had 12 months to roll out their networks and a maximum of 24 months to start offering services in 543 specific locations, chosen for their geographic isolation and lack of Internet 98 Telecompaper, Chile 700 MHz Spectrum Tender to Benefit 186,000 Users (Nov. 15, 2013), http://www.telecompaper.com/news/chile-700-mhz-spectrum-tender-to-benefit-186000-users--979710 (accessed Oct. 23, 2014). 99 BNAmericas, Chile to Legislate to Guarantee Internet Speeds (May 7, 2014), http://subscriber.bnamericas.com/Subscriber/index.jsp?idioma=I&tipoContenido=detalle&pagina=content &idContenido=644989&tipoDocumento=1 (accessed Sept. 18, 2014). 100 Estrategia Online, Comisión Aprueba Proyecto que Crea Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones (Jan. 17, 2013), http://www.estrategia.cl/detalle_noticia.php?cod=71696. See also Telegeography CommsUpdate, New Regulator Bill Gets Green Light (June 5, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/ articles/2013/06/05/new-regulator-bill-gets-green- light/ (accessed Dec. 11, 2013). 101 Subtel, Comisión de Transportes y Telecomunicaciones del Senado despachó proyecto que crea la Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones (Jan. 22, 2014), http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/139- superintendencia/5236-comision-de-transportes-y-telecomunicaciones-del-senado-despacho-proyecto-que- crea-la-superintendencia-de-telecomunicaciones (accessed Oct. 23, 2014). 102 Telegeography CommsUpdate, New Regulator Due in 2013 (Oct.16, 2012), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/10/16/new-regulator-due-in-early- 2013/ (accessed July 23, 2013). 103 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Chile (2014) (accessed Sept. 18, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 16 connectivity. 104 Claro was the first to launch an LTE network in Chile in June 2013, followed by Movistar in November 2013. 105 Entel launched its LTE network in March 2014, after delaying its LTE launch until it could acquire a license to provide 4G services in the 700 MHz band in addition to the 2.6 GHz band. 106 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 107 12.9 0.3 6.6 5.5 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 108 2,271,420 % of households with fixed broadband access (2012) 109 36.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 110 35.8 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 111 6,282,872 8. Czech Republic Regulation: In November 2012, the national regulator, the Czech Telecommunication Office (CTU), announced plans to auction spectrum suitable for 4G services in the 800 MHz, 1800 MHz, and 2600 MHz bands. However, in March 2013, CTU stopped the auction after bids rose beyond the US$1 billion mark. CTU explained that, given the exorbitant price of the spectrum, it had concerns over the competitive pricing of new services and the speed at which operators would be able to launch them. 112 A few months later, the auction began again, with prospective bidders given until the end of September 2013 to submit their applications. The three incumbent GSM operators – T-Mobile Czech Republic, Telefonica O2 Czech Republic, and Vodafone Czech Republic – submitted applications, as well as two new potential market entrants: Revolution Mobile and Sazka Communications (formerly known as Tasciane). CTU approved all five bidders’ applications in October 2013, and the auction began in November 2013. Under the terms and conditions of the 104 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Subtel Allocates 4G Spectrum (July 31, 2012), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/07/31/subtel-allocates-4g-spectrum/ (accessed Oct. 23, 2014). 105 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Chile (2014) (accessed Sept. 18, 2014). 106 Id. 107 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 108 Id. 109 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 110 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 111 Id. 112 Czech Telecommunication Office (CTU), Press Release: Czech Telecommunication Office Announces the Conditions of the New Frequency Auction (Apr. 8, 2013), http://www.ctu.eu/164/download/Press_releases/pr25_ 08042013_an.pdf (accessed Oct. 22, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 17 auction, CTU reserved spectrum in the 800 MHz and 1800 MHz bands for a new entrant, leading to criticism from the three incumbents. In the end, the three incumbents all won spectrum, allowing them to launch LTE services; however, the auction failed to bring new competition to the market as intended, since the two would-be newcomers decided not to bid on the reserved spectrum blocks. 113 In April 2014, CTU published the rules governing the auction of the 3600-3800 MHz band. 114 CTU intends to auction this spectrum for the provision of electronic communication services, in particular mobile broadband. CTU plans to hold a simultaneous multiple-round auction. At the auction stage, CTU will accept offers within three 40 MHz blocks (8×5 megahertz) and one 80 MHz block (16×5 megahertz). 115 Then, CTU will allow winning bidders to reach an agreement on the allocation of the individual 5 megahertz blocks within these sections. If the winning bidders cannot come to an agreement, CTU will determine individual block placement by drawing lots. CTU will set out the coverage conditions linked to the frequency awards, including a requirement that winners establish commercial services within five years of the allocation. 116 Market and Competition: At the end of 2013, CTU reported that the development of the fiber optic broadband segment is beginning to gain traction, albeit from a very small base. Operators such as Telefonica O2 Czech Republic are rolling out FTTH networks, which are being used exclusively for providing their own retail services. CTU notes there are currently more than 100 local optical network operators offering their services through FTTx, usually in metropolitan optical networks. There were an estimated 180,000 fiber-based subscribers at the end of 2013, up from 167,000 a year before. 117 The Czech fixed broadband Internet access market declined slightly for the first time in 2013, reflecting the growing popularity of high-speed mobile connectivity. 118 All three main cellular operators – T-Mobile Czech Republic, Telefonica O2 Czech Republic, and Vodafone Czech Republic – have deployed LTE 4G networks which provide peak speeds of around 70 Mbps in many of the country’s major urban areas. 119 At the end of December 2013, fixed line incumbent operator Telefonica O2 Czech Republic had 910,000 broadband Internet subscribers, down from 928,400 12 months before. The operator 113 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Czech Republic (2014) (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). 114 Telegeography CommsUpdate, CTU Sets Out Stall to Auction Off 3.6 GHz-3.8 GHz Band for Broadband Services (June 3, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/06/03/ctu-sets-out-stall-to-auction-off- 3-6ghz-3-8ghz-band-for-broadband-services/ (accessed Oct. 22, 2014). 115 CTU, The Basic Principles of Awarding Rights for the Use of Radio Frequencies for Providing Electronic Communication Networks in the 3600-3800 MHz Frequency Band (Apr. 29, 2014), http://www.ctu.eu/164/download/News-Events/basic_principles_29_04_2014_radio_frequencies_3600- 3800_mhz.pdf (accessed Dec. 2, 2014). 116 Telegeography CommsUpdate, CTU Sets Out Stall to Auction Off 3.6 GHz-3.8 GHz Band for Broadband Services (June 3, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/06/03/ctu-sets-out-stall-to-auction-off- 3-6ghz-3-8ghz-band-for-broadband-services/ (accessed Oct. 22, 2014). 117 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Czech Republic (2014) (accessed Sept. 4, 2014). 118 Id. 119 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 18 upgraded its broadband networks with high-speed VDSL technology which delivers peak download speeds of 40 Mbps, and was available to 87 percent of the addressable xDSL residential customer base at end of 2013. The company said that it had 362,000 VDSL customers at that date, up by 102,000 on a year earlier. Additionally, the total number of Telefonica O2 TV customers grew to 156,000 (from 141,400 at the end of 2012), while its IP telephony users increased from 76,700 to 86,400. 120 High-speed cable growth has been slow but steady over the last few years. According to the Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting (RRTV, the Czech agency responsible for administering radio and television broadcasting licenses), 87 operators offered cable TV services in the Czech Republic, with most also providing broadband Internet. UPC Ceska Republika (UPC), the market leader, operates in almost 100 cities and towns throughout the country, including the Brno, Northern Bohemia Ostrava, Pilsen, and Prague. UPC offers triple-play services (TV, Internet and voice telephony) through its hybrid-fiber coaxial (HFC) network, which passed 1.36 million homes as of December 2013. By the end of December 2013, 92.5 percent of UPC’s networks had been upgraded to two-way capability. At the end of 2013, UPC had the majority (440,000) of the country’s broadband cable modem subscribers, of an estimated 471,000 cable television users in the country. In September 2009, UPC launched UPC Fiber Power, its next generation broadband Internet service with download speeds of up to 100 Mbps, utilizing EuroDOCSIS 3.0 technology, and by February 2014 the peak rate had been increased to 240 Mbps. 121 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 122 17.4 3.3 4.9 9.2 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 123 1,826,726 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 124 63.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 125 62.5 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 126 6,574,264 9. Denmark Regulation: Consistent with the Queen of Denmark’s October 3, 2011 Resolution, the National IT and Telecom Agency (NITA) closed in 2012, and the agency’s functions were largely 120 Id. 121 Id. 122 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 123 Id. 124 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 125 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 126 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 19 transferred to the Danish Business Authority (DBA), the new independent regulator. 127 DBA is responsible for further market development, growth, and innovation, and for guaranteeing that all citizens have easy access to wireless communication technologies. 128 DBA plans to meet its obligations mainly by releasing available spectrum to the market through auctions. 129 DBA also offers advice to businesses and consumers about marketing and ICT equipment. 130 In March 2012, DBA announced plans to auction the 800 MHz digital dividend spectrum for mobile services. 131 In June 2012, TDC and TT-Netvaerket (a joint mobile venture between Telia and Telenor) won 60 megahertz of spectrum. Specifically, incumbent TDC won 2×20 megahertz, and TT-Netvaerket won 2×10 megahertz of spectrum. 132 The auction generated 739.3 million Danish kroner (US$124.3 million). 133 The 22-year licenses were sold without usage restrictions, and the frequencies were made available beginning in 2013. 134 The licenses are subject to mobile broadband coverage requirements, which stipulate that the operators must provide 99.8 percent indoor coverage and 98 percent outdoor coverage with a download rate of at least 10 Mbps by the end of 2014. 135 In March 2013, the Danish government introduced a new national broadband strategy, setting out 22 initiatives for the improvement of broadband services and mobile coverage. 136 The strategy calls for 100 percent access at minimum download speeds of 100 Mbps and minimum upload speeds of 30 Mbps by 2020. 137 DBA conducts annual broadband mapping to track broadband deployment. 138 Beginning in 2014, DBA plans to implement interactive broadband mapping to provide a more comprehensive overview of coverage at the local level. 139 Market and Competition: Denmark’s telecommunications market is characterized by slow revenue and subscriber growth in the mobile and broadband sectors, declining subscriptions in the fixed line sector, and low margins across all services. 140 127 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Denmark (2014) (accessed Sept. 2, 2014). 128 Danish Business Authority, Telecom and Spectrum, http://danishbusinessauthority.dk/telecom-and- spectrum (accessed Sept. 2, 2014). 129 Id. 130 Id. 131 Danish Business Authority, 800 MHz Auction, http://danishbusinessauthority.dk/800-mhz-auction (accessed Sept. 2, 2014). 132 Id. 133 Id. 134 Id. 135 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Denmark (2014) (accessed Sept. 2, 2014). 136 Danish Business Authority, Broadband Mapping 2013, http://w2l.dk/file/475201/broadband- mapping.pdf (accessed Sept. 2, 2014). 137 Id. 138 Danish Business Authority, Broadband Mapping, http://danishbusinessauthority.dk/broadband_mapping_ coverage (accessed Sept. 2, 2014). 139 Id. 140 IHS Global Insight, Denmark Telecoms Report (2014) (accessed Sept. 2, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 20 Denmark has four major mobile operators. As of March 2014, TDC had a 41 percent market share of mobile subscribers followed by Telenor (24 percent), TeliaSonera (20 percent), and Hutchison Whampoa’s Hi3G Access Denmark (14 percent). 141 All four operators acquired the spectrum from the June 2012 800 MHz digital dividend auction to boost their LTE coverage. 142 Denmark has one of the highest fixed broadband penetration rates in the world, so all four had to cut prices to stay competitive. 143 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 144 40.0 7.8 11.5 20.7 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 145 2,245,593 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 146 84.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 147 107.3 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 148 6,021,411 10. Estonia Regulation: In June 2012, the European Commission (EC) directed Estonia to comply with EU rules mandating a clear separation between bodies that regulate the telecommunications sector and companies providing telecommunications services. 149 The EC expressed concern that the Estonian Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications (MEAC), which manages radio frequencies, numbering resources and the provision of universal service, also controlled local state-owned WiMAX provider Levira. 150 In September 2013, the EC brought an action against Estonia before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), arguing that Estonia had failed to ensure the impartiality of regulatory bodies. 151 In April 2014, the ECJ closed the case but ordered Estonia to pay the costs, reprimanding Estonia for taking steps to comply with its obligations only after the EC initiated a formal action. 152 141 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Denmark (2014) (accessed Sept. 2, 2014). 142 Id. 143 Id. 144 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (December 2012) (accessed July 23, 2013). 145 Id. 146 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 147 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (December 2012) (accessed July 23, 2013). 148 Id. 149 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Estonia (2014) (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). 150 Id. 151 European Commission v. Republic of Estonia (Case C-493/13). 152 Order of the President of the Court (Case C-493/13), April 4, 2014. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 21 Market and Competition: Currently, broadband access is available via ADSL2+, FTTH, cable, WiFi, WiMAX and mobile networks. 153 There are three major fixed line providers: the incumbent, Elion, and its main competitors, Starman and STV, that together serve 86 percent of fixed broadband customers. 154 Elion provides primarily ADSL services, while Starman and STV provide mainly high-speed access over cable modem and fiber solutions. 155 With respect to mobile broadband, between May 2013 and January 2014, three mobile operators obtained 800 MHz licenses that helped them improve their rollout of 4G services. In May 2013, Eesti Mobiiltelefon (EMT-TeliaSonera) paid the Estonian Technical Surveillance Authority (ETSA) an upfront fee of EUR1 million (US$1.3 million) for 2×10 megahertz blocks of 800 MHz spectrum. 156 In August 2013, ETSA granted a second batch of 800 MHz spectrum licenses to Estonian telecom company Elisa. 157 At a competitive auction in January 2014, Tele2 Eesti won the third and last block of digital dividend 800 MHz spectrum. 158 In March 2014, ETSA announced that it will refarm spectrum in the 1800 MHz band among the three companies in order to make more efficient use of the band for the provision of 4G LTE services. 159 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 160 25.5 8.6 5.8 10.7 0.4 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 161 341,465 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 162 79.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 163 90.8 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 164 1,216,637 153 Id. 154 Id. 155 Id. 156 Id. 157 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Elisa Bags 800 MHz Spectrum from ETSA (Aug. 9, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/08/09/elisa-bags-800mhz-spectrum- from-etsa/ (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). 158 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Tele2 Wins Third 800 MHz LTE Block (Jan. 10, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/01/10/tele2-wins-third-800mhz-lte- block/ (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). 159 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Tele2 Estonia Bags New 2100 MHz Spectrum; ETSA Reallocates 1800 MHz Band for Faster LTE (Mar. 12, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/ articles/2014/03/12/tele2-estonia-bags-new-2100mhz-spectrum-etsa-reallocates-1800mhz-band-for-faster- lte/ (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). 160 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 161 Id. 162 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 163 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 164 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 22 11. Finland Regulation: In October 2013, after nine months of bidding, the Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority (FICORA), the independent regulatory body, completed the 800 MHz digital dividend auction, generating EUR108.01 million (US$148.5 million). 165 Six paired 2×5 megahertz blocks of spectrum were sold to the country’s three existing mobile network operators: DNA Finland paid EUR33.57 million (US$44.1 million) for its two blocks, Elisa Corporation paid EUR33.34 million (US$43.8 million) for its two blocks, and TeliaSonera Finland paid EUR41.10 million (US$53.9 million) for the last two blocks. 166 The licenses are valid for 20 years starting in 2014, and they cover the whole of Finland (excluding the Ĺland islands). 167 The license conditions associated with the acquired spectrum stipulate that the winning operators must launch operations within two years, and provide coverage to 95 percent of the mainland population within three years. 168 Market and Competition: Finland’s four major wireline broadband operators – Elisa, TeliaSonera, DNA, and the Finnet Group – together account for more than 95 percent of the market. 169 DSL connections remain the most popular broadband access technology, with over 60 percent of all subscribers, but cable modem connections, making up around 19 percent of subscriptions, continue to rise in popularity. 170 In 2008, the Ministry of Transport and Communications introduced the “Broadband 2015” initiative, aimed at increasing high-speed broadband connections around the country by the end of 2015. 171 By the end of 2013, FICORA had dedicated EUR38.4 million (US$50.4 million) to the initiative, leading to a significant increase in broadband access, particularly in rural areas. 172 Of approximately 1.7 million total subscribers, 16 percent had access to speeds of 100 Mbps or more, up from 10 percent in 2012 and 6 percent in 2011. 173 DNA, Elisa, and TeliaSonera have all used spectrum in the 800 MHz band to improve 4G LTE coverage. 174 In May 2014, Finnish start-up Ukko Mobile announced that, beginning in late 2014, it would launch the world’s first 4G LTE wireless broadband network using the 450 MHz 165 Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority, End of 4G Spectrum Auction, https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/ficora/news/2013/endof4gspectrumauction.html (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). 166 Id. 167 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Finland Concludes Long-Running 800 MHz Auction (Oct. 31, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/10/31/finland-concludes-long- running-800mhz-auction/ (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). 168 Id. 169 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Finland (2014) (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). 170 Id. 171 Id. 172 Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority, Building of Broadband Networks in Rural Areas Is Proceeding Fast, https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/ficora/news/2014/buildingofbroadbandnetworksinruralareasisproceeding fast.html (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). 173 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Finland (2014) (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). 174 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 23 band. 175 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 176 30.8 0.9 5.8 18.9 5.2 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 177 1,676,400 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 178 88.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 179 123.3 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 180 6,704,800 12. France Regulation: In January 2012, French regulator Autorité de Régulation des Communications Électroniques et des Postes (ARCEP) completed its 800 MHz band digital dividend spectrum auction. Bouygues Telecom, Orange France and SFR each won 4G-capable licenses. 181 In March 2014, France’s Constitutional Council (Conseil d’Etat) restored ARCEP’s power to issue sanctions. The Constitutional Council had previously decided that ARCEP’s ability to sanction telecommunications operators violated the principle of separation of powers. Moving forward, ARCEP will employ a new procedure; in order to ensure the separation of investigative and sanctioning powers, different members of the Executive Board will handle different tasks. 182 In May 2014, ARCEP launched an investigation into all four of France’s mobile network operators, Bouygues Telecom, Free Mobile, Orange, and SFR. ARCEP will assess whether the mobile providers have met their existing commitments with respect to 3G rollouts in rural areas. 183 175 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Ukko Aims for LTE-450 World-First Launch (June 19, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/06/19/ukko-aims-for-lte-450-world- first-launch/ (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). 176 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 177 Id. 178 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 179 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 180 Id. 181 ARCEP, Press Release: ARCEP Issues Licenses to the Digital Dividend Spectrum Winners (800 MHz) (Jan. 17, 2012), http://www.arcep.fr/ (accessed Oct. 10, 2014). 182 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Arcep Regains Power to Sanction; Indoor FTTH Regulations Clarified (Mar. 17, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/03/17/arcep-regains- power-to-sanction-indoor-ftth-installation-regulations-clarified/ (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 183 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Arcep Launches Five Inquiries into 3G Rollouts, QoS (May 28, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/05/28/arcep-launches-five-inquiries- into-3g-rollouts-qos/ (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 24 Market and Competition: For the past few years, France has been focusing on the development of ultra-high speed broadband networks, defined by ARCEP as connections of 30 Mbps and above. 184 In February 2013, President Francois Hollande introduced “France Tres Haut Debit” (FTHD), a plan to spur economic growth by investing nearly EUR20 billion (US$25.2 billion) in the rollout of high-speed networks over the next decade. According to the plan, very high-speed networks are expected to be available to 50 percent of the population by 2017 and to 100 percent of the population by 2023. 185 ARCEP reported that at year end 2013, there were more than 2 million broadband subscriptions with maximum download speeds equal to or higher than 30 Mbps, a 27.6 percent year-on-year increase. 186 French operators have also increased the pace of their FTTH rollout. As of September 30, 2013, 2.74 million homes had access to an FTTH service, 40 percent more than the year before, and 1.4 million of these homes had a choice between at least two providers (or 49 percent more than in 2011) due to network sharing arrangements required by the French regulatory framework. According to ARCEP, 492,000 of these 2.74 million homes are not in very high-density areas. 187 Bouygues Telecom launched its first LTE trial network in Lyon in mid-2012, while Orange France launched its pilot LTE network in the coastal city of Marseilles at the same time. SFR launched commercial LTE services in Lyon in November 2012. A debate over LTE antenna emission levels delayed the rollout of LTE services in Paris. After months of uncertainty, the dispute was resolved in September 2012, after the city of Paris reached an agreement on emission levels with the four major mobile operators. 188 SFR and Orange launched LTE service in parts of Paris beginning in January 2013. 189 As of April 2014, Bouygues’ 4G network covered 69 percent of the French population, Orange’s network covered 55 percent, and SFR’s network covered 40 percent. 190 Free Mobile launched LTE services in December 2013 but lags behind its competitors. 191 According to a December 2013 ARCEP study, France is seeing a swift rise in the use of mobile devices for Internet access at home, both among users employing WiFi (33 percent of people surveyed) or cellular service (27 percent). Half of French consumers use two or more devices to access the Internet from home. 192 184 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: France (2014) (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 185 Id. 186 Id. 187 ARCEP, Press Release: Broadband and Superfast Broadband Market (Nov. 23, 2013), http://www.arcep.fr/ (accessed Oct. 21, 2014). 188 Le Monde, Le Conseil de Paris adopte sa charte sur les antennes-relais (Oct. 16, 2012), http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2012/10/16/le-conseil-de-paris-adopte-sa-charte-sur-les-antennes- relais_1776236_3244.html?xtmc=4g&xtcr=4 (accessed Oct. 10, 2014). 189 ZDNet, Paris Gets Its First LTE Coverage (Jan. 29, 2013), http://www.zdnet.com/paris-gets-its-first-lte- coverage-7000010477/ (accessed Mar. 10, 2014). 190 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: France (2014) (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 191 Id. 192 ARCEP, Press Release: Use of Information and Communication Technologies in French Society - Findings for 2013 (Dec. 10, 2013), http://www.arcep.fr/ (accessed Jan. 15, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 25 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 193 37.6 0.8 2.6 34.2 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 194 24,751,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 195 78.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 196 55.9 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 197 36,733,000 13. Germany Regulation: In November 2012, two years after its 800 MHz band auction, Bundesnetzagentur (BNetzA), the German telecommunications regulator, announced that all mobile network operators had met the coverage requirements that were part of their license conditions. In particular, winning bidders had been required to roll out mobile broadband to 90 percent of lower-population areas before higher-populations areas could be served. 198 After meeting these licensing requirements, all three operators, Deutsche Telekom (DT), Vodafone D2, and Telefónica Germany, were free to use their 800 MHz spectrum to roll out 4G services nationally. 199 In recent years, Germany has been proactive in promoting transparency and ensuring consumer protection. In May 2012, the German Parliament passed a series of amendments to the Telecommunications Act aimed at enhancing transparency in the telecommunications market. 200 Among the provisions, the amendments required BNetzA to help consumers measure and compare the quality of Internet services. From June to December 2012 and July to December 2013, BNetzA conducted quality measurement campaigns designed to study the service quality of 193 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 194 Id. 195 Eurostat, http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=isoc_r_broad_h&lang=en (accessed Oct. 15, 2014). 196 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014 197 Id. 198 GSMA, Making Sense of the Digital Dividend Spectrum Auctions, http://www.gsma.com/spectrum/wp- content/uploads/DigitalDividend/DDtoolkit/auctions-summary.html (accessed Mar. 26, 2014). 199 Bundesnetzagentur (BNetzA), Coverage Requirement Now Also Met for 800 MHz Band in Schleswig Holstein (Dec. 28, 2013), http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cln_1912/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2011/111228 BroadbandExpansionSchleswigHolstein.html?nn=214432 (accessed Dec. 3, 2012). 200 BNetzA, Measures Aimed at Promoting Transparency for Consumers and on Measuring Procedures (May 10, 2013), http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/BNetzA/Areas/Telecommunications/ TelecomRegulation/TransparencyForConsumers/DocTransparencyForConsumers.pdf?__blob=publicationF ile&v=2 (accessed Oct. 21, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 26 broadband Internet access. 201 In early 2014, BNetzA introduced a permanent web-based measurement tool that allows consumers to test their fixed or mobile broadband speeds. 202 Market and Competition: In early September 2014, the EC approved Telefónica Deutschland’s EUR8.6 billion (US$11.9 billion) acquisition of E-Plus. 203 The merger will decrease the number of German wireless network operators from four to three, making Telefónica Deutschland (Telefónica) the leader of the mobile marketplace with the highest number of subscribers ahead of current front runners Telekom Deutschland (the mobile arm of incumbent Deutsche Telekom (DT)) and Vodafone Germany. Because the merger might affect the competitive position of mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) and reduce competition in Western Europe’s largest mobile market, the merger raised concerns at both the national and EU levels. 204 As a result, Telefónica agreed to sell up to 30 percent of the merged company’s network capacity to German MNVOs. Telefónica also will divest some of its mobile spectrum in the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz bands and extend wholesale 4G services. In December 2013, BNetzA reported that as fixed broadband penetration has grown in Germany, DT’s competitors’ share of the broadband market has grown to nearly 60 percent. 205 As of June 2014, DT leads the market with 42.5 percent of subscribers, followed by Vodafone Germany (17.8 percent), United Internet (12.7 percent), Unitymedia KabelBW (9.4 percent), Telefónica (7.5 percent), and a variety of other providers (10.1 percent). 206 BNetzA attributes the growth in competition to the increasing popularity of cable operators in Germany. 207 Quad-play packages (TV, Internet, home, and mobile phone) are becoming increasingly common in Germany. 208 In addition, BNetzA reported that the growth in German broadband connections has slowed in the last several years, as the market has become saturated. 209 As for mobile broadband networks, BNetzA notes that extensive LTE network expansion continues, spurred by Germany’s successful completion of its 2010 digital dividend auction. 210 Before the approval of Telefónica and E-Plus merger in early September 2014, there were four mobile operators in Germany. As of June 2014, DT had the most subscribers, with 32.7 percent 201 Initiative Netzqualitaet, http://www.initiative-netzqualitaet.de (accessed Jan. 15, 2014). 202 Id. 203 Telegeography CommsUpdate, EC Gives Telefonica/E-Plus Deal Final Approval (Sept. 1, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/09/01/ec-gives-telefonicae-plus-deal- final-approval/ (accessed Oct. 21, 2014). 204 Telegeography CommsUpdate, FCO Warns That Telefonica/E-Plus Deal Could Harm Consumers (June 16, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/06/16/fco-warns-that- telefonicae-plus-deal-could-harm-consumers/ (accessed Oct. 10, 2014). 205 BNetzA, Activity Reports Telecommunication and Post 2012/2013, http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cln_1932/ SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2013/131216_ActivityReports_2012-2013.html?nn=404530 (accessed Mar. 10, 2014). 206 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Germany (2014) (accessed Oct. 10, 2014). 207 Id. 208 Id. 209 BNetzA, Press Release: Bundesnetzagentur Announces Positive Competition Development in Telecommunications Sector, http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cln_1932/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/ EN/2011/111215_ActivityReportPostTK.html?nn=214432 (accessed Oct. 10, 2014). 210 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 27 of Germany’s 110 million wireless subscribers, followed closely by Vodafone Germany (28.9 percent), E-Plus (20.8 percent), and Telefónica (17.5 percent). The German mobile sector also has more than 75 MVNOs that resell services utilizing the infrastructure of the four largest facilities-based operators. Notably, some MVNOs are extended operations for other major European network operators, including British Telecom, Tele2, and Turkcell. 211 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 212 34.8 0.3 6.2 28.2 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 213 28,603,463 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 214 85.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 215 45.1 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 216 37,057,293 14. Greece Regulation: In March 2014, Greece’s independent regulator, the Hellenic National Telecommunications & Post Commission (EETT), presented its 2014 Action Plan. 217 Among its priority areas, the EETT planned to improve internal efficiency, enhance e-business initiatives, contribute to the EU debate on regulatory issues, and hold auctions for the 800 MHz, 2.6 MHz, and 3.4-3.8 GHz bands. 218 The EETT held its digital dividend auction of spectrum in the 800 MHz and 2600 MHz bands in October 2014. 219 Cosmote (the mobile subsidiary of incumbent operator Hellenic Telecommunications Organization (OTE)), Vodafone, and Wind Hellas each acquired two paired 5 megahertz blocks (2×10 megahertz) in the 800 MHz band, paying EUR103 million (US$128.6 million), EUR103.1 million (US$128.8 million), and EUR103.01 million (US$128.7 million), respectively. 220 Additionally, the three companies shared 14 paired blocks of 2 × 5 megahertz in 211 Id. 212 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 213 Id. 214 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 215 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014 216 Id. 217 Hellenic Telecommunications & Post Commission, Presentation of EETT’s Action Plan for 2014, http://www.eett.gr/opencms/opencms/admin_EN/News/news_0251.html (accessed Sept. 4, 2014). 218 Id. 219 Telegeography CommsUpdate, 800 MHz, 2600 MHz Auction Results Announced (Oct. 14, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/10/14/800mhz-2600mhz-auction- results-announced/ (accessed Oct. 16, 2014). 220 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 28 the 2600 MHz band, each paying EUR4.70 million (US$5.9 million) per block. Vodafone and Cosmote each also acquired two unpaired 10 megahertz blocks in the 2600MHz band, priced at EUR1.3 million (US$1.6 million) per block. 221 Market and Competition: OTE has rolled out ADSL infrastructure to 99 percent of its network. 222 OTE, with a 44 percent market share, reported 1.25 million broadband subscribers as of September 2013. 223 Other retail operators that provide fixed broadband services primarily via unbundled local loop access include: ForthNet (19 percent market share), Hellas Online (15 percent), and Wind Hellas (11 percent). 224 Broadband services delivered over technologies other than xDSL represent a very small fraction of total connections, less than 0.5 percent of overall subscribers, the smallest percentage among EU Member States. 225 Overall, Greece continues to rank near the bottom among western European countries in terms of broadband adoption. 226 As of June 2014, Cosmote led the mobile sector with a 45 percent market share, followed by Vodafone (30 percent), and Wind Hellas (25 percent). 227 In November 2011, Greece’s three wireless operators, Cosmote, Vodafone, and Wind Hellas, acquired technology-neutral spectrum licenses in the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz bands. 228 The new licenses allowed the three companies to expand 3G services and launch 4G LTE services. In November 2012, Cosmote launched the country’s first commercial LTE network, providing coverage to 80 percent of Athens and 90 percent of Thessaloniki by the end of September 2013. 229 In June 2013, Vodafone rolled out its own 4G network, expanding coverage to the majority of both cities. 230 The effects of Greece’s debt crisis and economic austerity measures have led to less disposable income for consumers and a reduction in demand for new mobile subscriptions; nevertheless, mobile broadband subscriber levels have increased modestly over the last few years. 231 Cosmote, the segment leader, reported approximately 300,000 mobile broadband users at the end of December 2013, up from 182,000 only four years earlier. 232 221 Id. 222 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Greece (2014) (accessed Sept. 3, 2014). 223 Id. 224 Id. 225 Id. 226 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(c) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Sept. 4, 2014). 227 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Greece (2014) (accessed Sept. 4, 2014). 228 Id. 229 Id. 230 Id. 231 Id. 232 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 29 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 233 26.2 0.0 0.0 26.2 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 234 2,910,074 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 235 55.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 236 36.2 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 237 4,016,512 15. Hong Kong Regulation: Hong Kong’s new converged regulator, the Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA), began official operations in April 2012 following the merger of the Office of the Telecommunications Authority (OFTA) and the Broadcasting Division of the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (TELA). 238 OFCA regulates the telecommunications and broadcasting industries and manages spectrum. 239 In the past few years, Hong Kong has held several spectrum auctions directed at the development of 4G networks. In January 2009, OFTA held a technology-neutral Broadband Wireless Access (BWA) auction of the 2600 MHz band. 240 As a result of this auction, four of Hong Kong’s main mobile network operators (CSL New World Mobility, China Mobile Hong Kong, 3 and PCCW) all launched LTE services between 2010 and 2012. In February 2011, to meet the need for capacity expansion in light of the rapid growth of mobile usage, OFTA allocated nearly 30 megahertz of technology-neutral spectrum in the 850 MHz, 900 MHz, and 2000 MHz bands. 241 Then, in February 2012, OFTA auctioned an additional 90 megahertz of 4G-suitable spectrum in the 2.3 GHz band. 242 As its first major act, in March 2013, OFCA successfully auctioned a total of 50 megahertz in the 2.5/2.6 GHz bands. 243 Genius Brand, SmarTone, China Mobile Hong Kong, and CSL won 4G 233 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 234 Id. 235 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 236 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 237 Id. 238 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Hong Kong (2014) (accessed Sept. 9, 2014). 239 Id. 240 Id. 241 Id. 242 Id. 243 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Incumbent Cellcos Win 2.5 GHz/2.6 GHz Spectrum (Mar. 20, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/03/20/incumbent-cellcos-win-2- 5ghz2-6ghz-spectrum/ (accessed Jan. 6, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 30 spectrum licenses at that auction. 244 In November 2013, OFCA announced that the existing term of assignments for the spectrum in the 1.9 GHz and 2.2 GHz bands (3G spectrum), totaling 120 megahertz, will expire in October 2016. OFCA will reassign 40 megahertz of this 3G spectrum,) currently held by four incumbent network operators, through an auction to be held in 2016. 245 Although OFCA will allow the four incumbents to participate in the auction, the auction is primarily intended to facilitate the entry of a fifth operator in Hong Kong’s mobile market. The frequencies are expected to be reassigned on a technology-neutral basis, making them usable for 3G, 4G, or other services. 246 Market and Competition: Hong Kong’s telecommunications operators have made a concerted effort to roll out advanced networks and, as a result, virtually all businesses and households now have access to some form of broadband connectivity. 247 Despite the large number of fixed network operators, the former incumbent PCCW remains the dominant broadband provider, with around 57 percent of all subscribers as of June 2014. 248 In addition to PCCW, the main fixed line network operators are Hong Kong Broadband Network (25.5 percent), Hutchison Global Communications (8.4 percent), and i-Cable (7.1 percent). 249 The mobile market is split among four operators: as of June 2014, PCCW lead the market with a 38.1 percent market share, followed by Hutchinson Telephone Company (26.6 percent), China Mobile Hong Kong (19.4 percent), and SmarTone (15.9 percent). 250 This competitive balance differs significantly from previous years, in which CSL dominated the mobile market – in May 2014, Hong Kong Telecommunications Limited (HKT), part of PCCW, bought 100 percent of CSL, previously Hong Kong’s largest mobile provider, subject to a number of conditions imposed by OCFA. 251 In August 2012, SmarTone became the last Hong Kong mobile operator to launch commercial 4G LTE mobile services, utilizing the 1800 MHz band for its LTE services, in contrast to other companies that use the 2.5/2.6 GHz bands. 252 Also in August 2012, CSL launched what it claimed was the world’s first commercial 1800/2600 MHz dual-band 4G LTE network. Although CSL originally launched LTE services in the 2.5/2.6 GHz bands in November 2010, its latest network upgrade is based on software defined radio technology, allowing the use of dual-band LTE frequencies (1800 and 2600 MHz) in a single radio cell. 253 Building upon this development, 244 Id. 245 Telegeography CommsUpdate, OFCA Releases Official Statement on 3G Reallocation (Dec. 9, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/12/09/ofca-releases-official- statement-on-3g-reallocation/ (accessed Jan. 6, 2014). 246 Id. 247 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Hong Kong (2014) (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 248 Id. 249 Id. 250 Id. 251 Telegeography CommsUpdate, PCCW’s Acquisition of CSL Approved by Regulator, With Conditions (May 6, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/05/06/pccws- acquisition-of-csl-approved-by-regulator-with-conditions/ (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 252 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Hong Kong (2014) (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 253 Telegeography CommsUpdate, CSL Claims First 1800 MHz/2600 MHz Dual-Band LTE Launch (Aug. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 31 CSL, with the help of ZTE Corp, activated Hong Kong’s first LTE-A network in September 2013 and reached access speeds of 300 Mbps. 254 In May 2014, PCCW launched Hong Kong’s first commercial Voice-over-LTE (VoLTE) service. 255 In addition to advanced LTE deployment, Hong Kong’s mobile carriers are also investing in other services. In July 2013, PCCW launched HKT Enterprise Cloud, a carrier-grade cloud service for enterprise customers in Hong Kong, which also offers cross-border services tailored to customers with a presence in Hong Kong and mainland China. 256 In December 2013, Hutchison announced plans to offer a total of 16,000 public WiFi hotspots in early 2014. 257 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 258 30.75 n/a n/a n/a n/a Fixed broadband subs (2013) 259 2,215,475 % of households with fixed broadband access (July 2014) 260 83 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 261 95.44 Mobile wireless broadband subs (2014) 262 6,875,000 16. Hungary Regulation: In July 2012, in an effort to generate much-needed government revenue, Hungary introduced a new tax on phone calls and text messages. 263 The new tax charged customers 2 24, 2012), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/08/24/csl-claims-first- 1800mhz2600mhz-dual-band-lte-launch/index.html (accessed Jan. 6, 2014). 254 Telegeography CommsUpdate, ZTE and CSL Demo 300 Mbps-Capable LTE-A Network (Sept. 11, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/09/11/zte-and-csl-demo- 300mbps-capable-lte-a-network/ (accessed Jan. 6, 2014). 255 Telegeography CommsUpdate, PCCW (HKT) Launches VoLTE; 3 HK Not Far Behind (May 16, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/05/16/pccw-hkt-launches-volte-3-hk- not-far-behind/ (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 256 Telegeography CommsUpdate, HKT Launches Carrier-Grade Enterprise Cloud Service in Partnership with HP (July 18, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/07/18/hkt- launches-carrier-grade-enterprise-cloud-service-in-partnership-with-hp/ (accessed Jan. 6, 2014). 257 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Hutchison Aims For 16,000 Wi-Fi Hotspots (Dec. 18, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/12/18/hutchison-aims-for-16000-wi- fi-hotspots/ (accessed Jan. 6, 2014). 258 ITU Statistics Database (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 259 Id. 260 See http://www.ofca.gov.hk/en/media_focus/data_statistics/key_stat/ (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 261 ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators 2014, Economy Tables (accessed Oct. 29, 2014). 262 Id. 263 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Hungary (2014) (accessed Oct. 20, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 32 forints (HUF) (US$0.0082) a minute (or per text message) and overlapped with a pre-existing “crisis tax,” levied in 2010 on various sectors, including telecommunications. 264 The crisis tax charged telecommunications operators as much as 6.5 percent on gross revenues and generated over HUF180 billion (US$814 million) while in effect from 2010 to 2012. 265 The EC criticized both the new tax and the crisis tax as unfair to foreign-owned telecom companies. 266 In January 2013, the EC threatened to bring a case against Hungary at the ECJ over the new tax, but in July 2013, it dropped plans to initiate legal action. 267 In November 2013, the Hungarian government suggested it would decrease or eliminate the controversial tax on phone calls and text messages, but no additional steps have been taken as of May 2014. 268 Market and Competition: Hungary has three major mobile networks operators – Deutsche Telekom-owned Magyar, which operates under the T-Mobile brand; Telenor Hungary (formerly Pannon); and Vodafone. 269 T-Mobile launched commercial LTE services in Hungary in January 2012, covering approximately 45 percent of the population by March 2014. 270 Telenor launched LTE services in July 2012 and has continued to expand its 3G and 4G networks, spending over HUF10 billion (approximately US$41 million) in 2014 to increase mobile Internet speeds and improve coverage in rural areas. 271 In November 2013, the government of Hungary abandoned plans to enter the domestic mobile phone market via a new state-owned company. Previously, as part of an effort to further increase competition in the domestic market, the Hungarian regulator, the National Media and Infocommunications Authority (NMHH), planned to auction spectrum licenses for wireless broadband services and create a new company, MPVI Mobil, to serve as the fourth mobile network operator in the country. 272 A January 2012 spectrum auction awarded certain spectrum to MPVI; however, the Budapest Metropolitan Court annulled the results of the frequency auction, a decision later upheld by Hungary’s Supreme Court. 273 In April 2013, MPVI Mobil suspended its operations. 274 In September 2013, because of the unfavorable court decisions, NMHH extended the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz licenses of the three mobile network operators (Magyar Telekom, Telenor, and Vodafone) until 2022. 275 Following the suspension of its operations in April 2013, MPVI Mobile merged with Magyar Posta, and its HUF500 million (US$2.3 million) start-up capital was returned to its other two shareholders. 276 264 Id. 265 Id. 266 Id. 267 Id. 268 Id. 269 IHS Global Insight, Hungary Telecoms Report (2012) (accessed Sept. 4, 2014). 270 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Hungary (2014) (accessed Sept. 4, 2014). 271 Id. 272 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: MVPI Mobile (2013) (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 273 Id. 274 Id. 275 Id. 276 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 33 In May 2014, NMHH announced plans to auction 20-year mobile broadband licenses in the 800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, and 2600 MHz bands. 277 By June 2014, four companies submitted applications to bid – Magyar Telekom, Telenor, Vodafone, and broadband Internet provider DIGI Telecommunications. 278 In September 2014, these four applicants won licenses; Hungary raised a total of HUF130.6 billion (approx. US$531 million) with this auction. 279 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 280 23.1 3.5 11.6 8.0 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 281 2,282,133 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 282 71.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 283 27.7 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 284 2,738,282 17. Iceland Regulation: In November 2012, Iceland’s Parliament adopted a four-year Telecommunications Implementation Plan. The plan sets out a number of short-term and long-term goals, including: 90 percent of homes and businesses must have access to a 30 Mbps connection by 2014 (100 percent by 2022); 70 percent of homes and businesses must have access to a 100 Mbps connection by 2014 (99 percent by 2022); and 98 percent of homes and businesses must have access to high-speed mobile networks by 2014 (99.9 percent by 2022). 285 In February 2013, Iceland’s regulatory agency, the Post and Telecom Administration (PTA), launched an auction of spectrum in the 800 MHz and 1.8 GHz bands for 4G services. 286 In mid- March 2013, the country’s four major mobile providers all won spectrum: 365 Media won 30 277 Telegeography CommsUpdate, NMHH Announces Tender for Multiband Mobile Broadband Licenses (May 23, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/05/23/nmhh- announces-tender-for-multiband-mobile-broadband-licences/ (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 278 Telegeography CommsUpdate, NMHH Receives Four Applications for Mobile Broadband Frequencies (June 18, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/06/18/nmhh- receives-four-applications-for-mobile-broadband-frequencies/ (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 279 Telecoms, Hungary Generates €418 Million through Spectrum Auction (Sept. 29, 2014), http://www.telecoms.com/288312/hungary-generates-e418-million-through-spectrum-auction/ (accessed Oct. 27, 2014). 280 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 281 Id. 282 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 283 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 284 Id. 285 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Iceland (2014) (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 286 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 34 megahertz in the 800 MHz band (2×15 megahertz); 287 Vodafone Iceland won 20 megahertz (2×10 megahertz) in the 800 MHz band and 10 megahertz (2×5 megahertz) in the 1.8 GHz band; Siminn won 30 megahertz (2×15 megahertz) in the 1.8 GHz band, and Nova won 20 megahertz (2×5 megahertz) in the 800 MHz band and 10 megahertz (2×5 megahertz) in the 1.8 GHz band. 288 In sum, the auction generated ISK225.2 million (approximately US$1.775 million) in government revenue. 289 Licensees are required to provide broadband access at minimum speeds of 2 Mbps to 93.5 percent of the population by December 2014, 10 Mbps by December 2016, and 30 Mbps by December 2020. 290 In March 2014, PTA initiated a public consultation on a proposal to authorize the shared use of frequencies in the 800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, and 2100 MHz bands among mobile network operators Vodafone and Nova, the current license holders. 291 Under the proposed spectrum- sharing agreement, Vodafone and Nova would participate in a joint venture, but the partnership would only cover a certain part of the network infrastructure. 292 In July 2014, the PTA approved the Vodafone-Nova spectrum sharing agreement. 293 Market and Competition: Broadband adoption in Iceland remains among the highest in the world. Stimulated by government policies, FTTH has been expanded in the capital and major outlying towns. 294 Fiber is the standard technology used in new constructions and redevelopments, providing an important stimulus for high-end IP-delivered services. 295 The incumbent operator, Siminn, is the principal provider of fixed broadband services. 296 It operates a comprehensive ADSL network in addition to an extensive fiber optic network, which reaches more than 50 percent of households in the capital and over one third of the remaining countryside. 297 Vodafone is Siminn’s chief competitor, offering DSL packages at speeds of up to 12 Mbps. 298 Vodafone is also Iceland’s largest fiber-based access provider, accounting for approximately 75 percent of all fiber connections at the end of 2013. 299 There are three key players in Iceland’s mobile market: Siminn (35 percent market share), 287 Id. 288 Id. 289 Id. 290 Id. 291 Id. 292 Id. 293 Telegeography CommsUpdate, PTA approves Vodafone-Nova Frequency Sharing Deal (July 4, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/07/04/pta-approves-vodafone-nova- frequency-sharing-deal/ (accessed Nov. 1, 2014). 294 Business Wire, Research and Markets, Iceland – Telecoms, IP Networks, Digital Media and Forecasts (Feb. 2014), http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/bxxg4r/iceland_telecoms (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 295 Id. 296 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Iceland (2014) (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 297 Id. 298 Id. 299 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 35 Vodafone (27 percent), and Nova (33 percent), which rolled out Iceland’s first commercial 4G network in April 2013. 300 Over the past year, all three companies have taken proactive steps to expand 4G LTE coverage. Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 301 35.8 7.9 0.0 27.8 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 302 115,826 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 303 93.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 304 76.5 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 305 247,690 18. India Regulation: India’s communications policymaking powers are split between two regulatory bodies: (1) the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (MoCIT), which sets telecommunications policy, manages spectrum, and manages government investment in telecommunications companies, and (2) the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), an independent regulator with jurisdiction over interconnection tariffs, quality of service, cable TV prices, and cable TV advertising. 306 In 2002, to help combat the digital divide created by India’s large rural population and high poverty levels, MoCIT introduced a Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF). 307 In April 2012, following two years of consultation, the Indian government released the country’s National Telecom Policy (NTP 2012). 308 The NTP 2012 includes plans to eliminate roaming charges and to expand the scope of number portability. It also sets a target of 175 million broadband connections by 2017 and 600 million subscriptions with 2 Mbps access by 2020. Immediately following the passage of the NTP 2012, the government approved the construction of a National Optical Fiber Network (NOFN), first proposed by TRAI in its Recommendation on a National Broadband Plan in 2010. 309 A newly created state-owned company, Bharat Broadband Network Limited (BBNL), manages the national fiber network. In February 2014, BBNL secured 300 Id. 301 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 302 Id. 303 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 304 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 305 Id. 306 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: India (2014) (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 307 Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Universal Service Obligation Fund, http://www.usof.gov.in/usof-cms/usof_home_contd.htm (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 308 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: India (2014) (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 309 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 36 USOF assistance for the five-year deployment of a fiber optic transport network capable of providing 100 Mbps of bandwidth to 250,000 small villages and towns. 310 To complement the NTP, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made an ambitious “Digital India” agenda a top priority for his new government. The specific goals of Digital India include investing in infrastructure (like the NOFN) and ensuring broadband connectivity down to the village level. The government plans to roll out the program in phases through 2018. ndia’s recent spectrum auction, originally planned for January 2014, was delayed slightly due to an ongoing disagreement between DoT and TRAI over pricing recommendations for the 800 MHz band. 311 In February 2014, MoCIT’s Department of Telecommunications (DoT) moved forward with an auction of spectrum in the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz bands. 312 The auction raised more than US$9 billion in government revenue. 313 Airtel secured frequencies in both bands, which it plans to use to expand its 4G network. Similarly, newcomer Reliance Jio Infocomm, which already owns rights to pan-India 4G frequencies, acquired additional 4G-suitable spectrum in the 1800 MHz band. 314 Market and Competition: At the end of March 2014, there were 134 active ISPs operating in India. 315 Despite the large number of access providers, the fixed broadband market remains dominated by the two state-owned domestic incumbents, Mahanahar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL), which provides services principally in Delhi and Mumbai, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), which provides services to the rest of India. 316 As of June 2014, BSNL led the broadband market with 65 percent of subscribers. Other top providers include Bharti Airtel, the country’s largest privately owned company and second largest ISP overall (9.9 percent market share), and Reliance Communications (1.2 percent). 317 India’s mobile market is more competitive, with 13 active operators providing wireless services as of March 2014. 318 Only four operators have a pan-India footprint – Bharti Airtel (22.9 percent market share), Vodafone (18.6 percent), Idea Cellular (15.2 percent), and Aircel (8.0 percent). 319 In 2012, Bharti Airtel launched the nation’s first LTE service in Kolkata, Bangalore and Pune, with minimum download speeds of 10-15 Mbps. 320 Aircel, with the help of China’s ZTE 310 Id. 311 Telegeography CommsUpdate, TRAI Refuses to Issue Recommendations on 800 MHz Pricing (Nov. 19, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/11/19/trai-refuses-to-issue- recommendations-on-800mhz-pricing/ (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 312 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Spectrum Auction Nets USD9.9bn for Govt. (Feb. 14, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/02/14/spectrum-auction-nets-usd9- 9bn-for-govt-/ (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 313 Id. 314 Id. 315 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: India (2014) (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 316 Id. 317 Id. 318 Id. 319 Id. 320 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Bharti Launches India’s First LTE Network (Apr. 10, 2012), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/04/10/bharti-launches-indias-first-lte- network/ (accessed Jan. 6, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 37 Corporation, is expected to deploy its LTE network in late 2014. 321 To increase efficient network use, India’s telecom providers have utilized infrastructure sharing arrangements. In December 2013, mobile provider Bharti Airtel entered a pan-India infrastructure sharing deal with 4G startup Reliance Jio Infocomm. 322 The partnership is reported to extend to jointly laying fiber optic cable and other infrastructure. Likewise, state-owned operators BSNL and MTNL entered a deal to share infrastructure and jointly provide services to corporate customers to cut costs and alleviate pressure from private competition. 323 In June 2014, MoCIT requested that the government consider a merger of BSNL and MTNL due to both companies’ ongoing financial difficulties. 324 Other Media: India’s public TV network operates about 20 national, regional, and local services; however, there are an increasing number of privately-owned TV stations distributed by cable and satellite service providers. 325 By the end of 2012, approximately 650 channels were available for viewing throughout India and more than 100 million homes had access to cable and/or satellite TV offerings. Traditionally, radio broadcasting has been a primary medium for entertainment, information and education for the masses, primarily due to the affordability of radio receivers. 326 All India Radio (AIR), the public broadcaster, has a network comprised of 237 stations that provide radio coverage to 99.1 percent of the population and reaches 91.8 percent of the country. 327 FM Radio reaches about 40 percent of the country, and as of December 2012, there were approximately 242 private FM stations in operation in 86 cities. 328 Topography: India is slightly more than one-third the size of the United States. The country’s population density is 954 people per square mile, and approximately 72 percent of the population lives in rural areas. The terrain is upland plain (the Deccan Plateau) in the south, flat to rolling plain along the Ganges River, deserts in the west, and the Himalayas mountain range in the north. 321 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Aircel Taps ZTE For LTE Deployment (Jan. 3, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/01/03/aircel-taps-zte-for-lte- deployment/ (accessed Jan. 6, 2014). 322 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Jio and Airtel in Surprise 4G Tie-Up (Dec. 11, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/12/11/jio-and-airtel-in-surprise-4g-tie- up/ (accessed Jan. 6, 2014). 323 Telegeography CommsUpdate, State-Owned Operators Ink Infrastructure Sharing Deal (Sept. 24, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/09/24/state-owned-operators- ink-infrastructure-sharing-deal/ (accessed Jan. 10, 2014). 324 Telegeography CommsUpdate, DoT Preparing Request for BSNL, MTNL Merger (June 26, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/06/26/dot-preparing-request-for-bsnl- mtnl-merger/ (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 325 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), Consultation on Issues Related to Media Ownership (Feb. 15, 2013), http://www.trai.gov.in/Content/ConsultationDescription.aspx?CONSULT_ID=675&qid=13 (accessed Aug. 2, 2013). 326 Id. 327 Id. 328 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 38 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 329 1.16 n/a n/a n/a n/a Fixed broadband subs (2013) 330 14,540,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014) 331 6.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 332 3.25 Mobile wireless broadband subs (2014) 333 40,660,000 19. Ireland Regulation: In August 2012, the Ministry of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources announced its new national broadband plan, which aims to bring connectivity at speeds of at least 30 Mbps to every home in the country by 2015. 334 The plan sets out three goals for broadband availability: by 2015, 50 percent of the population will have access to download speeds of 70-100 Mbps, 20 percent will be offered 40 Mbps or faster download speeds, and the remaining 30 percent of the population, no matter how rural or remote, will have minimum speeds of 30 Mbps. 335 In April 2014, the Ministry updated the plan and announced a major state-led fiber build-out to rural areas. 336 The Ministry is currently conducting a comprehensive mapping project, already identifying over 1,000 locations as proposed locations for the fiber-based connections. 337 In November 2012, Ireland’s regulator, the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg), held an auction of 800 MHz, 900 MHz, and 1800 MHz band spectrum. 338 The auction released approximately 140 megahertz of paired spectrum for LTE use and raised EUR854.6 million (US$1.09 billion). 339 Eircom’s mobile arm Meteor, Hutchison Whampoa’s 3 Ireland, Telefónica’s O2 Ireland, and Vodafone Ireland won spectrum licenses. 340 Vodafone, the 329 ITU Statistics Database (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 330 Id. 331 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: India (2014) (accessed Oct. 29, 2014). 332 ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators 2014, Economy Tables (accessed Oct. 29, 2014). 333 Id. 334 Ministry of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources, The National Broadband Plan: Delivering a Connected Society (Aug. 30, 2012), http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/1EA7B477-741B-4B74- A08E-6350135C32D2/0/NBP.pdf (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 335 Id. 336 Ministry of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources, National Broadband Plan: Update April 2014, http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Communications/Communications+Development/Next+Generation+Broadband/N ational+Broadband+Plan+Update+April+2014.htm (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 337 Id. 338 Id. 339 Id. 340 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 39 leading mobile provider in Ireland, won the most spectrum, with 2 paired blocks (2×10 megahertz) in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands, as well as a paired (2×15 megahertz) block and a paired (2×25 megahertz) block in the 1800 MHz band. 341 Under the license terms, licensees must provide coverage to at least 70 percent of the population within 3 years. 342 In November 2013, ComReg held another auction for spectrum in the 1800 MHz band that remained unassigned following the previous year’s multi-band auction. 343 In January 2014, however, ComReg reported that it received no bids; because the license in question will expire in July 2015, ComReg will not re-auction this spectrum. 344 In February 2014, Parliament passed the Electronic Communications Network Bill, designed to allow electricity operator ESB to partner with a mobile operator to deploy fiber-based broadband networks via underground ducts. 345 ESB has since entered into an exclusive agreement with Vodafone, with the goal of expanding high-speed Internet connectivity to 450,000 homes and businesses across Ireland. 346 Market and Competition: Vodafone is the leading mobile operator in Ireland with a 40 percent share of subscribers at the end of June 2014, followed by Telefónica’s O2 (29 percent), Eircom’s Meteor (20 percent), and 3 Ireland (11 percent). 347 In June 2013, in an effort to reduce debt, Telefónica agreed to sell O2 to Hutchison Whampoa for EUR850 million (US$1.1 billion). 348 The proposed merger would reduce the number of MNOs in the country from four to three, and make 3 Ireland the second-leading mobile operator. Amidst concerns about competition, the EC began an extensive investigation into the merger in late 2013. 349 In February 2014, the EC presented 3 Ireland with a list of objections, 350 which Hutchinson Whampoa responded to by 341 Id. 342 Id. 343 Id. In the November 2013 auction, the 1800 MHz licenses were split by both frequency and time. Although Hutchinson Wampoa’s 3 Ireland acquired the license for the second time segment (July 2015 through July 2030), no one acquired the license for the first shorter time segment (from November 2012 through July 2015), so ComReg re-auctioned this license. 344 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Irish Operators Shun 1800 MHz Spectrum (Jan. 8, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/01/08/irish-operators-shun-1800mhz- spectrum/ (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 345 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Ireland (2014) (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 346 Id. 347 Id. 348 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Telefonica Sells O2 Ireland to Hutch in USD1.1bn Deal (June 24, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/06/24/telefonica-sells-o2-ireland-to- hutch-in-usd1-1bn-deal/ (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 349 Telegeography CommsUpdate, EC to Probe Hutch Ireland Merger Plan (Nov. 7, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/11/07/eu-to-probe-hutch-ireland- merger-plan/ (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 350 Telegeography CommsUpdate, EC Hits 3 Ireland With List of Objections to O2 Buyout (Feb. 4, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/02/04/ec-hits-3-ireland-with-list-of- objections-to-o2-buyout/ (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 40 offering several concessions, including setting-up a new market entrant. 351 In May 2014, the EC gave formal approval for the merger. 352 In response to the EC’s decision, ComReg has expressed concern that the merger will negatively impact Irish consumers, and Vodafone has threatened legal action. 353 In September 2013, Eircom became the first Irish operator to launch LTE service, quickly followed by market leader Vodafone less than a month later. 354 The launch of LTE by O2 and 3 Ireland is likely to be significantly delayed by their merger plans, with the O2 brand set to be phased out by mid-2015. 355 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 356 24.4 0.1 7.4 16.9 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 357 1,121,551 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 358 65.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 359 69.2 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 360 3,175,008 20. Israel Regulation: In October 2011, the Israeli government announced that it was seeking an investor to help build a 25,000 kilometer fiber optic network to bring ultra-high speed Internet to Israel and increase competition in the broadband sector. 361 Under the plan, the investor would take a 51 351 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Hutch Looks Set to Get EU “Thumbs Up” for O2 Ireland Merger (May 19, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/05/19/hutch-looks-set-to- get-eu-thumbs-up-for-o2-ireland-merger/ (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 352 Telegeography CommsUpdate, EU Approves Hutch’s Takeover of O2 Ireland (May 29, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/05/29/eu-approves-hutchs-takeover- of-o2-ireland/ (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 353 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Vodafone Reacts Angrily to EU’s Decision to Approve 3 Ireland’s O2 Takeover (May 30, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/05/30/vodafone-reacts-angrily-to-eus- decision-to-approve-3-irelands-o2-takeover/ (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 354 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Ireland (2014) (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 355 Id. 356 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 357 Id. 358 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 359 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 360 Id. 361 Reuters, Israel Seeks Investor for New Fiber Optic Network (Oct. 9, 2011), http://www.reuters.com/ article/2011/10/09/israel-telecom-idUSL5E7L90AT20111009 (accessed Aug. 2, 2013). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 41 percent ownership interest in a new private company in partnership with the Israel Electric Corporation (IEC). 362 Original projections estimated that approximately 65 percent of the population would be able to access the Internet at speeds of 100 Mbps by 2018, with the remainder of the country receiving coverage by 2020. 363 After languishing for over a year, the IEC finally received the Ministry of Finance’s approval in January 2013 and it partnered with Swedish communications operator ViaEuropa to establish a high-speed fiber network alongside the nationwide electric grid. 364 Deployment was scheduled to start at the end of 2013 but no updates are available as of June 2014. Market and Competition: In August 2012, Israel’s fixed line incumbent Bezeq confirmed plans to invest in upgrading its infrastructure by replacing its copper wire network over the course of the next five to eight years with an FTTP network. Investment for the project was to be approved in stages, depending on Bezeq’s ability to deploy the network coupled with customer demand. The company began rolling out its upgraded network in October 2012; the first locales to benefit from the new network were densely populated apartment blocks and business parks. 365 By the end of 2013, Bezeq said it had connected approximately 400,000 premises to the infrastructure, up from 200,000 a year earlier. Bezeq has said it expects to have approximately one million households, representing around 40 percent of the population, connected to the FTTP network by the end of 2014. 366 Wireless broadband services meanwhile have yet to make a significant impact in Israel. The Ministry of Communications (MoC), the Israeli telecommunications regulator, has not yet auctioned wireless broadband spectrum or established a regulatory framework or timetable for the rollout of such services. 367 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 368 25.1 0.0 9.1 16.0 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 369 2,024,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2012) 370 71.0 Wireless 362 Id. 363 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Israel (2014) (accessed Sept. 5, 2014). 364 Reuters, Viaeuropa Wins Deal for High-Speed Israeli Fibre Optic Network (June 16, 2013), http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/16/israel-fibreoptics-idUSL5N0ES0KG20130616 (accessed Aug. 2, 2013). 365 The Times of Israel, Bezeq Joins Fiber Optic Fray (Oct. 4, 2012), http://www.timesofisrael.com/bezeq- joins-fiber optic-cabling-fray/ (accessed Oct. 22, 2014). 366 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Israel (2014) (accessed Sept. 5, 2014). 367 Id. 368 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 369 Id. 370 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 42 Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 371 50.5 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 372 4,070,000 21. Italy Regulation: In March 2013, Autorita per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM), Italy’s communications regulator, reduced the wholesale broadband prices that Telecom Italia, the former incumbent, could charge other operators for using its network. 373 After several months of study, in December 2013, the EC asked AGCOM to amend or withdraw the proposed price reduction because it “would not provide the regulated operator with a reasonable return on its investment in broadband networks” and may negatively impact alternative or next generation infrastructure investments. 374 Market and Competition: Italy is one of Western Europe’s least developed broadband markets. 375 The EU Digital Scoreboard reported in June 2013 that 37 percent of Italians have never used the Internet and 53 percent do not use the Internet on a regular basis, among the lowest in the EU on both measures. 376 Moreover, Italy also lags behind the rest of Europe in terms of broadband speed; according to the EC, just over 18 percent of broadband lines in Italy offer speeds of 10 Mbps or more, compared to an EU average of 66 percent. 377 ADSL remains the dominant technology, accounting for approximately 93 percent of Italy’s million broadband subscriptions as of June 2014. 378 Telecom Italia is the broadband market leader with 48.9 percent of subscribers, followed by Wind Telecomunicazioni (15.4 percent), FastWeb (14.0 percent), Vodafone Italy (12.7 percent), Tiscali (3.4 percent), and other providers (5.6 percent). 379 In May 2012, AGCOM warned that the delay in the rollout of broadband was costing Italian gross domestic product (GDP) between 1-1.5 percent. 380 Italian fixed line operators appeared to have answered the government’s call for concern. In September 2012, FastWeb announced that it 371 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 372 Id. 373 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Agcom Approves Wholesale Fibre Rates (Mar. 7, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/03/07/agcom-approves-wholesale- fibre-rates/ (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 374 European Commission, Press Release: Commission Formally Requests Italian Telecoms Regulator to Amend or Withdraw its Proposal for Wholesale Broadband Price Reductions (Dec. 12, 2013), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1247_en.htm (accessed Mar. 13, 2014). 375 La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno, “Digital Divide” Separates Italians from EU (Feb. 11, 2014), http://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno.it/english/digital-divide-separates-italians-from-eu-no693458/ (accessed Feb. 14, 2014). 376 European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document: Digital Scoreboard December 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/DAE%20SCOREBOARD%202013%20- %20SWD%202013%20217%20FINAL.pdf (accessed Jan. 15, 2014). 377 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Italy (2014) (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 378 Id. 379 Id. 380 IHS Global Insight, Italy Telecoms Report (2014) (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 43 would invest EUR400 million (US$513 million) over the next three years to expand its fiber optic infrastructure in Italy. 381 FastWeb will accomplish part of its fiber expansion by partnering with Telecom Italia, which launched its first fiber-based services in Rome, Naples, and Turin in December 2012. The two operators will share passive infrastructure and coordinate build out to reduce environmental disruptions. Telecom Italia plans to roll out fiber-to-the-street cabinets in 100 cities by the end of 2014. 382 After acquiring Verizon’s 23 percent stake in Vodafone Italy, Vodafone has increased its infrastructure investment plan in Italy, planning FTTH connections with speeds of at least 30 Mbps in 27 Italian cities. 383 Italy’s mobile market had over 89 million subscribers at the end of June 2014, second only to Germany in terms of active mobile subscriptions. Analysts estimate that, of these subscribers, over 38 million Italians were connected to 3G networks as of June 2014, making Italy one of the largest 3G markets in Europe. 384 The mobile market leader, by subscribers, is Telecom Italia with 34.3 percent, followed by Vodafone Italy (30.1 percent), Wind Telecomunicazioni (24.5 percent), and 3 Italia (11.0 percent). Investment in LTE continues to grow in Italy. Vodafone, TIM, and 3 Italia all deployed LTE in late 2012, and WIND began offering 4G services in March 2014. 385 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 386 22.3 0.5 0.0 21.7 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 387 13,597,570 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 388 68.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 389 65.3 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 390 39,840,597 381 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Italy (2014) (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 382 Telecom Italia, Press Release: Announcing Launch of Ultra-Broadband Services Over Fibre Optics (Dec. 4, 2012), http://www.telecomitalia.com/tit/en/archivio/media/comunicati-stampa/telecom- italia/mercato/consumer/ 2012/12-04.html (accessed Oct. 7, 2014) 383 ZDNet, Vodafone Aims $10bn 'Project Spring' War Chest at Italy’s 4G, Fibre Market (Sept. 6, 2013), http://www.zdnet.com/vodafone-aims-10bn-project-spring-war-chest-at-italys-4g-fibre-market- 7000020325/ (accessed Jan. 15, 2014). 384 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Italy (2014) (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 385 Id. 386 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 387 Id. 388 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 389 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 390 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 44 22. Japan Regulation: Japan’s regulator, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC), continues to license spectrum by the “beauty contest” method. In 2012, the Japanese government introduced legislation creating an auction-based system, but the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe suspended consideration of the bill, and it is unlikely that Japan will adopt spectrum auctions in the near term. 391 In February 2012, MIC granted SoftBank Mobile spectrum in the 900 MHz band, which the carrier utilized to expand its 4G LTE services. In June 2012, NTT DoCoMo and KDDI, both of whom already had LTE frequencies in the 800 MHz band, were awarded spectrum in the 700 MHz band. MIC also awarded spectrum in the 700 MHz band to eAccess’ subsidiary, eMobile, which provides 4G services in the 1700 MHz band. The 700 MHz band spectrum licenses commence on January 1, 2015. 392 In July 2013, MIC also initiated a public consultation on revising its spectrum usage fees for the 2014-2017 fiscal periods. Under the proposed changes, wireless providers’ spectrum usage fees would be halved. MIC hopes the reduction will contribute to the promotion of new wireless technologies. The comment period ended in August 2013. 393 Also in August 2013, MIC allocated additional spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band, which is authorized only for standards that are TD-LTE compliant, to KDDI’s joint venture UQ Communications. 394 Market and Competition: Nippon Telephone and Telegraph (NTT), the largest telecommunications company in the world in terms of revenue, dominates the Japanese market. DSL subscribership continues to rapidly decline, while the number of FTTH connections continues to grow. 395 NTT leads the fiber sector with a share of 71.1 percent, far ahead of competitors KDDI (12.8 percent) and Softbank (9.9 percent). 396 A government-appointed panel is overseeing plans to spread fiber access to all homes by 2015. 397 In May 2014, NTT announced plans to launch its “Hikari collaboration model,” under which NTT East and NTT West will provide access to their core networks on a wholesale basis. According to NTT, the move represents the world’s first full-scale wholesaling of fiber access 391 Email communication with Japanese Embassy (Aug. 18, 2014). 392 Telegeography CommsUpdate, 700 MHz LTE Spectrum Granted to Three Japanese Cellcos (June 28, 2012), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/06/28/700mhz-lte-spectrum-granted- to-three-japanese-cellcos/index.html (accessed Jan. 10, 2014). 393 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Japan To Reduce Spectrum Usage Fees (July 19, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/07/19/japan-to-reduce-spectrum- usage-fees/ (accessed Jan. 10, 2014). 394 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Japan Awards Additional Spectrum in the 2.5 GHz Band to UQ Communications (Aug. 13, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/08/13/japan-awards-additional- spectrum-in-the-2-5ghz-band-to-uq-communications/ (accessed Mar. 20, 2014). 395 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Japan (2014) (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 396 Id. 397 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 45 services. 398 As of March 2014, Japan has 99 million 3G subscribers (down from 102 million in December 2013) and 45 million 4G LTE subscribers (up from 39 million in December 2013). With a market share of 43.8 percent, NTT DoCoMo remains the market leader followed by KDDI (28.1 percent), Softbank Mobile (24.9 percent), and eMobile (3.1 percent). 399 In May 2014, NTT DoCoMo announced that it would partner with several equipment vendors, including Swedish vendor Ericsson, to begin experimenting with next-generation 5G technology. NTT DoCoMo plans to commercially launch the 5G platform by 2020, in time for the Tokyo Olympics. 400 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 401 28.1 19.6 4.8 3.7 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 402 35,785,203 % of households with fixed broadband access (2012) 403 75.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 404 111.8 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 405 142,595,498 23. Korea Regulation: In the wake of South Korea’s 2012 legislative elections, South Korea’s new administration under the newly elected President Geun-hye Park initiated a plan to restructure the South Korean government. In April 2013, the new administration created the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (MSIP), which is responsible for telecommunication policy and regulation, the ICT manufacturing industry, spectrum policy, broadband infrastructure, and cyber security. Previously, the Korean Communications Commission (KCC) carried out these duties, as well as regulating broadcasting. In the wake of these regulatory changes, MSIP has assumed primary policy and regulatory responsibility for network licensing matters, regulating mergers and acquisitions, setting technical standards, and establishing rates, terms, and practices for telecom service providers. KCC retains final authority over terrestrial TV networks and will now 398 Id. 399 Id. 400 Telegeography CommsUpdate, NTT DOCOMO to Conduct Trials of “5G” Technology with Six Vendors (May 8, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/05/08/ntt- docomo-to-conduct-trials-of-5g-technology-with-six-vendors/ (accessed Sept. 16, 2014). 401 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 402 Id. 403 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 404 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 405 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 46 play a key role in protecting service users in the broadcast and telecom markets. 406 As part of its new responsibilities, MSIP assumed control over South Korea’s frequency allocation plans. On January 2, 2014, MSIP announced plans to quadruple Korea’s mobile bandwidth by 2023. Under the plan, an additional 1190 megahertz of spectrum is expected to be freed, in addition to the 390 megahertz currently in use. 407 In August 2013, MSIP allocated 115 megahertz in the 1800 MHz and 2.6 GHz bands for LTE-based services through a complex, two- round auction. 408 Spectrum allocated through the auctions included license conditions aimed at reclaiming 2G spectrum. Market and Competition: South Korean broadband providers offer services through a variety of technologies. LAN/FTTx connections account for the largest proportion of users, more than 60 percent by the end of 2013, followed by HFC and xDSL, respectively. 409 The top three carriers of both fixed line and wireless services are KT Corp. (40.4 percent), SK Telecom (23.6 percent) and LG Uplus (15.1 percent). 410 All three wireless companies achieved nationwide 4G LTE coverage by mid-2013, and subsequently focused on the provision of faster speeds through more advanced technology. 411 In June 2013, SKT launched the world’s first commercial LTE-A service for smartphones, attracting more than 150,000 subscribers. 412 LG Uplus announced its LTE-A network in July 2013, and KT Corp completed its nationwide LTE-A rollout in September 2013. 413 South Korea is intent on becoming a leader in the development of 5G services. In January 2014, MSIP announced plans to invest approximately KRW1.6 trillion (US$1.5 billion) in rolling out trial 5G services by 2017, with the goal of a commercial launch in December 2020. 414 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 415 37.5 24.2 9.6 3.7 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 416 18,737,125 % of households with fixed broadband access (2009) 417 83.8 406 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: South Korea (2014) (accessed Sept. 18, 2014). 407 Id. 408 Id. 409 Id. 410 Id. 411 Id. 412 Id. 413 Id. 414 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Ministry Outlines USD1.5bn 5G Investment Plan (Jan. 23, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/01/23/ministry-outlines-usd1-5bn-5g- investment-plan/ (accessed Sept. 18, 2014). 415 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 416 Id. 417 KCC. The data for Korea available in the OECD Broadband Portal Table 2a (97.5%) includes mobile broadband access. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 47 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 418 103.8 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 419 51,892,608 24. Lithuania Regulation: In October 2013, Lithuania’s regulator, the Communications Regulatory Authority (RRT), announced the results of its 800 MHz digital dividend spectrum auction. Bite Lithuania won 2×10 megahertz in the 791-801 MHz and 832-842 MHz bands with a bid of LTL1.01 million (US$0.4 million), while Omnitel won 2×5 megahertz in the 801-806 MHz and 842-847 MHz bands and a further 2×5 megahertz in the 806-811 MHz and 847-852 MHz bands for a total of LTL5.1 million (US$2.02 million). Tele2 won spectrum in the 811-816 MHz and 852-857 MHz bands and the 816-821 MHz and 857-862 MHz bands for a total of LTL2 million (US$0.79 million). As a condition of its license, Bite Lithuania must provide maximum download speeds of up to 2 Mbps to 30 percent of sub-districts within three years and 80 percent of sub-districts within five years; by 2020, Bite Lithuania must provide 4 Mbps speeds to 95 percent of Lithuanian households. 420 Market and Competition: According to FTTH Council Europe, Lithuania leads the continent in terms of FTTH penetration, with 31.3 percent of all households connected to a fiber network at the end of 2012 (most recent figure). 421 FTTx/LAN surpassed xDSL as the dominant access technology in mid-2009, and by the end of September 2013, fiber accounted for 61.4 percent of fixed broadband subscribers. 422 With 48.5 percent of fixed broadband subscribers and an FTTH network covering 67 percent of households, the incumbent TEO LT leads the market as of June 2014. 423 The remainder of the market is extremely competitive, with approximately 102 Internet service providers vying for customers, but none of these operators has more than a 9 percent market share. 424 Three mobile network operators are active in Lithuania: Omnitel, Tele2 Lithuania, and Bite Lithuania. As of June 2014, Tele2 had 41.4 percent of mobile subscribers, followed by Omnitel (34.8 percent) and Bite Lithuania (24 percent). 425 There are also four MVNOs, all operating on Bite Lithuania’s network, and six licensed resellers; nevertheless, the top three operators account for approximately 99 percent of all mobile subscribers. 426 In March 2012, all three network operators were awarded spectrum in the 2.5/2.6 GHz bands and have begun constructing and 418 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 419 Id. 420 Communications Regulatory Authority (RRT), RTT Announces Auction Winners (Oct. 11, 2013), http://www.rrt.lt/en/press-release/rrt-announces-auction-winners.html (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). 421 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Lithuania (2014) (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). 422 Id. 423 Id. 424 Id. 425 Id. 426 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 48 expanding their LTE networks. 427 In June 2014, Omnitel announced that its 4G LTE network covered 50 percent of the population. 428 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 429 22.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a Fixed broadband subs (2013) 430 664,063 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 431 64 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 432 53.85 Mobile wireless broadband subs (2014) 433 1,624,000 25. Luxembourg Regulation: In 2010, the government introduced the “National Strategy for Very High Speed Networks,” a plan for the nationwide deployment of ultra-high speed broadband by 2020. 434 According to the plan, 100 percent of the population should have access to minimum download speeds of 2 Mbps by the end of 2010, rising to 100 Mbps by the end of 2015, and 1 Gbps by the end of 2020. The strategy also set the following interim targets: 95 percent of the population should have access to 25 Mbps download speeds by 2011, 80 percent to 100 Mbps speeds by 2013, and 50 percent to 1 Gbps speeds by 2015. 435 In 2011, a new Electronic Communications Act came into effect. According to the Institut Luxembourgeois de Regulation (ILR), the main goals of the Act include: fostering competition in the telecommunications sector; providing for the regulation of networks, including interconnection practices, and ensuring cross-network interoperability; introducing universal service obligations; and maintaining a complete separation between regulatory functions and network operations. 436 427 Id. 428 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Omnitel 4G Reaches 50% of Lithuanians (Jun. 9, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/06/09/omnitel-4g-reaches-50-of- lithuanians/ (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). 429 ITU Statistics Database (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 430 Id. 431 Eurostat, http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=isoc_r_broad_h&lang=en (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 432 ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators 2014, Economy Tables (accessed Oct. 29, 2014). 433 Id. 434 European Commission: Digital Agenda for Europe, Country Information – Luxembourg, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/country-information-luxembourg (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). 435 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Luxembourg (2014) (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). 436 Institut Luxembourgeois de Regulation (ILR), Electronic Communications, http://www.ilr.public.lu/communications_electroniques/index.html (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 49 To spur broadband deployment, ILR held several spectrum auctions between May 2012 and November 2013, issuing or extending 4G-suitable licenses in the 800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, and 2.1/2.6 GHz bands. 437 Market and Competition: In September 2013, P&T Luxembourg, the telecommunications incumbent, and its mobile arm LuxGSM merged and officially rebranded as Post Luxembourg (Post). Wholly state-owned, Post dominates the broadband market, with 68.5 percent of subscribers as of June 2014. In 2011, Post launched “LuxFibre” FTTH, and it continues to roll out its nationwide fiber network. In October 2013, motivated by the government’s ambitious national broadband strategy, Post unveiled its first 1 Gbps broadband package, LuxFibre XL. 438 With just over 50 percent of wireless subscribers, Post also leads the mobile market. 439 Luxembourg also has two other mobile network operators, Tango (with a 33.3 percent market share) and Orange (15.1 percent). 440 In recent years, the three companies have launched 4G LTE services. Tango began offering commercial LTE services in October 1, 2012, extending coverage to 90 percent of the population by the end of that year. 441 Just weeks later, on October 29, 2012, Orange launched its 4G LTE services. 442 In June 2014, Orange announced that its network served 74 percent of Luxembourg, with plans for 90 percent LTE coverage by the end of 2015. 443 Finally, Post introduced 4G LTE in September 2013, in conjunction with its rebranding. 444 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 445 32.5 2.2 3.4 26.8 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 446 177,300 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 447 70.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 448 86.1 437 European Commission: Digital Agenda for Europe, Country Information – Luxembourg, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/country-information-luxembourg (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). 438 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Luxembourg (2014) (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). 439 Id. 440 Id. 441 Id. 442 Id. 443 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Orange Achieves 74% LTE Coverage (June 20, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/06/20/orange-achieves-74-lte- coverage/ (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). 444 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Luxembourg (2014) (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). 445 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 446 Id. 447 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 448 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 50 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 449 469,300 26. Mexico Regulation: In March 2013, President Peńa Nieto submitted a bill to amend the Mexican Constitution that contained significant reforms to Mexico’s telecommunications and broadcasting sectors. Approved by Congress in April, the law was ratified by the Mexican states and was signed into law in June 2013. The Constitutional amendment establishes that the state will guarantee the right of access to information and communications technologies, including broadband and the Internet. The law also created a new entity, the Federal Institute of Telecommunications (IFT) the independent regulator as well as the sole antitrust authority for the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors. IFT has the power to grant and revoke licenses and promote competition by enforcing asymmetric measures against dominant carriers. The new law also opens up direct foreign investment in Mexico’s telecommunications and satellite sectors to 100 percent. Direct foreign investment in broadcasting will be limited up to 49 percent, subject to reciprocity. In January 2012, the government announced that it was aiming to promote adoption of high-speed Internet through the sale of concessions that would allow winning bidders to utilize state-owned fiber optic lines held by utility Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), as well as fiber links running along the federal highway network, to build networks in areas of the country currently without access to broadband services. The government planned to launch 1,000 new access points on CFE’s fiber optic network and to increase the current 20,000 kilometers of fiber to 30,000 kilometers. However, pursuant to the new law, the CFE will now transfer its license to install and operate the public telecommunications network to another state-owned entity, Telecomunicaciones de México (Telecomm), which will use CFE’s fiber optic network to develop the envisioned nationwide backhaul network and provide services directly to underserved communities. Mexico’s constitutional reforms mandate that 90 megahertz of the 700 MHz band, which will be freed as a result of the DTV transition in 2015, is to be utilized for the installation and operation of a shared public wireless broadband network to be operated by an independent wholesaler. The government will consider public and private investments to fund construction of this “carrier of carriers” network, but has not yet articulated the details on how the network will be licensed and operated. 450 In October 2013, the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (SCT) announced that the government had reached a deal with the concessionaries to recover 130 megahertz in the 2.5 GHz band, which the government can auction for 4G services. 451 To complement the constitutional reform of the telecommunications sector, and to implement the public policies and actions related to the constitutional right of access to ICT, President Enrique Peńa Nieto announced the launch of a new National Digital Strategy in November 2013, with the goal of making the best use of technology for Mexico’s development. The National Digital Strategy focuses on five pillars of digital development; e-government, e-commerce, education, 449 Id. 450 Pacto por Mexico, Reforma en material de telecomunicaciones (Mar. 11, 2013), http://pactopormexico.org/reforma-telecomunicaciones/. 451 BNAmericas, MVS, 10 Other Concessionaries Return 130 MHz of the 2.5 GHz band (Oct. 15, 2013), http://subscriber.bnamericas.com/Subscriber/index.jsp?idioma=I&tipoContenido=detalle&pagina=content &idContenido=629369&tipoDocumento=1 (accessed Dec. 12, 2013). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 51 healthcare, and public safety. 452 Market and Competition: In terms of fixed broadband, Telmex, Mexico’s incumbent PSTN operator and owner of the country’s largest fiber optic network, connects over 90 percent of the population and holds a 63.3 percent subscriber market share as of June 2014. Megacable, the country’s largest cable broadband provider and second largest broadband ISP has a 7.7 percent market share, followed by Cablemas (5.4 percent), Cablevision (5 percent), and Axtel (3.6 percent). 453 As of June 2014, Telcel led the mobile market with a 69.3 percent market share, followed by Telefónica Mexico (Movistar) (19.7 percent), Iusacell (8.2 percent), and Nextel de Mexico (2.8 percent). 454 Nextel de Mexico officially launched its nationwide 3G network in September 2012, and in October 2012, Movistar rolled out the first stage of its LTE network in Mexico City, Jalisco and Nuevo León. 455 Telcel was the second to launch LTE services in November 2012, and as of August 2014, it has the most extensive 4G network covering 39 cities. In November 2013, Nextel Mexico announced that it plans to launch 4G LTE services in mid-2014, 456 which had not yet happened as of September 2014. Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 457 11.4 0.7 2.4 8.2 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 458 13,533,448 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 459 28.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 460 14.0 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 461 16,558,806 452 Mexico Office of the President, Enrique Peńa Nieto: We are Determined to Transform Mexico and Place It at the Cutting-Edge of Technology and Knowledge (Nov. 25, 2013), http://en.presidencia.gob.mx/articles-press/estamos-decididos-a-transformar-a-mexico-y-colocarlo-en-la- frontera-de-la-tecnologia-y-el-conocimiento-enrique-pena-nieto/ (accessed Dec. 12, 2013). 453 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Mexico (2014) (accessed Sept. 22, 2014). 454 Id. 455 Id. 456 BNAmericas, Nextel Mexico Upgrades 4G Network, Plans to Launch LTE in 2014 (Nov. 29, 2013), http://subscriber.bnamericas.com/Subscriber/index.jsp?idioma=I&tipoContenido=detalle&pagina=content &idContenido=633107&tipoDocumento=1 (accessed Dec. 12, 2013). 457 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 458 Id. 459 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 460 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 461 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 52 27. Netherlands Regulation: In May 2012, the Netherlands became the first European country to adopt a Telecommunications Act codifying net neutrality into law. The law specifies that no service provider can impose fees or special terms and conditions for any Internet service, nor can they determine what sites end users can visit. 462 In February 2013, the Dutch parliament approved the merger of three separate agencies – the Netherlands Consumer Authority, the Independent Post and Telecommunications Authority of the Netherlands, and the Netherlands Competition Authority – into one new independent regulatory body, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM). 463 The ACM, which officially launched operations on April 1, 2013, regulates most aspects of the telecommunications sector in the Netherlands, including competition and consumer protection. The Agentschap Telecom (AT), part of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, retains responsibility for spectrum policy and management. 464 Previously, in October 2012, AT launched an auction for advanced wireless services in the 800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 1900 MHz, 2.1 GHz, and 2.6 GHz bands. Four operators won spectrum in the auction, including current mobile operators KPN Mobile, T-Mobile, and Vodafone, as well as new entrant Tele2 Netherlands. The auction generated EUR3.8 billion (US$4.75 billion) in government revenue. 465 In June 2014, the government of the Netherlands introduced a new draft bill designed to protect the country’s telecommunications infrastructure. The bill requires any company or group interested in taking over the incumbent KPN Telecom (Royal KPN) to first secure a “certificate of no objection” from the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The bill comes in the wake of America Movil’s failed attempt to take over Royal KPN in late 2013. The government plans to introduce the final bill to Parliament in the spring of 2015, following consultation with the EC. 466 Market and Competition: The Dutch broadband and mobile markets are reaching saturation because of high penetration and subscription rates. 467 Meanwhile, Dutch consumers are demanding faster broadband Internet connections. An increase in fiber connectivity has positively affected Internet access speeds; according to the ACM, around 12 percent of total broadband subscribers had a connection of at least 100 Mbps. 468 Forecasts predict that there will 462 Authority for Consumers & Markets (ACM), Press Release: Green Light for the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (Feb. 26, 2013), https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/publication/11216/Green- light-for-the-Netherlands-Authority-for-Consumers-en-Markets/ (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). 463 Id. 464 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Netherlands (2014) (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). 465 Id. 466 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Dutch Govt Issues Bill to Protect National Telecoms Infrastructure; Seeks Assurances on Any KPN Sale (June 11, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/ articles/2014/06/11/dutch-govt-issues-bill-to- protect-national-telecoms-infrastructure-seeks-assurances-on-any-kpn-sale/ (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). 467 Business Monitor International, Netherlands Telecommunications Report (January 2014). 468 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Netherlands (2014) (accessed Oct. 6, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 53 be more than 3 million fiber lines in service by 2017. 469 Incumbent KPN Telecom is working with joint venture partner Reggefiber to facilitate a phased nationwide rollout of FTTH services, at a total cost of EUR6 billion to EUR7 billion (US$8.2 billion to US$9.6 billion) over the next several years. Other key players in the broadband market include Zesko Holding (28.8 percent market share as of June 2014) and UPC Netherlands (16.0 percent). 470 Within the mobile market, three main network operators and over 65 MVNOs provide service. As of June 2014, KPN Mobile had 50.8 percent of mobile subscribers, followed by Vodafone (27.1 percent) and T-Mobile (22.1 percent). By the end of 2013, each launched 4G services, and the companies have since focused on the introduction of LTE-A technology. 471 In June 2014, Vodafone announced its plans to deploy LTE-A by the end of the year. 472 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 473 40.4 3.2 18.7 18.6 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 474 6,794,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 475 83.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 476 64.2 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 477 10,787,000 28. New Zealand Regulation: Since 2008, the government of New Zealand has pursued two parallel plans to improve broadband services in the country. Through the Ultra-Fast Broadband (UFB) Initiative, the government will partner with private industry to construct a national fiber optic network designed to offer download speeds of at least 100 Mbps to 75 percent of the country by 2020. 478 469 Id. 470 Id. 471 Id. 472 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Vodafone NL Sets out Stall to Deploy LTE-A By Year-End (June 12, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/06/12/vodafone-nl-sets-out- stall-to-deploy-lte-a-by-year-end/ (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 473 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct.28, 2014). 474 Id. 475 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 476 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 477 Id. 478 Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, Ultra-Fast Broadband Initiative, http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/technology-communication/fast-broadband/ultra-fast- broadband-initiative (accessed Sept. 18, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 54 The Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) will deliver broadband access at speeds of at least 5 Mbps to 86 percent of rural homes and businesses. 479 To help fund the RBI, the government established a new annual Telecommunications Development Levy (TDL), a tax on public network operators. 480 Beyond the UFB and the RBI, New Zealand has also issued a Five Point Broadband Action Plan that provides an overview of the government’s efforts to support faster broadband in five key sectors (health, business, education, community, and e-government). 481 In October 2013, the New Zealand Communications and Information Technology Ministry auctioned nine 2×5 megahertz blocks of 700 MHz spectrum acquired by the government during New Zealand’s digital switchover. Mobile providers Spark (formerly Telecom Mobile), Vodafone New Zealand, and Two Degrees Mobile (2degrees) each won blocks of the 700 MHz band. 482 The government did not set aside any spectrum for either emergency services or Maori groups, despite the latter’s expectations. In February 2013, however, the government outlined plans to establish a US$25 million ICT development fund intended in part to help the Maori benefit from new ICT technologies. 483 This fund is distinct from New Zealand’s TDL, which is intended to pay for the supply of rural services generally. Market and Competition: In February 2014, incumbent Telecom New Zealand dealt with a steady decline in traditional fixed line earnings by rebranding as Spark and emphasizing its operations in other sectors, including mobile and Internet. 484 Spark led the fixed broadband market with 49.2 percent market share as of June 2014, followed by Vodafone New Zealand (31.0 percent), CallPlus (8.0 percent), and Orcon (5.1 percent). 485 Three carriers comprise the mobile market: Vodafone New Zealand (with 37.9 percent market share), followed by Spark (32.7 percent), and budget-priced newcomer 2degrees (29.4 percent). In February 2013, Vodafone launched New Zealand’s first commercial 4G LTE services, which had an estimated 350,000 subscribers by the end of March 2014. 486 Spark rolled out its LTE 479 Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, Rural Broadband Initiative, http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/technology-communication/fast-broadband/rural-broadband- initiative (accessed Sept. 18, 2014). 480 Commerce Commission, Telecommunications Development Levy (TDL), http://www.comcom.govt.nz/regulated-industries/telecommunications/industry-levy-and-service- obligations/telecommunications-development-levy-tdl/ (accessed Sept. 18, 2014). 481 Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, Government Action Plan for Broadband, http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/technology-communication/fast-broadband/government-action- plan-for-broadband (accessed Sept. 18, 2014). 482 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Telecom, Vodafone, 2degrees Scoop 700 MHz Spectrum (Oct. 30, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/10/30/telecom-vodafone-2degrees- scoop-700mhz-spectrum/ (accessed Jan. 13, 2014). 483 Telegeography CommsUpdate, New Zealand Outlines Plans to Offer 700 MHz Spectrum (Feb. 21, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/02/21/new-zealand-outlines- plans-to-offer-700mhz-spectrum/ (accessed Jan. 13, 2014). 484 IT News, Telecom NZ Exits Australia, Rebrands as Spark (Feb. 21, 2014), http://www.itnews.com.au/ News/372972,telecom-nz-exits-australia-rebrands-as-spark.aspx (accessed Sept. 18, 2014). 485 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: New Zealand (2014) (accessed Sept. 18, 2014). 486 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Vodafone Launches LTE in Auckland (Feb. 28, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/02/28/vodafone-launches-lte-in- auckland/ (accessed Jan. 13, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 55 network in November 2013, 487 and 2degrees introduced 4G LTE in June 2014. 488 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 489 30.2 0.5 1.5 28.3 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 490 1,341,846 % of households with fixed broadband access (2012) 491 75.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 492 85.9 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 493 3,816,733 29. Norway Regulation: Norway developed a national digital agenda in line with the European Digital Agenda published in 2012. 494 Entitled “ICT Policy for Economic Growth and Value Creation,” the document was published and presented to parliament in March 2013 and approved by the Council of State on the same day. The goal of Norway’s national digital agenda is for 100 percent of households to have access to good basic quality broadband, with at least 2 Mbps download speeds. In November 2012, the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority (NPT) completed its spectrum auction in the 1920-1980 and 2110-2170 MHz bands. 495 New entrants were encouraged to participate; however, the three existing mobile operators – Telenor, TeliaSonera’s NetCom, and Tele2 Norge – were the only winning bidders in the auction. Each operator won 2×20 megahertz of spectrum. 496 NPT auctioned additional spectrum in the 800 MHz, 900 MHz, and 487 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Telecom Mobile Clarifies LTE Launch Date; Confirms Participation in 700 MHz Auction (Oct. 7, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/10/07/telecom-mobile-clarifies-lte- launch-date-confirms-participation-in-700mhz-auction/ (accessed Jan. 14, 2013). 488 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Two Degrees Mobile Ltd (2degrees) (2014) (accessed Sept. 18, 2014). 489 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 490 Id. 491 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 492 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 493 Id. 494 European Commission, Implementation of the Digital Agenda for Europe, http://www.daeimplementation.eu/indicator.php?id_country=28&action_n=46 (accessed Aug. 2, 2013). 495 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Norway (2014) (accessed Sept. 18, 2014). 496 Cellular-News, Norwegian Radio Spectrum Auction Ends after Just One Round (Nov. 19, 2012), http://www.cellular-news.com/story/57412.php (accessed Aug. 2, 2013). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 56 1800 MHz bands in December 2013, with a cap for those operators that already have significant spectrum holdings. The three winners of the auction were Telenor, TeliaSonera’s NetCom, and Telco Data. Both Telenor and NetCom won 2×10 megahertz in the 800 MHz band, 2×5 megahertz in the 900 MHz band and 2×10 megahertz in the 1800 MHz band. Telco won 2×10 megahertz in the 800 MHz band, 2×5 megahertz in the 900 MHz band and 2×20 megahertz in the 1800 MHz band. The 800 MHz band licenses include a coverage obligation; all three winners are required to provide mobile broadband services offering average access speeds of at least 2 Mbps to 40 percent of the population within four years of receiving the licenses. In addition, NetCom’s license requires it to provide 98 percent of the population with access to mobile broadband services with average speeds of at least 2 Mbps within five years of receiving its license, primarily through the use of the 800 MHz band. 497 In July 2014, the NPT announced that it will hold an auction in January 2015 for the three vacant blocks of spectrum in the 1800 MHz band that were not sold in the December 2013 auction. 498 Market and Competition: Norway currently has close to 100 percent basic broadband coverage. 499 At the end of 2013, fixed broadband covered 98 percent of the population in major cities, and 89 percent of the population in rural areas. 500 Fixed line incumbent Telenor remained the leading broadband provider with 43.8 percent of the market as of June 2014, followed by Altibox (17.4 percent), Get (12.8 percent), NextGenTel (7.1 percent), and Broadnet (3.6 percent). 501 As of June 2014, the principal mobile operators were Telenor Norge (54.6 percent), Netcom (25.6 percent), Tele2 Norge (17.9 percent) and ice.net (formerly Nordisk Mobiltelefon) (1.9 percent). Multiple MVNOs and service resellers are their competitors. Netcom was the first wireless carrier to launch LTE service in 2009 in the major Nordic cities of Bergen, Oslo, Trondheim, and Stavanger. Telenor Norge, the largest mobile operator in terms of subscribers, inaugurated its LTE network in October 2012, rolling out services in 11 cities. 502 Its LTE network covered over 52 percent of the population as of March 2014. 503 Overall, at the end of 2013, LTE was available 497 Telegeography CommsUpdate, NPT Announces Winners of 800 MHz, 900 MHz, and 1800 MHz Frequency Auction (Dec. 6, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/12/06/npt-announces-winners-of- 800mhz-900mhz-and-1800mhz-frequency-auction/ (accessed Dec. 12, 2013). 498 Telegeography CommsUpdate, NPT to Re-Auction 1800 MHz Spectrum in January 2015 (Jul. 3, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/07/03/npt-to-re-auction-1800mhz- spectrum-in-january-2015/ (accessed Sept. 23, 2014). 499 Ministry of Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs, Digital Agenda for Norway, Sec. 3, http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fad/documents/government-propositions-and-reports-/reports-to-the- storting-white-papers/2012-2013/meld-st-23-20122013-2/3.html?id=729012 (accessed Dec. 12, 2013). 500 European Commission: Digital Agenda for Europe, Country Information – Norway, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard/norway (accessed Sept. 25, 2014). 501 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Norway (accessed Sept. 23, 2014). 502 Id. 503 Telenor Group, Telenor Opens 1000 New 4G Base Stations (Mar. 12, 2014), http://www.telenor.com/media/articles/2014/telenor-opens-1000-new-4g-base-stations/ (accessed Sept. 23, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 57 to 68 percent of the population. 504 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 505 37.0 9.7 11.6 15.7 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 506 1,881,610 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 507 88.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 508 90.4 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 509 4,590,444 30. Poland Regulation: Poland’s broadband plan,which was released on January 8, 2014, is fully aligned with the Digital Agenda for Europe, and requires 100 percent coverage at speeds greater than 30 Mbps downlink by 2020 and 50 percent coverage at speeds greater than 100 Mbps by 2020 for all households and businesses. 510 In February 2013, the Polish regulator, the Office of Electronic Communications (UKE), announced the results of its 1800 MHz spectrum auction: mobile operator P4 won three of the five blocks that were auctioned, and Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa (PTC) won the other two blocks. The winners committed to rolling out 3,200 base stations within 24 months. UKE had planned to auction LTE-suitable frequencies in the 800 MHz and 2.6 GHz band in 2014, 511 but the auction was cancelled in February 2014 after UKE decided that it needed to renew the auction process to ensure more transparency and legal certainty. 512 As part of the Polish Eastern Broadband Network program, in May 2014, the government announced construction of 1,400 kilometers of fiber optic cable in the eastern province of 504 European Commission: Digital Agenda for Europe, Country Information – Norway, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard/norway (accessed Sept. 25, 2014). 505 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 506 Id. 507 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 508 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 509 Id. 510 European Commission: Digital Agenda for Europe, Country Information – Poland, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/country-information-poland (accessed Sept. 25, 2014). 511 Office of Electronic Communications, Public Consultation on Auction in the 800 MHz and 2.6 GHz Bands (Aug. 21, 2013), http://en.uke.gov.pl/public-consultation-on-auction-in-the-800-mhz-and-26-ghz- bands-12833 (accessed Dec. 17, 2013). 512 Telegeography CommsUpdate, UKE Cancels 4G Frequency Sale (Feb. 13, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/02/13/uke-cancels-4g-frequency-sale/ (accessed Sept. 23, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 58 Swietokrzyskie, the least connected province of the country. Currently, approximately 60 percent of the 1.3 million inhabitants of Swietokrzyskie are connected to the Internet, and the fiber optic cable is expected to make Internet services available to 90 percent of the Swietokrzyskie population when it is deployed by 2015. The government also announced that a similar project will soon be launched in the Podkarpackie (Subcarpathian) province to lay a total of 10,000 kilometers of fiber across eastern Poland over the next 20 months. 513 Market and Competition: Poland’s fixed broadband market is quite competitive, with several operators providing broadband Internet access via multiple technologies. DSL is still the predominant access technology; however, cable and fiber based technologies are competitive alternatives. At the end of 2013, fixed broadband covered about 88 percent of the population in major cities and 75 percent of the population in rural areas, and fixed broadband household penetration reached 69 percent. 514 As of June 2014, incumbent Orange Poland (formerly Telekomunikacja Polska) had 40.3 percent of the country’s broadband subscribers, followed by cable operator UPC Poland (16.9 percent), Netia (14.6 percent), Multimedia Polska (9.1 percent), and Vectra (8.5 percent). Other small operators held the remaining 11.6 percent. 515 There are four major mobile operators, a few smaller network operators, and approximately 300 MVNOs in Poland. The major wireless providers are PTC, which operates as T-Mobile Poland, France Telecom’s Orange Poland, Polkomtel and P4 (formerly Netia Mobile). As of June 2014, T-Mobile Poland was the leading mobile operator (27.5 percent of subscribers), followed by Orange (27.2 percent), Polkomtel (24.1 percent), and P4 (19.8 percent). 516 The remaining 1.5 percent was split among other providers. Privately owned operator Aero2, which primarily provides infrastructure services to other carriers, was the first operator to launch 4G LTE services. 517 As of May 2013, Aero2’s LTE services covered about 48 percent of the population. 518 Polkomtel launched LTE services in October 2012, and covered 50 percent of the population by February 2013 and 62 percent by November 2013. 519 T-Mobile Poland launched LTE services in June 2014, and its 4G network covers approximately 50 percent of the population. 520 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 521 15.6 0.6 5.7 7.7 1.7 513 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Eastern Poland to Benefit from Fibre Broadband Project (May 14, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/05/14/eastern-poland-to- benefit-from-fibre-broadband-project/ (accessed Sept. 25, 2014). 514 European Commission: Digital Agenda for Europe, Country Information - Poland, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard/poland (accessed Sept. 25, 2014). 515 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Poland (2014) (accessed Oct. 23, 2014). 516 Id. 517 Id. 518 Id. 519 Id. 520 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Go Ahead and Jump: T-Mobile Poland Prepares LTE Launch (Jun. 4, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/06/04/go-ahead-and-jump-t- mobile-poland-prepares-lte-launch/ (accessed Sept. 25, 2014). 521 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 59 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 522 6,022,651 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 523 69.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 524 61.3 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 525 23,594,131 31. Portugal Regulation: On December 31, 2012, the Portuguese government published its new national Digital Agenda, designed to align its national priorities with the EC’s Digital Agenda for Europe. The new plan is also in line with two of Portugal’s national plans – the National Strategic Program for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, which was launched in December 2011, and the 2011 Overall Strategic Plan to Rationalize and Reduce ICT Costs in Public Administration. The key objectives of the Digital Agenda include: (1) promoting broadband development so that citizens have access to broadband speeds of 30 Mbps or more by 2020; (2) ensuring that 50 percent of households have access to broadband speeds of 100 Mbps or more by 2020; (3) increasing the use of ecommerce by 50 percent by 2016; (4) having 50 percent of the population use online public services by 2016; and (5) promoting the use of new technologies and reducing the number of people who have never used the Internet by 30 percent by 2016. 526 Market and Competition: As of June 2014, the main fixed broadband providers were MEO (Portugal Telecom) (49.7 percent market share), Nos (merger of Zon and Optimus) (34.8 percent), Vodafone Portugal (9.1 percent), and Cabovisăo (5.7 percent). 527 As of June 2014, Portugal Telecom’s wireless subsidiary, MEO (formerly Telecomunicaçőes Móveis Nacionais (TMN)), was the wireless market leader with 47.1 percent of subscribers, followed by Vodafone Portugal (32.5 percent) and Nos (20.4 percent). By year end 2013, LTE was available to 91 percent of the population. 528 As of June 2014, MEO had the most extensive 4G network coverage reaching 93 percent of the population, while Nos and Vodafone both covered about 90 percent of the population. 529 522 Id. 523 Eurostat, http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=isoc_r_broad_h&lang=en (accessed Oct. 15, 2014). 524 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 525 Id. 526 Agenda Portugal Digital, http://www.portugaldigital.pt/objetivos/ (accessed Dec. 19, 2013). See also Anacom, Digital Agenda for Portugal (Jan. 18, 2013), http://www.anacom.pt/render.jsp?contentId=1150167 (accessed Dec. 19, 2013). 527 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Portugal (2014) (accessed Sept. 25, 2014). 528 European Commission: Digital Agenda for Europe, Country Information - Portugal, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard/portugal (accessed Sept. 25, 2014). 529 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Portugal (2014) (accessed Sept. 25, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 60 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 530 24.1 4.4 9.3 10.5 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 531 2,528,604 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 532 58.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 533 37.5 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 534 3.932,347 32. Singapore Regulation: In order to promote efficiency and competitiveness, Singapore’s Info- communications Development Authority (IDA) issued new regulations in 2012 and established a “dominant” and “non-dominant” licensing scheme. As of March 2014, the dominant licensees were Singapore Telecommunications (SingTel), CityNet Infrastructure Management, OpenNet, and StarHub Cable vision. 535 In June 2013, IDA allocated additional 4G radio frequencies in the 1800 MHz and 2500 MHz bands to Singapore’s “Big Three” mobile operators: SingTel Mobile, StarHub, and M1 Limited. 536 The 4G licenses are valid from 2015 to 2030 and require the operators to provide nationwide street-level coverage for LTE by June 2016. Market and Competition: Three operators dominate the broadband market: as of June 2014, SingTel led the market with 40.9 percent market share, followed by StarHub (32.2 percent), and M1 Limited (6.6 percent). Start-up operator MyRepublic, founded in February 2012, has challenged the “Big Three” in recent years and currently holds about 5 percent of the market. 537 Due to the government’s Next Generation Nationwide Broadband Network (NGNBN) project initiated in 2009, fixed broadband infrastructure is near ubiquitous in Singapore. 538 Technology preferences are shifting as ultra-high speed Fiber/LAN options replace cable and ADSL. 539 Additionally, between one and two million people regularly access the web through WiFi 530 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 531 Id. 532 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 533 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 534 Id. 535 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Singapore (2014) (accessed Sept. 19, 2014). 536 Telegeography CommsUpdate, IDA Allocates Additional 4G to Singapore’s “Big Three” (July 1, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/08/23/citynet-to-buy-opennet-subject- to-approval/ (accessed Jan. 14, 2014). 537 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Singapore (2014) (accessed Sept.19, 2014). 538 Id. 539 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 61 hotspots or Wireless@SG zones. Initiated in February 2005, the Wireless@SG initiative emerged from the government’s 10-year ICT agenda, Intelligent Nation 2015 (iN2015). By the end of 2013, there were at least 7,500 public hotspots in Singapore. 540 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 541 25.70 n/a n/a n/a n/a Fixed broadband subs (2013) 542 1,390,800 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 543 87 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 544 136.64 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Q1 2013) 545 7,394,000 33. Slovak Republic Regulation: The Slovak Republic adopted its National Strategy for Broadband Access (Broadband Strategy) in March 2011, setting as a primary objective the release of digital dividend spectrum in the 800 MHz band for the development of mobile broadband services by 2013 and access to high-speed Internet connection of at least 30 Mbps for all households by the end of 2020. 546 In March 2012, the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of the Slovak Republic (TUSR) completed its consultation on its proposed auction of the 800 MHz, 1800 MHz, and 2600 MHz bands. The tender process began in August 2013. 547 Four operators won licenses: SWAN acquired 2×15 megahertz in the 1800 MHz band; Orange Slovensko acquired 2×10 megahertz in the 800 MHz, 2×4.8 megahertz in the 1800 MHz and 2×30 megahertz in the 2600 MHz bands; Slovak Telekom acquired 2×10 megahertz in the 800 MHz, 2×40 megahertz in the 2600 MHz FDD and 50 megahertz in the 2600 MHz TDD bands; and Telefónica O2 Slovakia won 2×10 megahertz in the 800 MHz and 2×0.6 MHz in the 1800 MHz bands. Licenses were issued in December 2013, and most operators launched 4G services in the first half of 2014, with Orange planning a full scale launch by the end of the year. The 800 MHz band licenses required licensees to cover 25 percent of the Slovak population by December 2015, 50 percent by 540 Id. 541 ITU Statistics Database (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 542 Id. 543 See http://www.ida.gov.sg/Infocomm-Landscape/Facts-and-Figures/Infocomm-Usage-Households-and- Individuals#2b. 544 ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators 2014, Economy Tables (accessed Oct. 29, 2014). 545 Id. 546 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Slovakia (accessed Nov. 2, 2012). 547 Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, An Invitation to Submit Bids for a Tender to Issue Individual Permits to Use Frequencies From the 800 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2600 MHz Frequency Bands in the Form of an Electronic Auction (Aug. 27, 2013), http://www.teleoff.gov.sk/data/files/35571.pdf (accessed Dec. 19, 2013). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 62 December 2017, and 70 percent by the end of 2018. 548 The 1800 and 2600 MHz licensees, in turn, are required to cover 25 percent of the population by December 2015 and 50 percent by December 2018. In December 2013, the Slovak Republic’s Parliament passed a law merging the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority with the Postal Regulatory Authority, creating a new Regulatory Office for Electronic Communications and Postal Service which began operations in January 2014. 549 Market and Competition: As of June 2014, Slovak Telecom, the country’s sole provider of ADSL infrastructure-based services, remained the dominant fixed broadband provider, with a market share of 38.6 percent. Orange Slovensko, the leading mobile operator, was the second largest broadband provider with a 10.4 percent market share, and, UPC Slovakia, the largest cable company, was the third largest broadband provider with a 9.8 percent market share. 550 The Slovak Republic’s mobile market is divided among three major mobile operators. As of June 2014, Orange Slovensko had a 42 percent market share by subscribers, followed by Slovak Telecom’s mobile arm (33.7 percent), and Spanish-owned O2 Slovakia (24.2 percent). 551 Slovak Telecom was the first operator to launch a nationwide 4G LTE network in the Slovak Republic in November 2013. 552 Orange Slovensko launched its LTE network in July 2014. 553 O2 Slovakia plans to launch its LTE network in December 2014. 554 At the end of 2013, 4G LTE was available to 24 percent of the population. Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 555 15.6 4.9 2.6 8.1 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 556 845,997 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 557 55.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 558 55.3 548 Id. 549 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Slovakia (2014) (accessed Oct. 3, 2014). 550 Id. 551 Id. 552 Id. 553 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Orange Slovakia Launches 4G in Three Cities (Jul. 8, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/07/08/orange-slovakia-launches-4g- in-three-cities/ (accessed Oct. 3, 2014). 554 Telegeography CommsUpdate, O2 Schedules Full-Blown LTE Launch for December; Expands 3G Coverage (Sept. 29, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/09/29/o2- schedules-full-blown-lte-launch-for-december-expands-3g-coverage/ (accessed Oct. 3, 2014). 555 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 556 Id. 557 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 558 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (December 2012) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 63 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 559 2,992,742 34. Slovenia Regulation: In December 2012, Slovenia became the second country in Europe (after the Netherlands) to adopt net neutrality legislation. Article 203(1) of the Electronic Communications Act directs the Slovenian government to promote an “open and neutral” Internet and affirms that consumers should have the opportunity to make their own choices about their Internet access and use. Article 203(3) prohibits ISPs from throttling Internet traffic. Finally, Article 203(5) prevents the anticompetitive use of data caps. 560 In March 2013, during the license renewal process, Slovenia’s regulator, the Post and Electronic Communications Agency (APEK), reassessed the value of the 900 MHz concessions of Telekom Slovenije and Si.Mobil (a subsidiary of Telekom Austria) (each issued 15-year licenses (2x12.5 megahertz of spectrum) in 1998). APEK determined that the current value of the 900 MHz spectrum was an estimated 10 percent higher than it was in 1998; the new license terms would be technology neutral and allow for the provision of 3G UMTS and 4G LTE technologies, compared to the original licensing terms, which only allowed 2G GSM-based services. APEK calculated a final cost value of EUR 5,256 (approx. US$6,650) per 1 megahertz per month, and proposed that operators pay the total fees for their renewed license in a single installment. 561 Additional 1800 MHz and 2100 MHz band frequencies, suitable for LTE or other mobile broadband, were auctioned in Q2 2013. Spectrum that was auctioned included eight 2×5 megahertz sub-bands in the 1800 MHz range (1710-1720 and 1755-1785 MHz paired with 1805 - 1815 MHz and 1850 -1880 MHz) valid until January 3, 2016; plus two 2×5 megahertz sub-bands in the 2100 MHz band (1955-1965 MHz paired with 2145-2155 MHz) valid until September 21, 2021. Telekom Slovenije, Si.Mobil and Tusmobil each had their bids approved. 562 In July 2013, the EC did not approve Slovenia’s request to delay issuing the 800 MHz digital dividend wireless broadband spectrum to the first half of 2014. The EU-wide deadline for issuing the 800 MHz spectrum was January 1, 2013. The EC noted in its refusal of the request that Slovenia’s delay was “due to the organization of the authorization process and not to exceptional circumstances preventing the availability of the band.” The EC did not mention potential penalties for the delay in its announcement. 563 In September 2013, the APEK announced that a 4G auction of multi-band (800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2100 MHz, and 2600 MHz) frequency licenses would commence on March 25, 2014. APEK proposed to offer the entirety of the available frequencies in these bands, as well as all remaining unlicensed spectrum in the 2100 MHz range, all under technology-neutral licenses. On December 30, 2013, APEK announced that it was accepting bids and that 500 megahertz would be available for auction. APEK also announced various coverage obligations associated 559 Id. 560 For an English translation of the relevant provisions of the law, see Slovenia Net Neutrality Law 2012, http://www.scribd.com/doc/144614369/Slovenia-Net-Neutrality-law-2012. See also Slovenia Reinforces Net Neutrality Principles (Jan. 3, 2013), http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/slovenia- reinforces-net-neutrality-principles/ (accessed Nov. 3, 2014). 561 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Slovenia (2014) accessed Sept. 4, 2014). 562 Id. As of June 2014, APEK has not announced the winners of each particular packet of spectrum. 563 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 64 with particular licenses. Existing Slovenian mobile network operators acquiring 800 MHz and/or 900 MHz licenses must cover 25 percent of the population in one year, 50 percent in two years and 75 percent in three years. New entrants that win 800 MHz and/or 900 MHz licenses must cover 25 percent of the population in two years, 50 percent in three years and 75 percent in five years. In addition, APEK specified that the winner of a particular block of 800 MHz frequencies must provide mobile and/or fixed wireless broadband services capable of 10 Mbps (outdoor coverage) data speeds to 95 percent of the population in three years, although it may use any combination of its spectrum bands to achieve this target. Additionally, the operator assigned the specified 800 MHz block must also provide coverage to approximately 300 rural settlements/areas (with coverage of 75 percent of these listed areas within three years). For 1800 MHz and 2600 MHz licensees, APEK required the winner to cover 25 percent of the population in three years and 40 percent within five years. The auction was estimated to yield up to EUR200 million. 564 In January 2014, APEK was renamed the Agency for Communications Networks and Services (AKOS). On April 28, 2014 AKOS announced the results of the multi-band spectrum auction. AKOS raised a total of EUR148.741 million (US$206 million). The only three bidders were existing operators Telekom Slovenije, Si.Mobil, and Tusmobil. All available spectrum was allocated except 20 megahertz in the 1800 MHz band and 10 megahertz in the 2100 MHz FDD band. Frequencies issued in the 800 MHz, 2100 MHz and 2600 MHz bands will be available immediately after the official decision on issuance of licenses. New 900 MHz and 1800 MHz concessions are valid beginning January 2016. All licenses last for 15 years except for those in the 2100 MHz band, which are valid until September 2021. 565 Market and Competition: Slovenia’s former monopoly, Telekom Slovenije, is the country’s dominant provider of broadband services via its Si.OL Internet service provider division, but its competitors are steadily increasing their market share. In March 2014, Telekom Slovenije held 37.0 percent of the broadband market, followed by Telemach (17.8 percent), T-2 (17.2 percent), Amis (12.1 percent), and Tus Telekom (1.7 percent). According to APEK, there were 74 broadband access providers in Slovenia as of October 2013. 566 Fiber-based alternatives including FTTH and fiber-to-the-building (FTTB) have emerged as viable competitive broadband access technologies, accounting for 97,000 high-speed connections, or 18.6 percent of the country total, by mid-2013, up from 16.9 percent the previous year. The largest proponent of FTTx is domestically-owned quad-play operator T-2 which, according to APEK, represented 50.6 percent of the fiber access market by mid-2013, followed by Telekom Slovenije (37.0 percent). With these two operators leading the rollout, FTTH/FTTB coverage has reached approximately 50 out of 210 municipalities, mostly concentrated in cities and larger settlements. 567 In the mobile sector, Telekom Slovenije’s mobile division, Mobitel, was the dominant wireless carrier with a market share of 54.5 percent, followed by Si.Mobil (30.0 percent), Tusmobile (12.7 percent) and T-2 (2.7 percent), as of June 2014. Prior to APEK’s decision to allocate limited frequencies for LTE testing in October 2012, Si.Mobil began testing LTE on its existing 1800 megahertz spectrum in 2011. In July 2012, Si.Mobil launched Slovenia’s first commercial 4G 564 Id. 565 Id. 566 Id. 567 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 65 LTE mobile broadband services covering parts of Ljubljana, Brnik and Bled. LTE users are promised data rates of 30-80 Mbps, with a theoretical peak of 100 Mbps. 568 Mobitel launched LTE-1800 services in March 2013. 569 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 570 25.1 5.2 7.5 12.3 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 571 502,157 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 572 74.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 573 42.4 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 574 873,168 35. Spain Regulation: In 2013, Spain overhauled and merged several of its federal agencies, including its independent regulator, Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones (CMT). As of October 7, 2013, all activities and functions of the CMT were integrated into the new Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC). As a result, CNMC is now responsible for the telecommunications, emergency, transportation, and postal sectors . 575 In May 2013, the CNMC’s predecessor, CMT, announced plans to cut the prices for wholesale access to Telefónica’s broadband networks. The EC subsequently opened an investigation into the proposed rate change to determine whether it would discourage foreign broadband investment in Spain or pose obstacles to the EU’s single market initiatives. The EC directed Spain to work with the Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications (BEREC) to resolve the case. 576 In October 2013, the EC concluded its investigation and urged the CNMC to amend or withdraw its proposed setting of broadband prices for Telefónica, the dominant market player. 577 568 Id. 569 Id. 570 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 571 Id. 572 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 573 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 574 Id. 575 Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC), Sobre la CNMC, http://www.cnmc.es/es-es/cnmc/sobrelacnmc.aspx (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 576 European Commission, Press Release: Commission Questions Spanish Regulator’s Price Regulation of Wholesale Broadband Access (June 27, 2013), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-621_en.htm (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 577 European Commission, Press Release: European Commission Urges Spanish Regulator to Amend or Withdraw Wholesale Broadband Access Fees Proposal (Oct. 28, 2013), http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-13-1001_en.htm (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 66 In May 2014, the Spanish Parliament approved a new General Telecommunications Act. The amendments to the bill are intended to enhance guarantees of users’ rights; consolidate and clarify the powers of the telecommunications regulatory agency, the CNMC; and facilitate the expansion of broadband access. 578 The Act commits the government to ensuring that the entire population has access to broadband speeds of 10 Mbps by 2017. In line with the EU-wide Digital Agenda for Europe, the Act also sets out the following broadband target: by 2020, 100 percent of the Spanish population will have access to download speeds of at least 30 Mbps, and 50 percent of homes will have access to download speeds of at least 100 Mbps. 579 Market and Competition: Telefónica Espana (Movistar) led the broadband market with 46.2 percent of subscribers as of June 2014, followed by Orange Espana (14.4 percent), Grupo Corporativo ONO (12.4 percent), Jazz Telecom (11.7 percent), and Vodafone Spain (8.5 percent). 580 Pending approval from the EC, Vodafone and ONO are preparing a merger, with Vodafone set to acquire ONO for EUR7.2 billion (US$9.9 billion). 581 In recent years, the launch of fiber networks has stimulated Spain’s otherwise stagnating broadband market. 582 As of June 2014, Telefónica Espana (35.4 percent) led the mobile market, followed by Orange Espana (30.4 percent), Vodafone Spain (26.2 percent), and Xfera Moviles (8.0 percent). 583 Before the federal agency overhaul, CMT auctioned LTE-suitable spectrum in August 2011, and all four of Spain’s major network operators won some spectrum. Between May and October 2013, all four companies launched 4G services. 584 In Spain’s struggling economy, mobile operators are attempting to encourage cost-conscious consumers to adopt 4G services by offering those services at no extra charge over 3G services. 585 In December 2013, Vodafone announced that it was testing LTE-A technology, 586 with Orange following suit in March 2014. 587 578 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Spain Approves New General Telecommunications Act (May 2, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/05/02/spain-approves-new-general- telecommunications-act/ (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 579 Id. 580 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Spain (2014) (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 581 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Vodafone, ONO to Launch Joint Product Bundles from September; EC Merger Approval Expected in July (June 11, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/ 06/11/vodafone-ono-to-launch-joint- product-bundles-from-september-ec-merger-approval-expected-in-july/ (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 582 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Spain (2014) (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 583 Id. 584 Id. 585 Reuters, Analysis: Spanish Telecom Firms Show Peril of Pinning Hopes on 4G (Oct. 1, 2013), http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/01/us-spain-4g-analysis-idUSBRE9900QS20131001 (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 586 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Vodafone Spain Carrying Out LTE-Advanced Tests in Madrid (Dec. 11, 2013), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/12/11/vodafone-spain- carrying-out-lte-advanced-tests-in-madrid/ (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 587 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Orange Espana Carrying Out Trials of LTE-A (Mar. 24, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/03/24/orange-espana-carrying-out- trials-of-lte-a/ (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 67 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 588 26.3 1.4 4.6 20.3 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 589 12,080,540 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 590 69.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 591 68.5 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 592 31,468,383 36. Sweden Regulation: In February 2014, the Swedish regulator, the Post and Telecom Authority (PTS), invited public comment on a new spectrum strategy. 593 PTS plans to increase the availability of usable spectrum by utilizing the “least restrictive” technical conditions in assigning spectrum usage rights and by promoting shared use and secondary market trading of usage rights. 594 Market and Competition: TeliaSonera Sweden is the market leader for both fixed broadband access and mobile services. 595 On the fixed side, TeliaSonera (36.7 percent) competes with Telenor Sweden (20.4 percent), Com Hern (18.0 percent), and several other smaller providers. 596 DSL remains the most popular broadband technology (with 42.6 percent of subscribers), but fiber connections continue to grow steadily (38.6 percent of subscribers). 597 In the mobile sector, TeliaSonera leads the market (44.8 percent), followed by Tele2 (25.6 percent), Telenor (17.0 percent), Hi3G Access Sweden (11.7 percent), and Net 1 Sweden (0.9 percent). 598 As of February 2014, the combined 4G networks of Telenor and Tele2 covered approximately 99 percent of the Swedish population. 599 588 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 589 Id. 590 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 591 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 592 Id. 593 Swedish Post and Telecom Authority, PTS Spectrum Strategy, http://www.pts.se/en- GB/Documents/Consultations/2014/PTS-Spectrum-Strategy/ (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 594 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Sweden (2014) (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 595 Id. 596 Id. 597 Id. 598 Id. 599 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 68 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 600 32.4 12.4 6.0 14.0 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 601 3,113,400 % of households with fixed broadband access (2012) 602 79.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 603 109.8 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 604 10,545,000 37. Switzerland Regulation: In March 2012, the Federal Council published a report evaluating the telecommunications market. 605 The report recommended a review of the Law of Communications (LTC), originally established for copper networks, to ensure that the legislation keeps pace with technological developments. 606 In March 2014, the Federal Office of Communications (OfCom) announced it had revised the LTC to include next-generation technologies, such as fiber, as a basis for its cost-based wholesale access calculations, instead of exclusively copper-based infrastructure. 607 The changes to the pricing scheme go into effect in July 2014, but they will be phased in over a period of three years. 608 Switzerland’s telecommunications regulator, the Swiss Federal Communications Commission (ComCom), completed its 800 MHz digital dividend auction in February 2012. 609 The country’s three mobile network operators, Swisscom, Orange Switzerland, and Sunrise, each won 2×20 megahertz licenses. 610 ComCom also approved the re-farming of spectrum in the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz bands in 2015 and 2017, respectively. 611 Market and Competition: Incumbent Swisscom is the market leader for both fixed broadband access and mobile services. 612 600 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 601 Id. 602 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 603 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 604 Id. 605 Federal Office of Communications, Evolution of the Swiss Telecommunications Market: Supplementary Report, http://www.bakom.admin.ch/dokumentation/gesetzgebung/00512/03498/index.html?lang=en (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 606 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Switzerland (2014) (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 607 Id. 608 Id. 609 IHS Global Insight, Switzerland Telecoms Report (2014) (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). 610 Id. 611 Id. 612 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Switzerland (2014) (accessed Sept. 8, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 69 On the fixed side, Swisscom (54.2 percent) competes with Cablecom (20.5 percent), Sunrise (9.6 percent), and several other smaller providers. 613 DSL (with 60.7 percent of subscribers) and cable connections (with 31.6 percent of subscribers) remain the most prevalent broadband technologies. 614 In the mobile sector, Swisscom leads the market (55.9 percent), followed by Sunrise (21.5 percent) and Orange Switzerland (18.9 percent). 615 In addition to the three mobile network operators, Switzerland boasts a large number of mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) delivering specialized services to niche markets. 616 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 617 44.9 3.4 13.2 27.9 0.3 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 618 3,597,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2011) 619 81.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 620 64.2 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 621 5,151,300 38. Turkey Regulation: The Turkish broadband and wireless markets are regulated by the Bilgi Teknolojileri ve Iletisim Kurumu (BTK), also known as the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA). 622 In terms of the introduction of 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) technologies, as of February 2014, no steps had been taken regarding the issuance of commercial licenses to Turkey’s cellular companies. However, on December 20, 2012, Avea was granted permission to test LTE-A technology, and began to test its network on April 4, 2013. 623 613 Id. 614 Id. 615 Id. 616 Id. 617 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 618 Id. 619 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 620 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 621 Id. 622 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Turkey (2014) (accessed Sept. 4, 2014). 623 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 70 ICTA was expected to begin issuing licenses for the operation of broadband fixed wireless access (BFWA) networks in the 2.4 GHz and 3.5 GHz bands, including WiMAX, as early as 2009, but the process was delayed for unspecified reasons. As of February 2014, the government has yet to award commercial frequencies for BFWA. 624 Market and Competition: Fixed line operators, such as incumbent Turk Telekom and competitor Turkcell, are currently building out their fiber networks. 625 Turk Telekom plans to roll out nationwide fiber optic services by the end of 2015. 626 As of February 2014, the Turkish government owned 31.68 percent of Turk Telekom. As of March 2014, Turk Telekom was the dominant provider of fixed broadband services with a 75 percent market share, followed by Turkcell Superonline (10.5 percent), Turksat (5.7 percent), D- Smart Net (4.3 percent), and Millenicom Turkey (1.2 percent). 627 In the wireless market Turkcell remained the market leader as of March 2014, with a 49.8 percent share, followed by Vodafone (28.3 percent) and Avea (21.9 percent). While Turkcell’s position remains strong, it is gradually losing ground to its two smaller competitors, seeing a year-on-year decrease in its market share of 1.3 percentage points at the end of 2013. 628 In terms of mobile broadband services, growth has continued unabated, with the number of 3G accesses in Turkey increasing to 30.25 million (end-2011) and 39.25 million (end-2012), before reaching an estimated 48.75 million at the end of 2013. 629 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 630 11.2 1.6 0.6 8.9 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 631 8,382,811 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 632 46.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 633 32.3 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 634 24,183,723 624 Id. 625 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Turkey (2014) accessed Mar. 27, 2013). 626 IHS Global Insight: Middle East and North Africa - Turkey: Analyst Commentary (accessed Dec. 11, 2012). 627 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Turkey (2014) (accessed Sept. 4, 2014). 628 Id. 629 Id. 630 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 631 Id. 632 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 633 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 634 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 71 39. United Kingdom Regulation: In July 2012, Ofcom, the United Kingdom’s telecommunications regulatory agency, announced plans for its largest-ever auction of mobile broadband-capable spectrum in the 800 MHz and 2.5/2.6 GHz bands. After discussions with British TV broadcasters resulted in an accelerated timetable for clearance of terrestrial broadcasting spectrum, the auction, originally planned for early 2013, was moved to the end of 2012. Completed in 2013, the auction raised GBP2.34 billion (US$3.87 billion), considerably less than the expected GBP3.5 billion (US$5.79 billion). 635 In May 2014, Ofcom published its new spectrum management strategy, outlining its priorities for the next 10 years. 636 The strategy document identifies several priority areas, namely: grappling with future mobile data demand, addressing the 700 MHz band and the evolution of free-to-view TV, supporting the release of public sector spectrum, enabling the growth of Machine-to-Machine (M2M) applications, and supporting emergency services. 637 Market and Competition: Ofcom reports that as of the beginning of 2013, nine out of every 100 people in the United Kingdom (5.7 million people) subscribed to superfast broadband (at least 30 Mbps), putting the United Kingdom ahead of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. 638 As of June 2014, fixed line incumbent BT Group led the broadband market with a 33.0 percent share of subscribers, followed by BSkyB (23.4 percent), Virgin Media (20.2 percent), TalkTalk (18.8 percent), and EE (3.4 percent). 639 The United Kingdom’s largest mobile network operator by subscribers, EE (a joint-venture between Orange and T-Mobile), was the first mobile provider to commercially launch a 4G network in the country. 640 EE launched its 4G network well in advance of its UK competitors because Ofcom gave EE special permission to launch 4G services on EE’s existing spectrum ahead of the 4G auction. 641 By March 2013, EE had covered the homes and businesses of 50 percent of the UK population and was working to further expand its 4G footprint. By the end of 2013, O2, Vodafone, and Hutchison 3G had also launched 4G networks. As of June 2014, EE has the greatest market share by subscribers with 34.4 percent, followed by O2 UK (32.0 percent), Vodafone UK (22.4 percent), and Hutchison 3G (11.1 percent). 642 635 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: United Kingdom (2014) (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 636 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Ofcom Publishes Spectrum Management Strategy (May 1, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/05/01/ofcom-publishes-spectrum- management-strategy/ (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 637 Ofcom, Spectrum Management Strategy (Apr. 30, 2014), http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/ spectrum-management- strategy/statement/statement.pdf (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 638 Ofcom, The European Broadband Scorecard, http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/broadband- research/scorecard/European_Broadband_Scorecard_2014.pdf (accessed Oct. 7, 2014) 639 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: United Kingdom (2014) (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 640 BBC News, UK’s First 4G Mobile Service Launched in 11 Cities by EE (Oct. 29, 2012), http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20121025 (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). 641 Id. 642 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: United Kingdom (2014) (accessed Oct. 7, 2014). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 72 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 643 35.2 3.7 6.9 24.7 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 644 22,559,353 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013) 645 87.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants 646 77.2 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2013) 647 49,470,645 643 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 644 Id. 645 OECD Stat Extracts, stats.oecd.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2014). 646 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013) (accessed Oct. 28, 2014). 647 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 1 Appendix F Comparing International Fixed Broadband Speeds Broadband speeds are often illustrated using 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 error (when consumers are not certain of the speed tier that they have subscribed to). Actual speed is measured primarily by two methods: (i) by installing special hardware on an end user’s computer that enables the hardware to measure actual download and upload speeds, and (ii) software based tests. 1 For international cities, the most widely collected speed data are based primarily on software-based tests conducted by Ookla using speedtest.net. These data can be useful in providing an international comparison but certain caveats should be noted. For instance, because this is a software-based test, the physical distance of the end user to the server may be one factor influencing speed measurement. Another point worth noting is that the actual speeds that are observed in each country are a combination of availability and usage. For example, 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. But despite these shortcomings, the Ookla speed data helps in constructing international comparisons because of its large geographic scope and vast number of speed tests. 2 Additionally, the data provide other metrics of network quality that may be used to evaluate broadband performance across countries. We are aware that other international broadband speed surveys are available. For example, Akamai released its “State of the Internet” report for the second quarter of 2014 in September 2014. According to this report, the United States has an average connection speed of 11.4 Mbps (ranking 14th in the world); 3 however, this measurement cannot be readily compared 1 Installing special hardware on an end user’s computer 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 Internet service provider’s (ISP) network, and the physical distance of the end user from the testing server. For example, SamKnows (a company that measures broadband performance and provides related analytics) conducts such hardware based tests for the United States and the United Kingdom (see https://www.samknows.com/#). For the United States, 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. The FCC releases these reports on a regular basis, most recently in June 2014 (see http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring- broadband-america/2014/2014-Fixed-Measuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf). For information about the U.K. speed testing, see http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/internet/broadband-speeds/broadband-speeds- april-14/. However for broad-based international data, software-based tests such as Ookla’s speedtest.net are the best available data source. 2 Since January 2008, Ookla has collected data on over 6.5 billion speed tests. See https://www.ookla.com/. In this report, we used data for 2012 and 2013. The 2012 data covers February 1 to December 5, including 40 countries with 3.8 million observations for 14,652 cities. For 2013, the data include 5.1 million observations for 16,372 cities from January 1 to December 15. We excluded January 2012 observations from our data due to unusually high levels of January observations for some countries in comparison to the rest of the year. The end date of the collection period for both 2012 and 2013 corresponds the date Ookla collected the data. 3 Akamai’s State of the Internet, Q2 2014, September 2014, p. 32, available at http://www.akamai.com/html/awe/login.html?WT.mc_id=soti_Q214&campaign_id=F-MC- Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 2 to the analysis of the Ookla data presented in this appendix. Akamai calculates its average speeds based on a user request for a specific file, taking into account the file size and the time required to complete delivery of the file. 4 Ookla measures maximum sustainable throughput between the user computer and the nearest server selecting a file size based on a bit test estimate of connection speed. This method measures the speed of the broadband connection when multiple computers or programs are using it. 5 Essentially, more data are used to test the faster connections than slower ones, ensuring the speed data reflect the actual speed experienced by the typical consumer. 6 In addition, Akamai excludes slower connections, i.e., users with a connection speed slower than 4 Mbps. Because this Ookla dataset is aggregated at the city level on a daily basis, we cannot identify individual connection speeds. Thus, the following analysis includes all connection speeds above 256 Kbps. 1. Aggregate Country Rankings Based on Ookla Data Figure 1a shows the 2012 and 2013 rankings based on average download speed (Mbps) for 40 countries. Data from 2011 is also included in the figure for comparison. The countries included are identical to those included in the Third IBDR with the addition of India and Brazil. These rankings 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. The United States ranked 25th of the 40 countries included in the IBDR sample in 2012, with an average download speed of 14.5 Mbps, a 2.86 Mbps improvement from 2011. From 2011 to 2012, the United Kingdom moved from 25th to 22nd with an increase in average download speed from 11.24 Mbps to 16.87 Mbps. As a result, the United State ranked 25th, moving from 24th to 25th of the 40 countries included in this Report. In 2012, Brazil and India ranked 35th and 40th with average download speeds of 6.80 Mbps and 2.27 Mbps, respectively. Our inclusion of data on Brazil and India does not affect the ranking of the United States; however, it does increase the number of comparison countries from 38 in the Third IBDR to 40 in this Report. Based on the 2013 speed data, the United States ranked 26th of 40 countries, with an average download speed of 18.67 Mbps. Since 2012, Ireland has moved from 28th to 25th, 22494&curl=/dl/whitepapers/akamai-soti-q214.pdf. South Korea holds the number one position in the Akamai rankings, with an average download speed of 24.6 Mbps. Id. at 20. By comparison, Akamai ranks Delaware the fastest state in the United States with an average speed of 16.2 Mbps (globally, Hong Kong ranks second behind South Korea with 15.7 Mbps). Id. at 26, 20. 4 Akamai’s methodology for determining connection speed is explained in further detail at https://blogs.akamai.com/2011/11/the-future-internet.html and https://blogs.akamai.com/2013/04/clarifying-state-of-the-internet-report-metrics.html. 5 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. 6 According to Professors Bauer, Clark and Lehr of MIT, “the 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.” 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. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 3 reflecting an increase in average download speed from 11.93 Mbps to 19.28 Mbps. In 2013, Brazil fell one spot to 36th, while India’s ranking did not change. Average download speeds in both years increased for the majority of countries in the sample. The data are shown in Figure 1a. 7 Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by total number of tests. 2011 data was drawn on Dec. 15, 2011; 2012 data was drawn on Dec. 6, 2012; and 2013 data was drawn on Dec. 16, 2013. Brazil and India were not included as sample countries in the Third IBDR (2011). The median weighted download speed for the United States based on 2012 data was 14.31 Mbps and the United States maintained its ranking of 25th of 40 countries based on the median. 8 This is slightly below the average download speed of 14.5 Mbps. In 2013, the median weighted download speed for the United States increased to 18.43 Mbps, but its ranking fell to 26th of 40 countries. Similar to the United States, most countries have means and medians that 7 Throughout this Appendix C, references to “figures” signify charts or diagrams within this narrative. References to “tables” refer to the detailed data tables that are collected at the end of this Appendix. 8 Because the data are aggregated at the city level and do not have individual speed test records, we cannot compute a true median. Here, median refers to the median of the aggregated (average) daily city speed tests weighted by sample size. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 L u x e m b o u rg S in g a p o re L it h u a n ia S w e d e n K o re a J a p a n N e th e rl a n d s S w it z e rl a n d H o n g K o n g Ic e la n d F in la n d D e n m a rk B u lg a ri a B e lg iu m P o rt u g a l N o rw a y F ra n c e E s to n ia U K C z e c h R e p u b li c S lo v a k ia H u n g a ry A u s tr ia G e rm a n y Ir e la n d U n it e d S ta te s C a n a d a S p a in Is ra e l P o la n d S lo v e n ia N e w Z e a la n d A u s tr a li a M e x ic o C h il e B ra z il T u rk e y G re e c e It a ly In d ia A v e r a g e ( W e ig h te d ) D o w n lo a d S p e e d i n M b p s Figure 1a Country Average Weighted Speed Rankings (2011-2013): All Available Data 2013 2012 2011 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 4 are fairly close together, in both the 2012 and 2013 data. Exceptions to this are Luxembourg and Hong Kong, whose 2013 average download speeds exceed their 2013 median download speeds by 8.20 Mbps and 7.34 Mbps respectively. Median speeds are also shown in Appendix F Table 1a. Figure 1b includes 95 percent confidence interval bands for the percent change in average weighted download speeds between 2011 and 2012. The confidence interval bands measure the margin of error associated with the calculated percent change at a 95 percent confidence level (i.e., that 95 percent of the intervals would include the percent change parameter). Countries where the bounds are close to the estimated percent change have smaller variation in the change from the previous year and smaller overall variance in the average download speeds. In 2012, the average download speed increase in the United States of 23.87 percent had a lower bound of 23.24 percent and an upper bound of 24.50 percent. Most countries had a positive percent increase. Singapore, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Iceland, and Estonia have the widest confidence interval bands, indicating substantial variation in the percent change from 2011 to 2012. All percent change data are presented in Appendix F Table 1b. Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by sample size (Data drawn on Dec. 6, 2012). Brazil and India were not included as sample countries in the Third IBDR (2011). Figure 1c includes 95 percent confidence interval bands for the percent change in average weighted download speeds between 2012 and 2013. The average download speed increase in United States was 28.34 percent, with lower and upper bounds of 27.87 percent and 28.81 percent, respectively. Every country in this report had a positive percent increase. Luxembourg, Iceland, and Singapore had the widest confidence interval bands, indicating substantial variation in the percent change from 2012 to 2013. -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 S in g a p o re L u x e m b o u rg Is ra e l J a p a n U n it e d K in g d o m Ir e la n d A u s tr a li a N o rw a y C h il e S lo v e n ia M e x ic o P o rt u g a l P o la n d B u lg a ri a C a n a d a N e w Z e a la n d C z e c h R e p u b li c U n it e d S ta te s D e n m a rk A u s tr ia F in la n d S p a in Ic e la n d L it h u a n ia B e lg iu m N e th e rl a n d s S lo v a k ia E s to n ia It a ly H u n g a ry H o n g K o n g K o re a T u rk e y S w it z e rl a n d S w e d e n G re e c e G e rm a n y F ra n c e P e r c e n t C h a n g e Figure 1b Percent Change in Average (Weighted) Download Speed with 95% Confidence Interval Bands, 2011-2012 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 5 Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by sample size (Data drawn on Dec. 16, 2013). Figure 1d shows the percentage of tests with actual download speeds exceeding 10 Mbps. Many countries saw large increases in the 10 Mbps speed tier from 2011 to 2012, including the United States, where 88 percent of tests met or exceeded this speed in 2012, compared to 69 percent in 2011. Several European countries, including Ireland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom saw substantial increases between 2011 and 2012 in the percentage of tests with download speeds greater than 10 Mbps. The United States continued this improvement in 2013, with 96 percent of its tests showing speeds greater than 10 Mbps. Similarly, Australia and New Zealand more than doubled their respective percentages of tests exceeding this speed. In 2013, New Zealand and Slovenia saw substantial increases in their percentage of tests showing speeds greater than 10 Mbps, while the Latin American countries included in this report—Brazil, Chile, and Mexico—each grew by a factor greater than 32 times their 2012 mark and were among the most improved countries in this regard. 0 20 40 60 80 100 H o n g K o n g M e x ic o Is ra e l S w it z e rl a n d J a p a n Ir e la n d F in la n d F ra n c e L u x e m b o u rg D e n m a rk In d ia A u s tr ia Ic e la n d N e w Z e a la n d S w e d e n S in g a p o re B e lg iu m U n it e d K in g d o m N e th e rl a n d s S p a in T u rk e y C a n a d a S lo v e n ia S lo v a k ia E s to n ia U n it e d S ta te s N o rw a y H u n g a ry C z e c h R e p u b li c P o la n d G re e c e G e rm a n y B ra z il It a ly L it h u a n ia C h il e A u s tr a li a P o rt u g a l K o re a B u lg a ri a P e r c e n t C h a n g e Figure 1c Percent Change in Average (Weighted) Download Speed with 95% Confidence Interval Bands, 2012-2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 6 Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla (Data drawn on Dec. 16, 2013). Figure 1e shows the percentage of tests with actual download speeds exceeding 25 Mbps. Download speed tests reporting 25 Mbps or greater were limited in the United States with only 1.2 percent of tests reporting in this speed tier in 2012. Several countries, including Bulgaria, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, had large increases in this speed tier from 2011 to 2012. The United States saw improvement in 2013, with 11.2 percent of such tests exceeding 25 Mbps download speed, an increase of nearly tenfold from 2012. 9 Many European countries experienced tremendous growth in this speed tier; Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and the United Kingdom all improved at least 20 times their 2012 mark and were among the most improved countries in this regard. 9 Note that this metric is a reflection of the number of tests exceeding 25 Mbps, and does not necessarily reflect the number of consumers who actually subscribe to service with at least 25 Mbps download service. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 S in g a p o re N e th e rl a n d s L u x e m b o u rg K o re a J a p a n Ic e la n d H o n g K o n g E s to n ia L it h u a n ia S w it z e rl a n d S w e d e n D e n m a rk B e lg iu m B u lg a ri a C z e c h R e p u b li c F in la n d N e w Z e a la n d N o rw a y U n it e d K in g d o m S lo v a k ia H u n g a ry G e rm a n y S lo v e n ia P o rt u g a l U n it e d S ta te s C a n a d a A u s tr ia Ir e la n d P o la n d S p a in F ra n c e A u s tr a li a C h il e M e x ic o B ra z il It a ly T u rk e y In d ia G re e c e P e r c e n ta g e Figure 1d Percentage of Tests Reporting Greater than 10 Mbps of Download Speed, 2011-2013 2013 2012 2011 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 7 Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla (Data drawn on Dec. 16, 2013). Countries not listed in this figure did not have tests meeting this speed level for any of the three years. Some countries have missing data in earlier years, e.g., Singapore is does not have data for 2011. 2. Speed Comparisons at the City Level The following analysis compares the capital cities of all 40 countries, including Washington, D.C., and all U.S. state capitals. Figure 2 shows the ranking of capital cities for the top and bottom quartiles of the mean download speed distribution (weighted by sample size). The rankings of all capital cities can be found in Appendix F Table 2. In 2012, Carson City (Nevada) and Trenton (New Jersey) improved their ranking to compare favorably with international capital cities and increased the number of U.S. cities in the top quartile from four to five. Olympia (Washington) fell from the top quartile. The number of U.S. cities in the bottom quartile (excluding Juneau, Alaska due to data availability) decreased from 15 to 13. In 2013, Olympia rejoined the top quartile, but Carson City fell out of it, keeping the number of cities in the top quartile at four. The number of U.S. cities in the bottom quartile decreased from 13 to 12, of which half were new to the bottom quartile. 0 20 40 60 80 100 S in g a p o re L u x e m b o u rg H o n g K o n g L it h u a n ia K o re a N e th e rl a n d s Ic e la n d S w e d e n J a p a n D e n m a rk S w it z e rl a n d F in la n d B u lg a ri a P o rt u g a l A u s tr ia B e lg iu m S lo v a k ia N o rw a y F ra n c e U n it e d K in g d o m C z e c h R e p u b li c G e rm a n y E s to n ia U n it e d S ta te s H u n g a ry Ir e la n d A u s tr a li a S p a in C a n a d a Is ra e l P o la n d N e w Z e a la n d S lo v e n ia It a ly T u rk e y M e x ic o P e r c e n ta g e Figure 1e Percentage of Tests Reporting Greater than 25 Mbps of Download Speed, 2011-2013 2013 2012 2011 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 8 Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by sample size (Data drawn for 2012 on Dec. 6, 2012 and 2013 on Dec. 16, 2013). Capital cities consist of 40 country capitals (including Washington, D.C.) and 49 state capitals for the United States (Juneau is no longer an active host for Speedtest.net). 3. Speed Comparisons Using a Stratified Sampling Technique We chose to keep the cities in the stratified sample identical to those selected in the Third IBDR because it allows for cleaner comparison between the three years of data—2011, 2012, and 2013. The stratified sample was drawn using 2011 data. We do not redraw the sample for 2012 and 2013; rather, we keep data for the cities that match those selected in 2011. We added cities in Brazil and India to our comparison analysis in the 2012 and 2013 data. To add them, we generated the proportions of cities for the stratified sample from the Ookla data rather than the population because of the discrepancy between the availability of Ookla data (primarily large cities) and population distribution. Population was used to identify the strata city size indicators for Brazil and India. The stratified sample cities for Brazil and India remained unchanged in the 2013 update. Other than the modifications noted, we followed the stratified sampling methodology outlined in the Third IBDR. 10 Appendix F Tables 3a and 3b, respectively, present the population proportions for each stratum of non-U.S. and U.S. cities. 10 The report can be downloaded from http://www.fcc.gov/reports/international-broadband-data-report- third. See Appendix F, Section 5 for explanation of the stratified sampling methodology. V il n iu s S e o u l S o fi a L u x e m b u rg S in g a p o re H o n g K o n g L is b o n A m s te rd a m R e y k ja v ík H e ls in k i S to c k h o lm D o v e r C a r s o n C it y B e rn T r e n to n P a ri s B is m a r c k A n n a p o li s C o p e n h a g e n O s lo T o k y o B ra ti s la v a B e rl in W a s h in g to n , D .C . H a r tf o r d T o p e k a L it tl e R o c k S a c r a m e n to B o is e B o s to n S a n ta F e L in c o ln H e le n a S a n ti a g o J e ru s a le m C h a r le s to n B ra s íl ia M e x ic o C it y F r a n k fo r t C a n b e rr a M o n tp e li e r A n k a ra A th e n s R o m e N e w D e lh i V il n iu s P a ri s S in g a p o re L u x e m b u rg S e o u l B e rn T o k y o R e y k ja v ík H e ls in k i A m s te rd a m S o fi a H o n g K o n g S to c k h o lm L is b o n C o p e n h a g e n D o v e r T r e n to n O s lo A n n a p o li s B is m a r c k V ie n n a B ra ti s la v a O ly m p ia R a le ig h L ju b lj a n a C o lu m b u s T o p e k a B o is e C a n b e rr a C o lu m b ia J e ru s a le m A u g u s ta M e x ic o C h a r le s to n C h e y e n n e H e le n a L in c o ln S a n ti a g o B ra s íl ia M o n tp e li e r A n k a ra F r a n k fo r t A th e n s R o m e N e w D e lh i 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 A v e r a g e D o w n lo a d S p e e d ( M b p s ) Figure 2 Capital City Average (Weighted) Speed Rankings, 2012 and 2013 Top and Bottom Quartiles 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 9 Figure 3a shows the country speed ranks based on the cities in the sample. In 2012, the results from the sample are consistent with the results using all data, presented in Figure 1a, with the United States ranking 26th of 40 countries. 11 This is a decrease from 2011, when the United States was ranked 18th of 38 countries. This indicates that while speeds may have increased in absolute value (moving from 12.53 Mbps in 2011 to 14.70 Mbps in 2012), the U.S. cities in the sample increased more slowly than other cities in the sample. In contrast, the United States enhanced both its absolute speed, as well as its ranking compared to other IBDR countries in 2013. Average download speed in the United States increased to 19.55 Mbps and the U.S. rank changed to 25th of 39 countries. Greece did not have data for 2013; however, it ranked below the United States in previous years and therefore was not the cause of the U.S. improvement in ranking. Of the 39 countries that reported data, 35 increased their average download speed, and of these, Luxembourg posted the largest growth at 22.89 Mbps. Data for all states and countries can be found in Appendix F Table 3d. Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by sample size (Data drawn on Dec. 6, 2012). Cities use to construct the sample are identical to those used in the Third IBDR, based on 2011 data, with the addition of Brazil and India. Figure 3b compares the United States at the state level with the other IBDR countries in 2012 and 2013. The top and bottom quartiles show that considerable variation in download speed exists within the United States. Eight U.S. states appeared in the top quartile in 2012, a decrease of one from 2011. New York and North Dakota are no longer in the top quartile, but the average 11 See Appendix F Table 3c for the Average (Weighted) Download Speeds by Country (2012) (based on stratified sampling). L it h u a n ia K o re a H o n g K o n g S in g a p o re S w e d e n J a p a n N e th e rl a n d s L u x e m b o u rg P o rt u g a l S w it z e rl a n d B u lg a ri a D e n m a rk B e lg iu m Ic e la n d C z e c h R e p u b li c S lo v a k ia N o rw a y E s to n ia H u n g a ry F in la n d U n it e d K in g d o m G e rm a n y F ra n c e C a n a d a A u s tr a li a U n it e d S ta te s P o la n d S lo v e n ia S p a in A u s tr ia Is ra e l Ir e la n d N e w Z e a la n d C h il e B ra z il G re e c e It a ly T u rk e y M e x ic o In d ia L u x e m b o u rg S in g a p o re S w e d e n K o re a S w it z e rl a n d N e th e rl a n d s J a p a n H o n g K o n g B e lg iu m D e n m a rk L it h u a n ia F in la n d P o rt u g a l B u lg a ri a Ic e la n d U n it e d K in g d o m C z e c h R e p u b li c S lo v a k ia E s to n ia G e rm a n y N o rw a y H u n g a ry F ra n c e C a n a d a U n it e d S ta te s Is ra e l Ir e la n d P o la n d A u s tr ia S p a in A u s tr a li a S lo v e n ia N e w Z e a la n d C h il e B ra z il It a ly T u rk e y M e x ic o In d ia 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 A v e r a g e W e ig h te d D o w n lo a d S p e e d ( M b p s ) Figure 3a Average (Weighted) Speed Rankings by Country, 2012 and 2013 (Based on Stratified Sampling of Cities) 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 10 (weighted) download speed in New Jersey increased from 12.62 Mbps to 19.44 Mbps, moving it into the top quartile. There were 14 states in the bottom quartile in 2012, up from 11 in 2011. There were again eight states in the top quartile in 2013. The number of states in the bottom quartile remained at 13, though there were many states new to it. Kansas improved its average download speed by 7.43 Mbps (from 13.38 Mbps in 2012 to 20.81 Mbps in 2013), which helped the state jump from 57th to 36th place. A number of states displayed nominal growth, and among these Montana improved its average download speed by just 0.25 Mbps. Data for all states and countries can be found in Appendix F Table 3d. Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by sample size (Data drawn on Dec. 6, 2012). Cities use to construct the sample are identical to those used in the Third IBDR, based on 2011 data, with the addition of Brazil and India. In addition to analyzing the overall speed ranks based on the sampling approach, we also show how each country ranks within each stratum. Appendix F Tables 4a-4d present these results. 4. Advertised versus Actual Speed Figure 4 presents the shortfall index – i.e., the percent difference between advertised and actual speeds 12 – for 2011, 2012, and2013. Of the 38 countries that reported data, half saw a 12 Ookla also refers to this as the Promise Index -- an index that ranks the value of the median ratio of actual download speed to the download speed subscribed to (the “promised speed”). See http://www.netindex.com/promise/. 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). L it h u a n ia K o re a H o n g K o n g S in g a p o re S w e d e n J a p a n N e th e rl a n d s L u x e m b o u rg P o rt u g a l S w it z e rl a n d B u lg a ri a D e n m a rk B e lg iu m Ic e la n d D e la w a r e S o u th D a k o ta N e w J e r s e y M a r y la n d M a s s a c h u s e tt s C z e c h R e p u b li c V ir g in ia R h o d e I s la n d M in n e s o ta N e w M e x ic o V e r m o n t M is s is s ip p i O k la h o m a A u s tr ia M is s o u r i O h io W e s t V ir g in ia K e n tu c k y Is ra e l M a in e Ir e la n d M o n ta n a I d a h o W y o m in g N e w Z e a la n d C h il e B ra z il G re e c e A la s k a It a ly T u rk e y M e x ic o In d ia L u x e m b o u rg S in g a p o re S w e d e n K o re a S w it z e rl a n d N e th e rl a n d s J a p a n H o n g K o n g B e lg iu m D e n m a rk L it h u a n ia F in la n d D e la w a r e P o rt u g a l N e w J e r s e y M a r y la n d B u lg a ri a V ir g in ia R h o d e I s la n d M a s s a c h u s e tt s U ta h Ic e la n d W a s h in g to n H a w a ii A r k a n s a s S p a in M is s is s ip p i T e x a s N o r th C a r o li n a I d a h o O k la h o m a O h io A u s tr a li a S lo v e n ia M a in e N e w Z e a la n d K e n tu c k y W y o m in g M o n ta n a C h il e B ra z il A la s k a It a ly T u rk e y M e x ic o In d ia 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 A v e r a g e W e ig h te d D o w n lo a d S p e e d ( M b p s ) 2012 2013 Figure 3b Average (Weighted) Speed Rankings by US States and International Countries, 2012 and 2013, Top and Bottom Quartiles (Based on stratified sampling using 2011 cities) Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 11 decrease in their shortfall index from 2011 to 2012 (that is, half the countries improved on delivering advertised speeds). 13 Luxembourg, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom saw the largest decreases; however, Iceland, Italy, and Ireland all saw increases in their shortfall index. Hungary has a shortfall index of -0.44, which indicates the actual speeds exceed advertised speeds. The shortfall index for the United States increased slightly from 6.8 percent in 2011 to 6.9 percent in 2012. Slightly more than half of the countries experienced a decrease in their shortfall index from 2012 to 2013. Iceland saw the greatest reduction in shortfall at 6.8 percentage points, while Ireland and the Netherlands both experienced growth in excess of five percentage points. The shortfall index for the United States increased to 7.2 in 2013. 14 Source: Promise Index from Net Index by Ookla. Data drawn on Dec. 6, 2012 and Dec. 16, 2013. The shortfall index may not be entirely representative of a nation’s broadband carriers’ ability to deliver advertised speeds. In order to generate the Promise Index Ookla requires consumers that submit test results to fill out a survey that asks for the advertised speed to which they are subscribed. This means that the Promise Index is created from a smaller subset of test results than the Net Index and assumes that the test subjects know the promised speed of the plan to which they have subscribed. Also, the potential exists that consumers unhappy with their speed are more likely to run tests for the Promise Index, thereby creating a bias in the data. 13 Japan and Korea did not report shortfall data for 2011-2013. 14 See Appendix F Table 5. -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 H u n g a ry L it h u a n ia S lo v a k ia Is ra e l S w it z e rl a n d B ra z il C h il e S lo v e n ia P o la n d B u lg a ri a C z e c h R e p u b li c N o rw a y U n it e d S ta te s C a n a d a E s to n ia D e n m a rk M e x ic o F in la n d S w e d e n S in g a p o re T u rk e y H o n g K o n g L u x e m b o u rg G e rm a n y S p a in In d ia P o rt u g a l N e w Z e a la n d B e lg iu m N e th e rl a n d s U n it e d K in g d o m Ic e la n d A u s tr ia Ir e la n d It a ly A u s tr a li a F ra n c e G re e c e P e r c e n t D if fe r e n c e Figure 4 Shortfall Index in 2011-2013 (% Difference Between Advertised and Actual Speed) 2011 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 12 The Ookla Promise Index, though imperfect, does provide a means for comparing many countries on their broadband carriers’ ability to deliver advertised speeds. In addition to constructing a shortfall index, we present the average and advertised download speeds from the Ookla data. Figures 5a and 5b show the download speeds from September 2013 and September 2012, respectively. The United States was ranked 21st of 38 countries for its advertised speed of 12.8 Mbps in 2011. Both actual and advertised speeds increased for the United States between 2011 and 2012, although the increase in the average advertised speed was larger than the increase in average actual speed. The United States ranked 20th of 40 countries for September 2012 according to the Ookla actual average download speed data. 15 For advertised speed, the United States improved its ranking by one and is currently 20th of 38 countries with an advertised speed of 15.5 Mbps. In 2013, the U.S. ranked 24th of 40 countries in terms of actual download speed and 23rd of 38 countries with an advertised download speed of 19.3 Mbps. Data for both 2012 and 2013 are presented in Appendix F Table 6. 15 Japan and South Korea do not have actual download speeds reported in this dataset. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 H o n g K o n g L u x e m b o u rg S in g a p o re N e th e rl a n d s S w e d e n B e lg iu m S w it z e rl a n d Ic e la n d L it h u a n ia D e n m a rk P o rt u g a l F in la n d U n it e d K in g d o m B u lg a ri a E s to n ia Ir e la n d G e rm a n y A u s tr a li a C z e c h R e p u b li c F ra n c e N o rw a y Is ra e l U n it e d S ta te s S lo v a k ia S p a in H u n g a ry A u s tr ia N e w Z e a la n d S lo v e n ia G re e c e C a n a d a P o la n d It a ly C h il e T u rk e y M e x ic o B ra z il In d ia J a p a n K o re a A v e ra g e D o w n lo a d S p e e d ( M b p s ) Figure 5a Actual vs. Advertised Speed, September 2013 2013 Ookla Actual 2013 Ookla Advertised Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 13 We believe that the Commission’s Measuring Broadband America (MBA) program, an ongoing, rigorous, nationwide study of residential broadband performance in the United States, provides a more accurate picture of U.S. broadband providers’ ability to deliver advertised speeds. The most recent MBA study (released on June 18, 2014), like those conducted before, involves actual performance tests for thousands of subscribers of ISPs serving well over 80 percent of the residential market. 16 Both the 2013 and 2014 reports found that five ISPs routinely delivered nearly 100 percent or greater of the download speed advertised to the consumer, even during time periods when bandwidth demand was at its peak, while in 2012 the U.S. ISPs on average delivered 97 percent of advertised download speed during peak usage periods. 17 The Measuring Broadband America program relies on measurements by hardware and software deployed in the homes of thousands of volunteer consumers by Commission contractor SamKnows. The SamKnows “Whitebox” devices and their software conduct automated, direct 16 See 2014 Measuring Broadband America: Fixed Broadband 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, http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2014/2014- Fixed-Measuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf 17 Id. at p. 14; 2013 Measuring Broadband America: February 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, p. 4, http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/measuringbroadbandreport/2013/Measuring-Broadband-America-feb- 2013.pdf. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 H o n g K o n g K o re a Ja p a n L it h u a n ia S in g a p o re S w e d e n N e th e rl a n d s L u x e m b o u rg S w it z e rl a n d B e lg iu m B u lg a ri a P o rt u g a l Ic e la n d D e n m a rk E s to n ia C z e c h R e p u b li c N o rw a y S lo v a k ia G e rm a n y U n it e d S ta te s H u n g a ry U n it e d K in g d o m F in la n d A u s tr a li a S p a in C a n a d a Is ra e l F ra n c e A u s tr ia P o la n d S lo v e n ia Ir e la n d N e w Z e a la n d C h il e G re e c e T u rk e y It a ly B ra z il M e x ic o In d ia A v e ra g e D o w n lo a d S p e e d ( M b p s ) Figure 5b Actual vs. Advertised Speed, September 2012 2012 Ookla Actual 2012 Ookla Advertised Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 14 measurements of broadband performance throughout the year, though for reporting purposes, the Commission focuses on test results during a specific time period (September 2013 in the case of the June 2014 report). 18 The study examines service offerings from 14 of the largest broadband providers (focusing on four ISP delivery technologies—DSL, cable, fiber, and satellite), which collectively account for well over 80 percent of all U.S. residential broadband connections. Hardware approaches involve placing a device inside the user’s home, and it is physically connected to the consumer’s Internet connection, and periodically running tests to remote targets on the Internet. Several countries have undertaken detailed broadband studies similar to our own, 19 the largest being a EC-organized study of actual broadband speeds in 30 countries across Europe, also using SamKnows. 20 A comparison of the latest MBA and EC reports is warranted due to similarities in methodologies and the time of data collection. The United States does much better 18 2014 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report: A Report on Consumer Fixed Broadband Performance in the U.S., FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, rel. June 19, 2014, available at http://www.fcc.gov/reports/measuring-broadband-america- 2014. (2014 MBA Report.) 19 The United Kingdom is a notable example. Ofcom, the United Kingdom’s telecommunications regulator, has also partnered with SamKnows to conduct regular broadband speed tests. See U.K. fixed- line broadband performance, Ofcom, November 2012, available at http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/broadband- research/nov2012/Fixed_bb_speeds_Nov_2012.pdf, and the U.K.’s most recent report (April 2014) at http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/internet/broadband-speeds/broadband-speeds-april-14/. Singapore’s Infocomm Development Authority has also partnered with SamKnows to provide broadband speed test results for Singapore’s consumers. See http://www.ida.gov.sg/applications/rbs/chart.html. In 2012, new rules took effect in Brazil that require ISPs to provide at least 20 percent of the speed that they advertise. Anatel, the Brazilian regulator, has provided meter devices to volunteers to measure broadband speeds and ensure that ISPs comply with the speed regulation. See New Rules for Brazil Broadband Providers, The Rio Times, Nov. 6, 2012, available at http://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/rio-business/new-rules-for- brazil-broadband-providers/#). Anatel released its findings in 2013; see http://www.samknows.com/broadband/news/brazil-latest-report-from-anatel-11140.html and http://www.anatel.gov.br/Portal/exibirPortalNoticias.do?acao=carregaNoticia&codigo=30427. Germany’s telecommunications regulator, Bundesnetzagentur (BNetza), released the results of its 2012 and 2013 studies of actual broadband speeds experienced by German broadband subscribers (seehttp://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Br eitband/Dienstequalitaet/qualitaetsstudie/qualitaetsstudie-node.html). BNetza’s method of testing is similar to Ookla’s, in that the test was software-based and conducted via a consumer’s web browser (see http://www.initiative-netzqualitaet.de/startseite/). Those taking the test were required to fill out a survey identifying, among other factors, the name of their broadband provider and the speed tier (maximum “up to” speed) to which they subscribe. Germany’s test results reveal that 15.7 percent of fixed broadband customers and 21 percent using mobile broadband devices achieved the advertised maximum speeds. See “Internet Speeds Fail to Meet Promises in Germany, Study Shows,” New York Times, April 11, 2013, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/technology/internet-speeds-fail-to-meet-promises-in- germany-study-shows.html. 20 “Quality of Broadband Services in the EU, October 2013,” Final Report prepared for the European Commission, rel. March 25, 2014, available at http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/quality- broadband-services-eu-samknows-study-internet-speeds-second-report. For this study, the EC recruited 10,000 consumers across these 30 countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom (i.e., the 28 EU member countries plus Iceland and Norway). The study examined speeds on xDSL, cable, and fiber networks of more than 200 ISPs. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 15 than Europe when comparing the proportion of advertised speeds to actual speeds. 21 The European study is based on data SamKnows gathered from Whiteboxes in October 2013 and the latest MBA study is based on Whitebox data gathered in September 2013. The chart below shows the peak (7:00 pm-11:00 pm) average advertised and actual broadband speed for both the United States and Europe for DSL, cable, fiber, and (for the United States) satellite ISPs. The speeds below are averages for all observations of a given technology. For the United States, the reported figure is the average for all consumer observations using the indicated technology. For Europe, the reported figure is the average for all observations in the 30 country survey. These high-level averages do not account for variations in actual/advertised speeds at various speed tiers. 22 Technology United States advertised speed (Mbps) Europe adverstised speed (Mbps) United States actual speed 23 (Mbps) Europe actual speed 24 (Mbps) United States actual/ Advertised (%) Europe actual/ Advertised (%) xDSL 9.88 13.95 9.64 8.13 97.6 63.8 Cable 27.71 60.54 28.92 52.21 104.4 89.5 fiber 40.76 59.48 45.17 47.74 110.8 82.7 Satellite 12 NA 17.81 NA 148.4 NA This chart suggests that although advertised and actual speeds are often higher in Europe than in the United States, U.S. broadband providers are more effective than European providers in delivering promised speeds to consumers. U.S. providers’ (that is, those providers in the MBA sample) actual speeds exceed advertised speeds for all platforms except DSL, whereas European providers (again, only those providers that participate in the study) do not exceed advertised speeds for any technology. Further, for DSL, although European providers advertised faster speeds than U.S. providers, the U.S. providers, on average, delivered actual speeds that were faster than actual speeds of the European providers. 25 5. Other Quality Measures for Fixed Broadband Connections 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 21 This should be considered when looking at pricing data (section III.C. infra) which is collected with only advertised speeds. Based on the data above, it appears that U.S. broadband consumers get more of what they pay for, compared to European consumers. 22 . The U.S.-based MBA testing data does not include all speed tiers for the tested 12-15 providers for all regions. Thus, we cannot say that all consumers in the United States for a specific technology experience a specific speed on average. For the 6,000-7,000 Whiteboxes tested at some speed tiers for the largest 12-15 providers in some regions of the United States, the average speeds were what we show in the table above. The averages provide a useful tool for comparing huge volumes of data, but they reflect only the experiences of those consumers participating in the SamKnows studies (both in Europe and the United States), and do not necessarily represent a true “average” American or “average” European experience. 23 These are peak period actual speeds, averaged for all carriers using the technology described. 24 These are peak period actual speeds, averaged for all carriers using the technology described. 25 The U.S. data is publicly available at “Validated Data - Measuring Broadband America 2014,” http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america/2014/validated-data-fixed-2014. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 16 destination. There are, however, other metrics of network quality that may provide insight about comparative broadband performance across countries. Three common measures of connection quality are latency, jitter, that is the variance in latency, and packet loss. Ookla collects data on these broadband quality measures through user-based tests at pingtest.net. 26 a. Latency Latency (also known as ping) 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. 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. Figure 6a shows the weighted latency rankings for the 40 IBDR sample countries for 2011-2013. From 2011 to 2012, latency in the United States decreased from 73.87 ms to 73.73 ms and ranking improved from 24th (of 38 countries) to 21st (of 40 countries). Several countries experienced increases in latency in 2012, with the largest growth seen in Belgium, Ireland, Israel, and Turkey. Latency in Mexico and Sweden decreased in 2012. In the United States, latency increased from 73.73 ms to 80.33 ms from 2012 to 2013, causing its rank to fall to 27 th (of 40 countries). 27 A number of countries experienced increases in latency in 2013, of which Finland, India, and Mexico experienced the greatest growth. Latency decreased in Israel and Switzerland in 2013. Data is shown in Appendix F Table 7a. 26 These data are included with the full NetIndex download. 27 But see 2014 MBA Report, finding that across all terrestrial technologies during peak periods, latency (round trip_ averaged 34. 9 ms for those ISPs surveyed. 2014 MBA Report at p. 16. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 17 Note: 2011 quality data is not available for Luxembourg. Iceland and Japan do not have data prior to 2013. Brazil and India were not comparison countries in the Third International Broadband Data Report. Data drawn on Dec. 6, 2012 and Dec. 16, 2013. In Figure 6b, we plot the top and bottom quartiles of average (weighted) percent packet loss for the IBDR countries and most U.S. states (including District of Columbia) for 2012 and 2013. In 2012, the number of U.S. states in the top quartile decreased by four, for a total of six, and the number of states in the bottom quartile decreased from 10 to seven. In 2013, the number of states in the top quartile fell to six, and the number states in the bottom quartile returned to 10. New Jersey significantly reduced its latency from 172.11 ms in 2011 to 78.83 ms in 2012. Idaho saw the largest increase in latency over this period, moving from 82.29 ms to 234.46 ms. In 2013, however, Maryland experienced the largest decrease in latency, when it dropped from 129.21 ms to 76.62 ms. Alabama saw the largest increase in 2013, moving to 185.32 ms from 56.78 ms the previous year. Data for IBDR countries and all states which reported data are presented in Appendix F Table 7b. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 K o re a B u lg a ri a C z e c h R e p u b li c S w it z e rl a n d P o rt u g a l S lo v a k ia Ic e la n d H u n g a ry L it h u a n ia N e th e rl a n d s H o n g K o n g A u s tr ia N e w Z e a la n d N o rw a y G e rm a n y B e lg iu m U n it e d K in g d o m D e n m a rk F in la n d G re e c e P o la n d It a ly Ir e la n d B ra z il T u rk e y C h il e U n it e d S ta te s J a p a n Is ra e l S w e d e n A u s tr a li a S lo v e n ia C a n a d a S in g a p o re S p a in F ra n c e E s to n ia M e x ic o In d ia L u x e m b o u rg A v e r a g e ( W e ig h te d ) L a te n c y ( m s ) Figure 6a Country Average (Weighted) Latency Rankings, 2011-2013 2011 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 18 Note: 2011 quality data is not available for Luxembourg. Brazil and India were not comparison countries in the Third IBDR. Data drawn on Dec. 6, 2012 and Dec. 16, 2013. In Figure 6c, we compare U.S. states to the IBDR countries, with the top and bottom quartiles from 2012 being displayed. For comparison, their average latency from 2011 is also shown. 2012 data can be seen in Appendix F Table 7b. The United States increased the number of states in the top quartile by one, for a total of ten, and decreased the number of states in the bottom quartile from ten to seven. New Jersey significantly reduced its latency from 172.11 ms in 2011 to 37.19 ms in 2012. Idaho saw the largest increase in latency, moving to 234.46 ms, from 82.29 ms in 2011. A r k a n s a s B u lg a ri a K o re a V ir g in ia C z e c h R e p u b li c F lo r id a A la b a m a H u n g a ry W is c o n s in G e o r g ia F in la n d L it h u a n ia S lo v a k ia H o n g K o n g N e w Z e a la n d U n it e d K in g d o m A u s tr a li a O h io C a li fo r n ia S p a in Ir e la n d T u rk e y C a n a d a S lo v e n ia M ic h ig a n K a n s a s In d ia E s to n ia F ra n c e I d a h o M a s s a c h u s e tt s I d a h o B u lg a ri a N e w J e r s e y K o re a F in la n d A r k a n s a s C z e c h R e p u b li c S w it z e rl a n d H u n g a ry S lo v a k ia V ir g in ia A u s tr ia T e n n e s s e e M e x ic o D e n m a rk G e o r g ia O k la h o m a C a li fo r n ia M is s o u r i L o u is ia n a S w e d e n B e lg iu m K a n s a s C a n a d a W is c o n s in In d ia F ra n c e T u rk e y I d a h o O h io M a s s a c h u s e tt s M ic h ig a n A la b a m a 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 A v e r a g e ( W e ig h te d ) L a te n c y ( M s ) 2012 2013 Figure 6b Country and US State Average Weighted Latency Rankings (2012-2013): Top and Bottom Quartiles Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 19 Note: 2011 quality data is not available for Luxembourg. Brazil and India were not comparison countries in the Third IBDR. b. Jitter Jitter (also known as packet delay variation) refers to the variance of latency over time, and is measured by the average deviation from the mean latency of the network. More generally, jitter measures the consistency of the broadband connection. Figure 7a shows the average jitter rankings for the 40 IBDR countries. Many countries saw increases in jitter between 2011 and 2013, including the United States. The United States ranked 35th (of 40 countries) in 2013, compared to 27th (of 38 countries) in 2012 and 22nd (of 35 countries) in 2011. In addition to rank, jitter increased over this period as well, increasing from 29.77 ms in 2011 to 31.44 ms in 2012, and to 39.41 ms in 2013. Estonia and Belgium experienced the largest increases in jitter in 2012, while Mexico and Lithuania both improved their rankings. In 2013, the United States showed the second greatest increase in jitter (7.97 ms) behind India (17.71 ms), while Portugal displayed the greatest decrease at -8.71 ms. Complete data can be found in Appendix F Table 8a. A r k a n s a s N e w J e r s e y B u lg a ri a K o re a C z e c h R e p u b li c V ir g in ia S o u th C a r o li n a A la b a m a F lo r id a H u n g a ry A r iz o n a T e n n e s s e e W is c o n s in F in la n d L it h u a n ia H o n g K o n g G e o r g ia S lo v a k ia A u s tr a li a M ic h ig a n N e w Y o r k C a li fo r n ia Ir e la n d S p a in T u rk e y C a n a d a S lo v e n ia Is ra e l In d ia F ra n c e E s to n ia M a in e M a s s a c h u s e tt s L u x e m b o u rg M a r y la n d I d a h o 0 50 100 150 200 250 A v e r a g e ( W e ig h te d ) L a te n c y ( m s ) Figure 6c Country and US State Average (Weighted) Latency Rankings, 2011 and 2012 (Top and Bottom Quartile) 2012 2011 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 20 Note: 2011 quality data is not available for Luxembourg. Brazil and India were not comparison countries in the Third IBDR. Iceland and Japan were new additions in 2013. Data drawn on Dec. 6, 2012 and Dec. 16, 2013. Figure 7b compares U.S. states with the IBDR countries; the top and bottom quartiles from 2012 and 2013 are displayed. In 2012, eight states appeared in the top quartile, compared to 10 states in 2011. There were three states in the top quartile in 2013. The number of states in the bottom quartile increased from eight to 10 in 2012, and many of these states were new to the bottom quartile. There were again 10 states in the bottom quartile in 2013. New Jersey saw a large change in 2012, decreasing from 74.40 ms to 33.93 ms. In 2013, Wisconsin and Alabama saw large changes, with Wisconsin increasing from 22.54 ms to 59.37 ms and Alabama increasing from 24.56 ms to 63.24 ms. Data for IBDR countries and all states for which Ookla collected data are presented in Appendix F Table 8b. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 K o re a G re e c e G e rm a n y B u lg a ri a N e w Z e a la n d S lo v a k ia C z e c h R e p u b li c A u s tr ia It a ly P o rt u g a l S w it z e rl a n d N e th e rl a n d s H u n g a ry L it h u a n ia T u rk e y S p a in H o n g K o n g J a p a n F in la n d D e n m a rk Ir e la n d B ra z il S lo v e n ia Ic e la n d P o la n d N o rw a y B e lg iu m Is ra e l A u s tr a li a U n it e d K in g d o m S w e d e n F ra n c e M e x ic o C a n a d a U n it e d S ta te s E s to n ia C h il e S in g a p o re In d ia L u x e m b o u rg A v e r a g e ( W e ig h te d ) J it te r ( m s ) Figure 7a Average (Weighted) Jitter Rankings, 2011-2013 2011 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 21 Note: 2013 data not available for Maine, Arizona, South Carolina, Nebraska, Portugal, and Luxembourg; 2012 data not available for Connecticut or District of Columbia. Brazil and India were not comparison countries in the Third IBDR. Data drawn on Dec. 6, 2012 and Dec. 16, 2013. Figure 7c compares U.S. states with the IBDR countries and displays the top and bottom quartiles from 2011 and 2012. Twelve states appear in the top quartile compared to 10 states in the previous year. The number of states in the bottom quartile remains at 8, although many of the states in this quartile have changed. Similar to the latency data, New Jersey and Idaho have substantial changes from 2011 to 2012, with Idaho increasing from 25.82 ms to 84.32 ms and New Jersey decreasing from 74.40 ms to 15.77 ms. Data for all U.S. states and IBDR countries is available in Appendix F Table 8b. A r k a n s a s B u lg a ri a L it h u a n ia G re e c e K o re a W is c o n s in M is s o u r i N e w Z e a la n d C o lo r a d o C z e c h R e p u b li c It a ly G e rm a n y O r e g o n V ir g in ia A la b a m a F lo r id a Ir e la n d N e w J e r s e y B e lg iu m O h io N e w Y o r k In d ia I d a h o L o u is ia n a C h il e F ra n c e S in g a p o re C a li fo r n ia C a n a d a K a n s a s M a r y la n d T e n n e s s e e E s to n ia M a s s a c h u s e tt s S w it z e rl a n d A r k a n s a s B u lg a ri a F in la n d K o re a G re e c e N e w J e r s e y S lo v a k ia H u n g a ry N e w Z e a la n d G e rm a n y It a ly M e x ic o B ra z il F lo r id a L it h u a n ia F ra n c e C a li fo r n ia C h il e I d a h o C a n a d a S in g a p o re B e lg iu m L o u is ia n a N e w Y o r k M ic h ig a n S w e d e n O h io M a s s a c h u s e tt s W is c o n s in K a n s a s A la b a m a 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 A v e r a g e ( W e ig h te d ) J it te r ( M s ) Figure 7b Country and US StateAverage Weighted Jitter Rankings (2012-2013): Top and Bottom Quartiles 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 22 Note: 2011 quality data is not available for Luxembourg. Brazil and India were not comparison countries in the Third IBDR. c. Packet Loss When packets of data traveling 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, are imperfect. Figure 8a shows the average weighted percent packet loss from 2011-2013 for the 40 IBDR countries. Packet loss decreased for most countries in 2012, including the United States. In 2012, packet loss in the United States was 2.22 percent, down from 3.40 percent in 2011. The countries with the greatest improvement (fewer packets lost) in 2012 were Austria and Ireland, while Brazil saw the largest increase in percent packet loss. Packet loss decreased again for the United States in 2013. The United States saw its ranking improve from 22nd (of 38 countries) to fifth (of 40 countries), reflecting a 0.83 percentage point decrease in percent packet loss (to 1.39 percent). The countries with the greatest improvement in 2013 were Estonia and Finland, while Ireland experienced the largest increase in percent packet loss. Complete data can be found in Appendix F Table 9a. A r k a n s a s N e w J e r s e y M a in e A r iz o n a S o u th C a r o li n a B u lg a ri a N e b r a s k a L it h u a n ia G re e c e V ir g in ia K o re a M in n e s o ta C o lo r a d o W is c o n s in T e n n e s s e e N e w Z e a la n d O r e g o n C z e c h R e p u b li c W a s h in g to n Ir e la n d P o rt u g a l N e w Y o r k L o u is ia n a In d ia K a n s a s C h il e B e lg iu m F ra n c e S in g a p o re C a li fo r n ia C a n a d a M a r y la n d E s to n ia M a s s a c h u s e tt s L u x e m b o u rg I d a h o 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 A v e r a g e ( W e ig h te d ) J it te r ( m s ) Figure 7c Country and US State Average (Weighted) Jitter Rankings, 2011 and 2012 (Top and Bottom Quartiles) 2012 2011 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 23 Note: 2011 quality data is not available for Luxembourg. Brazil and India were not comparison countries in the Third IBDR. Iceland and Japan were new additions in 2013. Data drawn on Dec. 6, 2012 and Dec. 16, 2013. In Figure 8b, U.S. states are compared to the IBDR countries. In Figure 8b, we plot the top and bottom quartiles of average (weighted) percent packet loss for countries and U.S. states for 2012 and 2013. Idaho saw substantial improvement in 2012 with fewer packet losses and joined six other states in the top quartile, one more than the previous year. The number of U.S. states in the bottom quartile increased as well, rising from five to six in 2012. The number of states in the top quartile remained[ at seven in 2013, while the number of states in the bottom quartile returned to five. Of the U.S. States, Alabama made the greatest improvement in 2013, moving from 5.45 percent packet loss to 0.20 percent packet loss. Data for IBDR countries and all states which reported data are presented in Appendix F Table 9b. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 K o re a H o n g K o n g Ic e la n d L it h u a n ia U n it e d S ta te s S lo v e n ia S lo v a k ia D e n m a rk C h il e J a p a n Is ra e l S w it z e rl a n d C a n a d a N o rw a y It a ly S in g a p o re P o la n d In d ia N e th e rl a n d s U n it e d K in g d o m F ra n c e E s to n ia A u s tr ia C z e c h R e p u b li c A u s tr a li a G e rm a n y S w e d e n P o rt u g a l S p a in L u x e m b o u rg N e w Z e a la n d B ra z il M e x ic o B u lg a ri a H u n g a ry B e lg iu m T u rk e y Ir e la n d F in la n d G re e c e A v e r a g e ( w e ig h te d ) P e r c e n t P a c k e t L o s s Figure 9a Country Average (Weighted) Packet Loss Rankings, 2011 - 2013 2011 2012 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 24 Note: 2013 Quality data was not available for Arizona, Iowa, Israel, Luxembourg, Main, Nebraska, Portugal, and South Carolina. Brazil and India were not comparison countries in the Third IBDR. Data drawn on Dec. 6, 2012 and Dec. 16, 2013. K o re a N e w J e r s e y S w e d e n L it h u a n ia K e n tu c k y S lo v e n ia H o n g K o n g S lo v a k ia D e n m a rk I d a h o O r e g o n C a li fo r n ia U n it e d K in g d o m O h io M ic h ig a n G e o r g ia K a n s a s N e th e rl a n d s H u n g a ry T e x a s V ir g in ia M is s o u r i M e x ic o C z e c h R e p u b li c B ra z il E s to n ia T u rk e y A la b a m a G re e c e F in la n d A la b a m a K e n tu c k y A r k a n s a s S w it z e rl a n d S lo v a k ia L it h u a n ia O h io H o n g K o n g S w e d e n K o re a S lo v e n ia A u s tr ia V ir g in ia I n d ia n a M ic h ig a n F ra n c e A u s tr a li a T e x a s G e rm a n y C z e c h R e p u b li c S p a in L o u is ia n a T u rk e y T e n n e s s e e M a r y la n d F in la n d H u n g a ry B e lg iu m B ra z il G re e c e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A v e r a g e ( W e ig h te d ) P e r c e n t P a c k e t L o s s 2012 2013 Figure 8b Country and US State Average Weighted Packet Loss Rankings (2012-2013): Top and Bottom Quartiles Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 25 SPEED DATA TABLES Appendix F Table 1a Average (Weighted) Actual Download Speeds (2012-2013): All Available Data 2012 Data 2013 Data Country Average Download Speed (Mbps) Rank Country Average Download Speed (Mbps) Rank Lithuania 35.42 1 Luxembourg 42.97 1 Korea 33.63 2 Singapore 42.52 2 Hong Kong 29.73 3 Lithuania 41.72 3 Singapore 29.51 4 Sweden 39.85 4 Luxembourg 27.59 5 Korea 39.28 5 Sweden 27.58 6 Japan 37.42 6 Netherlands 27.31 7 Netherlands 37.02 7 Bulgaria 25.64 8 Switzerland 36.01 8 Japan 24.27 9 Hong Kong 35.85 9 Iceland 23.86 10 Iceland 33.97 10 Portugal 22.42 11 Finland 30.56 11 Switzerland 21.79 12 Denmark 30.45 12 Denmark 20.54 13 Bulgaria 27.78 13 Belgium 19.4 14 Belgium 26.04 14 Norway 18.84 15 Portugal 25.86 15 Czech Republic 18.82 16 Norway 24.08 16 Finland 18.38 17 France 23.66 17 Slovakia 17.87 18 Estonia 23.40 18 Estonia 17.59 19 UK 23.29 19 Germany 17.5 20 Czech Republic 23.18 20 Hungary 17.41 21 Slovakia 23.05 21 United Kingdom 16.87 22 Hungary 22.32 22 France 15.71 23 Austria 22.19 23 Austria 15.22 24 Germany 21.73 24 United States 14.5 25 Ireland 19.28 25 Canada 13.88 26 United States 18.67 26 Spain 13 27 Canada 18.06 27 Ireland 11.93 28 Spain 17.43 28 Poland 11.81 29 Israel 17.19 29 Slovenia 11.57 30 Poland 15.35 30 Australia 11.39 31 Slovenia 15.00 31 Israel 10.16 32 New Zealand 14.53 32 New Zealand 10.07 33 Australia 13.51 33 Chile 8.61 34 Mexico 10.16 34 Brazil 6.8 35 Chile 10.13 35 Turkey 6.38 36 Brazil 8.35 36 Greece 6.07 37 Turkey 8.34 37 Mexico 5.98 38 Greece 7.53 38 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 26 Italy 5.6 39 Italy 6.87 39 India 2.27 40 India 3.33 40 Appendix F Table 1b Median (Weighted) Download Speed (2012): All Available Data Above 4 Mbps Country 2013 Median Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Rank Country 2012 Median Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Rank Singapore 41.06 1 Singapore 29.7 4 Switzerland 38.63 2 Switzerland 20.71 12 Japan 37.57 3 Japan 21.8 11 Netherlands 36.93 4 Netherlands 26.33 6 Lithuania 36.34 5 Lithuania 35.48 2 Finland 35.56 6 Finland 18.13 19 Sweden 35.46 7 Sweden 25.44 8 Korea 35.30 8 Korea 34.51 3 Iceland 34.77 9 Iceland 22.96 10 Luxembourg 34.77 10 Luxembourg 27.05 5 Denmark 29.89 11 Denmark 20.07 13 Bulgaria 29.61 12 Bulgaria 25.18 9 Hong Kong 28.52 13 Hong Kong 43.44 1 Portugal 28.04 14 Portugal 25.78 7 Belgium 25.92 15 Belgium 19.56 15 Austria 25.53 16 Austria 18.07 20 Slovakia 24.74 17 Slovakia 19.68 14 Norway 23.98 18 Norway 19.25 17 Hungary 22.45 19 Hungary 18.18 18 United Kingdom 22.35 20 United Kingdom 17.86 21 Ireland 22.24 21 Ireland 14.23 26 Germany 21.85 22 Germany 16.86 23 Czech Republic 21.61 23 Czech Republic 19.33 16 France 20.69 24 France 16.99 22 Estonia 19.56 25 Estonia 14.81 24 United States 18.43 26 United States 14.35 25 Canada 18.34 27 Canada 13.87 27 Poland 16.51 28 Poland 13.15 29 Spain 16.06 29 Spain 13.53 28 Israel 15.76 30 Israel 9.76 33 Slovenia 14.02 31 Slovenia 12.47 30 New Zealand 12.97 32 New Zealand 9.94 32 Mexico 11.79 33 Mexico 7.62 36 Australia 11.19 34 Australia 11.13 31 Chile 10.09 35 Chile 8.73 34 Turkey 9.28 36 Turkey 7.13 37 Brazil 8.50 37 Brazil 7.81 35 Greece 7.49 38 Greece 6.15 38 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 27 Italy 6.17 39 Italy 5.61 39 India 2.90 40 India 4.23 40 Appendix F Table 1c Percent Change in Average (Weighted) Download Speed, 2012-2013 Country Upper Bound Lower Bound Percent Change Hong Kong 89.5 76.1 82.8 Mexico 74.1 70.1 72.1 Israel 74.1 65.0 69.5 Switzerland 65.1 59.1 62.1 Japan 66.7 53.5 60.1 Ireland 65.4 53.2 59.3 Finland 61.5 55.5 58.5 France 51.8 48.7 50.3 Luxembourg 56.8 40.0 48.4 Denmark 51.3 45.2 48.2 India 48.8 43.4 46.1 Austria 48.3 43.5 45.9 Iceland 59.4 32.3 45.9 New Zealand 53.0 37.2 45.1 Sweden 45.1 39.3 42.2 Singapore 60.9 19.9 40.4 Belgium 41.1 38.2 39.6 United Kingdom 37.6 35.3 36.5 Netherlands 36.3 34.4 35.4 Spain 34.9 30.5 32.7 Turkey 33.2 28.7 31.0 Canada 32.1 29.3 30.7 Slovenia 33.7 26.5 30.1 Slovakia 32.9 25.8 29.4 Estonia 34.5 24.1 29.3 United States 28.8 27.9 28.3 Norway 29.7 25.7 27.7 Hungary 28.5 23.9 26.2 Czech Republic 27.5 22.4 24.9 Poland 26.6 22.9 24.7 Greece 25.2 21.5 23.4 Germany 24.2 22.2 23.2 Brazil 24.2 22.0 23.1 Italy 21.7 20.5 21.1 Lithuania 22.3 13.2 17.7 Chile 22.3 12.5 17.4 Australia 19.0 14.7 16.9 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 28 Portugal 16.6 12.3 14.5 Korea 14.5 9.4 11.9 Bulgaria 10.7 7.0 8.8 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 29 Appendix F Table 2 Average (Weighted) Download Speeds (2012-2013): Non-US Capital Cities & US State Capitals and Washington, D.C. Country City 2013 Average Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Rank 2012 Average Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Rank Lithuania Vilnius 50.73 1 39.80 1 France Paris 44.86 2 29.82 4 Singapore Singapore 42.52 3 29.66 5 Luxembourg Luxemburg 39.48 4 22.00 15 Korea Seoul 39.44 5 33.24 2 Switzerland Bern 37.39 6 22.07 14 Japan Tokyo 37.09 7 20.49 21 Iceland Reykjavík 34.75 8 24.64 9 Finland Helsinki 34.71 9 24.45 11 Netherlands Amsterdam 33.51 10 25.08 8 Bulgaria Sofia 32.80 11 31.75 3 Hong Kong Hong Kong 32.56 12 26.81 6 Sweden Stockholm 31.93 13 24.63 10 Portugal Lisbon 31.21 14 25.35 7 Denmark Copenhagen 31.11 15 20.80 19 United States Dover 31.08 16 22.83 12 United States Trenton 30.85 17 21.95 16 Norway Oslo 28.56 18 20.67 20 United States Annapolis 28.12 19 20.89 18 United States Bismarck 27.83 20 21.90 17 Austria Vienna 27.83 21 18.14 30 Slovakia Bratislava 26.46 22 19.51 23 United States Olympia 26.45 23 19.07 25 Hungary Budapest 24.29 24 18.72 26 Czech Republic Prague 24.27 25 19.12 24 United States Harrisburg 23.81 26 18.15 29 United States Richmond 23.80 27 18.59 28 Estonia Tallinn 23.00 28 17.31 31 United States Salem 22.78 29 15.72 39 Spain Madrid 22.62 30 14.41 44 Ireland Dublin 22.43 31 13.43 49 United States Carson City 22.17 32 22.35 13 Germany Berlin 22.12 33 19.53 22 United Kingdom London 21.69 34 16.61 34 United States Phoenix 21.45 35 14.76 42 Canada Ottawa 21.34 36 14.04 47 United States Providence 21.32 37 15.85 37 United States Concord 21.31 38 16.64 33 United States Tallahassee 20.67 39 17.18 32 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 30 Country City 2013 Average Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Rank 2012 Average Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Rank United States Saint Paul 20.35 40 16.10 36 United States Nashville 19.89 41 15.25 41 United States Madison 19.76 42 15.67 40 United States Santa Fe 19.72 43 10.20 76 United States Baton Rouge 19.24 44 14.46 43 United States Atlanta 19.04 45 13.21 50 United States Montgomery 18.82 46 16.60 35 United States Salt Lake City 18.31 47 14.15 46 United States Denver 18.22 48 12.54 57 United States Pierre 17.85 49 18.63 27 United States DC 17.76 50 11.50 68 United States Washington, D.C. 17.76 51 11.48 69 New Zealand Wellington 17.63 52 12.62 56 United States Jefferson City 17.17 53 15.82 38 United States Springfield 16.99 54 12.83 52 United States Hartford 16.97 55 11.38 70 Poland Warsaw 16.73 56 12.06 59 United States Boston 16.35 57 10.46 75 United States Lansing 16.00 58 12.07 58 United States Albany 15.91 59 14.38 45 United States Jackson 15.83 60 11.70 65 United States Austin 15.45 61 13.49 48 Belgium Brussels 15.38 62 11.88 62 United States Indianapolis 15.33 63 11.51 67 United States Sacramento 15.29 64 10.85 73 United States Little Rock 15.16 65 10.91 72 United States Oklahoma City 15.02 66 12.70 54 United States Des Moines 14.69 67 11.73 64 United States Honolulu 14.46 68 12.01 60 United States Raleigh 14.35 69 12.72 53 Slovenia Ljubljana 14.34 70 12.68 55 United States Columbus 14.10 71 11.59 66 United States Topeka 14.04 72 11.27 71 United States Boise 13.91 73 10.57 74 Australia Canberra 13.88 74 7.26 85 United States Columbia 13.75 75 11.76 63 Israel Jerusalem 13.64 76 8.63 80 United States Augusta 13.60 77 13.02 51 Mexico Mexico 13.20 78 7.65 83 United States Charleston 12.41 79 8.31 81 United States Cheyenne 11.90 80 11.91 61 United States Helena 10.99 81 8.67 79 United States Lincoln 10.96 82 9.72 77 Chile Santiago 10.61 83 8.68 78 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 31 Country City 2013 Average Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Rank 2012 Average Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Rank Brazil Brasília 10.15 84 8.26 82 United States Montpelier 10.15 85 7.10 86 Turkey Ankara 9.49 86 6.72 87 United States Frankfort 8.60 87 7.41 84 Greece Athens 7.59 88 6.23 88 Italy Rome 7.30 89 6.03 89 India New Delhi 3.02 90 2.46 90 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 32 Appendix F Table 3a Population Strata for Non-US Cities (2011-2013) (Based on City Population and Ookla Data) Strata No. of Cities in Stratum Proportion (%) Very Small Cities Less than 25,000 inhabitants 9,700 57.3% Small Cities Greater than or equal to 25,000, but less than 50,000 inhabitants 2,704 16.0% Medium Cities Greater than or equal to 50,000, but less than 100,000 inhabitants 3,441 20.3% Large Cities Greater than 100,000 inhabitants 1,085 6.4% Total 16,930 Appendix F Table 3b Population Strata for Non-US Cities (2011-2013) (Based on City Population and Ookla Data) Strata No. of Cities in Stratum Proportion (%) Very Small Cities Less than 25,000 inhabitants 911 34.9% Small Cities Greater than or equal to 25,000, but less than 50,000 inhabitants 916 35.1% Medium Cities Greater than or equal to 50,000, but less than 100,000 inhabitants 500 19.2% Large Cities Greater than 100,000 inhabitants 283 10.8% Total 2,610 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 33 Appendix F Table 3c Average (Weighted) Download Speeds by Country (2012) (Based on stratified sampling) Country 2013 Average (Weighted) Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Rank 2012 Average (Weighted) Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Rank Luxembourg 47.32 1 24.43 8 Singapore 42.52 2 29.51 4 Sweden 41.53 3 29.26 5 Korea 39.43 4 32.68 2 Switzerland 38.70 5 22.54 10 Netherlands 38.54 6 27.03 7 Japan 37.13 7 28.37 6 Hong Kong 35.75 8 29.64 3 Belgium 30.42 9 20.91 13 Denmark 30.29 10 21.21 12 Lithuania 28.35 11 32.90 1 Finland 27.57 12 15.95 20 Portugal 26.08 13 22.74 9 Bulgaria 24.40 14 22.50 11 Iceland 22.83 15 19.78 14 United Kingdom 22.39 16 15.77 21 Czech Republic 22.18 17 17.99 15 Slovakia 21.91 18 16.70 16 Estonia 21.70 19 16.32 18 Germany 21.30 20 15.17 22 Norway 20.89 21 16.38 17 Hungary 20.44 22 15.98 19 France 19.60 23 15.11 23 Canada 19.58 24 15.06 24 United States 19.55 25 14.70 26 Israel 19.11 26 10.67 31 Ireland 18.37 27 10.17 32 Poland 18.14 28 13.27 27 Austria 16.95 29 11.53 30 Spain 15.59 30 12.62 29 Australia 13.77 31 14.97 25 Slovenia 12.74 32 12.67 28 New Zealand 12.53 33 8.29 33 Chile 9.36 34 7.89 34 Brazil 8.76 35 6.85 35 Italy 6.83 36 5.53 37 Turkey 3.80 37 3.47 38 Mexico 3.22 38 3.27 39 India 2.74 39 2.52 40 Greece N/A 6.48 36 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 34 Appendix F Table 3d Average (Weighted) Download Speed by US States and International Countries: 2012-2013, Based on stratified sampling using 2011 cities Country 2013 Average Weighted Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Rank 2012 Average Weighted Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Rank Luxembourg 47.32 1 24.43 8 Singapore 42.52 2 29.51 4 Sweden 41.53 3 29.26 5 Korea 39.43 4 32.68 2 Switzerland 38.70 5 22.54 10 Netherlands 38.54 6 27.03 7 Japan 37.13 7 28.37 6 Hong Kong 35.75 8 29.64 3 Belgium 30.42 9 20.91 13 Denmark 30.29 10 21.21 12 Lithuania 28.35 11 32.90 1 Finland 27.57 12 15.95 35 Delaware 26.54 13 19.77 15 Portugal 26.08 14 22.74 9 New Jersey 26.06 15 19.44 17 Maryland 25.68 16 19.12 18 Bulgaria 24.40 17 22.50 11 Virginia 23.60 18 17.64 21 Rhode Island 23.50 19 17.64 22 Massachusetts 23.31 20 18.73 19 Utah 22.91 21 15.97 34 Iceland 22.83 22 19.78 14 Washington 22.75 23 16.06 30 United Kingdom 22.39 24 15.77 37 Czech Republic 22.18 25 17.99 20 Arizona 22.16 26 14.95 46 Slovakia 21.91 27 16.70 24 Florida 21.88 28 16.51 26 Estonia 21.70 29 16.32 28 Nevada 21.54 30 15.98 33 New York 21.41 31 15.86 36 Germany 21.30 32 15.17 41 Minnesota 21.25 33 17.52 23 New Hampshire 21.12 34 16.08 29 Norway 20.89 35 16.38 27 Kansas 20.81 36 13.38 57 Oregon 20.73 37 15.71 38 South Dakota 20.61 38 19.49 16 Hungary 20.44 39 15.98 32 Connecticut 20.37 40 16.01 31 Pennsylvania 20.04 41 14.70 47 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 35 Country 2013 Average Weighted Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Rank 2012 Average Weighted Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Rank Colorado 19.77 42 14.06 52 France 19.60 43 15.11 43 Canada 19.58 44 15.06 44 Michigan 19.52 45 14.42 50 North Dakota 19.20 46 16.61 25 Israel 19.11 47 10.67 75 Tennessee 19.08 48 15.39 40 Illinois 18.73 49 13.87 53 Ireland 18.37 50 10.17 77 Indiana 18.16 51 13.56 55 Poland 18.14 52 13.27 58 Nebraska 18.07 53 12.89 61 California 18.03 54 14.44 48 Vermont 17.70 55 11.65 67 Georgia 17.46 56 14.42 49 New Mexico 17.37 57 11.77 66 Louisiana 17.24 58 13.40 56 Wisconsin 16.96 59 15.13 42 Austria 16.95 60 11.53 70 South Carolina 16.81 61 14.25 51 West Virginia 16.74 62 11.02 73 Alabama 16.70 63 15.45 39 Missouri 16.67 64 11.49 71 Iowa 16.63 65 12.75 62 Hawaii 16.04 66 13.66 54 Arkansas 15.78 67 13.09 59 Spain 15.59 68 12.62 64 Mississippi 15.59 69 11.60 68 Texas 14.74 70 12.11 65 North Carolina 14.65 71 13.06 60 Idaho 14.50 72 9.74 79 Oklahoma 14.12 73 11.56 69 Ohio 14.00 74 11.46 72 Australia 13.77 75 14.97 45 Slovenia 12.74 76 12.67 63 Maine 12.62 77 10.55 76 New Zealand 12.53 78 8.29 81 Kentucky 11.63 79 10.90 74 Wyoming 11.21 80 9.69 80 Montana 10.07 81 9.82 78 Chile 9.36 82 7.89 82 Brazil 8.76 83 6.85 83 Alaska 8.07 84 5.87 84 Italy 6.83 85 5.53 85 Turkey 3.80 86 3.47 86 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 36 Country 2013 Average Weighted Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Rank 2012 Average Weighted Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Rank Mexico 3.22 87 3.27 87 India 2.74 88 2.52 88 Appendix F Table 4a Average Download Speed (2012-2013) in Very Small Cities for a Country/State (Based on stratified sampling using 2011 cities) Country 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Download Speed (Mbps) Country 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Download Speed (Mbps) Luxembourg 47.3 24.4 Israel 19.1 10.7 Sweden 39.8 27.7 Alabama 18.8 18.3 Japan 37.7 25.5 Slovakia 18.7 16.2 Switzerland 37.1 23.9 South Carolina 18.3 17.9 Netherlands 37.0 25.9 Georgia 18.3 14.2 Hong Kong 34.0 28.6 Indiana 17.9 13.6 Korea 33.7 30.9 Missouri 17.8 12.6 Lithuania 31.6 27.9 California 17.7 15.6 Denmark 30.3 21.8 South Dakota 17.5 16.0 Delaware 30.1 22.0 Idaho 17.4 6.7 Belgium 29.5 20.5 Michigan 17.2 12.4 Maryland 28.9 21.0 Kansas 17.2 14.1 New Jersey 27.9 20.1 Hungary 17.1 11.7 Portugal 26.0 23.2 Austria 16.9 11.5 Massachusetts 25.8 20.4 Hawaii 16.9 14.7 Bulgaria 25.7 23.8 Vermont 16.8 12.5 Virginia 25.0 18.8 Wisconsin 16.6 16.4 Finland 24.6 15.5 Spain 15.4 12.5 Arizona 24.1 16.2 Oklahoma 15.3 13.2 Florida 22.8 16.8 Mississippi 15.3 11.2 Pennsylvania 22.4 17.6 Colorado 15.1 12.7 Czech Republic 22.0 17.5 North Carolina 15.1 14.6 Utah 21.9 16.9 Texas 14.8 12.5 Estonia 21.7 16.3 Slovenia 14.3 12.7 Oregon 21.5 17.7 West Virginia 14.1 9.8 Nebraska 21.4 16.6 Maine 14.0 12.2 Nevada 21.3 16.2 Australia 13.7 14.9 Germany 21.0 14.3 Ohio 13.4 11.7 Washington 21.0 15.7 Kentucky 12.8 11.1 Iceland 20.9 17.3 Iowa 12.4 10.7 Rhode Island 20.6 15.9 North Dakota 11.5 10.3 New Hampshire 20.3 17.4 Arkansas 11.0 10.0 Minnesota 20.2 17.5 Ireland 10.9 6.5 Norway 20.2 15.9 Montana 10.3 10.3 France 20.2 13.4 Chile 9.9 8.4 Poland 20.2 12.0 Wyoming 8.9 7.1 Canada 20.0 15.4 Brazil 8.8 6.8 Illinois 19.7 14.8 Alaska 5.9 4.6 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 37 Connecticut 19.7 15.3 Mexico 3.2 3.2 Louisiana 19.4 15.2 Turkey 3.0 3.1 New York 19.3 15.2 India 2.8 2.5 Tennessee 19.2 16.2 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 38 Appendix F Table 4b Average Download Speed (2012-2013) in Small Cities for a Country/State (Based on stratified sampling using 2011 cities) Country 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Download Speed (Mbps) Country 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Download Speed (Mbps) Lithuania 44.5 33.7 Pennsylvania 18.8 14.2 Switzerland 42.3 27.3 West Virginia 18.8 14.2 Netherlands 40.8 28.8 Indiana 18.3 13.7 Sweden 38.9 30.6 Illinois 18.3 13.9 Belgium 38.8 25.7 California 18.2 14.5 Delaware 29.0 21.1 Iowa 18.0 14.5 Denmark 27.5 18.0 Georgia 17.4 13.9 Portugal 27.3 22.1 Vermont 16.9 11.0 Ireland 27.2 15.9 Mississippi 16.7 12.6 New Jersey 26.7 19.8 Kansas 16.7 12.8 Rhode Island 26.3 19.9 South Carolina 16.3 14.5 South Dakota 26.0 24.0 Louisiana 16.1 13.8 Iceland 25.5 23.2 Missouri 15.8 13.3 Massachusetts 24.9 19.1 Arkansas 15.7 13.2 Maryland 24.3 17.6 Poland 15.6 13.9 Virginia 23.7 17.5 Hawaii 15.2 12.1 North Dakota 23.6 21.0 Spain 15.0 11.9 Connecticut 23.5 18.7 North Carolina 14.6 12.6 Washington 23.4 17.5 Alabama 14.6 11.8 Slovakia 22.9 17.5 Texas 14.4 11.3 Utah 22.5 15.7 Ohio 13.6 11.3 Hungary 22.4 18.5 Idaho 13.0 9.5 New York 22.3 18.9 Kentucky 13.0 10.8 Finland 21.9 13.1 New Mexico 12.6 9.1 New Hampshire 21.5 14.4 Oklahoma 12.3 9.4 Czech Republic 21.3 17.3 Nebraska 12.1 11.3 Oregon 21.1 15.6 Wyoming 11.8 10.1 Bulgaria 20.5 20.7 Maine 11.2 8.6 Germany 20.5 15.3 Montana 9.5 9.0 Minnesota 20.2 17.9 France 8.3 6.4 Michigan 20.2 15.9 Australia 6.3 17.0 Arizona 20.2 13.8 Alaska 5.6 4.3 Tennessee 20.0 16.3 Nevada 4.3 3.5 Florida 19.7 15.7 Turkey 3.8 4.4 Colorado 18.9 14.5 Chile 2.2 2.4 Wisconsin 18.8 15.7 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 39 Appendix F Table 4c Average Download Speed (2012-2013) in Medium Cities for a Country/State (Based on stratified sampling using 2011 cities) Country 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Download Speed (Mbps) Country 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Download Speed (Mbps) Hong Kong 59.1 38.0 Tennessee 19.0 15.5 Sweden 48.5 34.4 Pennsylvania 18.5 13.6 Netherlands 43.1 31.7 Indiana 18.5 14.8 Switzerland 36.2 25.3 Arkansas 18.1 14.9 Germany 34.4 18.3 Illinois 18.0 12.9 Portugal 29.8 24.2 Spain 17.5 16.8 Hungary 27.4 20.9 Michigan 17.2 14.5 Slovakia 27.1 16.4 Georgia 17.2 15.4 North Dakota 26.5 23.2 Kansas 17.2 15.3 Maryland 26.4 19.9 California 17.1 13.1 New Jersey 25.4 19.5 Louisiana 16.7 11.0 Bulgaria 25.1 22.8 New Mexico 16.6 12.0 Massachusetts 24.8 18.8 Missouri 16.5 13.3 Finland 24.6 14.6 Iowa 16.3 12.7 Delaware 23.7 18.4 Nevada 15.9 15.6 New Hampshire 23.2 17.9 Idaho 15.4 10.1 United Kingdom 23.1 15.8 Texas 15.1 12.0 Utah 23.1 17.0 North Carolina 15.0 13.4 Japan 23.1 25.2 South Carolina 14.7 11.0 Rhode Island 22.9 17.8 Wisconsin 14.6 14.6 Arizona 22.7 14.3 Ohio 14.5 12.5 New York 22.3 19.2 Mississippi 14.3 10.7 Colorado 22.3 16.3 Poland 14.0 10.4 Washington 22.2 16.6 Oklahoma 13.9 11.1 Florida 22.1 17.6 Maine 12.8 11.9 Minnesota 21.3 17.1 New Zealand 12.5 8.3 Oregon 20.8 15.5 Montana 11.0 9.2 South Dakota 20.6 20.2 Wyoming 10.9 10.4 Connecticut 20.5 15.7 Kentucky 8.1 9.4 Czech Republic 20.1 15.7 France 7.3 6.8 Alabama 19.6 16.9 Italy 6.8 5.5 Virginia 19.4 13.4 Turkey 4.2 3.5 *Vermont Not Included Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 40 Appendix F Table 4d Average Download Speed (2012-2013) in Large Cities for a Country/State (Based on stratified sampling using 2011 cities) Country 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Download Speed (Mbps) Country 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) 2012 Download Speed (Mbps) Hong Kong 47.8 34.8 Connecticut 19.5 14.3 Sweden 42.3 31.4 California 18.9 15.6 Korea 39.6 33.1 Tennessee 18.7 14.5 Japan 38.8 32.1 Oregon 18.7 13.5 Finland 36.1 17.5 New Mexico 18.7 12.3 Lithuania 34.6 35.4 Georgia 18.1 14.2 France 34.0 19.5 Illinois 17.8 13.6 Switzerland 32.2 15.0 Alabama 16.8 14.6 Denmark 30.6 19.8 Missouri 16.3 10.7 Maryland 28.6 21.6 Louisiana 16.2 12.0 Utah 26.2 13.7 Canada 15.8 12.2 Hungary 26.0 23.2 North Dakota 15.7 12.6 Czech Republic 26.0 22.4 South Carolina 15.3 12.4 Bulgaria 25.3 22.0 New Hampshire 15.1 11.8 Virginia 24.5 18.2 Iowa 15.1 12.0 Florida 24.1 16.0 Indiana 14.6 11.1 Norway 23.8 18.3 Oklahoma 14.5 12.3 New Jersey 23.8 17.9 Spain 14.4 11.7 Portugal 23.2 20.7 North Carolina 13.9 12.3 Washington 22.9 15.3 Texas 13.6 11.5 Kansas 22.8 13.0 Ohio 13.5 11.0 Arizona 22.5 15.3 Wisconsin 12.7 11.0 Nebraska 22.2 13.4 Vermont 12.5 10.4 Nevada 22.1 16.3 West Virginia 11.9 8.1 South Dakota 21.7 20.3 Rhode Island 11.2 6.1 Massachusetts 21.0 15.5 Montana 9.2 11.1 Poland 21.0 16.7 Kentucky 9.2 7.8 Germany 20.7 19.2 Alaska 8.7 6.3 Michigan 20.1 14.3 Chile 8.2 6.7 Colorado 20.1 13.8 Arkansas 3.7 3.4 New York 19.9 14.5 India 1.8 1.6 Pennsylvania 19.6 14.1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 41 Appendix F Table 5 Shortfall Index (%), 2011-2013 Country Median Shortfall 2011 Median Shortfall 2012 Median Shortfall 2013 Hungary 1.36 -0.45 -0.99 Lithuania 1.02 0.23 1.15 Slovakia 0.41 0.44 1.28 Israel 0.45 0.77 2.00 Switzerland 3.24 2.72 2.46 Brazil 5.13 4.92 3.98 Chile 4.99 3.56 4.05 Slovenia 3.66 3.93 4.05 Poland 2.62 3.29 4.75 Bulgaria 4.41 4.22 5.12 Czech Republic 6.97 5.55 5.64 Norway 5.06 4.99 5.74 United States 6.80 6.89 7.15 Canada 11.72 11.43 7.20 Estonia 6.93 8.39 7.50 Denmark 11.73 11.02 7.82 Mexico 13.77 12.44 8.38 Finland 14.17 13.39 13.37 Sweden 17.75 14.22 13.99 Singapore 17.15 17.20 14.28 Turkey 14.87 14.62 14.52 Hong Kong 14.14 14.96 14.77 Luxembourg 18.10 13.83 15.06 Germany 18.19 20.06 18.51 Spain 16.93 17.57 19.22 India 16.79 18.43 19.60 Portugal 19.20 17.25 19.83 New Zealand 28.79 23.91 20.79 Belgium 18.17 20.23 22.47 Netherlands 16.41 17.25 23.23 United Kingdom 32.83 26.62 24.59 Iceland 29.34 31.88 25.02 Austria 22.26 22.98 25.12 Ireland 24.03 28.03 33.79 Italy 31.81 33.42 34.85 Australia 37.87 36.14 36.11 France 40.57 39.54 38.99 Greece 55.77 55.93 55.75 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 42 Appendix F Table 6 Ookla Actual and Advertised Average Download Speeds, 2011-2013 2013 2012 2011 Country Actual Advertised Actual Advertised Actual Advertised Hong Kong 51.0 59.9 39.3 46.1 35.1 41.0 Luxembourg 42.8 50.4 25.3 29.4 11.3 14.3 Singapore 42.0 49.0 29.7 35.9 17.3 21.0 Sweden 40.1 46.6 28.5 33.3 27.9 33.4 Japan 39.7 32.2 22.5 Korea 38.5 33.6 30.7 Netherlands 36.6 47.7 26.5 32.0 23.6 28.0 Switzerland 36.1 37.1 23.6 24.2 21.0 21.7 Lithuania 33.9 34.3 31.7 31.7 29.2 29.5 Belgium 31.8 41.0 22.1 27.7 19.1 23.0 Denmark 28.0 30.4 19.7 22.2 18.8 21.2 Iceland 27.0 36.1 19.7 29.0 15.9 22.2 Bulgaria 24.1 25.4 21.7 22.6 19.2 20.1 Portugal 23.7 29.5 20.2 24.4 13.7 16.8 Finland 22.4 25.9 13.1 15.1 10.7 12.4 Estonia 21.9 23.7 16.9 18.5 14.8 15.9 Czech Republic 20.8 22.0 16.9 17.9 14.9 16.1 Norway 20.3 21.5 16.5 17.4 12.2 12.8 Israel 19.8 20.2 10.7 10.8 7.0 7.0 United Kingdom 19.5 25.8 13.2 18.1 8.8 12.5 Hungary 18.5 18.3 13.9 13.9 11.6 11.6 Germany 18.5 22.7 14.6 18.3 13.3 16.4 Slovakia 18.3 18.6 15.0 15.0 13.7 13.7 United States 17.9 19.3 14.4 15.5 11.9 12.8 Ireland 15.5 23.4 9.7 13.4 6.4 8.4 Slovenia 15.4 16.1 9.7 10.1 8.0 8.3 Spain 14.9 18.5 11.9 14.4 10.9 13.2 Australia 14.4 22.6 12.2 19.2 9.9 16.0 Canada 14.1 15.2 11.2 12.7 10.1 11.5 Austria 13.7 18.2 9.8 12.7 8.1 10.8 France 13.3 21.7 10.1 16.8 9.7 16.1 New Zealand 13.2 16.7 9.3 12.2 7.8 10.7 Poland 12.8 13.4 9.7 10.1 7.4 7.6 Chile 7.5 7.8 6.7 6.9 5.2 5.4 Greece 6.9 15.7 5.5 12.5 5.3 12.0 Turkey 6.6 7.7 5.0 5.9 4.7 5.5 Mexico 5.8 6.3 3.9 4.4 2.9 3.4 Italy 5.5 8.4 4.8 7.3 4.5 6.6 Brazil 5.0 5.2 4.2 4.4 India 2.2 2.7 1.7 2.1 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 43 Appendix F Table 7a Average (Weighted) Latency by Country (2012-2013) Country 2013 Latency (Ms) 2013 Rank 2012 Latency (Ms) 2012 Rank Korea 45.54 1 46.53 2 Bulgaria 47.22 2 40.77 1 Czech Republic 50.45 3 49.74 3 Switzerland 55.92 4 72.43 18 Portugal 55.96 5 65.44 11 Slovakia 56.50 6 60.93 8 Iceland 57.75 7 N/A Hungary 58.55 8 57.97 4 Lithuania 59.31 9 60.59 6 Netherlands 61.12 10 73.04 19 Hong Kong 63.24 11 58.18 5 Austria 63.36 12 66.88 13 New Zealand 64.65 13 64.01 9 Norway 66.01 14 66.71 12 Germany 66.75 15 73.51 20 Belgium 66.97 16 69.12 15 United Kingdom 68.05 17 64.15 10 Denmark 70.91 18 70.27 17 Finland 73.07 19 60.90 7 Greece 73.45 20 70.10 16 Poland 73.53 21 74.06 22 Italy 75.21 22 73.94 21 Ireland 75.49 23 84.75 31 Brazil 75.68 24 67.52 14 Turkey 75.82 25 83.52 29 Chile 76.15 26 77.97 26 United States 80.33 27 75.49 24 Japan 80.96 28 N/A Israel 81.76 29 91.48 33 Sweden 81.93 30 75.15 23 Australia 82.60 31 81.93 27 Slovenia 85.48 32 91.17 32 Canada 86.03 33 91.94 34 Singapore 86.75 34 76.94 25 Spain 87.79 35 84.40 30 France 95.65 36 100.88 37 Estonia 99.31 37 99.99 36 Mexico 109.70 38 82.28 28 India 114.83 39 97.39 35 Luxembourg 118.71 40 118.71 38 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 44 Appendix F Table 7b Average (Weighted) Latency by US States and International Countries (2012-2013) Country 2013 Latency (Ms) 2013 Rank Country 2012 Latency (Ms) 2012 Rank Bulgaria 37.94 1 Arkansas 36.79 1 New Jersey 37.96 2 Bulgaria 41.80 2 Korea 44.26 3 Korea 46.02 3 Finland 46.64 4 Virginia 48.60 4 Arkansas 49.57 5 Czech Republic 50.02 5 Czech Republic 52.48 6 Florida 56.66 6 Switzerland 55.86 7 Alabama 56.78 7 Hungary 56.92 8 Hungary 57.56 8 Slovakia 57.00 9 Wisconsin 58.68 9 Virginia 57.54 10 Georgia 59.12 10 Austria 59.49 11 Finland 59.50 11 Tennessee 60.94 12 Lithuania 60.26 12 Mexico 60.97 13 Slovakia 61.02 13 Denmark 63.29 14 Hong Kong 61.37 14 Georgia 63.31 15 New Zealand 63.37 15 Oklahoma 63.46 16 United Kingdom 63.54 16 Florida 64.65 17 Missouri 64.22 17 Indiana 64.92 18 Oklahoma 64.40 18 Nevada 65.57 19 Indiana 64.55 19 New Zealand 65.78 20 Colorado 65.81 20 Ireland 69.06 21 Norway 66.15 21 Hong Kong 69.57 22 Nevada 66.72 22 Lithuania 69.82 23 Austria 67.31 23 Greece 70.04 24 Texas 68.28 24 Illinois 70.58 25 Brazil 68.42 25 United Kingdom 70.72 26 Oregon 69.13 26 Texas 72.50 27 Illinois 69.57 27 Italy 73.37 28 Belgium 69.79 28 Brazil 75.13 29 Denmark 70.34 29 Poland 75.59 30 Greece 71.04 30 North Carolina 75.78 31 Switzerland 72.72 31 Pennsylvania 75.89 32 Louisiana 73.30 32 Norway 76.47 33 Netherlands 73.43 33 Maryland 76.62 34 Kentucky 73.63 34 Singapore 78.73 35 Italy 74.15 35 Oregon 79.16 36 Germany 74.26 36 Estonia 79.54 37 North Carolina 74.58 37 Kentucky 79.90 38 Poland 74.84 38 Slovenia 81.80 39 Washington 75.23 39 Minnesota 82.04 40 Sweden 75.38 40 Netherlands 83.41 41 Chile 75.40 41 Colorado 84.00 42 Singapore 76.93 42 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 45 Country 2013 Latency (Ms) 2013 Rank Country 2012 Latency (Ms) 2012 Rank Washington 84.57 43 Minnesota 77.54 43 Chile 84.79 44 Pennsylvania 78.37 44 Germany 84.90 45 New Jersey 78.83 45 New York 85.46 46 New York 79.02 46 Spain 87.22 47 Tennessee 79.32 47 Australia 89.17 48 Mexico 80.67 48 California 89.62 49 Australia 82.27 49 Missouri 90.75 50 Ohio 83.15 50 Louisiana 91.66 51 California 84.10 51 Sweden 91.72 52 Spain 85.57 52 Belgium 92.10 53 Ireland 85.58 53 Kansas 92.85 54 Turkey 86.00 54 Canada 93.91 55 Canada 91.19 55 Wisconsin 96.17 56 Slovenia 91.83 56 India 100.37 57 Michigan 94.87 57 France 103.27 58 Kansas 95.27 58 Turkey 113.52 59 India 96.33 59 Idaho 114.64 60 Estonia 99.63 60 Ohio 130.43 61 France 99.71 61 Massachusetts 136.87 62 Idaho 102.48 62 Michigan 159.45 63 Massachusetts 115.41 63 Alabama 185.32 64 Maryland 129.21 64 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 46 Appendix F Table 8a Average (Weighted) Jitter by Country (2012-2013) Country 2013 Jitter (Ms) 2013 Rank 2012 Jitter (Ms) 2012 Rank Korea 20.67 1 21.86 4 Greece 21.12 2 20.75 3 Germany 21.35 3 23.83 7 Bulgaria 21.64 4 18.40 1 New Zealand 21.84 5 23.00 5 Slovakia 22.72 6 24.98 10 Czech Republic 23.39 7 23.57 6 Austria 24.17 8 25.19 11 Italy 24.34 9 24.14 8 Portugal 25.10 10 33.32 29 Switzerland 25.22 11 32.15 26 Netherlands 25.39 12 31.92 25 Hungary 25.48 13 25.60 13 Lithuania 25.76 14 19.80 2 Turkey 26.62 15 28.24 15 Spain 27.05 16 28.97 17 Hong Kong 27.34 17 25.47 12 Japan 27.53 18 N/A Finland 27.67 19 29.24 18 Denmark 28.61 20 26.54 14 Ireland 29.21 21 33.46 31 Brazil 29.46 22 24.77 9 Slovenia 30.24 23 29.84 19 Iceland 30.62 24 N/A Poland 30.68 25 31.61 23 Norway 31.13 26 28.66 16 Belgium 31.37 27 31.80 24 Israel 31.93 28 31.18 22 Australia 32.45 29 33.20 28 United Kingdom 33.22 30 33.33 30 Sweden 34.21 31 31.10 21 France 36.50 32 38.86 34 Mexico 37.48 33 30.11 20 Canada 38.37 34 41.25 36 United States 39.41 35 32.55 27 Estonia 39.55 36 47.10 37 Chile 39.58 37 39.18 35 Singapore 41.78 38 38.01 33 India 53.67 39 36.67 32 Luxembourg 60.01 40 60.01 38 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 47 Appendix F Table 8b Average (Weighted) Jitter by US States and International Countries (2012-2013) Country 2013 Jitter (Ms) 2013 Rank Country 2012 Jitter (Ms) 2012 Rank Switzerland 11.38 1 Arkansas 15.59 1 Arkansas 11.48 2 Bulgaria 18.80 2 Bulgaria 19.74 3 Lithuania 19.90 3 Finland 20.07 4 Greece 20.74 4 Korea 21.57 5 Korea 21.15 5 Greece 23.10 6 Wisconsin 22.54 6 New Jersey 23.61 7 Missouri 22.73 7 Slovakia 23.80 8 New Zealand 22.82 8 Hungary 26.07 9 Colorado 23.33 9 New Zealand 26.78 10 Czech Republic 23.83 10 Germany 26.93 11 Italy 24.17 11 Italy 26.95 12 Germany 24.22 12 Mexico 27.28 13 Oregon 24.38 13 Brazil 27.40 14 Virginia 24.46 14 Florida 27.84 15 Alabama 24.56 15 Lithuania 27.85 16 Florida 24.57 16 Hong Kong 28.36 17 Oklahoma 25.02 17 Virginia 28.44 18 Slovakia 25.09 18 Czech Republic 29.58 19 Brazil 25.24 19 Ireland 29.68 20 Kentucky 25.47 20 Spain 30.47 21 Austria 25.52 21 Estonia 30.67 22 Hungary 25.62 22 North Carolina 31.33 23 Indiana 25.67 23 Minnesota 31.35 24 Minnesota 26.16 24 Nevada 31.51 25 Nevada 26.35 25 Slovenia 31.72 26 Denmark 26.76 26 Missouri 31.83 27 Hong Kong 26.95 27 Poland 32.39 28 Finland 27.74 28 Austria 32.90 29 Norway 28.35 29 Georgia 33.08 30 Georgia 28.58 30 Tennessee 33.41 31 Texas 28.85 31 United Kingdom 33.50 32 Turkey 29.11 32 Turkey 33.87 33 Spain 29.15 33 Oregon 34.02 34 Slovenia 29.18 34 Texas 34.52 35 Mexico 29.94 35 Colorado 34.92 36 Pennsylvania 30.82 36 Netherlands 35.72 37 North Carolina 31.12 37 Norway 35.79 38 Sweden 31.24 38 Denmark 36.43 39 United Kingdom 31.48 39 Australia 38.27 40 Poland 31.72 40 Maryland 38.37 41 Netherlands 32.06 41 Oklahoma 38.46 42 Switzerland 32.13 42 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 48 Country 2013 Jitter (Ms) 2013 Rank Country 2012 Jitter (Ms) 2012 Rank Pennsylvania 38.48 43 Washington 32.69 43 Kentucky 38.66 44 Michigan 32.94 44 Washington 39.60 45 Australia 33.12 45 Indiana 40.44 46 Illinois 33.15 46 India 42.05 47 Ireland 33.80 47 Illinois 42.80 48 New Jersey 33.93 48 France 43.42 49 Belgium 34.28 49 California 45.47 50 Ohio 34.66 50 Chile 45.83 51 New York 35.69 51 Idaho 46.68 52 India 36.23 52 Canada 47.43 53 Idaho 36.55 53 Singapore 47.63 54 Louisiana 36.79 54 Belgium 49.00 55 Chile 37.50 55 Louisiana 51.24 56 France 37.59 56 New York 51.42 57 Singapore 38.15 57 Michigan 54.89 58 California 38.81 58 Sweden 55.44 59 Canada 40.95 59 Ohio 56.20 60 Kansas 41.49 60 Massachusetts 57.26 61 Maryland 43.68 61 Wisconsin 59.37 62 Tennessee 44.79 62 Kansas 59.57 63 Estonia 46.47 63 Alabama 63.24 64 Massachusetts 47.60 64 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 49 Appendix F Table 9a Average (Weighted) Percent Packet Loss by Country (2012-2013) Country 2013 Percent Packet Loss 2013 Ranking 2012 Percent Packet Loss 2012 Ranking Korea 0.93 1 0.62 1 Hong Kong 1.04 2 1.03 6 Iceland 1.26 3 N/A Lithuania 1.33 4 0.89 3 United States 1.39 5 2.22 23 Slovenia 1.44 6 1.06 7 Slovakia 1.58 7 0.94 5 Denmark 1.72 8 1.10 8 Chile 1.79 9 2.12 21 Japan 1.80 10 N/A Israel 1.83 11 0.90 4 Switzerland 1.86 12 1.62 13 Canada 1.95 13 1.56 12 Norway 2.12 14 1.53 11 Italy 2.27 15 1.80 15 Singapore 2.42 16 1.97 18 Poland 2.42 17 2.06 19 India 2.48 18 1.81 16 Netherlands 2.55 19 3.40 29 United Kingdom 2.62 20 1.47 9 France 2.76 21 2.46 25 Estonia 2.82 22 4.50 36 Austria 2.90 23 1.88 17 Czech Republic 3.03 24 3.87 33 Australia 3.05 25 2.46 26 Germany 3.14 26 2.64 27 Sweden 3.25 27 0.79 2 Portugal 3.49 28 3.47 30 Spain 3.68 29 2.27 24 Luxembourg 3.75 30 3.75 31 New Zealand 3.84 31 2.10 20 Brazil 3.88 32 4.23 34 Mexico 3.91 33 3.81 32 Bulgaria 4.24 34 1.64 14 Hungary 4.25 35 3.21 28 Belgium 4.49 36 2.12 22 Turkey 6.08 37 4.43 35 Ireland 6.97 38 1.52 10 Finland 7.13 39 8.73 38 Greece 10.07 40 8.03 37 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 50 Appendix F Table 9b Average (Weighted) Percent Packet Loss by US States and International Countries (2012- 2013) Country 2013 Percent Packet Loss 2013 Rank Country 2012 Percent Packet Loss 2012 Rank Alabama 0.20 1 Korea 0.62 1 Kentucky 0.22 2 New Jersey 0.73 2 Arkansas 0.22 3 Sweden 0.79 3 Switzerland 0.23 4 Lithuania 0.89 4 Slovakia 0.44 5 Slovakia 0.94 5 Lithuania 0.44 6 Hong Kong 1.03 6 Ohio 0.46 7 Slovenia 1.06 7 Hong Kong 0.69 8 Denmark 1.10 8 Sweden 0.81 9 Idaho 1.24 9 Korea 0.82 10 Oregon 1.45 10 Slovenia 0.82 11 Kentucky 1.45 11 Austria 0.86 12 California 1.45 12 Virginia 0.87 13 United Kingdom 1.47 13 Indiana 0.92 14 Ireland 1.52 14 Michigan 0.94 15 Norway 1.53 15 Georgia 0.95 16 Maryland 1.55 16 Massachusetts 0.99 17 Canada 1.56 17 Minnesota 1.02 18 Illinois 1.58 18 Pennsylvania 1.05 19 Switzerland 1.62 19 Washington 1.05 20 Bulgaria 1.64 20 California 1.10 21 Washington 1.65 21 Estonia 1.12 22 Ohio 1.66 22 Colorado 1.13 23 Pennsylvania 1.66 23 Bulgaria 1.13 24 Michigan 1.68 24 United Kingdom 1.20 25 Arkansas 1.68 25 Denmark 1.20 26 Minnesota 1.79 26 Italy 1.20 27 Italy 1.80 27 Wisconsin 1.22 28 India 1.81 28 Norway 1.23 29 Austria 1.88 29 New Jersey 1.25 30 Massachusetts 1.90 30 Oregon 1.25 31 Oklahoma 1.96 31 Idaho 1.25 32 Singapore 1.97 32 Missouri 1.28 33 Wisconsin 2.01 33 Illinois 1.29 34 Poland 2.06 34 Poland 1.33 35 New Zealand 2.10 35 Nevada 1.36 36 Chile 2.12 36 New Zealand 1.48 37 Belgium 2.12 37 Netherlands 1.54 38 Nevada 2.14 38 India 1.58 39 Virginia 2.19 39 New York 1.64 40 Colorado 2.24 40 Kansas 1.66 41 Spain 2.27 41 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 51 Country 2013 Percent Packet Loss 2013 Rank Country 2012 Percent Packet Loss 2012 Rank Oklahoma 1.75 42 France 2.46 42 Ireland 1.81 43 Australia 2.46 43 Florida 1.82 44 Tennessee 2.52 44 North Carolina 1.86 45 Louisiana 2.52 45 Singapore 1.89 46 Florida 2.63 46 Mexico 1.96 47 Germany 2.64 47 Canada 2.01 48 North Carolina 2.67 48 Chile 2.04 49 Indiana 2.70 49 France 2.06 50 Missouri 2.87 50 Australia 2.06 51 Georgia 3.07 51 Texas 2.09 52 Hungary 3.21 52 Germany 2.16 53 New York 3.38 53 Czech Republic 2.48 54 Netherlands 3.40 54 Spain 2.52 55 Texas 3.54 55 Louisiana 2.70 56 Kansas 3.68 56 Turkey 2.73 57 Mexico 3.81 57 Tennessee 2.87 58 Czech Republic 3.87 58 Maryland 3.17 59 Brazil 4.23 59 Finland 3.32 60 Turkey 4.43 60 Hungary 3.82 61 Estonia 4.50 61 Belgium 5.37 62 Alabama 5.35 62 Brazil 5.38 63 Greece 8.03 63 Greece 6.92 64 Finland 8.73 64 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 1 Appendix G Broadband Deployment (European Union (EU) countries) In both the United States and the EU, governments are tracking broadband deployment, especially in rural areas. 1 Generally, rural areas lag slightly in the deployment of basic broadband; however, that gap widens for high-speed broadband. 2 In this Report, we compare broadband deployment in the United States and Europe and find that high-speed broadband, as defined below, is more widely deployed in the United States. According to data from both 2011 and 2012, the broadband coverage gap between rural and non-rural areas remains larger across Europe than it is in the United States. In the European study, high-speed broadband was available to 54 percent of all households at the end of 2012, but only 12 percent of rural households – with a gap of 42 percentage points. 3 In contrast, high-speed broadband coverage in the United States in 2012 was higher overall than in the European study countries, and there was a smaller gap between rural coverage and total coverage. High-speed broadband was deployed to 80 percent of all US households, and 45 percent of rural households – for a gap of 35 percentage points. 4 The differences in coverage in rural and non-rural areas are even larger. Between December 2011 and December 2012, the high-speed broadband coverage gap in the United States between rural and non-rural households dropped from 46 to 42 percentage points. In Europe, the gap over the same time period rose from 47 to 49 percentage points as coverage in non-rural areas increased by more than it did in rural areas. EC Broadband Study. Like the United States, the EU is tracking its progress in extending broadband coverage to all of its citizens. 5 The EU’s Digital Agenda includes two objectives: provide all EU citizens with basic broadband coverage (at least 144 kbps download speed) 6 by the end of 2013 and “Next Generation Access,” meaning broadband speeds of at least 30 Mbps by 2020 (referred to herein as high-speed broadband). 7 1 The OECD has not updated its deployment (or coverage) data in several years. See http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/oecdbroadbandportal.htm (e.g., DSL and fiber coverage data are current as of 2009). 2 For purposes of this discussion, basic broadband in the United States is service with download speeds of at least 200 kbps, and in Europe it is service with download speeds of at least 144 kbps. 3 The EC study defines high-speed as 30 Mbps and above. In this Report, we use 25 Mbps and above as high-speed for the United States, the closest tier to EC’s high-speed definition for which we have mapping data. 4 A recent University of Pennsylvania study made similar findings, Christopher S. Yoo, “U.S. vs. European Broadband Deployment: What Do the Data Say?” U. of Penn, Inst. For Law & Econ, Research Paper No. 14-35. Prof. Yoo submitted this study as part of his comments on the 10th Broadband Progress NOI. See Prof. Yoo comments. 5 See 2015 Broadband Progress Report at para. 6, Section I (“broadband is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion because it is not yet available to the majority of rural and Tribal Americans and not becoming available quickly enough.”). 6 The EU Digital Agenda does not define “basic broadband” per se but relies on country-specific availability and averages. VDSL, the dominant delivery method across the EU, generally delivers faster speeds, but the generally accepted lowest speed for the Digital Agenda is 2 Mbps down/256 kbps up. This speed is now considered the floor for very “basic broadband.” An EU study of the state of EU broadband in 2011 (cited in note 8 below) defines basic broadband as at least 144 kbps down. 7 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A Digital Agenda for Europe, 2010, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0245:FIN:EN:PDF. Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 2 In 2012, the EC issued a report entitled, “Broadband Coverage in Europe in 2011: Mapping Progress Towards the Coverage Objectives of the Digital Agenda.” 8 The 2011 European study provides a measure of progress towards Europe’s broadband coverage objectives in the study countries. Of particular value, the 2011 European study includes data at a sub- national level – corresponding to counties, departments, or provinces. 9 These sub-national data are helpful to determine broadband capability in international communities comparable to U.S. communities with respect to population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile. 10 In 2013, the EU released an update of its broadband coverage study with 2012 data and redid the study of the 2011 data, including an additional country and a new definition of rural. 11 The European studies show that, by the end of 2011, basic broadband reached 96 percent of European study country households, and high-speed broadband reached just over 50 percent of those homes. By the end of 2012, basic broadband covered more than 99 percent of study country homes, and NGA/High-Speed broadband reached 54 percent. Not surprisingly, broadband coverage lags for inhabitants of rural areas. 12 At the end of 2011, in Europe’s study country rural areas, basic broadband (144 kbps for the purposes of the study) coverage reached 80 percent of households, while high-speed broadband (30 Mbps) was reached only 9 percent of the households. 13 By the end of 2012, those numbers had increased to 83 percent and 12 percent, respectively. To reach the EU’s 2020 goal, the EU study concludes that considerable investment in rural areas will still be necessary. 14 Comparison to the United States. In the United States, different statistics are collected, but general comparisons can still be made. 15 The European study, discussed above, focuses on 8 Broadband Coverage in Europe in 2011: Mapping Progress Towards the Coverage Objectives of the Digital Agenda, Research Report prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology, European Union, 2012, available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/document.cfm?doc_id=1102 (“2011 European study”). As of the writing of this IBDR, the EU has not yet reported 2013 data. 9 The population of these sub-national areas (called NUTS-3 level units) range from 150,000 to 800,000. 10 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(2). 11 Broadband Coverage in Europe in 2012: Mapping Progress Towards the Coverage Objectives of the Digital Agenda, A Study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology, European Union, 2013, available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=3647. 12 In the EU’s 27 countries, 24% of the population lives in NUTS-3 regions classified as "predominantly rural," according to Europa statistics. According to U.S. census block data, the U.S. rural share of the population is similar: 19.3% of the U.S. population lives in rural areas. 13 Statistics for 2011 are from the 2013 report. A redefinition of “rural” in the 2013 report caused a revision of the statistics for 2011. 14 See map of European coverage on page 18 of the European study. 15 Because the European data in its study was from December 2011 and 2012, we also use U.S. data from December 2011 and 2012 for comparison. The U.S. data for December 2011 and December 2012 discussed here is the same broadband mapping deployment data the Commission relied on in the 2015 Broadband Progress Report to present December 2011-2012 fixed deployment trends. 2015 Broadband Progress Report at para. 79, Section IV.C.1. However, the Commission presented estimates for different speed tiers (3 Mbps/768 kbps, 10 Mbps/768 kbps, and 25 Mbps/3 Mbps). Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 3 the NUTS-3 geographical category with the population ranging from 150,000 to 800,000. 16 NUTS-3 is a political/bureaucratic jurisdiction that is a subdivision of NUTS-2. NUTS-2 is similar to U.S. states. In our comparative analysis below, we used counties as the U.S. counterpart of NUTS-3 areas. There are 3,234 counties in the United States. 17 The basic unit of analysis in the U.S. data is the census block. In our maps, we aggregate census block data to the county level, which more closely match the level of aggregation for the European study. Because the European study used households as the unit for measuring coverage, we do the same in our comparison. 18 The 2013 European study uses a new rural database for both 2011 and 2012, in which areas with populations of less than 100 per square kilometer were considered rural. 19 Of the study country households, 15 percent were rural. A previous study of 2011 data used a different definition of rural. In this Report, we use the data from the 2013 European study to do our comparison. For the U.S. data, we use the Census Bureau’s determination of rural, which identifies each Census block as rural or non-rural. 20 We use this definition in our online National Broadband Map, and also our Connect America Fund work. 21 Each county is made up of multiple census blocks. We can therefore determine, for each county, the rural population with and without broadband deployment. For purposes of the comparison, we consider any service above 200 kbps in the United States as basic broadband, because that is the speed tier in SBI data 22 which most closely matches 16 There are 1303 NUTS-3 regions in Europe, and 3,221 counties in the United States. Only 351 U.S. counties fall within the NUTS-3 population range of 150,000 to 800,000. Most of the U.S. population lives in the 69 counties that exceed the NUTS-3 range. The remaining approximately 2,800 U.S. counties have populations of less than 150,000. The four least populous U.S. states (plus DC) fall within the NUTS-3 population range. 17 The variation in population of counties varies widely outside the domain of the NUTS-3 general guidelines for counties (minimum population is 4, maximum population is nearly 10 million, and average population is about 100,000 with a standard deviation of over 300,000). 18 Our broadband mapping data, available to the public online, has information at both household and population levels. See http://broadbandmap.gov/. 19 In 2011, the EC released a study using December 2011 data. That study did not have complete data on rural coverage for all of the study countries, so the study authors estimated rural coverage in some cases. The study also used various definitions for “rural.” This problem was remedied in the European study of 2012 data, which re-calculated the results of the 2011 data using the new definition of rural. 20 Rural areas are those that are not within a densely developed territory which has at least 2,500 people. See: http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_urbanrural.html. 21 See www.broadbandmap.gov and also www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connecting-america. 22 Since July 2009, the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA), in coordination with the Commission, has been collecting data concerning where broadband is deployed across the nation as part of the State Broadband Initiative (SBI) Grant Program. See Department of Commerce, NTIA, State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program, Docket No. 0660-ZA29, Notice of Funds Availability, 74 Fed. Reg. 32545 (July 8, 2009) (NTIA State Mapping NOFA), http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_broadbandmappingnofa_090708.pdf. For purposes of this Report, we call this data “SBI Data.” Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 4 the 144 kbps threshold in the European study. 23 For high-speed broadband, we use the SBI speed data for 25 Mbps, which most closely matches the 30 Mbps threshold in the European study. 24 Despite this difference, we think the comparison remains apt. Nearly all the households captured at this tier of service in our mapping data have access to DOCSIS 3.0 or fiber, both of which are able to provide speeds well in excess of 25 Mbps. 25 Total and Rural Household Broadband Coverage. In the United States, at the end of 2011, 97 percent of all households were covered by basic broadband of 200 kbps or greater. In contrast, 89 percent of rural households were covered by basic broadband. By the end of 2012, basic broadband was available to 97 percent of households overall, and 89 percent of rural households in the United States. Comparisons to the European data are captured in the table below. As of December 2011, 72 percent of U.S. households nationwide, compared to 50 percent of households in the European study countries had high-speed broadband coverage (25 Mbps in the United States and 30 Mbps in the European study countries). 23 We note that in the 2015 Broadband Progress Report for purposes of its section 1302(b) obligation, the Commission considered “advanced telecommunications capability” as 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. 2015 Broadband Progress Report at para. 3, Section I; 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). We use the term “basic broadband” here when referring to access speeds above 200 kbps merely for convenience. The European study identifies 144 kbps as the basic broadband threshold, and 200 kbps is the closest tier for which we have data to compare. See Department of Commerce, NTIA, State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program, Docket No. 0660-ZA29, Notice of Funds Availability, 74 Fed. Reg. 32545, 32559 (July 8, 2009), http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_broadbandmappingnofa_090708.pdf. 24 Moreover, Chairman Wheeler has said that a “25 Mbps connection is fast becoming ‘table stakes’ in 21st century communications” and that today “about 80 percent of American homes have access to a broadband connection that delivers 25 Mbps or better,” Prepared Remarks of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, “The Facts and Future of Broadband Competition”, 1776 Headquarters, Washington, D.C., September 4, 2014, available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-329161A1.pdf . 25 See http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/case-studies/mission-possible- evolutionary-approach-to-docsis-whitepaper.pdf (accessed June 5, 2013). 0 20 40 60 80 100 Basic 2011 High Speed 2011 96 50 97 72 2011 Broadband Coverage, All Households Europe US Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 5 In 2012, high-speed broadband coverage expanded to 80 percent of U.S. households and 54 percent in the European study countries. The chart above shows that the United States and European study countries have similar challenges: rural coverage of high-speed broadband lags national and regional coverage. At the end of 2011, 80 percent of rural European study country households and 89 percent of U.S. rural households had basic broadband. At the end of 2011, 9 percent of European study country rural households, but 35 percent of rural households in the United States had high-speed broadband coverage. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Basic 2012 High Speed 2012 99 54 98 80 2012 Broadband Coverage, All Households Europe US 0 20 40 60 80 100 Basic 2011 High Speed 2011 80 9 89 35 2011 Broadband Coverage, Rural Households Europe US Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 6 In 2012, we observe an increase in coverage, but rural coverage is still low in both regions. In the European study countries, 83 percent of rural households had basic broadband coverage and 12 percent of these households had high-speed coverage. In the United States, 89 percent of rural households had basic broadband coverage, while 45 percent of rural households had high-speed broadband coverage. While both the European study countries and the United States have rural high-speed broadband coverage gaps, by the end of 2011, the United States had a much higher level of high- speed broadband coverage in rural areas – four times the European level. In 2012, high-speed broadband coverage in the United States remained nearly four times the European level (45 percent in the United States and 12 percent in Europe). Rural and Non Rural Household Broadband Coverage. The charts above report the data set by the European study in comparing rural household coverage to total household coverage, which includes all households, including those in rural areas. But this comparison understates the gap in broadband coverage in rural areas. If we compare household coverage in rural areas to non-rural areas, we observe wider gaps between these areas. In Europe in December 2011, basic broadband was deployed to virtually all non-rural households, but only 80 percent of rural households, resulting in a gap of nearly 20 percentage points. In the United States, basic broadband was deployed to over 99 percent of all non-rural households, but only 89 percent of rural households, resulting in a gap of nearly 11 percentage points. 26 Thus, as of the end of 2011, the United States had a gap in serving rural and non-rural households with basic broadband that was just over half the size of Europe’s. A similar pattern emerged in 2012. In Europe, by December 2012, the study countries had closed the gap between rural and non-rural areas for basic broadband to 17 percentage points, as coverage in rural areas had risen to 83 percent. In the United States, the gap for basic broadband the gap narrowed slightly, with coverage rising from 88.7 to 89 percent of rural households, and rising to nearly 100 percent for non-rural households, for a gap of just over 10 percentage points. 26 We derived non-rural household coverage for the United States and Europe from the reported percentage of households that are rural and the percentages of broadband coverage for rural households and total households. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Basic 2012 High Speed 2012 83 12 89 45 2012 Broadband Coverage, Rural Households Europe US Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 7 Between December 2011 and December 2012, Europe’s high-speed broadband coverage grew from 55 to 61 percent for non-rural households and from 8 to 12 percent for rural households. The gap between non-rural and rural thus increased from 47 percentage points in 2011 to 49 percentage points in 2012. Between December 2011 and December 2012, high-speed broadband coverage in the United States increased from 81 to 89 percent for non-rural households and from 35 to 45 percent for rural households. The gap between non-rural and rural fell slightly from 46 percentage points to 44 percentage points. Although the gap between rural and non-rural high-speed coverage is only a bit smaller in the United States than it is in Europe, the absolute level of coverage of high- speed broadband is much higher in the United States in both rural and non-rural areas, and the United States is making slightly increased progress in closing the urban-rural gap for NGA/High- Speed broadband. Total High-Speed Broadband Coverage by Country. The bar graphs 1 and 2 below illustrate the status of total high-speed broadband coverage in the European study countries and the United States in the years 2011 and 2012. 27 In 2011, with an overall 72 percent high-speed broadband coverage, the United States ranks higher than 24 of the European study countries. In 2012, with an overall 80 percent high-speed broadband coverage, the United States ranks higher than 25 of the European study countries. 27 The European study countries included the then current 27 countries of the European Union (EU27): Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Bulgaria (BG), Cyprus (CY), Czech Republic (CZ), Denmark (DK), Estonia (EE), Finland (FI), France (FR), Germany(DE), Greece (GR), Hungary (HU), Ireland (IE), Italy (IT), Latvia (LV), Lithuania (LT), Luxembourg (LU), Malta (MT), Netherlands (NL), Poland (PL), Portugal (PT), Romania (RO), Slovakia (SK), Slovenia (SI), Spain (ES), Sweden (SE) and the United Kingdom (UK). For both 2011 and 2012, the European data includes three additional countries: Iceland (IS), Norway (NO) and Switzerland (CH). For 2012, Croatia (HR), which joined the EU on July 1, 2013, was also included. 0 20 40 60 80 100 E u ro p e - B a s ic 2 0 1 1 E u ro p e - B a s ic 2 0 1 2 E u ro p e - H ig h 2 0 1 1 E u ro p e - H ig h 2 0 1 2 U S - B a s ic 2 0 1 1 U S - H ig h 2 0 1 1 U S - B a s ic 2 0 1 2 U S - H ig h 2 0 1 2 80 83 8 12 89 35 89 45 98 97 55 61 100 81 100 89 Broadband Coverage: Rural vs Non-Rural Rural Non-Rural Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 8 Graph 1: Total high-speed broadband coverage by country, December 2011 Graph 2: Total high-speed broadband coverage by country, December 2012 Rural High-Speed Broadband Coverage by Country. Similarly, the European study includes data for 2011 and 2012 on the status of rural high-speed broadband coverage by country. The bar graphs 3 and 4 below illustrate the status of rural high-speed broadband coverage across the European study countries and the Unites States. Only four European countries (Malta, Poland, Belgium and Cyprus) had higher rural high-speed broadband coverage than the United States in 2011, and six European countries had higher rural high-speed broadband coverage than the United States (Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Cyprus) in 2012. Graph 3. Rural high speed coverage by country, December 2011 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% M T N E B E C H L U P T U S N O L V A T F I D E S I L T D K B G U K R O E S S E H U E E E U 2 7 + 3 E U 2 7 S K IS C Z P L IE F R IT G R C Y 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% M T N E B E C H L U U S L T L V P T N O C Y D K U K A T D E F I S I E S R O E E B G H U S E E U 2 7 + 4 IS E U 2 7 S K C Z P L IE F R G R H R IT 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% M T P 0 B E C Y U S S K L U S I E E P T A T E U 2 7 + 3 E U 2 7 N L G R E S H U IE U K N O F R R O B G C Z D K F I D E IS IT L V L T S E C H Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 9 Graph 4. Rural high speed coverage by country, December 2012 6. Broadband Coverage by Technology The European study breaks down broadband into several categories: DSL, VDSL, FTTP, WiMAX, Standard Cable, DOCSIS 3 Cable, HSPA, LTE and satellite. We have U.S. data on similar categories. For basic broadband, Europe relies more heavily on DSL, while most U.S. homes have both DSL and cable technologies available to them. For high-speed broadband, cable is deployed to more U.S. households than any other technology. Graph 5: Coverage by Technology, 2011 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% L U M T N L B E C H C Y U S L T P T D E R O L V N O U K A T E U 2 7 + 4 E U E S H U F I S E D K C Z IE P 0 F R B G H R E E G R IS IT S K S I 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Europe US Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 10 Graph 6: High Speed and Standard Coverage by Technology, 2012 7. Broadband Coverage Maps The European study includes maps showing the status of basic and high-speed broadband coverage across the study countries as of December 2012. 28 The EU maps below are similar to the U.S. maps and can be used to visualize the distribution of basic broadband and high-speed broadband coverage around the United States, compared to Europe. These maps reflect data as of the end of 2012. Current U.S. maps can be found at the FCC’s broadband map website: broadbandmap.gov. 28 See page 21 of European study. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Europe US Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 11 Standard Fixed Broadband Coverage Maps – December 2012 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 12 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 13 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 14 High-Speed Broadband Coverage Maps – 2012 Data Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 15 Federal Communications Commission DA 15-132 16 High-Speed Broadband Coverage