Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 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. 15-191 FIFTH REPORT Adopted: January 28, 2016 Released: January 29, 2016 By the Chief, International Bureau: TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I.  INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1  II.  BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 2  III. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 13  A.  Fixed Broadband Coverage Comparison with Europe .................................................................. 14  B.  Broadband Subscription (OECD Countries) .................................................................................. 22  C.  Fixed Broadband Speeds ................................................................................................................ 26  D.  Broadband Pricing Plans ................................................................................................................ 32  E.  Other Relevant Information and International Developments ....................................................... 43  IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 49  V.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS ................................................................................................................ 50  APPENDIX A - Country List APPENDIX B - Broadband Price Dataset APPENDIX C - Broadband Price Tables APPENDIX D - Demographics Dataset APPENDIX E - Market and Regulatory Background APPENDIX F - Comparing International Fixed Broadband Speeds APPENDIX G - Broadband Deployment Comparison with Europe I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is the International Bureau’s fifth 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 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. The available international broadband data, though not fully comparable to data on the United States, continue to suggest that although the United States may be among the leaders for developed countries with regard to some broadband metrics, it lags in some other metrics. In this Report and its appendices, we present a number 1 See 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 2 of data points, including fixed broadband deployment data in the United States and the 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 (to the extent available) for the countries 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 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 2 The countries we have selected for this Report are largely the same as those we included in the Fourth IBDR (International Comparison Requirements Pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act, International Broadband Data Report, GN Docket No. 14-26, Fourth Report, DA 15-132 (2015) (Fourth IBDR). As discussed more fully below, we used pricing data collected by Google (Google’s data) in this Report. Google’s data, though it includes more than 100 countries, did not include fixed and mobile data for all 40 countries that we chose to examine. Specifically, Google’s fixed broadband data does not include Estonia, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, New Zealand, or Norway. Google’s mobile data does not include Estonia, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, or Slovenia. See http://policybythenumbers.blogspot.com/2015/02/global- broadband-pricing-study-updated.html. 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 2016 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. 15-191, Broadband Progress Report, FCC 16-6 (rel. January 29, 2016) (2016 Broadband Progress Report). The 2016 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 16-97 3 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 highest broadband deployment.7 4. The criteria we have used for choosing communities enable us to make reasonable international comparisons. 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 and all Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.8 5. Comments and Data Sources. The 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry sought comment on how we could make improvements to the IBDR.9 We received no comments regarding potential improvements to the IBDR. We also sought comment on potential data sources and also invited commenters to provide any relevant qualitative and quantitative data enabling international comparisons under the Act. We received no direct comment on this, though some commenters cited mobile broadband data and rankings in their submissions.10 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.11 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, and adoption.12 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.13 7. With respect to broadband 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 Commission (EC) also publishes data on fixed broadband coverage. We compare the broadband 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 See Appendix A for a complete country list. 9 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. 15-191, Eleventh Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd 8823, paras. 84-86 (2015) (Eleventh Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry). 10 See, e.g., Comments of Verizon at 5 (noting that LTE deployment in the United States surpasses that in Europe); comments of Mobile Future at 3 (noting that with LTE subscriber penetration of nearly 50 percent, the United States leads Western Europe (21 percent) and the Asia Pacific region (14 percent)); comments of CTIA—The Wireless Association at 6 (observing that the United States leads the world in mobile broadband investment, deployment, and adoption); reply comments of Public Knowledge at 4 (citing a study by OpenSignal that shows 54 nations have average LTE download speeds that are greater than the U.S. average). 11 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1). 12 Cf. 2016 Broadband Progress Report at para. 96. 13 Differences between which countries are included for each dataset in this Report are primarily due to data availability. See Appendix A infra. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 4 coverage data for the countries in the EC study with coverage data for 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 2014) provided by Ookla, proprietor of speedtest.net, on its Net Index site.14 9. In the Fourth IBDR and in the 2015 Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, we stated that Google publishes open source international broadband pricing data (which includes both fixed and mobile pricing plans in over 100 countries).15 Google’s international broadband pricing dataset is gathered through provider website research, the same way that we have gathered data on pricing plans in prior IBDRs.16 The Commission sought comment in the Eleventh Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry on a proposal to use Google’s international broadband pricing dataset supplemented by mobile (smartphone plans) broadband data collected via online research.17 We received no comment on this proposal. 10. In this Report, we use the data for 33 countries included in Google’s 2014 international broadband pricing dataset (“Google’s pricing dataset”)18 as the basis for our international broadband pricing plan comparison. Google’s pricing dataset differs in several ways from our data gathered in the past, and as such we have supplemented it with our own research when appropriate.19 Most notably, Google’s pricing dataset for mobile broadband pricing plans focuses on mobile data-only plans (such as stick modem plans) and includes smartphone plans only when a data-only plan was not available.20 Our data on smartphone plans for 40 countries directly gathered from providers’ websites supplement Google’s pricing dataset used in this Report.21 11. The previous IBDRs have compared broadband prices using exchange rates and purchasing power parity (PPP).22 In this Report, we continue to use exchange rate and PPP as the bases for our price comparison.23 With respect to pricing plans, we present data and discussion for broadband 14 See Appendix F for our discussion of the speed data. 15 See Fourth IBDR at para. 9, n.18 and Eleventh Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry at 8851. 16 We also noted that we may use Google’s pricing dataset as our primary source in future reports. See Eleventh Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry at 8851 and Fourth IBDR at para. 9, n.18, citing Google, Policy by the Numbers, http://policybythenumbers.blogspot.com/2014/03/international-broadband-pricing-study.html. 17 Eleventh Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry at 8851. 18 See supra n. 2. 19 See Appendix B. 20 Communications Chambers, Broadband Pricing Database – Explanatory Notes (Fourth Edition), December 2014, https://docs.google.com/document/d/18SGpg63RCZEchQ29HZ8ro5D5D1Kjx0DcYN0PLk7 -fPA/edit?pli=1. 21 Our raw price data is available in Appendix B and on our website at https://www.fcc.gov/reports- research/reports/international-broadband-data-reports/international-broadband-data-report-3. Appendix C contains our analysis of the price data in the form of data tables. 22 Fourth IBDR, at para. 9. 23 For further discussion of PPP, see infra n. 74. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 5 plans offered in 2014 and in some cases 2015, in Appendix C, for major fixed and mobile broadband providers (typically at least three of each) in each of our group of 40 countries, when possible.24 12. 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.25 Finally, we provide a detailed update of regulatory and market developments since our last Report for the surveyed countries in Appendix E. III. DISCUSSION 13. 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 Comparison with Europe 14. In Appendix G, we compare fixed broadband deployment in the United States and Europe26 and find that high-speed broadband, as defined below, is more widely deployed in the United States. According to data from both 2013 and 2014, the broadband coverage gap between rural and non- rural areas remains large across Europe and the United States.27 15. Like the United States, the European Union (EU) is tracking its progress in extending broadband coverage to all of its citizens. 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 2020.28 In the United States, different statistics are collected, but general comparisons can still be made.29 For purposes of the comparison of high-speed fixed broadband coverage, we use the data 24 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. As noted above, Google’s fixed broadband dataset does not include Estonia, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, New Zealand, or Norway. Google’s mobile dataset does not include Estonia, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, or Slovenia. See http://policybythenumbers.blogspot.com/2015/02/global-broadband-pricing-study-updated.html. 25 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. For example, 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. 26 As described in more detail in Appendix G, the European Commission’s broadband deployment report (“EC study”) included 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 (collectively, the European countries in the EC study). 27 In this Report, we compare 2013 and 2014 data on fixed broadband coverage in the United States and in the European countries in the EC study. The most recent coverage data in the United States can be found in the 2016 Broadband Progress Report. Since the EC studies did not include broadband service provided by satellite, we excluded satellite service from the United States data to maintain comparability with the EC studies. 28 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. Appendix G contains our discussion of the basic broadband coverage (including differences between the U.S. and European definitions of “basic broadband.” 29 Because the data in the EC study was from December 2013 and 2014, we also use U.S. data from December 2013 and 2014 for comparison. The U.S. data for 2013 comes from NTIA’ State Broadband Initiative (SBI), while the Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 6 for 25 Mbps for 2013, which most closely matches the 30 Mbps threshold in the EC study.30 Despite this difference, we think the comparison remains apt. For our comparison of high-speed broadband deployment in 2014, we use 30 Mbps as the EC study does.31 16. Since 2014, the EC released two reports detailing broadband coverage in Europe in 2013 and 2014.32 The 2013 and 2014 EC studies provide measures of progress towards Europe’s broadband coverage objectives in the study countries. As did its earlier studies, the 2013 and 2014 EC studies include data at a sub-national level in Europe – corresponding to counties, departments, or provinces.33 These sub-national data are helpful to determine broadband capability in those international communities that are comparable to U.S. communities with respect to population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile.34 The data are also broken down into rural and non-rural areas. 17. The 2013 EC study shows that by the end of 2013 high-speed broadband reached 62 percent of households. According to the 2014 EC study, by the end of 2014 the percentage of households with access to high speed broadband had increased to 68 percent. 18. In the United States, different statistics are collected, but general comparisons can still be made.35 In 2013, 84 percent of total U.S. households had high-speed broadband coverage. In 2014, high- speed broadband coverage expanded to 89 percent of households in the United States. 19. Rural Coverage. Between December 2013 and December 2014, Europe’s high-speed broadband coverage increased from 70 to 75 percent for non-rural households and from 18 to 25 percent for rural households. The gap between non-rural and rural thus decreased from 52 percentage points in 2013 to 50 percentage points in 2014. Between December 2013 and December 2014, high-speed broadband coverage in the United States increased from 93 to 96 percent for non-rural households and from 45 to 58 percent for rural households. The high-speed broadband gap between non-rural and rural decreased from 48 percentage points to 38 percentage points. Thus, the gap between rural and non-rural U.S. data for 2014 comes from FCC Form 477. Though the use of different datasets does add complications, neither dataset has sufficient data for both 2013 and 2014 on its own. 30 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. 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, 2015 Broadband Progress Report and Notice of Inquiry on Immediate Action to Accelerate Deployment, 30 FCC Rcd 1375, 1377, para. 3 (2015) (2015 Broadband Progress Report); 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). 31 For 2014, we had Form 477 data available which allows us to make the comparison at 30 Mbps for both the United States and Europe. For 2013, we only had SBI data available, which did not include data at the 30 Mbps speed tier for the United States, but did include data at the 25 Mbps speed tier. 32 See Broadband Coverage in Europe in 2014: Mapping Progress Towards the Coverage Objectives of the Digital Agenda, available at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/study-broadband-coverage-europe-2013 “2013 EC study”) and Broadband Coverage in Europe in 2014: Mapping Progress Towards the Coverage Objectives of the Digital Agenda, Research Report prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology, European Union, 2015, available at http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=11195 (“2014 EC study”). 33 The population of these sub-national areas (called NUTS-3 level units) range from 150,000 to 800,000. 34 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(2). 35 Because the EC study data was from 2013 and 2014, we also use U.S. data from 2013 and 2014 for comparison. For an appropriate comparison, we use fixed broadband coverage data at 25 Mbps for the United States based on the 2013 SBI Data, which most closely matches the 30 Mbps threshold in the EC study, but for 2014, using the new Form 477 data, we are able to compare the U.S and European coverage data at the same speed level (i.e., 30 Mbps). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 7 high-speed fixed broadband coverage is smaller in the United States than it is in Europe and the absolute level of coverage of high-speed broadband is higher in the United States in both rural and non-rural areas. The data also show that the United States has been making faster progress in closing the urban-rural gap for high-speed broadband. 20. Coverage Ranking by Country. In 2013, with an overall 84 percent high-speed broadband coverage, the United States ranks higher than 23 of the 31 European countries in the EC study. In 2014, with an overall 89 percent high-speed broadband coverage, the United States ranks higher than 21 of the 31 European countries in the EC study. 21. The EC study also includes data for 2013 and 2014 on the status of rural high-speed broadband coverage by country. Eight European countries (Malta, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Belgium, Estonia, Lithuania, and Slovenia) had higher rural high-speed broadband coverage than the United States in 2013, and eight European countries (Malta, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Belgium, Iceland, Lithuania, and Slovenia) had higher rural high-speed broadband coverage than the United States in 2014. Appendix G discusses the status of rural high-speed broadband coverage across the European countries in the EC study and the United States. B. Broadband Subscription (OECD Countries) 22. The OECD’s subscription metrics define transmission speeds of at least 256 kbps in one direction to be “broadband service” for both fixed and mobile Internet access.36 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 2016 Broadband Progress Report.37 In this section of the Report, we use the OECD’s broadband definition to present subscription statistics from OECD countries. 23. As the most populous member of the OECD, the United States ranked first in 2014 in the sheer number of fixed broadband subscriptions with 100,192,000 subscribers (93,618,000 subscriptions in 2013).38 Again, by comparison, Japan ranked second with 36,261,653 fixed subscriptions (and 35,785,203 fixed subscriptions in 2013).39 With respect to subscription in terms of the percentage of population, the United States ranks 16th out of 34 countries for percentage of population with overall fixed broadband subscriptions, with 31.4 broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants (also 16th out of 34 countries in 2013 with 30.35 broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants).40 Breaking the fixed subscription numbers down by technology, the U.S. ranking in these surveys ranges from 25th out of 34 36 See OECD Broadband Portal, Broadband Methodology, http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/broadband- methodology.htm. OECD’s definition of “fixed” broadband includes DSL, Cable, Fiber, Satellite, Terrestrial fixed wireless, and other wired technologies such as broadband over powerline. OECD’s definition of “mobile” broadband includes terrestrial mobile wireless. 37 See 2016 Broadband Progress Report at paras. 3, 19, 51. 38 OECD Broadband Portal, Total fixed and wireless broadband subscriptions by country, Table 1.1.1 (Dec. 2014), available at http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/oecdbroadbandportal.htm. The 2013 data (OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(1) (Dec. 2013)) is no longer available on the OECD Broadband Portal. 39 Id. 40 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (December 2014). Since release of the Fourth IBDR, the OECD changed its definitions of fixed and mobile broadband by moving the categories Satellite and Fixed Wireless from mobile to fixed broadband. Consequently, the OECD recalculated the penetration figures for fixed and mobile broadband for years prior to 2014 and made the time series available on the Broadband Portal in charts 1.5.1 and 1.5.2, OECD Historical Fixed and Mobile Broadband Penetration Rates. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 8 in DSL subscription41 to fifth out of 34 in cable modem subscription,42 to 17th out of 34 in fiber-to-the- home (FTTH) subscriptions.43 24. In terms of sheer number of mobile broadband subscribers, the United States ranked first out of OECD’s 34 countries with 331,373,000 subscriptions with data plans as of December 2014 (compared to 316,440,000 subscriptions as of December 2013 for the first place rank).44 By comparison, Japan ranked second with 157,812,151 wireless broadband subscriptions in 2014 (142,595,498 in 2013).45 The OECD’s 2014 subscription data also rank countries according the number of subscriptions per 100 inhabitants.46 By this metric, the United States ranks eighth overall out of the 34 OECD countries in percentage of population with mobile broadband subscriptions, with 104.0 mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants47 (by comparison, Finland ranks first in 2014 with 138.0 mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants).48 In 2013, the United States ranked seventh out of 34 countries with 94.2 mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants.49 25. As the OECD notes, subscription is measured using different indicators and different reference dates across various countries.50 Further, where a particular country falls in these rankings may be influenced by population density and dispersion, income, and other factors. The United States has about one-quarter the population density of Europe, one-tenth that of Japan, and one-fifteenth that of South Korea.51 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.52 C. Fixed Broadband Speeds 26. The BDIA requires the Commission to gather information on “data transmission speeds” for broadband services.53 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 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 fourth in cable modem subscribers. 43 Id. Last year the United States ranked 16th in FTTH. 44 OECD Broadband Portal, Total fixed and mobile broadband subscriptions by country, Table 1.1.2 (Dec. 2014), available at http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/oecdbroadbandportal.htm. The 2013 data (OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1(d)(2) (Dec. 2013)) is no longer available on the OECD Broadband Portal. 45 Id. 46 We reproduce the OECD’s most recent broadband subscription rankings in Appendix E. 47 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 1379-1380, para. 9 and 1413-1414, para 71. 48 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (December 2014). 49 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.5.2, OECD Historical Mobile Broadband Penetration Rates. 50 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. 51 See Third IBDR, 27 FCC Rcd at 9892-93. 52 See Section III.E., para. 54, infra. 53 BDIA § 103(b); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 9 second.54 Speed is an important indicator of the nature of broadband service. In the 2016 Broadband Progress Report, the Commission finds that the standard of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps continues to represent an appropriate benchmark for fixed broadband service.55 27. 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 33 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.56 In this Report, we used Ookla data for 2014. The data include 6.3 million observations for 17,917 cities in 40 countries from January 1 to December 15, 2014. 28. 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.57 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.58 In addition, we 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, as we did in the Fourth IBDR. 29. Based on the Ookla data, the United States ranked 26th of 40 countries in 2014 in terms of actual download speeds (26.68 Mbps) when weighted by sample size. Though this is the same ranking as in 2013, the average speed increased 8.01 Mbps over what it was a year prior (18.76 Mbps in 2013). Using the stratified sampling technique,59 the United States ranked 26th (27.47 Mbps) in average weighted actual download speed in 2014. Though the rank is a drop of one compared to 2013, the speed measurement itself increased by 7.92 Mbps (the 2013 rank was 25th with average speed of 19.55 Mbps). We also compared the United States at the state level with the other IBDR countries in 2014. Nine states appeared in the top quartile in 2014, an increase of one from 2013. The number of states in the bottom quartile was 12 in 2014, a decrease of one. 30. The Ookla shortfall index, or the percent difference between advertised and actual speeds, changed slightly in the United States, down to 6.2 from 7.15 in 2013.60 A decrease in a country’s shortfall index number means that the country improved in delivering promised speed. Half of the countries surveyed improved in delivering promised speed. The United States moved up one spot in the shortfall index ranking for 2014, to 14th. Though this metric (which is based on self-reported data from 54 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). 55 2016 Broadband Progress Report, paras. 3, 19, 51. 56 Since January 2008, Ookla has collected data on over 8 billion speed tests. See https://www.ookla.com/. Ookla has discontinued its Net Index, formerly available at http://www.netindex.com. 57 The Ookla data in our study consists of only fixed broadband connections. Mobile data is not included in the dataset we obtained from Ookla. 58 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 fewer tests. Using population weights would not achieve this. 59 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. 60 See Appendix F at 143. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 10 consumers) suggests that actual speeds may not 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.61 Moreover, just as we saw in the Fourth IBDR,62 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.63 31. As in past reports, we compare other quality measures of broadband connections, including latency and jitter.64 From 2013 to 2014, latency in the United States decreased from 80.33 ms to 77.66 ms and the U.S. ranking improved from 27th (of 40 countries) to 15th (of 32 countries).65 All but four countries saw increases in jitter between 2013 and 2014. The United States ranked 24th (of 32 countries) in 2014, compared to 35th (of 40 countries) in 2013. D. Broadband Pricing Plans 32. The BDIA directs the Commission to collect information regarding the price of broadband service capability.66 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;67 and broadband is frequently purchased as part of a bundle of services.68 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 versus a combination of upload and download traffic versus download traffic at peak/non-peak usage times); and consequences of exceeding usage limits (e.g., access speed reductions, surcharges, service cut-off). 33. As noted above, with this Report we have elected to use Google’s pricing dataset for our international price comparison. Google’s fixed broadband dataset contains primarily stand-alone 61 See 2015 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report: A Report on Consumer Fixed Broadband Performance in the United States, rel. Dec. 30, 2015, https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring- broadband-america/measuring-broadband-america-2015 (“2015 MBA Report”). 62 See Fourth IBDR, Appendix F at 15. 63 See Appendix F at 146-48. 64 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. 65 The only country missing 2014 data that had a better 2013 ranking than the United States was Hong Kong. 66 See 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1). 67 For example, the broadband service price often includes an installation charge, a monthly service fee, and possibly equipment rental charges. 68 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 16-97 11 broadband plans, and for only 33 of the 40 countries that we typically review.69 The fixed dataset yielded 619 fixed broadband plans for comparison.70 Google’s mobile broadband dataset includes primarily “wireless Internet” or “Internet on the go” types of data-only plans, and captured smartphone plans only when an operator did not have such a data-only plan.71 As discussed above, we have supplemented Google’s mobile pricing dataset with our own research into pricing plans for smartphones in all 40 countries in our study group.72 Google’s data provided us with 575 mobile post-paid and 405 pre-paid data-only plans in 32 countries and our smartphone research provided 3340 plans in 40 countries (of which 281 were pre-paid, 71 pay-as-you-go, and 2988 post-paid plans.73 34. In Appendix C, we have converted all prices to U.S. dollars based on both purchasing power parity (PPP)74 and exchange rates.75 For each broadband service offering (both fixed and mobile), our dataset includes, among others, 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.76 The mobile dataset also contains certain bundle offers. Because mobile service bundles can have a wide assortment of 69 Communications Chambers, Broadband Pricing Database – Explanatory Notes (Fourth Edition), pp. 3-4, December 2014, available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/18SGpg63RCZEchQ29HZ8ro5D5D1Kjx0DcYN0PLk7-fPA/edit?pli=1. 70 In this Report, “plans” mean advertised broadband service offerings to consumers. For fixed and mobile broadband plans, Google gathered the data between October and December 2014. For smartphone plans, we gathered the data between April and August 2015. Although the collection of the data extended into 2015, for convenience we refer to the collection of all price data in this Report as “2014” data. Both Google and Commission staff assembled the data by visiting the websites of broadband providers serving the countries and communities in our sample. The price data reflects only what a given provider was offering at the specific point in time its website was accessed. 71 Communications Chambers, Broadband Pricing Database – Explanatory Notes (Fourth Edition), p. 3, December 2014, available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/18SGpg63RCZEchQ29HZ8ro5D5D1Kjx0DcYN0PLk7- fPA/edit?pli=1. 72 Although there are 40 comparison countries in total for the smartphone comparison, 33 countries in the fixed broadband comparison, and 32 countries in the mobile data-only comparison, not all countries are represented in every plan type and/or speed tier. 73 Our raw data included 2988 post-paid plans, but we used 2904 of them for comparison purposes as some contained anomalies or missing elements. 74 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. 75 Exchange rates fluctuate on a daily basis. For the fixed stand-alone and mobile plans (excluding smartphone plans) price conversions, we used the PPP and exchange rates reported by Google in its databases, http://policybythenumbers.blogspot.com/2015/02/global-broadband-pricing-study-updated.html. For the smartphone plan data, we used the “Implied PPP conversion rate” reported by International Monetary Fund in its World Economic Outlook Database for October 2015, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/02/weodata/index.aspx. 76 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. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 12 components, these variations present additional layers of complexity for comparison and analysis.77 Appendices B and C contain our broadband pricing research. Below we present some of the highlights. 35. Fixed Broadband. Our research is based on advertised prices.78 With regard to unlimited stand-alone fixed broadband pricing, our research indicates that U.S. plan prices range from the middle of the pack to higher than those in other countries surveyed depending on the offered speed. 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. 36. The United States ranked 23rd least expensive out of 33 countries (by PPP) for overall fixed broadband plans (i.e., when considering all fixed plans in the sample together).79 This is close to the ranking in 2013, when the United States ranked 30th least expensive out of 37 countries for all stand- alone plans. The United States ranks seventh least expensive out of 15 countries for plans with speeds between 1 and 5 Mbps, 16th least expensive out of 27 countries for plans with speeds between 5 and 15 Mbps, and 22nd least expensive out of 30 countries for plans with speeds between 25 and 50 Mbps.80 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 rose slightly from $59.40 in 2013 to $59.51 in 2014.81 In 2013, the United States ranked 24th least expensive of the 30 countries with plans of this type, and ranked 19th least expensive out of 26 countries by this measure in 2014. 82 37. For stand-alone 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 third least expensive in 2014 with a price of $0.22 per GB for plans with speeds less than 25 Mbps out of nine countries.83 The U.S. ranking was fourth least expensive with $0.33 per GB for plans with speeds greater than 25 Mbps of ten countries.84 By comparison, Denmark was the least expensive country with $0.08 per GB for plans with speeds less than 25 Mbps and $0.02 per GB for plans with speeds greater than 25 Mbps, and India was the most expensive country with $6.73 per GB for plans with speeds less than 25 Mbps and $2.68 per 77 We use monthly and one-time costs and promotional discounts to generate an inclusive monthly estimated cost for service. We used this formula to determine the contract term price: 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. We calculated the monthly rate by dividing contract term rates by contract terms. We also calculated yearly rates by multiplying the monthly rate by 12. Each of the monthly rates in local currency were converted to PPP by applying the PPP adjustment factor. 78 In cases where Google’s fixed data lacked information regarding contract terms, we would make corrections based on our own supplemental research. Google’s fixed data is available at https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=15zECvTc1Sht5W1iQytI42FDQuJAPtMW9- rsjirm6#rows:id=1. 79 See Appendix C, Table 1b. 80 See Appendix C, Tables 2a, 2b, 2d. Rankings are based on averages of plans for all technologies, and as such averages can mask underlying trends. For example, although the United States ranks 18th least expensive out of 26 countries for plans with speeds between 25 and 50 Mbps, when examining only cable plans in this tier, the United States ranks fourth least expensive out of 17 countries. Fiber plan prices raise the overall U.S. average. See Appendix C, Table 2d. 81 See Appendix C, Table 2c. 82 Id. 83 See Appendix C, Table 4a. 84 See Appendix C, Table 4b. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 13 GB for plans with speeds greater than 25 Mbps. Countries that have low prices and lower usage limits become expensive on a price per GB basis. 38. We compared countries according to average monthly cost of stand-alone broadband plans with unlimited usage and found that the United States ranks somewhere near the middle for several speed tiers. For example, the United States ranked eighth least expensive of 17 countries for unlimited plans with speeds less than 10 Mbps ($33.12), 19th least expensive out of 29 countries for unlimited plans with speeds greater than 10 Mbps and less than 25 Mbps ($44.99), 15th least expensive out of 29 countries for unlimited plans with speeds less than 25 Mbps ($32.60) and 17th least expensive out of 29 countries for unlimited plans with speeds greater than 25 Mbps and up to 50 Mbps ($52.49).85 39. Another useful metric for comparing broadband prices across different countries is the cost per unit of speed. The average price per Mbps in the United States was $4.18 in 2014. By this metric, the United States ranked 27th least expensive out of 33 countries in 2014 when comparing prices by PPP.86 At $0.26, Hong Kong had the least expensive price per unit of speed for 2014 while India at $21.97 was the most expensive by this measure in 2014. 40. 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 do 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 mobile 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 have data for both types of plans in this Report, available in Appendices B and C.87 Given these issues, and other limitations, meaningful international comparisons of mobile pricing are extremely difficult. Since pre-paid/pay-as-you-go plans are not easily compared (the amount a user pays depends on how much data is used) to post-paid plans, we treat them separately.88 41. Smartphone plans (post-paid). For smartphone plans with usage limits of less than 1 GB per month and limited voice minutes, Israel had the least expensive plans with a monthly average price of $6.08, and Ireland had the most expensive plans with an average monthly $64.54.89 The United States did not have any plans in this category (same as in 2013).90 For smartphone plans with data usage limits between 1 and 5 GB and unlimited minutes, the average monthly price for U.S. plans was $93.08 with an average usage limit of 2.38 GB in 2013 (27th least expensive of 28 countries). In 2014, the United States ranked 25th least expensive in this category (though out of 35 rather than 28 countries) while the average 85 See Appendix C, Tables 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f. 86 See Appendix C, Table 3. 87 Though Google’s raw data is available at http://policybythenumbers.blogspot.com/2015/02/global-broadband- pricing-study-updated.html, our evaluation of this data in the form of data tables is provided in Appendix C. Data tables associated with our smartphone price data are also in Appendix C. The raw smartphone price data is provided in Appendix B. 88 The raw data for the pre-paid plans is presented in Appendix B. 89 See Appendix C, Table 5a. 90 See Fourth IBDR, Appendix C, Table 7a. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 14 monthly charge dropped to $63.33 (with an average usage limit of 2.15 GB).91 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. In 2014, Israel had the least expensive plans in this category with an average monthly cost of $20.75 (3.00 GB usage limit) and Hungary the most expensive plans with an average monthly cost of $125.49 (2.22 GB usage limit).92 The United States is one of a smaller group of countries with providers that offer smartphone plans with unlimited data and unlimited minutes. Among countries with such plans, the United States ranked 13th least expensive out of 17 countries in 2014 (compared to fourth least expensive out of five countries in 2013).93 The number of countries with plans with unlimited data and unlimited minutes increased from five in 2013 to 17 in 2014 suggesting that more countries may be moving to fully unlimited plans, which would be a reversal of the trend we observed in the Fourth IBDR.94 42. Mobile data-only plans. Google’s mobile broadband dataset includes 575 post-paid data- only plans (the data do not distinguish between stick modem and tablet plans, as we did in the last IBDR) and 414 pre-paid plans.95 The United States ranks 23rd least expensive out of 30 countries on price per GB ($24.91) for plans with usage limits less than 5 GB and 23rd least expensive out of 31 countries on price per GB ($7.10) for plans with usage limits greater than 5 GB.96 Poland has the least expensive price per GB for plans that are below and above 5 GB ($3.57 and $1.12, respectively).97 Mexico has the highest average cost per GB ($351.44) for plans with usage limits below 5 GB and Japan has the highest cost per GB ($9.31) for plans that have usage limits above 5 GB.98 With regard to pre-paid plans, the United States ranked 13th least expensive out of 29 countries with a price per GB of $14.01.99 Finland ranked least expensive with an average price per GB of $1.07 and Bulgaria ranked the most expensive with an average per GB cost of $127.04.100 E. Other Relevant Information and International Developments 43. 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.101 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 91 See Appendix C, Table 5d. 92 See Appendix C, Table 5d. 93 See Appendix C, Table 5h. 94 See Fourth IBDR at para. 38 (observing that from 2012 to 2013, 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). 95 Google’s mobile broadband data included some smartphone plans, which we excluded from our analysis. Google included smartphone plans when other mobile data-only plans were not offered. Also, as we determined with Google’s fixed broadband data, some of the mobile plans had one-time charges (such as for equipment) that were mistakenly identified as recurring monthly charges. This would lead to unusually high plan rates when costs are calculated over the course of a year. We corrected these errors when we found them. Also, some pre-paid plan data entries contained anomalies leading to their exclusion from the comparison. See also supra n. 73. 96 See Appendix C, Tables 7a, 7b. 97 Id. 98 Id. 99 See Appendix C, Table 8. 100 Id. 101 BDIA § 103(b)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(3). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 15 and Eurostat datasets are drawn from national statistical agencies, communications ministries, and communications regulators.102 44. Relevant Similarities and Differences. The BDIA also directs the Commission, for the foreign communities selected, to identify “relevant similarities and differences” across several criteria.103 For each foreign country included in this Report, 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. 45. 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 Fourth IBDR, we detailed steps that the OECD and U.S. Government have taken to standardize broadband metrics.104 Since then, the OECD and U.S. Government continued to work to standardize broadband metrics. 46. 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.105 An early draft of an OECD paper (“Triple- and quadruple-play bundles of communications services”) served as the basis for the discussion.106 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. 47. As a result of this discussion and expert review, in late 2014, OECD delegates agreed to a plan to produce an analysis of broadband services pricing across the OECD economies using a further refined hedonic methodology and a more robust data set. The initial findings were presented in a draft paper in June 2015 for initial review by OECD delegates, and a follow-up expert peer review of this work was conducted at the FCC in September 2015, with over 30 attendees from the FCC, U.S. government, 102 Eurostat is the Statistical Office of the European Communities that is tasked 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. 103 BDIA § 103(b); 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). 104 Fourth IBDR, paras. 54-60. 105 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. 106 The OECD published this paper in June 2015. See OECD, Triple and Quadruple Play Bundles of Communication Services (2015), http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/triple-and-quadruple-play- bundles-of-communication-services_5js04dp2q1jc-en. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 16 World Bank, and Canadian and Mexican regulatory officials collaborating on a set of final suggestions and observations for the authors to take into account as they finalized the OECD analysis. 48. At the subsequent Working Party on Communication Infrastructures and Service Policy meeting in December 2015, OECD delegates agreed to publish the final paper in March 2016 (subject to some edits and minor adjustments to the methodology), and also reached consensus on “next steps” for what they viewed as an innovative and interesting work stream. These steps include to begin applying the new methodology, in parallel with the OECD’s current broadband services price basket approach, using data provided by a “Beta-test” set of between three to six OECD member economies. Though the United States is a likely candidate, discussion of whether the Commission will participate will occur in early 2016. IV. CONCLUSION 49. In conjunction with the Commission’s adoption of the 2016 Broadband Progress Report, the release of this Report fulfills the obligation imposed by Section 103(b) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act.107 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 50. 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 107 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 17 FIFTH INTERNATIONAL BROADBAND REPORT APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Country List APPENDIX B: Broadband Price Dataset APPENDIX C: Broadband Price Tables APPENDIX D: Demographics Dataset APPENDIX E: Market and Regulatory Background APPENDIX F: Comparing International Fixed Broadband Speeds APPENDIX G: Broadband Deployment Comparison with Europe Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 18 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 New Zealand X X X X Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 19 COUNTRIES Appendix B: Broadband Price Dataset Appendix D: Demographics Dataset Appendix E: Market and Regulatory Background Appendix F: Actual Broadband Speeds 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 United Kingdom X X X X United States X X X Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 20 APPENDIX B Broadband Price Dataset Google’s fixed dataset and mobile dataset (excluding smartphones) can be found at http://policybythenumbers.blogspot.com/2015/02/global-broadband-pricing-study-updated.html. The mobile dataset (smartphones) can be found on the FCC website at https://www.fcc.gov/reports- research/reports/international-broadband-data-reports/international-broadband-data-report-3. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 21 APPENDIX C Broadband Price Tables Table 1a Number of Standalone Fixed Broadband Plans Country Number of Standalone Fixed Broadband Plans Australia 66 Austria 16 Belgium 6 Brazil 25 Bulgaria 14 Canada 22 Chile 14 Czech Republic 8 Denmark 19 Finland 7 France 1 Germany 17 Greece 8 Hong Kong 11 Hungary 28 India 64 Israel 7 Italy 8 Japan 28 Korea 14 Mexico 10 Netherlands 7 Poland 21 Portugal 8 Singapore 8 Slovak Republic 13 Slovenia 57 Spain 5 Sweden 24 Switzerland 8 Turkey 37 United Kingdom 13 United States 25 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 22 Table 1b Average Monthly All-Inclusive Standalone Fixed Broadband Plans in U.S. Dollars (PPP and Exchange Rate Conversion) Country Price $ (PPP) Price $ (Exchange Rate) Rank (PPP) Rank (Exchange Rate) France 18.81 20.13 1 2 Israel 28.05 30.29 2 9 Bulgaria 30.31 13.19 3 1 Spain 33.51 28.98 4 7 Slovak Republic 34.77 22.45 5 4 Austria 35.81 37.93 6 11 Poland 36.65 20.19 7 3 Czech Republic 36.95 23.46 8 5 United Kingdom 37.09 41.59 9 15 Denmark 41.54 54.36 10 23 Germany 41.54 41.21 11 14 Sweden 43.34 52.04 12 21 Netherlands 45.24 47.32 13 19 Greece 45.35 36.93 14 10 Korea 48.52 39.48 15 12 Hungary 52.93 27.62 16 6 Japan 53.50 50.50 17 20 Canada 58.30 64.41 18 25 Singapore 58.64 40.17 19 13 Belgium 61.76 66.25 20 26 Hong Kong 65.17 46.62 21 18 Finland 67.50 79.44 22 28 United States 69.93 69.93 23 27 Mexico 70.52 41.77 24 16 Portugal 73.63 57.02 25 24 Chile 78.76 46.54 26 17 Switzerland 79.15 114.58 27 32 Italy 84.77 81.56 28 29 India 108.08 29.48 29 8 Turkey 109.26 52.63 30 22 Slovenia 124.72 95.51 31 30 Australia 134.70 176.87 32 33 Brazil 146.91 96.44 33 31 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 23 Table 2a Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price of Standalone Fixed Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Technology Advertised Download Speed >1 to 55 to 15?Mbps Country All Cable DSL Fiber Hybrid Average Download Speed Australia 74.32 74.32 12.00 Austria 27.84 20.49 29.31 8.33 Brazil 58.17 68.85 55.50 12.00 Bulgaria 23.42 23.42 15.00 Canada 51.61 57.65 39.34 45.75 12.00 Chile 62.82 61.89 64.69 13.33 Czech Republic 33.26 33.26 6.00 Denmark 26.59 30.45 24.65 11.67 Finland 55.46 26.78 69.80 9.33 Germany 29.17 28.05 30.29 9.00 Hungary 44.59 43.37 45.13 10.16 India 117.32 115.08 118.03 9.43 Israel 25.73 30.12 23.59 23.48 14.00 Italy 50.27 50.27 7.00 Japan 29.83 38.47 28.10 11.33 Mexico 49.90 37.39 62.40 10.00 Netherlands 36.31 36.31 10.00 Poland 28.03 29.64 26.95 10.00 Portugal 38.13 38.13 12.00 Singapore 36.38 36.38 15.00 Slovak Republic 29.40 39.20 19.60 8.00 Slovenia 60.71 69.01 59.42 10.40 Spain 35.25 35.25 10.00 Sweden 21.68 16.32 37.73 9.00 Switzerland 28.78 28.78 15.00 Turkey 52.81 52.81 8.00 United States 43.03 39.97 35.41 49.91 8.20 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 25 Table 2c Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price of Standalone Fixed Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Technology Advertised Download Speed >15 to 25?Mbps Country All Cable DSL Fiber Hybrid Average Download Speed Australia 91.22 108.45 77.67 23.71 Austria 29.52 29.76 29.05 18.67 Brazil 79.72 79.72 25.00 Bulgaria 21.14 19.96 21.73 21.67 Canada 56.70 69.50 42.03 45.75 25.00 Chile 64.71 64.71 20.00 Czech Republic 35.09 44.33 25.85 20.00 Denmark 34.98 37.23 34.23 21.25 Finland 32.16 32.16 20.00 France 18.81 18.81 25.00 Germany 31.18 26.46 30.31 43.22 18.67 Greece 35.65 35.65 24.00 Hungary 52.38 51.32 52.91 18.61 India 191.18 165.99 216.37 16.67 Italy 70.87 60.31 102.55 20.00 Mexico 43.71 43.71 20.00 Netherlands 17.35 17.35 20.00 Poland 35.09 35.09 20.00 Portugal 42.76 42.76 22.00 Slovak Republic 24.53 19.65 29.40 22.50 Slovenia 70.06 70.06 20.56 Spain 21.44 24.74 18.15 20.00 Switzerland 35.32 35.32 20.00 Turkey 59.70 50.79 71.16 19.56 United Kingdom 15.50 15.50 17.00 United States 59.51 44.99 64.35 23.00 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 26 Table 2d Average Monthly All-Inclusive Price of Fixed Standalone Broadband Plan ($ PPP) by Technology Advertised Download Speed >25 to 50?Mbps Country All Cable DSL Fiber Hybrid Average Download Speed Australia 83.59 83.59 50.00 Austria 38.96 34.23 43.69 36.25 Belgium 43.65 33.63 47.00 30.00 Brazil 101.36 93.72 37.24 137.23 41.25 Bulgaria 27.31 28.88 26.92 42.00 Canada 71.09 82.26 52.81 55.86 46.00 Chile 75.03 74.55 75.94 40.00 Czech Republic 51.74 51.74 40.00 Denmark 39.59 26.99 45.29 40.79 37.50 Finland 75.18 75.18 50.00 Germany 40.18 33.69 39.50 43.78 50.00 Greece 54.29 54.29 45.00 Hungary 58.02 51.11 59.10 62.65 33.63 India 55.02 55.02 50.00 Israel 27.24 28.11 26.37 40.00 Italy 38.15 38.15 30.00 Japan 35.71 53.17 33.97 44.91 Korea 38.17 38.17 50.00 Mexico 68.72 68.72 50.00 Netherlands 34.09 34.09 45.00 Poland 26.90 26.90 50.00 Portugal 53.11 50.66 55.57 35.00 Slovak Republic 31.46 25.77 29.40 39.20 46.67 Slovenia 103.98 103.98 40.00 Spain 36.45 36.45 50.00 Sweden 58.92 80.29 37.55 40.00 Switzerland 42.84 38.91 46.78 45.00 Turkey 162.27 162.27 44.00 United Kingdom 31.67 44.96 27.98 13.67 26.78 42.8 United States 62.17 34.99 75.76 48.33 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 27 Table 3 Average Price of Fixed Standalone Plans (US$ and PPP) per Mbps of download Speed by Country, 2014 Country $/Mbps $PPP/Mbps Australia 4.09 3.12 Austria 2.05 1.94 Belgium 1.34 1.25 Brazil 12.55 19.12 Bulgaria 0.35 0.79 Canada 2.77 2.51 Chile 2.90 4.91 Czech Republic 2.73 4.31 Denmark 1.64 1.25 Finland 3.89 3.31 France 0.81 0.75 Germany 1.36 1.37 Greece 1.96 2.41 Hong Kong 0.19 0.26 Hungary 1.43 2.74 India 5.99 21.97 Israel 1.18 1.09 Italy 2.83 2.94 Japan 1.88 1.99 Korea 0.31 0.38 Mexico 1.69 2.85 Netherlands 1.12 1.07 Poland 0.59 1.08 Portugal 1.17 1.51 Singapore 0.35 0.51 Slovak Republic 1.63 2.52 Slovenia 6.59 8.61 Spain 1.20 1.39 Sweden 2.75 2.29 Switzerland 5.81 4.01 Turkey 2.70 5.62 United Kingdom 0.76 0.68 United States 4.18 4.18 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 28 Table 4a Standalone Fixed Broadband Plans with Usage Limits – Download Speed <25Mbps Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Data Limit Plan Count Average Monthly Price Rank Price per GB Rank Denmark 33.85 17.50 0.08 450.00 2 3 1 Germany 33.09 12.00 0.21 200.00 2 2 2 United States 54.23 12.60 0.22 250.00 5 7 3 Australia 90.97 14.73 0.65 345.91 22 8 4 Canada 40.76 11.00 0.76 84.00 5 4 5 Brazil 52.25 4.00 1.75 40.00 3 6 6 United Kingdom 19.59 17.00 1.96 10.00 1 1 7 Turkey 45.23 14.27 3.96 39.32 22 5 8 India 105.67 7.22 6.73 45.62 50 9 9 Table 4b Standalone Fixed Broadband Plans with Usage Limits – Download Speed ?25Mbps Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Price per GB ($PPP/GB) Data Limit Plan Count Average Monthly Price Rank Price per GB Rank Denmark 35.40 75.00 0.02 1650.00 6 2 1 Germany 76.15 75.00 0.18 400.00 2 5 2 Canada 68.44 102.86 0.26 438.57 14 4 3 United States 81.53 45.00 0.33 250.00 1 6 4 Belgium 46.70 36.00 0.40 140.00 5 3 5 Turkey 84.38 60.00 0.56 162.50 6 8 6 Brazil 291.12 177.50 1.15 237.50 4 10 7 Australia 84.14 58.33 1.25 276.15 39 7 8 United Kingdom 26.78 38.00 1.34 20.00 1 1 9 India 88.67 55.56 2.68 33.33 9 9 10 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 29 Table 4c Standalone Fixed Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed <10Mbps Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Slovak Republic 22.05 4.25 4 2 Switzerland 24.46 1.00 1 3 Finland 26.78 8.00 1 4 Austria 29.31 8.00 5 5 Japan 30.73 4.50 2 6 Czech Republic 30.78 4.00 3 7 Sweden 32.39 5.00 4 8 United States 33.12 4.00 5 9 Hungary 35.74 5.00 2 10 Greece 38.71 4.00 1 11 Chile 42.19 3.33 3 12 Mexico 43.15 5.00 1 13 Brazil 44.85 2.27 7 14 Slovenia 46.11 3.44 18 15 Italy 50.27 7.00 1 16 Turkey 76.49 6.00 4 17 India 111.78 1.66 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 30 Table 4d Standalone Fixed Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed ?10 to ?25 Mbps Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 United Kingdom 13.45 17.00 2 2 France 18.81 25.00 1 3 Bulgaria 22.05 19.00 5 4 Israel 25.73 14.00 3 5 Spain 26.05 16.67 3 6 Netherlands 26.83 15.00 2 7 Austria 27.26 16.50 4 8 Slovak Republic 29.50 18.33 3 9 Germany 29.87 17.17 6 10 Japan 29.98 12.00 5 11 Poland 30.04 12.86 7 12 Denmark 30.40 17.00 5 13 Sweden 32.00 10.00 2 14 Switzerland 32.05 17.50 2 15 Czech Republic 35.09 20.00 2 16 Greece 35.65 24.00 3 17 Singapore 36.38 15.00 1 18 Portugal 40.47 18.67 3 19 United States 44.99 20.00 3 20 Mexico 46.80 15.00 4 21 Hungary 48.49 14.39 12 22 Finland 57.26 13.33 3 23 Brazil 60.35 15.00 5 24 Chile 63.29 15.00 4 25 Slovenia 65.84 14.77 22 26 Australia 69.81 19.00 3 27 Italy 70.87 20.00 4 28 Canada 119.21 17.50 2 29 Turkey 203.06 24.00 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 31 Table 4e Standalone Fixed Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed <25 Mbps Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 United Kingdom 13.45 17.00 2 2 Bulgaria 22.58 17.50 4 3 Israel 25.73 14.00 3 4 Spain 26.05 16.67 3 5 Slovak Republic 26.13 7.83 6 6 Netherlands 26.83 15.00 2 7 Austria 28.40 11.78 9 8 Denmark 29.09 15.00 4 9 Switzerland 29.52 12.00 3 10 Poland 30.04 12.86 7 11 Japan 30.20 9.86 7 12 Germany 30.77 15.60 5 13 Sweden 32.26 6.67 6 14 Czech Republic 32.51 10.40 5 15 United States 32.60 5.00 6 16 Singapore 36.38 15.00 1 17 Greece 36.41 19.00 4 18 Portugal 40.47 18.67 3 19 Mexico 46.07 13.00 5 20 Hungary 46.67 13.05 14 21 Brazil 48.72 5.99 11 22 Finland 49.64 12.00 4 23 Chile 54.25 10.00 7 24 Slovenia 56.27 9.28 39 25 Italy 66.75 17.40 5 26 Australia 68.71 16.00 2 27 Turkey 101.80 9.60 5 28 India 111.78 1.66 5 29 Canada 117.19 10.00 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 32 Table 4f Standalone Fixed Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed ?25 to 50 Mbps Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 France 18.81 25.00 1 2 Bulgaria 26.09 39.17 6 3 Poland 26.90 50.00 1 4 Israel 27.24 40.00 2 5 Slovak Republic 28.57 41.25 4 6 United Kingdom 32.89 44.00 4 7 Netherlands 34.09 45.00 2 8 Japan 35.71 44.91 11 9 Germany 36.17 43.75 4 10 Spain 36.45 50.00 1 11 Italy 38.15 30.00 1 12 Korea 38.17 50.00 4 13 Austria 38.96 36.25 4 14 Denmark 42.62 37.14 7 15 Switzerland 42.84 45.00 2 16 Czech Republic 51.74 40.00 1 17 United States 52.49 37.50 4 18 Portugal 53.11 35.00 2 19 Greece 54.29 45.00 4 20 Hungary 58.01 33.63 9 21 Sweden 58.92 40.00 4 22 Mexico 68.72 50.00 2 23 Australia 73.67 37.50 2 24 Chile 75.01 40.00 3 25 Finland 75.18 50.00 2 26 Brazil 97.86 40.00 4 27 Slovenia 101.50 38.13 8 28 Canada 128.31 37.50 2 29 Turkey 285.01 42.50 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 33 Table 4g Standalone Fixed Broadband Plans with Unlimited Usage – Download Speed > 50 Mbps Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Average Download Speed Plan Count 1 Israel 32.35 100.00 2 2 Czech Republic 40.67 80.00 2 3 Poland 40.95 147.69 13 4 Slovak Republic 44.13 233.33 3 5 Bulgaria 44.37 112.50 4 6 Italy 46.18 100.00 2 7 Japan 46.79 756.00 10 8 Germany 47.31 125.00 4 9 Korea 49.45 460.00 10 10 Spain 52.96 100.00 1 11 Austria 53.82 108.33 3 12 United Kingdom 55.47 116.00 5 13 Sweden 57.86 358.57 14 14 Hungary 61.31 132.00 5 15 Singapore 61.82 371.43 7 16 Netherlands 64.95 226.67 3 17 Hong Kong 65.17 481.82 11 18 Australia 81.95 100.00 1 19 Belgium 82.96 120.00 1 20 Portugal 96.30 133.33 3 21 Switzerland 109.89 158.33 3 22 United States 109.99 208.89 9 23 Mexico 112.47 133.33 3 24 Finland 123.58 100.00 1 25 Chile 124.48 107.50 4 26 Brazil 142.24 150.00 3 27 Slovenia 410.26 248.00 10 28 Turkey 731.20 550.00 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 34 Table 5a Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: <1 GB and Limited Minutes1 $per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/G B) Aver- age Month -ly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Advertis ed Downloa d Speed Average Minutes Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 1 Israel 24 6 0.25 200.00 6.08 6.08 2.00 2 13 New Zealand 26 20 0.75 7.20 300.00 19.75 19.75 1.00 3 3 Portugal 32 10 0.33 90.91 0.42 20.98 11.00 4 10 Norway 33 17 0.50 6.00 150.00 16.63 16.63 1.00 5 7 Switzerland 36 14 0.43 153.60 5.00 7.38 24.77 12.00 6 8 Spain 53 15 0.50 200.00 0.00 10.43 17.81 6.00 7 28 Chile 63 43 0.70 20.00 160.00 40.76 46.20 2.00 8 15 Mexico 65 25 0.42 236.67 18.18 36.25 12.00 9 22 Hong Kong 68 34 0.50 1400.00 27.82 35.78 4.00 10 18 Australia 72 27 0.40 40.00 350.00 26.39 27.78 2.00 11 27 Sweden 78 39 0.50 100.00 0.00 38.77 38.77 1.00 12 24 United Kingdom 78 35 0.44 30.00 472.73 7.16 265.04 22.00 13 17 Turkey 83 27 0.34 450.00 19.84 33.33 4.00 14 6 Iceland 88 13 0.27 100.00 110.00 7.55 22.10 5.00 15 9 Germany 91 16 0.24 71.10 108.33 9.51 32.99 12.00 16 4 Luxembourg 92 12 0.31 60.00 6.52 20.65 10.00 17 12 Poland 95 19 0.33 131.80 5.61 28.03 10.00 18 31 Brazil 95 48 0.50 4.00 45.00 40.61 54.88 4.00 19 14 Slovenia 97 21 0.26 7.47 257.14 14.74 24.82 7.00 20 11 Italy 102 19 0.33 100.00 353.33 7.98 25.27 3.00 21 32 India 113 48 0.48 15.72 4638.46 19.85 66.30 13.00 22 23 Hungary 114 34 0.33 16.60 106.00 20.51 60.93 10.00 23 33 Singapore 120 49 0.40 275.00 250.00 32.94 80.52 6.00 24 35 Ireland 129 65 0.50 400.00 64.54 64.54 1.00 25 16 Netherlands 141 26 0.42 25.00 154.00 6.93 33.56 5.00 26 21 Austria 174 32 0.30 4.50 1000.00 27.52 36.19 2.00 27 25 Korea 178 36 0.42 300.00 159.21 17.77 111.36 131.0 0 28 29 Canada 181 46 0.28 110.00 420.00 41.02 57.42 5.00 29 5 Belgium 194 13 0.20 105.60 135.00 8.35 21.36 6.00 30 34 Greece 321 54 0.26 222.60 894.23 34.90 81.17 52.00 31 26 Czech Republic 372 37 0.10 226.00 175.00 25.70 50.52 16.00 1 The United States did not have any plans in this category. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 35 $per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/G B) Aver- age Month -ly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Advertis ed Downloa d Speed Average Minutes Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 32 30 France 382 47 0.23 170.87 222.86 14.57 650.04 28.00 33 2 Lithuania 887 9 0.01 200.00 250.00 5.71 12.04 4.00 34 19 Slovakia 1228 29 0.24 72.86 8.23 50.32 21.00 35 20 Bulgaria 6768 30 0.29 42.00 502.35 5.64 96.68 34.00 Table 5b Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: <1 GB and Unlimited Minutes $per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Advertised Download Speed Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 2 Poland 40.36 20.18 0.50 20.18 20.18 1 2 6 Australia 55.56 27.78 0.50 27.78 27.78 1 3 7 India 56.77 28.38 0.50 3.10 28.38 28.38 2 4 12 Sweden 62.60 31.30 0.50 39.00 5.60 51.29 4 5 13 Brazil 64.76 32.38 0.50 5.00 26.89 37.87 4 6 14 Japan 76.25 34.68 0.52 142.50 26.16 38.56 5 7 9 Germany 85.38 29.62 0.40 78.37 17.08 45.67 6 8 10 Korea 87.54 30.43 0.40 300.00 15.40 45.02 18 9 5 Netherlands 95.92 24.77 0.43 50.00 1.28 38.49 6 10 3 Portugal 100.77 20.22 0.24 21.60 4.86 42.11 6 11 4 Norway 111.07 22.21 0.20 6.00 22.21 22.21 1 12 19 Slovakia 118.66 59.33 0.50 52.49 62.80 6 13 1 United Kingdom 121.78 12.18 0.10 12.18 12.18 1 14 20 Mexico 125.71 62.86 0.50 42.31 83.40 2 15 18 Canada 151.84 57.45 0.41 110.00 41.87 66.48 14 16 16 United States 161.11 48.33 0.30 45.00 61.67 10 17 21 Hungary 172.05 83.26 0.48 36.60 38.05 114.31 11 18 11 Italy 229.94 30.81 0.20 23.94 38.56 6 19 22 France 449.06 98.46 0.36 242.64 11.54 657.33 31 20 15 Czech Republic 475.65 41.73 0.13 198.33 25.70 66.13 12 21 8 Lithuania 801.53 29.15 0.16 200.00 14.57 43.72 4 22 17 Belgium 1073.43 53.67 0.05 90.00 53.67 53.67 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 36 Table 5c Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: ?1 to <5 GB and Limited Minutes2 $per GB Rank Aver- age Month- ly Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/ GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Advertise d Download Speed Average Minutes Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 1 Denmark 4.33 12.98 3.00 360.00 12.98 12.98 1 2 2 Israel 4.80 14.40 3.00 5000.00 11.96 16.84 4 3 9 Iceland 9.21 27.64 3.00 100.00 250.00 27.64 27.64 1 4 3 Lithuania 9.48 15.45 1.75 233.33 291.67 14.10 18.86 12 5 20 Sweden 11.69 46.77 4.00 100.00 0.00 46.77 46.77 1 6 13 Poland 13.45 33.63 2.50 200.00 33.63 33.63 1 7 8 Italy 14.04 27.48 2.13 100.00 713.33 6.65 51.86 9 8 11 Belgium 15.99 28.12 1.85 117.00 212.31 10.35 60.02 13 9 4 Switzerland 16.09 19.09 1.34 226.80 6.00 12.51 33.03 10 10 5 Portugal 16.67 21.97 1.43 71.43 17.06 27.48 7 11 18 Austria 17.09 44.23 2.67 17.33 1666.67 24.13 60.31 3 12 19 Turkey 18.30 44.62 2.88 7.20 984.69 22.22 83.33 49 13 27 Singapore 19.57 64.18 3.30 255.00 260.00 48.24 98.02 10 14 6 Luxembourg 19.58 22.27 1.57 225.00 328.57 6.52 38.04 14 15 7 Slovenia 20.43 26.03 1.40 10.00 1240.00 24.67 31.29 5 16 10 Spain 23.63 28.06 1.20 212.50 91.67 16.39 37.26 12 17 22 Chile 26.39 53.56 2.29 14.86 350.00 27.15 81.53 14 18 12 New Zealand 27.11 31.68 1.19 7.20 375.00 26.57 47.00 4 19 17 Bulgaria 27.20 40.96 1.56 42.00 1388.89 32.00 47.98 18 20 14 Ireland 28.15 37.94 1.50 250.00 36.72 39.17 4 21 15 Netherlands 29.16 38.40 1.52 30.00 154.00 9.39 65.17 10 22 21 Korea 29.81 48.79 1.77 300.00 228.49 22.51 71.08 131 23 16 Australia 30.79 40.51 1.50 80.00 454.67 34.72 48.61 3 24 26 India 33.12 61.59 2.08 15.58 4760.61 19.91 87.63 33 25 23 United Kingdom 38.45 53.71 1.81 52.50 814.29 14.33 197.71 21 26 25 Canada 44.91 60.57 1.50 110.00 300.00 53.84 65.80 10 27 24 Slovakia 45.13 55.58 1.33 216.67 42.18 62.69 6 28 29 Mexico 45.59 72.04 1.65 838.64 33.82 169.60 44 29 28 Hong Kong 49.65 70.13 1.79 42.00 2552.94 25.36 308.79 17 30 30 Brazil 54.46 115.07 2.33 3.40 265.00 53.62 213.34 36 31 32 Greece 86.86 152.08 2.03 254.47 1718.42 81.17 286.53 38 32 31 France 107.68 147.99 1.43 148.14 175.71 4.25 657.33 28 2 The United States did not have any plans in this category. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 37 Table 5d Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: ?1 to <5 GB and Unlimited Minutes $per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Advertised Download Speed Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 1 Israel 6.92 20.75 3.00 20.75 20.75 2 2 2 Denmark 7.93 22.59 3.00 12.98 29.38 5 3 5 Sweden 10.52 28.68 3.00 33.00 3.33 57.00 5 4 3 Lithuania 12.69 22.91 2.31 225.00 16.00 31.05 16 5 4 Japan 13.26 28.19 2.29 166.07 9.05 74.60 14 6 6 New Zealand 13.60 30.31 2.25 7.20 13.62 40.19 4 7 9 Norway 15.34 31.52 2.50 16.67 22.21 38.96 9 8 19 Australia 15.63 49.48 3.25 40.00 41.67 55.56 8 9 17 Spain 18.55 48.42 2.63 262.50 46.13 49.18 8 10 21 Belgium 18.63 52.34 2.80 119.25 31.21 90.04 5 11 8 Netherlands 19.71 31.34 1.75 40.00 1.03 49.57 12 12 11 Germany 20.79 37.13 2.00 131.94 17.00 70.49 16 13 10 Poland 20.88 33.73 1.85 16.82 72.87 13 14 7 Switzerland 24.88 31.22 1.50 200.33 23.02 38.04 8 15 16 Korea 25.62 47.69 2.16 300.00 21.32 81.74 39 16 22 Bulgaria 26.66 55.99 2.33 42.00 47.98 64.00 12 17 12 Slovenia 27.80 41.34 2.00 17.44 33.94 49.59 11 18 31 Chile 29.38 86.93 3.08 20.00 70.63 108.67 6 19 32 Austria 31.53 90.34 3.00 28.71 51.76 285.66 7 20 18 Ireland 32.64 48.96 1.50 75.00 48.96 48.96 1 21 23 United Kingdom 32.95 57.29 2.33 46.36 17.19 173.34 40 22 29 Czech Republic 33.35 76.91 2.55 205.95 48.25 117.68 42 23 15 Iceland 33.91 43.63 1.67 100.00 43.57 43.74 3 24 14 Portugal 33.97 43.59 1.33 21.60 12.99 66.65 6 25 25 United States 37.45 63.33 2.15 110.00 45.00 85.00 26 26 27 Canada 40.30 72.63 2.30 110.00 54.18 91.09 27 27 28 Mexico 40.35 75.67 2.08 36.37 121.11 12 28 26 Hong Kong 42.81 64.15 1.75 300.00 37.51 81.10 10 29 13 Ireland 42.84 42.84 1.00 75.00 42.84 42.84 1 30 24 Italy 43.63 59.61 2.03 100.00 26.99 165.29 12 31 30 Slovakia 46.78 83.07 2.33 73.11 92.78 6 32 20 India 51.13 51.13 1.00 3.10 51.13 51.13 2 33 33 France 51.41 109.99 2.28 183.72 17.62 668.26 72 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 38 $per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Advertised Download Speed Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 34 35 Hungary 69.45 125.49 2.22 34.00 91.43 141.76 9 35 34 Singapore 94.55 115.82 1.25 300.00 104.05 127.58 4 Table 5e Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: ?5 GB and Limited Minutes3 $per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/ GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Adver- tised Down- load Speed Average Minutes Min Aver- age Month- ly Price Max Aver- age Month- ly Price Plan Count 1 4 Denmark 1.98 20.55 12.00 840.00 18.23 21.70 3 2 1 Luxembourg 2.03 12.32 8.33 60.00 6.52 23.91 6 3 3 Netherlands 2.38 20.17 9.00 120.00 16.78 23.55 2 4 10 Sweden 3.26 69.62 25.33 100.00 0.00 58.19 81.04 3 5 2 Israel 3.37 16.84 5.00 5000.00 14.40 19.28 4 6 5 Ireland 4.90 24.48 5.00 75.00 0.00 24.48 24.48 1 7 23 France 5.04 251.88 50.00 35.00 120.00 14.58 602.54 6 8 6 Portugal 6.73 33.65 5.00 0.00 33.32 33.90 3 9 7 Spain 7.15 35.77 5.00 75.00 200.00 28.32 43.22 4 10 14 Korea 8.69 79.85 28.44 300.00 478.44 22.51 142.16 64 11 8 Italy 9.39 47.87 5.10 500.00 47.87 47.87 1 12 12 United Kingdom 9.49 75.93 8.00 600.00 41.55 141.83 3 13 9 Australia 11.00 65.97 6.00 100.00 683.00 65.97 65.97 1 14 15 Hong Kong 11.35 82.06 7.45 3772.73 50.39 113.93 11 15 11 Austria 12.06 72.38 6.00 42.00 3000.00 72.38 72.38 1 16 20 Chile 12.42 121.37 9.50 14.00 1333.33 51.61 190.23 12 17 13 Singapore 12.74 76.07 6.47 192.80 340.00 23.94 121.58 15 18 17 Bulgaria 13.43 91.65 6.67 42.00 7333.33 63.98 146.98 6 19 16 Turkey 14.46 83.25 5.80 7.20 3590.00 45.14 110.32 20 20 18 India 16.92 109.01 6.64 19.47 6666.67 86.68 227.46 21 21 19 Switzerland 22.65 113.24 5.00 21.00 0.00 113.24 113.24 2 22 21 Brazil 29.81 208.38 7.00 3.67 650.00 137.76 310.65 12 23 22 Greece 30.66 238.10 8.00 300.00 6666.67 194.81 324.68 6 3 The United States did not have any plans in this category. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 39 Table 5f Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: ?5 GB and Unlimited Minutes $per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Advertised Download Speed Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 4 Denmark 2.79 33.64 20.70 18.23 62.16 27 2 11 Sweden 2.84 58.23 31.71 57.18 11.31 102.72 17 3 3 Lithuania 4.00 30.84 8.67 200.00 17.75 43.56 6 4 2 Japan 4.06 30.51 10.47 156.62 9.05 105.60 34 5 1 Israel 4.06 28.88 7.50 24.16 43.02 8 6 26 Portugal 4.51 102.92 25.00 21.60 97.40 113.80 3 7 7 Slovenia 5.10 41.05 10.00 150.00 33.94 46.34 5 8 12 Norway 5.20 60.17 13.80 38.00 38.96 83.61 5 9 5 Netherlands 5.45 35.79 7.78 52.00 1.03 88.26 9 10 8 Switzerland 5.77 46.46 8.33 300.00 33.78 60.56 6 11 6 Luxembourg 5.84 38.24 8.00 225.00 21.63 71.74 10 12 25 Germany 7.73 99.84 13.00 154.17 28.30 255.07 12 13 14 United Kingdom 7.92 69.37 10.94 46.13 20.06 163.31 33 14 10 Belgium 8.25 55.39 7.00 121.20 41.67 70.83 5 15 22 Korea 9.08 85.55 12.21 300.00 11.85 152.82 116 16 21 Ireland 9.27 79.00 9.45 75.00 61.20 97.92 11 17 9 Poland 9.34 50.74 5.44 28.03 78.48 9 18 13 Australia 9.74 66.41 7.00 64.00 41.67 90.28 8 19 36 United States 10.19 256.79 29.67 19.38 45.00 805.00 180 20 17 Iceland 10.28 70.93 7.50 63.66 78.20 4 21 16 Hong Kong 10.40 70.65 7.00 58.01 82.32 4 22 19 New Zealand 10.76 72.55 6.94 7.20 47.00 101.50 8 23 18 Austria 10.91 71.01 6.80 128.40 57.67 75.88 5 24 28 Czech Republic 11.73 117.25 10.00 211.67 88.90 137.93 12 25 15 Spain 11.81 70.02 6.00 200.00 59.54 87.93 6 26 29 Canada 11.96 119.12 11.44 110.00 86.99 205.09 27 27 20 Ireland 12.24 73.44 6.00 75.00 73.44 73.44 1 28 24 Bulgaria 13.15 95.99 7.67 42.00 79.98 112.00 12 29 23 Turkey 15.28 91.67 6.00 7.20 79.86 103.47 4 30 32 France 15.80 152.86 12.37 264.46 7.28 645.07 76 31 27 Italy 15.93 110.00 8.20 100.00 46.54 178.59 5 32 30 Chile 16.37 126.34 8.00 7.00 97.80 171.18 6 33 31 Slovakia 16.56 130.38 8.43 83.42 207.13 14 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 40 $per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Advertised Download Speed Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 34 34 Singapore 21.76 230.74 10.50 225.00 121.55 282.73 4 35 33 Brazil 25.35 171.24 6.50 4.00 48.85 310.65 16 36 35 Mexico 40.39 242.33 6.00 242.33 242.33 2 Table 5g Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: Unlimited Data and Limited Minutes4 Average Monthly Price Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Advertised Download Speed Average Minutes Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 Mexico 1.21 10.00 1.21 1.21 2 2 Luxembourg 3.26 225.00 0.00 1.09 5.43 4 3 Lithuania 9.49 300.00 216.67 2.54 19.49 12 4 Switzerland 12.51 300.00 0.00 12.51 12.51 4 5 Iceland 13.13 100.00 550.00 12.40 13.85 2 6 France 14.41 143.03 111.43 9.71 19.43 14 7 Finland 21.02 46.67 0.00 16.14 26.98 6 8 Japan 26.17 202.00 7.20 64.91 13 9 Ireland 50.68 314.29 31.10 67.32 7 10 Korea 53.04 348.53 3.91 111.36 68 11 Estonia 55.88 300.00 270.00 28.92 97.32 10 12 United Kingdom 57.65 520.00 24.50 141.83 5 4 The United States did not have any plans in this category. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 41 Table 5h Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: Unlimited Data and Unlimited Minutes Average Monthly Price Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Advertised Download Speed Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 Sweden 12.17 38.33 3.31 17.02 4 2 Japan 18.46 150.00 9.05 30.63 9 3 France 18.89 47.93 17.00 22.66 3 4 Lithuania 23.57 300.00 13.46 41.68 6 5 Portugal 24.39 24.39 24.39 1 6 Iceland 29.04 15.86 36.64 4 7 Poland 40.92 39.24 42.60 2 8 Luxembourg 41.85 35.87 47.83 4 9 India 46.87 3.10 46.87 46.87 2 10 Ireland 55.81 24.48 85.68 5 11 Estonia 60.86 53.51 69.14 3 12 United Kingdom 63.35 12.89 141.83 5 13 United States 75.91 110.00 11.00 96.00 11 14 Korea 87.96 300.00 14.69 118.35 17 15 Austria 102.53 150.00 102.53 102.53 1 16 Slovenia 158.54 150.00 31.29 314.55 5 17 Switzerland 311.33 112.02 15.02 1275.53 32 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 42 Table 6a Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: <1 GB, Limited Text/SMS5 $per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Advertised Download Speed Average Text/SMS Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 1 Israel 24.31 6.08 0.25 200.00 6.08 6.08 2 2 4 Switzerland 30.85 11.13 0.40 7.20 0.00 7.38 14.89 4 3 3 Portugal 31.77 10.21 0.33 90.91 0.42 20.98 11 4 8 Poland 33.18 14.80 0.45 19.40 5.61 22.42 5 5 10 Norway 33.27 16.63 0.50 6.00 150.00 16.63 16.63 1 6 9 Spain 52.99 15.13 0.50 200.00 0.00 10.43 17.81 6 7 25 Chile 62.84 43.48 0.70 20.00 700.00 40.76 46.20 2 8 13 Mexico 65.44 24.97 0.42 163.33 18.18 36.25 12 9 22 Hong Kong 67.57 33.79 0.50 15.00 27.82 35.78 4 10 17 Turkey 82.67 26.59 0.34 150.00 19.84 33.33 4 11 16 Australia 87.96 26.39 0.30 40.00 1000.00 26.39 26.39 1 12 5 Luxembourg 92.32 12.17 0.31 848.00 6.52 20.65 10 13 12 Slovenia 97.32 20.50 0.26 7.47 714.29 14.74 24.82 7 14 6 Germany 102.42 13.35 0.16 63.88 137.50 9.51 18.05 8 15 21 Singapore 110.71 33.21 0.30 300.00 500.00 32.94 33.35 3 16 27 India 112.85 48.07 0.48 15.72 638.46 19.85 66.30 13 17 26 Hungary 119.74 45.60 0.40 15.50 32.00 20.51 106.68 10 18 7 Iceland 125.75 14.48 0.13 133.33 7.55 22.10 3 19 29 Ireland 129.08 64.54 0.50 400.00 64.54 64.54 1 20 15 Netherlands 146.82 25.63 0.34 50.00 210.00 1.28 34.79 5 21 14 Italy 162.40 25.27 0.26 100.00 195.00 7.98 31.91 8 22 19 Austria 173.78 31.85 0.30 4.50 525.00 27.52 36.19 2 23 24 Korea 193.31 35.29 0.38 300.00 754.90 17.77 111.36 106 24 20 France 210.53 32.79 0.20 21.60 250.00 30.36 35.22 4 25 28 Greece 320.54 54.16 0.26 222.60 658.27 34.90 81.17 52 26 11 Belgium 344.14 17.21 0.05 90.00 300.00 13.06 21.36 2 27 2 Lithuania 887.31 8.87 0.01 200.00 5000.00 5.71 12.04 4 28 23 Slovakia 1335.90 34.18 0.25 23.68 8.23 62.80 19 29 18 Bulgaria 8830.59 30.07 0.24 42.00 0.00 5.64 96.68 26 5 The United States did not have any plans in this category. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 43 Table 6b Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: <1 GB, Unlimited Text/SMS $per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Advertised Download Speed Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 4 New Zealand 26.34 19.75 0.75 7.20 19.75 19.75 1 2 1 Iceland 31.96 11.45 0.48 100.00 9.11 13.78 2 3 2 Switzerland 38.04 15.89 0.44 300.00 11.26 24.77 8 4 10 Australia 55.56 27.78 0.50 40.00 27.78 27.78 2 5 12 India 56.77 28.38 0.50 3.10 28.38 28.38 2 6 14 Sweden 65.59 32.80 0.50 51.20 5.60 51.29 5 7 11 Bulgaria 66.63 27.98 0.45 42.00 23.98 31.98 8 8 22 Chile 72.42 43.45 0.60 7.00 43.45 43.45 1 9 16 Japan 76.25 34.68 0.52 142.50 26.16 38.56 5 10 9 Germany 78.06 26.79 0.40 81.24 11.35 45.67 10 11 15 United Kingdom 79.55 34.04 0.43 30.00 7.16 265.04 23 12 21 Brazil 80.13 40.06 0.50 4.50 26.89 54.88 8 13 8 Netherlands 90.90 25.35 0.50 25.00 6.93 38.49 6 14 5 Portugal 100.77 20.22 0.24 21.60 4.86 42.11 6 15 17 Korea 101.54 36.46 0.50 300.00 15.40 45.02 43 16 6 Norway 111.07 22.21 0.20 6.00 22.21 22.21 1 17 25 Mexico 125.71 62.86 0.50 42.31 83.40 2 18 26 Singapore 129.58 64.79 0.50 250.00 33.31 80.52 3 19 7 Poland 137.33 22.42 0.26 19.62 28.03 6 20 19 Slovakia 139.04 38.59 0.40 30.93 50.32 8 21 23 United States 153.61 53.75 0.36 19.60 20.00 85.00 20 22 24 Canada 159.39 54.51 0.38 110.00 41.02 66.48 19 23 27 Hungary 166.80 72.65 0.42 34.00 20.51 114.31 11 24 3 Belgium 310.22 19.61 0.23 109.50 8.35 53.67 5 25 18 Italy 385.64 38.56 0.10 38.56 38.56 1 26 20 Czech Republic 416.36 39.14 0.11 214.14 25.70 66.13 28 27 28 France 432.04 77.23 0.31 222.18 11.54 657.33 55 28 13 Lithuania 801.53 29.15 0.16 200.00 14.57 43.72 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 44 Table 6c Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: ?1 to <5 GB and Limited Text/SMS6 $per GB Rank Averag e Monthl y Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/ GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Adver- tised Down- load Speed Average Text/SM S Min Aver- age Month- ly Price Max Aver- age Month- ly Price Plan Count 1 1 Israel 4.80 14.40 3.00 5000.00 11.96 16.84 4 2 2 Lithuania 9.93 15.65 1.70 200.00 2660.00 14.10 18.86 10 3 4 Portugal 16.67 21.97 1.43 71.43 17.06 27.48 7 4 13 Austria 17.09 44.23 2.67 17.33 1333.33 24.13 60.31 3 5 17 Singapore 17.34 59.90 3.43 300.00 1085.71 48.24 74.52 7 6 3 Luxembour g 18.24 21.38 1.67 225.00 373.33 6.52 38.04 12 7 14 Turkey 18.30 44.62 2.88 7.20 1510.20 22.22 83.33 49 8 9 Italy 18.52 30.46 1.87 100.00 387.27 6.65 51.86 11 9 7 Slovenia 19.37 26.37 1.50 10.00 1500.00 24.67 31.29 4 10 8 Spain 22.11 26.83 1.23 125.00 0.00 16.39 34.28 6 11 5 Switzerland 22.47 24.34 1.10 4.10 500.00 22.39 26.28 4 12 10 Netherlands 24.58 33.51 1.40 50.00 210.00 1.28 45.87 5 13 6 Poland 25.22 25.22 1.00 19.75 16.82 33.63 4 14 19 Chile 27.29 63.57 2.53 16.40 1167.50 27.15 108.67 20 15 12 Bulgaria 28.75 44.17 1.67 42.00 100.00 32.00 64.00 18 16 15 Korea 29.71 44.93 1.65 300.00 450.40 22.51 71.08 82 17 18 India 33.12 61.59 2.08 15.58 724.24 19.91 87.63 33 18 16 Hong Kong 38.11 56.86 1.72 276.55 6528.70 25.36 81.10 23 19 11 France 41.30 41.30 1.00 21.60 1000.00 41.30 41.30 2 20 20 Mexico 45.59 72.04 1.65 791.36 33.82 169.60 44 21 21 Greece 86.86 152.08 2.03 254.47 1742.11 81.17 286.53 38 6 The United States did not have any plans in this category. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 45 Table 6d Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: ?1 to <5 GB and Unlimited Text/SMS $per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Advertised Download Speed Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 1 Israel 6.92 20.75 3.00 20.75 20.75 2 2 2 Denmark 7.33 20.99 3.00 12.98 29.38 6 3 9 Sweden 10.72 31.70 3.17 46.40 3.33 57.00 6 4 3 Lithuania 12.08 21.97 2.28 240.00 14.42 31.05 18 5 6 Japan 13.26 28.19 2.29 166.07 9.05 74.60 14 6 8 Norway 15.34 31.52 2.50 16.67 22.21 38.96 9 7 10 Belgium 16.72 34.85 2.11 117.53 10.35 90.04 18 8 12 Poland 18.40 37.12 2.25 22.42 72.87 10 9 4 Switzerland 19.29 24.52 1.50 300.00 12.51 38.04 14 10 19 Australia 19.76 47.03 2.77 52.00 34.72 55.56 11 11 7 New Zealand 20.36 30.99 1.72 7.20 13.62 47.00 8 12 13 Germany 20.79 37.13 2.00 131.94 17.00 70.49 16 13 17 Spain 21.37 40.22 2.00 278.57 17.88 49.18 14 14 11 Netherlands 23.84 34.86 1.72 31.82 1.03 65.17 17 15 22 Bulgaria 24.35 51.18 2.17 42.00 41.58 63.98 12 16 16 Slovenia 27.53 39.95 1.92 17.44 24.67 49.59 12 17 5 Luxembourg 27.61 27.61 1.00 225.00 27.61 27.61 2 18 15 Iceland 27.73 39.63 2.00 100.00 27.64 43.74 4 19 23 Korea 28.04 51.90 2.06 300.00 21.32 81.74 88 20 14 Ireland 31.09 38.92 1.40 75.00 36.72 42.84 5 21 31 Austria 31.53 90.34 3.00 28.71 51.76 285.66 7 22 20 Ireland 32.64 48.96 1.50 75.00 48.96 48.96 1 23 30 Czech Republic 33.35 76.91 2.55 205.95 48.25 117.68 42 24 18 Portugal 33.97 43.59 1.33 21.60 12.99 66.65 6 25 24 United Kingdom 34.85 56.06 2.15 48.00 14.33 197.71 61 26 29 Mexico 40.35 75.67 2.08 36.37 121.11 12 27 27 Canada 41.54 69.37 2.08 110.00 53.84 91.09 37 28 28 United States 41.69 73.35 2.18 26.26 30.00 125.00 78 29 25 Italy 44.61 62.75 2.30 100.00 26.60 165.29 10 30 26 Slovakia 45.95 69.32 1.83 42.18 92.78 12 31 33 Chile 49.58 100.52 2.33 7.00 57.04 171.18 6 32 21 India 51.13 51.13 1.00 3.10 51.13 51.13 2 33 34 Brazil 54.46 115.07 2.33 3.40 53.62 213.34 36 34 32 Singapore 64.65 97.97 2.00 235.71 50.01 127.58 7 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 46 $per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Advertised Download Speed Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 35 35 France 67.69 122.25 2.06 176.87 4.25 668.26 98 36 36 Hungary 69.45 125.49 2.22 34.00 91.43 141.76 9 37 37 Hong Kong 98.91 131.47 2.13 44.46 308.79 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 47 Table 6e Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: ?5 GB and Limited Text/SMS7 $per GB Rank Averag e Monthl y Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/ GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Advertise d Download Speed Average Text/ SMS Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 1 Netherlands 0.26 1.28 5.00 50.00 200.00 1.28 1.28 1 2 2 Luxembour g 2.03 12.32 8.33 60.00 6.52 23.91 6 3 3 Israel 3.37 16.84 5.00 5000.00 14.40 19.28 4 4 5 Japan 3.74 26.16 7.00 150.00 3.00 26.16 26.16 2 5 4 Ireland 4.90 24.48 5.00 75.00 0.00 24.48 24.48 1 6 6 Portugal 6.73 33.65 5.00 0.00 33.32 33.90 3 7 7 Spain 7.15 35.77 5.00 75.00 0.00 28.32 43.22 4 8 11 Korea 7.95 81.65 32.6 7 300.00 457.41 22.51 142.16 54 9 8 Italy 10.23 52.19 5.10 300.00 47.87 54.52 4 10 15 Hong Kong 12.05 96.82 8.42 300.00 7095.00 46.20 183.57 24 11 9 Austria 12.06 72.38 6.00 42.00 1000.00 72.38 72.38 1 12 14 Singapore 13.13 94.30 7.25 208.88 1912.50 23.94 244.71 16 13 12 Bulgaria 13.43 91.65 6.67 42.00 666.67 63.98 146.98 6 14 10 Turkey 14.26 81.15 5.75 7.20 2437.50 45.14 110.32 16 15 18 Chile 15.32 135.26 8.94 16.00 2000.00 51.61 190.23 18 16 13 Belgium 16.81 93.04 5.50 129.00 78.03 108.04 2 17 16 India 16.92 109.01 6.64 19.47 1123.81 86.68 227.46 21 18 17 Switzerland 22.65 113.24 5.00 21.00 0.00 113.24 113.24 2 19 19 Greece 30.66 238.10 8.00 300.00 2000.00 194.81 324.68 6 7 The United States did not have any plans in this category. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 48 Table 6f Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: ?5 GB and Unlimited Text/SMS $per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Advertised Download Speed Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 4 Denmark 2.79 33.64 20.70 18.23 62.16 27 2 11 Sweden 2.84 58.23 31.71 57.18 11.31 102.72 17 3 3 Lithuania 4.00 30.84 8.67 200.00 17.75 43.56 6 4 2 Japan 4.06 30.51 10.47 156.62 9.05 105.60 34 5 1 Israel 4.06 28.88 7.50 24.16 43.02 8 6 26 Portugal 4.51 102.92 25.00 21.60 97.40 113.80 3 7 7 Slovenia 5.10 41.05 10.00 150.00 33.94 46.34 5 8 12 Norway 5.20 60.17 13.80 38.00 38.96 83.61 5 9 5 Netherlands 5.45 35.79 7.78 52.00 1.03 88.26 9 10 8 Switzerland 5.77 46.46 8.33 300.00 33.78 60.56 6 11 6 Luxembourg 5.84 38.24 8.00 225.00 21.63 71.74 10 12 25 Germany 7.73 99.84 13.00 154.17 28.30 255.07 12 13 13 United Kingdom 7.92 69.37 10.94 46.13 20.06 163.31 33 14 10 Belgium 8.25 55.39 7.00 121.20 41.67 70.83 5 15 22 Korea 9.08 85.55 12.21 300.00 11.85 152.82 116 16 21 Ireland 9.27 79.00 9.45 75.00 61.20 97.92 11 17 9 Poland 9.34 50.74 5.44 28.03 78.48 9 18 36 United States 10.13 258.83 29.94 19.59 45.00 805.00 178 19 14 Australia 10.14 69.94 7.14 64.00 55.56 90.28 7 20 17 Iceland 10.28 70.93 7.50 63.66 78.20 4 21 16 Hong Kong 10.40 70.65 7.00 58.01 82.32 4 22 19 New Zealand 10.76 72.55 6.94 7.20 47.00 101.50 8 23 18 Austria 10.91 71.01 6.80 128.40 57.67 75.88 5 24 28 Czech Republic 11.73 117.25 10.00 211.67 88.90 137.93 12 25 15 Spain 11.81 70.02 6.00 200.00 59.54 87.93 6 26 29 Canada 11.96 119.12 11.44 110.00 86.99 205.09 27 27 20 Ireland 12.24 73.44 6.00 75.00 73.44 73.44 1 28 24 Bulgaria 13.15 95.99 7.67 42.00 79.98 112.00 12 29 23 Turkey 15.28 91.67 6.00 7.20 79.86 103.47 4 30 32 France 15.80 152.86 12.37 264.46 7.28 645.07 76 31 27 Italy 15.93 110.00 8.20 100.00 46.54 178.59 5 32 30 Chile 16.37 126.34 8.00 7.00 97.80 171.18 6 33 31 Slovakia 16.56 130.38 8.43 83.42 207.13 14 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 49 $per GB Rank Average Monthly Charge Rank Country Price GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Advertised Download Speed Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 34 34 Singapore 21.76 230.74 10.50 225.00 121.55 282.73 4 35 33 Brazil 25.35 171.24 6.50 4.00 48.85 310.65 16 36 35 Mexico 40.39 242.33 6.00 242.33 242.33 2 Table 6g Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: Unlimited Data and Limited Text/SMS8 Average Monthly Price Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Advertised Download Speed Average Text/SMS Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 Luxembourg 3.26 225.00 0.00 1.09 5.434783 4 2 Lithuania 9.75 2500.00 2.54 19.49489 8 3 France 13.35 364.00 300.00 9.71 16.99879 4 4 Iceland 18.43 100.00 300.00 12.40 29.02345 3 5 Japan 26.44 0.00 7.20 64.91116 12 6 Korea 53.09 282.26 3.91 111.357 62 7 Estonia 55.88 300.00 135.00 28.92 97.31618 10 8 The United States did not have any plans in this category. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 50 Table 6h Smartphone Data Plans with Usage Limits: Unlimited Data and Unlimited Text/SMS Average Monthly Price Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Advertised Download Speed Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 Mexico 1.21 1.21 1.21 2 2 Sweden 12.17 38.33 3.31 17.02 4 3 France 15.77 53.09 10.92 22.66 13 4 Lithuania 17.73 300.00 6.34 41.68 10 5 Japan 18.90 150.00 9.05 30.63 10 6 Finland 21.02 46.67 16.14 26.98 6 7 Portugal 24.39 24.39 24.39 1 8 Iceland 29.05 15.86 36.64 3 9 Poland 40.92 39.24 42.60 2 10 Luxembourg 41.85 35.87 47.83 4 11 India 46.87 3.10 46.87 46.87 2 12 Ireland 55.35 24.48 85.68 13 13 United Kingdom 60.50 12.89 141.83 10 14 United States 73.46 110.00 11.00 96.00 13 15 Korea 78.72 300.00 14.69 118.35 23 16 Austria 102.53 150.00 102.53 102.53 1 17 Estonia 116.05 32.39 230.70 7 18 Slovenia 158.54 150.00 31.29 314.55 5 19 Switzerland 278.13 138.87 12.51 1275.53 36 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 51 Table 7a Mobile Data Plans excluding Smartphone with Usage Limits: <5GB $ per GB Ran k Average Monthly Price Rank Country Price Per GB Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Min Average Monthl y Price Max Average Monthl y Price Plan Count 1 2 Poland 3.57 10.96 3.07 10.96 10.96 1 2 1 Austria 6.62 6.78 1.02 6.78 6.78 1 3 10 Italy 8.63 15.66 2.25 11.84 21.71 5 4 11 France 8.96 15.70 1.79 10.64 23.70 4 5 6 Sweden 9.53 13.82 2.37 5.62 22.82 7 6 14 Australia 11.52 18.36 2.62 3.31 33.11 11 7 18 Czech Republic 11.60 20.01 2.27 6.59 38.45 9 8 22 Singapore 12.13 24.84 2.05 13.68 38.77 5 9 16 Spain 12.40 19.21 1.69 8.78 35.13 9 10 12 United Kingdom 13.02 16.12 1.68 7.19 23.02 12 11 8 Hungary 13.05 14.73 1.78 4.59 24.92 8 12 20 India 13.11 23.37 1.91 4.47 44.75 20 13 24 Korea 14.89 29.62 2.30 14.57 49.52 12 14 29 Chile 15.24 34.26 2.55 27.86 45.02 8 15 3 Bulgaria 15.25 13.53 1.44 4.30 23.42 12 16 4 Turkey 15.73 13.65 0.99 6.37 26.41 8 17 9 Portugal 16.10 15.11 1.14 4.89 20.42 6 18 17 Greece 16.46 19.99 1.67 7.77 31.09 7 19 5 Denmark 18.35 13.71 1.27 8.47 20.39 4 20 13 Slovak Republic 18.49 17.63 1.66 5.88 31.34 9 21 19 Germany 19.16 20.13 1.66 11.47 27.58 8 22 28 Brazil 24.04 33.46 1.93 18.03 43.46 9 23 26 United States 24.91 31.25 2.32 10.00 50.00 8 24 30 Japan 25.96 53.17 2.05 53.17 53.17 1 25 21 Netherlands 29.80 24.09 1.33 10.29 48.35 12 26 7 Belgium 31.09 14.16 1.44 5.90 17.70 5 27 23 Hong Kong 36.90 29.51 1.32 22.67 42.46 6 28 27 Switzerland 54.58 33.10 0.96 13.67 46.77 4 29 15 Canada 84.50 19.11 0.76 5.05 36.37 12 30 25 Mexico 351.44 29.89 1.22 9.88 49.90 14 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 52 Table 7b Mobile Data Plans excluding Smartphone with Usage Limits: >5GB $ per GB Rank Average Monthly Price Rank Country Price Per GB Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Data Cap Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 1 Poland 1.12 21.04 23.55 9.29 49.31 14 2 7 Denmark 1.58 33.49 87.38 12.80 65.65 15 3 2 Austria 2.04 26.46 14.17 12.75 61.61 12 4 9 Sweden 2.16 36.78 24.47 14.84 80.17 20 5 4 France 3.15 31.17 12.16 17.63 47.20 8 6 3 Italy 3.17 27.82 9.51 18.42 39.47 7 7 8 Greece 3.47 36.39 11.95 23.16 54.40 9 8 17 Hungary 3.61 44.71 14.64 24.06 74.36 10 9 5 United Kingdom 3.73 32.26 11.12 21.58 43.16 7 10 14 Portugal 3.81 43.76 14.56 24.51 65.38 9 11 19 Australia 3.90 47.18 13.06 29.80 79.47 12 12 11 Korea 4.05 42.11 19.53 11.65 92.05 14 13 12 Bulgaria 4.35 43.04 12.40 27.68 59.15 8 14 13 Czech Republic 4.89 43.63 9.05 21.41 74.00 6 15 16 Slovak Republic 4.89 44.41 12.25 29.40 68.58 6 16 18 Turkey 4.91 46.48 9.73 21.85 90.15 16 17 21 Netherlands 5.49 48.19 9.04 34.49 60.45 4 18 20 Germany 5.80 47.66 10.02 31.89 91.39 7 19 26 Chile 5.83 70.89 14.68 41.92 101.01 15 20 15 Switzerland 5.87 44.25 7.68 28.06 64.04 4 21 6 Israel 6.52 33.40 5.12 29.61 37.19 2 22 28 India 6.69 82.39 15.90 29.89 286.31 18 23 31 United States 7.10 179.29 26.15 40.00 730.00 28 24 22 Spain 7.24 49.77 7.17 43.92 61.48 3 25 23 Canada 7.24 56.20 8.06 28.29 84.87 8 26 27 Brazil 7.25 75.90 13.82 44.70 124.29 12 27 10 Belgium 7.30 37.36 5.12 35.39 41.30 3 28 24 Hong Kong 7.91 56.39 7.37 41.20 78.45 5 29 25 Singapore 8.22 62.12 7.85 22.69 123.33 15 30 29 Mexico 8.40 96.45 12.52 49.90 212.48 9 31 30 Japan 9.31 120.42 13.75 55.10 236.84 7 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 53 Table 7c Mobile Data Plans excluding Smartphone with Unlimited Usage 9 $ per GB Rank Country Average Monthly Price ($PPP) Min Average Monthly Price Max Average Monthly Price Plan Count 1 Austria 37.85 25.90 55.77 3 2 Czech Republic 51.04 51.04 51.04 1 3 Finland 22.12 13.87 32.23 9 4 Israel 39.65 37.14 42.16 2 5 Poland 27.41 27.41 27.41 1 6 Portugal 49.03 49.03 49.03 1 7 Switzerland 32.56 5.40 64.76 6 8 Turkey 58.28 53.72 62.83 2 9 The United States did not have any plans in this category. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 54 Table 8 2014 Mobile Prepaid Excluding Smartphones $ per GB Rank Country Price Per GB of Data ($PPP/GB) Plan Count 1 Finland 1.07 4 2 Italy 3.96 5 3 Sweden 4.07 15 4 Chile 6.35 22 5 Poland 7.19 22 6 Australia 8.41 18 7 Japan 10.15 2 8 Austria 11.64 6 9 Slovak Republic 11.94 3 10 India 12.56 69 11 United Kingdom 12.88 15 12 France 13.26 5 13 United States 14.01 17 14 Turkey 14.13 16 15 Israel 15.95 5 16 Germany 17.72 12 17 Spain 18.44 2 18 Portugal 18.46 11 19 Singapore 18.75 17 20 Switzerland 19.99 11 21 Greece 21.60 12 22 Hungary 29.12 13 23 Brazil 34.85 13 24 Netherlands 36.95 9 25 Mexico 39.26 51 26 Czech Republic 50.96 9 27 Belgium 53.11 5 28 Canada 61.40 7 29 Bulgaria 127.04 9 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 55 Appendix D Demographics Dataset Below is a concise version of the demographics dataset, containing only the most recent data available for the countries surveyed. A complete version containing historical data going back several years is available at https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/international-broadband-data- reports/international-broadband-data-report-3. Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) (constant real prices 2005) GDP per cap, (US$) PPP (constant real prices 2005) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) ALA0 Australia 77 23490700 3 844925 37187 40 ALA1 New South Wales 75 7518470 9 261109 35741 42 ALA2 Victoria 77 5841670 26 188456 33464 43 ALA3 Queensland 78 4722450 3 162653 35602 34 ALA4 South Australia 75 1685710 2 52723 31832 35 ALA5 Western Australia 79 2573390 1 136997 56234 37 ALA6 Tasmania 72 514762 8 13865 27070 30 ALA7 Northern Territory 79 245079 0.2 10658 45312 36 ALA8 Australian Capital Territory 85 385996 164 18466 49226 57 AT0 Austria 79 8506890 103 303700 36136 21 AT11 Burgenland 80 287318 78 6932 24331 17 AT12 Lower Austria 76 1626260 86 48032 29797 18 AT13 Vienna 83 1765580 4470 79104 46148 32 AT21 Carinthia 73 555743 59 17188 30789 18 AT22 Styria 78 1214930 75 37971 31365 18 AT31Upper Austria 79 1425980 122 51432 36409 17 AT32 Salzburg 84 534185 76 22182 41717 21 AT33 Tyrol 79 721574 58 26484 37299 19 AT34 Vorarlberg 81 375323 148 14260 38548 19 BE0 Belgium 79 11204000 370 364167 33104 40 BE1 Brussels Capital Region 76 1183840 7353 68931 60637 47 BE2 Flemish Region 81 6429060 481 209426 33107 40 BE3 Wallonia 75 3591090 214 85571 24185 37 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 56 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) (constant real prices 2005) GDP per cap, (US$) PPP (constant real prices 2005) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) BG0 Bulgaria 56 7245677 67 No Data No Data No Data BG31 Severozapaden 45 810401 44 No Data No Data No Data BG32 Severen tsentralen 58 835813 58 No Data No Data No Data BG 33 Severoiztochen 56 954536 66 No Data No Data No Data BG 34 Yugoiztochen 52 1063690 55 No Data No Data No Data BG 41 Yugozapaden 63 2127618 106 No Data No Data No Data BG 42 Yuzhen tsentralen 55 1453619 67 No Data No Data No Data Canada 80 35540400 4 1554950 44741 CA1 Newfoundland And Labrador 82 526977 1 28905 54864 27 CA2 Prince Edward Island 82 146283 26 4741 32661 20 CA3 Nova Scotia 76 942668 18 32819 34727 21 CA4 New Brunswick 82 753914 11 26961 35616 25 CA5 Quebec 77 8214670 6 305875 37837 20 CA6 Ontario 81 13678700 15 576506 42984 24 CA7 Manitoba 74 1282040 2 49784 39826 30 CA8 Saskatchewan 72 1125410 2 66609 61247 22 CA9 Alberta 81 4121690 6 266590 68554 22 CA10 British Columbia 84 4631300 5 188037 41388 24 Yukon Territory No data 36510 0.1 2249 62041 No Data Northwest Territories No Data 43623 0.04 3996 91607 No Data Nunavut No data 36585 0.02 1879 54137 No Data Chile 36 17819100 24 215238 12368 32 CL01 Tarapaca 38 328782 8 5265 16008 39 CII Antofagasta 54 613328 5 23017 39136 27 CIII Atacama 32 308247 4 5646 19836 28 CIV Coquimbo 25 759228 19 6874 9299 36 CV Valparaiso 38 1808300 110 17660 9834 24 CVI O'Higgins 18 910577 56 9654 10725 20 CVII Maule 16 1035590 34 7599 7423 28 CVIII Bio-Bio 25 2100490 57 17049 8270 23 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 57 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) (constant real prices 2005) GDP per cap, (US$) PPP (constant real prices 2005) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) CIX Araucania 17 983499 31 4816 4882 29 CX Los Lagos 23 834714 17 5464 6376 28 CXI Aisen 21 107334 1 1096 10250 39 CXII Magallanes y Anta(a)rtica 33 163748 1 1823 11417 41 CRMS Santiago 50 7228580 469 105121 15001 24 CL14 Los Rios 21 401548 22 2739 7174 29 CL15 Arica Y Parinacota 49 235081 14 1417 7811 No data CZ0 Czech Republic 76 10512400 136 252993 24125 21 CZ01 Prague 88 1243200 2569 62924 50990 40 CZ02 Central Bohemian Region 77 1302340 120 27444 21695 20 CZ03 Southwest 75 1210180 71 25248 20917 19 CZ04 Northwest 68 1125430 133 21115 18649 13 CZ05 Northeast 70 1506500 123 29841 19779 18 CZ06 Southeast 78 1680290 122 36555 21812 23 CZ07 Central Moravia 76 1222660 134 23943 19480 17 CZ08 Moravia- Silesia 74 1221830 230 25923 20995 19 DK0 Denmark 85 5627240 131 174065 31192 32 DK01 Capital (DK) 89 1749410 687 68508 39956 42 DK02 Zealand 86 816726 113 18457 22566 27 DK03 Southern Denmark 82 1202510 98 34450 28676 27 DK04 Central Jutland 86 1277540 98 36760 29020 30 DK05 North Jutland 80 581057 74 15890 27397 26 Estonia 81 1315820 30 24389 18198 39 FI0 Finland 89 5451270 18 172735 32135 39 FI13 Western Finland 88 1374400 24 39517 29056 37 FI18 Helsinki- Uusimaa 93 1585470 174 65199 42550 47 FI19 Southern Finland 88 1161880 37 32688 28238 36 FI1A Eastern and Northern Finland 86 1300850 6 34175 26342 35 FI20 Ĺland 64 28666 18 1074 38363 32 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 58 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) (constant real prices 2005) GDP per cap, (US$) PPP (constant real prices 2005) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) France 78 63920200 117 1958737 31056 35 FR10 Île de France 84 12005100 999 595674 50256 45 FR21 Champagne- Ardenne 76 1338120 52 34004 25451 27 FR 22Picardy 77 1927390 99 43974 22925 24 FR 23 Upper Normandy 80 1851910 150 48561 26401 28 FR 24 Centre-Val de Loire 75 2577470 66 64098 25069 30 FR 25 Lower Normandy 65 1478210 84 34387 23302 29 FR 26 Burgundy 69 1638490 52 40945 24925 30 FR 30 Nord-Pas-de- Calais 79 4058330 327 98173 24288 34 FR 41 Lorraine 74 2346290 100 54072 23003 31 FR 42 Alsace 76 1868770 226 51788 27958 32 FR 43 Franche- Comté 81 1178940 73 27960 23827 30 FR 51 Pays de la Loire 78 3689470 115 95860 26620 31 FR 52 Brittany 73 3273340 120 79428 24684 36 FR53 Poitou- Charentes 77 1796430 70 42686 24011 26 FR61 Aquitaine 73 3335130 81 85803 26367 32 FR 62 Midi-Pyrénées 78 2967150 65 76140 26224 42 FR 63 Limousin 72 735880 43 16933 22850 29 FR 71 Rhône-Alpes 76 6448920 148 189146 30102 37 FR 72 Auvergne 72 1359400 52 32484 24050 30 FR 81 Languedoc- Roussillon 81 2757560 101 61758 23130 33 FR 82 Provence- Alpes-Côte d'Azur 75 4964860 158 140897 28661 36 FR 83 Corsica 70 323092 37 7908 25145 28 DE0 Germany 87 80767500 226 2831835 34640 28 DE1 Baden- Württemberg 85 10631300 297 418163 38885 30 DE2 Bayern 86 12604200 179 498375 39747 29 DE3 Berlin 88 3421830 3855 110473 31922 37 DE4 Brandenburg 78 2449190 83 61686 24642 30 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 59 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) (constant real prices 2005) GDP per cap, (US$) PPP (constant real prices 2005) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) DE5 Bremen 87 657391 1568 29442 44562 27 DE6 Hamburg 91 1746340 2312 102070 57136 32 DE7 Hessen 89 6045430 286 247051 40720 31 DE8 Mecklenburg- Vorpommern 78 1596510 69 38751 23595 27 DE9 Niedersachsen 89 7790560 164 244984 30939 24 DEA Nordrhein- Westfalen 88 17571900 515 625083 35028 26 DEB Rheinland-Pfalz 87 3994370 201 125538 31355 26 DEC Saarland 88 990718 386 34410 33816 23 DED Sachsen 83 4046390 220 104184 25108 33 DEE Sachsen-Anhalt 84 2244580 110 56223 24078 26 DEF Schleswig- Holstein 88 2815960 178 82346 29054 24 DEG Thüringen 84 2160840 134 53055 23738 30 GR0 Greece 65 10903700 83 252068 22287 30 GR1 Northern Greece 59 3520210 63 62373 17373 28 GR2 Central Greece 62 2366080 44 43917 17696 23 GR3 Athens 70 3856060 1013 121261 29475 39 GR4 Aegean Islands and Crete 67 1161350 67 24516 21812 23 HU0 Hungary 74 9877370 106 171943 17219 25 HU10 Central Hungary 80 2965410 428 83949 28254 35 HU21 Central Transdanubia 82 1069190 96 16555 15131 20 HU22 Western Transdanubia 76 984521 87 17436 17529 19 HU23 Southern Transdanubia 77 917492 65 10761 11441 22 HU31 Northern Hungary 73 1176890 88 12186 10200 20 HU32 Northern Great Plain 66 1484380 84 16219 10945 20 HU33 Southern Great Plain 68 1279480 71 14837 11339 21 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 60 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) (constant real prices 2005) GDP per cap, (US$) PPP (constant real prices 2005) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) Iceland 93 329100 3 10696 33587 31 IS01 Capital Region 93 211282 203 41 IS02 Other Regions 91 117818 1 25 Ireland 4605500 67 165337 36173 43 IE01 Border - Midlands and Western 74 1232780 38 29792 24076 38 IE02 Southern and Eastern 82 3372720 93 135544 40664 45 Israel 70.7 8134500 376 No Data No Data 58 IL01 Jerusalem 53.1 1008400 1544 No Data No Data 46 IL02 Northern 61.5 1341500 300 No Data No Data 39 IL03 Haifa 67.2 951900 1100 No Data No Data 47 IL04 Central 77.4 1976300 1527 No Data No Data 48 IL05 Tel Aviv 77.7 1331300 7740 No Data No Data 50 IL06 Southern 73.6 1168600 82 No Data No Data 40 IT0 Italy 71 60782700 207 1644465 27125 19 ITC1 Piedmont 71 4436800 178 131104 29413 18 ITC2 Aosta Valley 68 128591 40 4503 35120 17 ITC3 Liguria 68 1591940 299 45781 28316 22 ITC4 Lombardy 75 9973400 437 350826 35374 19 ITF1 Abruzzo 69 1333940 125 31292 23311 19 ITF2 Molise 67 314725 72 6674 20870 18 ITF3 Campania 64 5869970 438 97430 16700 18 ITF4 Puglia 66 4090270 213 72810 17797 16 ITF5 Basilicata 61 578391 60 11179 19028 19 ITF6 Calabria 61 1980530 134 34395 17100 18 ITG1 Sicilia 62 5094940 200 87359 17295 17 ITG2 Sardegna 75 1663860 70 34416 20542 16 ITH1 Province of Bolzano-Bozen 79 515714 70 20014 39423 15 ITH2 Province of Trento 77 536237 87 17234 32551 18 ITH3 Veneto 73 4926820 280 155587 31509 17 ITH4 Friuli-Venezia 77 1229360 163 38113 30840 19 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 61 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) (constant real prices 2005) GDP per cap, (US$) PPP (constant real prices 2005) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) Giulia ITH5 Emilia- Romagna 77 4446350 207 148389 33478 19 ITI1 Toscana 74 3750510 166 110310 29417 18 ITI2 Umbria 71 896742 109 22406 24717 21 ITI3 Marche 74 1553140 163 42534 27172 19 ITI4 Lazio 73 5870450 347 179227 31286 23 JP0 Japan 75 127297000 341 4063407 31732 35 JPA Hokkaido/Tohoku 61 5431000 65 151082 27440 27 JPB Tohoku 62 9095000 137 254218 27233 23 JPC Northern-Kanto, Koshin 68 9870000 279 308024 30799 29 JPD Southern- Kanto 90 35793000 2730 1311822 36830 46 JPE Hokoriku 69 5360000 164 168435 30945 27 JPF Toukai 74 15050000 674 507227 33565 33 JPG Kansai Region 81 20802000 793 632683 30268 38 JPH Chugoku 66 7470000 238 227803 30121 32 JPI Shikoku 59 3905000 209 110165 27707 29 JPJ Kyushu, Okinawa 60 14521000 332 391948 26851 28 KR0: Korea 98.51 50424000 507 .. .. 42 KR01: Capital region 99.2 25029700 2138 660105 26718 47 KR02: Gyeongnam region 98.3 7823230 634 244771 31348 38 KR03: Gyeonbuk region 97.8 5100340 256 134183 26209 38 KR04: Jeolla region 97.6 5071360 248 142716 28058 37 KR05: Chungcheong region 97.4 5317220 321 172990 33124 38 KR06: Gangwon region 97.2 1501040 91 34496 22953 33 KR07: Jeju 98.2 581069 315 13175 23582 40 Lithuania 65 2943472 47 No data No data 11 Korean data includes households with subscriptions to wireless broadband only. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 62 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) (constant real prices 2005) GDP per cap, (US$) PPP (constant real prices 2005) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) Luxembourg (Grand-Duché) 93 549680 213 34997 68374 43 Mexico 34 119713000 61 1522414 13006 21 ME01 Aguacalienetes 38 1270180 226 16430 13315 23 ME02 Baja California Norte 52 3432940 48 42867 12878 20 ME03 Baja California Sur 44 741038 10 11253 16181 22 ME04 Campeche 27 894136 16 76746 88583 22 ME05 Coahuila 35 2925600 19 51589 18074 25 ME06 Colima 45 710986 126 8645 12614 22 ME07 Chiapas 10 5186570 70 27607 5466 14 ME08 Chihuahua 43 3673340 15 41803 11616 19 ME09 Distrito Federal 53 8874730 5980 249685 28018 33 ME10 Durango 30 1746800 14 18739 10960 19 ME11 Guanajuato 28 5769530 188 59454 10489 15 ME12 Guerrerro 21 3546710 56 21799 6229 16 ME13 Hidalgo 26 2842790 136 25355 9157 16 ME14 Jalisco 41 7838010 100 95106 12442 21 ME15 Mexico 33 16618900 744 139894 8686 20 ME16 Michoacan 24 4563850 78 35532 7905 15 ME17 Morelos 38 1897390 388 17813 9624 20 ME18 Nayarit 36 1201200 43 9774 8459 21 ME19 Nuevo Leon 55 5013590 78 108946 22376 28 ME20 Oaxaca 14 3986210 43 24977 6354 14 ME21 Puebla 24 6131500 179 49426 8235 18 ME22 Queretaro 32 1974440 169 30554 15973 23 ME23 Quintana Roo 47 1529880 36 22811 15840 20 ME24 San Luis Potosi 27 2728210 45 29781 11132 20 ME25 Sinaloa 38 2958690 52 31556 10860 26 ME26 Sonora 46 2892460 16 44623 15881 23 ME27 Tabasco 29 2359440 95 53039 22970 21 ME28 Tamaulipas 37 3502720 44 45304 13249 23 ME29 Tlaxcala 25 1260630 315 8499 6940 19 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 63 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) (constant real prices 2005) GDP per cap, (US$) PPP (constant real prices 2005) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) ME30 Veracruz 21 7985890 111 82048 10441 18 ME31 Yucatan 30 2091520 53 22386 10991 19 ME32 Zacatecas 26 1563320 21 18376 11959 17 NL0 Netherlands 95 16829300 499 618703 37146 33 NL1 Northern Netherlands 94 1718030 207 63543 36992 29 NL2 Eastern Netherlands 95 3559280 367 109980 31146 30 NL3 Western Netherlands 95 7952690 920 309484 39525 36 NL4 Southern Netherlands 94 3599280 510 129715 36265 30 NZ0 New Zealand 75 4509100 17 114128 25745 38 NZ1 North Island 75 3450700 30 87866 25889 38 NZ2 South Island 75 1058400 7 26262 25288 36 NO0 Norway 88 5107970 17 231757 47102 38 NO01 Oslo and Akershus 95 1209990 242 55138 48160 50 NO02 Hedmark and Oppland 77 382230 8 9950 26078 30 NO03 South-Eastern Norway 88 969415 29 26114 27815 34 NO04 Agder and Rogaland 84 751632 32 26589 37003 35 NO05 Western Norway 87 875475 19 30346 35874 36 NO06 Trřndelag 83 441193 11 13273 31141 36 NO07 Northern Norway 90 478033 4 14005 29910 33 PL0 Poland 71 38017900 122 692212 17966 30 PL11 Lodzkie 66 2498860 137 42242 16615 26 PL12 Mazovia 75.3 5292570 149 154793 29389 39 PL21 Lesser Poland 71.7 3316100 218 51616 15469 30 PL22 Silesia 68.2 4548180 369 89826 19380 30 PL31 Lublin Province 70.8 2134410 85 26520 12173 28 PL32 Podkarpacia 74.3 2083550 117 25833 12140 26 PL33 Swietokrzyskie 66.5 1253040 107 17137 13362 30 PL34 Podlasie 70.8 1165450 58 15509 12887 29 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 64 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) (constant real prices 2005) GDP per cap, (US$) PPP (constant real prices 2005) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) PL41 Greater Poland 74.6 3441440 115 64525 18720 27 PL42 West Pomerania 66.5 1691400 74 26135 15162 28 PL43 Lubusz 63.3 1008560 72 15199 14854 25 PL51 Lower Silesia 71.9 2869580 144 59384 20356 30 PL52 Opole Region 71.5 960226 102 14615 14367 24 PL61 Kuvavian- Pomerania 69.9 2068420 115 30979 14761 24 PL62 Warmian- Masuria 64.1 1421260 59 18848 12965 25 PL63 Pomerania 78.8 2264820 124 39050 17161 31 PT0 Portugal 63.2 10427300 113 228780 21640 20 PT11 North (PT) 61.1 3644200 171 65074 17615 18 PT15 Algarve 64.3 442358 88 9562 21190 18 PT16 Central Portugal 56.9 2281160 81 42285 18144 17 PT17 Lisbon 72.4 2807530 95 84990 30106 28 PT18 Alentejo 53.4 743306 24 14785 19495 17 PT20 Azores (PT) 69 247440 107 4965 20124 14 PT30 Madeira (PT) 67.1 261313 326 6873 25641 18 SK0 Slovakia 76.3 5415950 110 112773 20913 21 SK01 Bratislava 78 618380 301 31100 51839 38 SK02 West Slovakia 76 1836660 122 36804 20015 17 SK03 Central Slovakia 74 1347230 83 22105 16383 19 SK04 East Slovakia 78 1613670 102 22766 14189 18 SI0 Slovenia 75 2061090 102 51602 25169 30 SI01 Eastern Slovenia 73 1079660 89 22759 21002 26 SI02 Western Slovenia 78 981430 122 28843 29841 35 ES0 Spain 73 46512200 93 1240303 26874 36 ES11 Galicia 69 2747230 94 66311 24231 36 ES12 Asturias 72 1058980 100 26638 25236 42 ES13 Cantabria 72 587682 112 15118 26128 41 ES21 Basque Counry 77 2167170 301 76881 35920 52 ES22 Navarra 76 636450 62 21508 34572 43 ES23 La Rioja 69 315223 63 9467 30230 38 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 65 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) (constant real prices 2005) GDP per cap, (US$) PPP (constant real prices 2005) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) ES24 Aragón 70 1331300 28 39482 30026 37 ES30 Comunidad de Madrid 83 6378300 801 223380 35072 47 ES41 Castile and León 68 2495690 27 65589 26326 37 ES42 Castile-la Mancha 66 2075200 26 43993 21495 28 ES43 Extremadura 62 1096420 27 20097 18552 28 ES51 Catalonia 76 7416240 232 230303 31404 36 ES52 Valencia 70 4956430 215 117794 23538 33 ES53 Balearic Island 77 1115840 224 30782 28279 27 ES61 Andalusia 70 8388880 97 167854 20330 29 ES62 Murcia 72 1461800 130 32215 21943 30 ES63 Ceuta 81 84674 4387 1777 23453 25 ES64 Melilla 82 83870 6259 1586 21409 28 ES70 Canary Islands 71 2114850 284 48267 22982 29 SE0 Sweden 87 9747360 24 329417 34986 35 SE11 Stockholm 88 2198040 331 99623 48494 44 SE12 East Middle Sweden 88 1621570 42 47234 30100 34 SE21 Smĺland with Is 85 826243 25 24905 30686 28 SE22 South Sweden 85 1443070 104 41667 29835 36 SE23 West Sweden 90 1942680 66 61953 32957 35 SE31 North Middle Sweden 78 833585 13 24312 29405 27 SE32 Central Norrland 84 369826 5 11891 32198 29 SE33 Upper Norrland 85 512349 3 17739 34926 33 CH0 Switzerland 85.9 8139630 204 311067 39525 37 CH01 Lake Geneva Region 85 1545820 187 60300 40642 38 CH02 Espace Mitteland 81 1808480 185 59700 34004 34 CH03 Northwestern Switzerland 87 1104350 560 47031 43921 39 CH04 Zurich 93 1425540 848 68016 49536 44 CH05 Eastern 87 1134780 99 36602 33165 30 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 66 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) (constant real prices 2005) GDP per cap, (US$) PPP (constant real prices 2005) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) Switzerland CH06 Central Switzerland 87 774123 179 27445 36619 34 CH07 Ticino 77 346539 125 11872 35571 33 TUR Turkey 46 77695900 101 994251 13486 19 TR10 Istanbul 63 14377000 2767 270017 20370 26 TR21 Thrace 63 1650740 84 26937 17706 18 TR22 Southern Marmara - West 41 1700850 70 21302 12967 17 TR31 Izmir 57 4113070 342 65614 16616 22 TR32 Southern Aegean 39 2915190 90 34662 12654 14 TR33 Northern Aegean 32 2995290 67 35697 11877 11 TR41 Eastern Marmara - South 55 3809780 133 63545 17674 20 TR42 Eastern Marmara - North 54 3522350 174 62458 19241 22 TR51 Ankara 55 5150070 210 85822 17985 34 TR52 Central Anatolia - West and South 40 2349170 49 23306 10374 16 TR61 Mediterranean region - West 50 2898240 81 39535 14722 18 TR62 Mediterranean region - Middle 36 3892850 132 39347 10540 17 TR63 Mediterranean region - East 38 3115680 134 25746 8569 14 TR71 Central Anatolia - Middle 44 1508200 48 15362 10267 17 TR72 Central Anatolia - East 40 2378050 400 22735 9662 19 TR81 Western Black Sea - West 49 1019530 107 12706 12276 13 TR82 Western Black Sea – Middle and East 37 756983 29 7086 9536 13 TR83 Middle Black Sea 35 2717040 72 26743 9758 13 TR90 Eastern Black Sea 35 2566840 73 24239 9633 14 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 67 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) (constant real prices 2005) GDP per cap, (US$) PPP (constant real prices 2005) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) TRA1 Northeastern Anatolia - West 28 1067560 26 9154 8568 17 TRA2 Northeastern Anatolia - East 41 1138770 38 6641 5858 9 TRB1 Eastern Anatolia - West 41 1690840 47 13869 8534 13 TRB2 Eastern Anatolia - East 15 2111070 51 10362 5124 10 TRC1 Southeastern Anatolia - West 31 2616080 172 17535 7261 15 TRC2 Southeastern Anatolia - Middle 20 3480720 103 20100 6296 11 TRC3 Southeastern Anatolia - East 28 2153920 83 13733 6916 14 UK0 United Kingdom 88 64308300 265 2063148 33002 39 UKC North East 86 2612920 305 62450 23870 31 UKD North West 87 7115250 504 193854 27862 35 UKE Yorkshire and The Humber 86 5352880 347 140164 26334 34 UKF East Midlands 89 4610500 295 120826 26872 34 UKG West Midlands 85 5687060 438 147184 26916 33 UKH Eastern 87 5977010 313 173229 29542 36 UKI London 92 8472440 5389 459903 58344 56 UKJ South East 91 8821330 463 297299 34727 42 UKK South West 90 5392670 226 152190 28748 37 UKL Wales 85 3092900 149 70400 23379 35 UKM Scotland 84 5337460 68 160615 30661 44 UKN Northern Ireland 86 1835850 135 44053 24429 34 US0 United States 75.1 318857000 35 13637131 43442 26 US01 Alabama 65.8 4849380 37 160802 33347 21 US02 Alaska 81.4 736732 0.5 45433 62113 25 US04 Arizona 75.5 6731480 23 233818 35680 25 US05 Arkansas 63.5 2966370 22 95981 32545 19 US06 California 80 38802500 96 1755208 46139 28 US08 Colorado 81.2 5355870 20 240088 46281 34 US09 Connecticut 80.5 3596680 287 200900 55956 34 US10 Delaware 75.5 935614 185 57807 63033 27 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 68 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$m), PPP (purchasing power parity) (constant real prices 2005) GDP per cap, (US$) PPP (constant real prices 2005) Education (% of labor force with tertiary education) US11 Dist. of Columbia 73.4 658893 4144 96187 152118 48 US12 Florida 75.8 19893300 142 680858 35246 25 US13 Georgia 73.4 10097300 67 379841 38291 25 US15 Hawaii 80.6 1419560 85 63449 45571 27 US16 Idaho 73.6 1634460 8 51026 31976 23 US17 Illinois 75.5 12880600 90 609084 47307 29 US18 Indiana 71.4 6596860 71 261619 40019 21 US 19 Iowa 74.2 3107130 22 133546 43441 24 US 20 Kansas 74.5 2904020 14 121734 42182 27 US 21 Kentucky 68.9 4413460 43 151970 34693 20 US 22 Louisiana 66.6 4649680 41 213119 46311 20 US 23 Maine 74.9 1330090 17 47007 35365 26 US 24 Maryland 80.1 5976410 236 278311 47295 34 US 25 Massachusetts 80.5 6745410 332 353781 53231 36 US 26 Michigan 72.9 9909880 67 350874 35501 24 US 27 Minnesota 78.3 5457170 26 258206 48001 31 US 28 Mississippi 59.1 2994080 25 88913 29787 18 US 29 Missouri 71.6 6063590 34 226758 37655 24 US 30 Montana 72.9 1023580 3 35413 35232 27 US 31 Nebraska 74.8 1881500 10 87220 47006 27 US 32 Nevada 76.3 2839100 10 117030 42419 20 US 33 New Hampshire 82.1 1326810 57 56680 42916 32 US 34 New Jersey 80.9 8938180 465 445051 50206 34 US 35 New Mexico 67.5 2085570 7 70612 33858 23 US 36 New York 76.5 19746200 162 1056491 53985 31 US 37 North Carolina 72.4 9943960 79 399469 40962 25 US 38 North Dakota 74.7 739482 4 40314 57622 25 US 39 Ohio 73.9 11594200 109 446269 38657 23 US 40 Oklahoma 69.2 3878050 22 141008 36963 21 US 41 Oregon 78.9 3970240 16 174079 44643 27 US 42 Pennsylvania 73.9 12787200 110 526434 41245 26 US 44 Rhode Island 76.5 1055170 390 44642 42504 29 US 45 South Carolina 68.1 4832480 62 154380 32682 23 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 69 Community % Households with broadband Population Total Population density (persons per square kilometer) GDP total (US$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) US 46 South Dakota 71.6 853175 4 37202 44641 24 US 47 Tennessee 68.2 6549350 61 242706 37592 22 US 48 Texas 73 26957000 40 1224207 46978 24 US 49 Utah 81.7 2942900 14 114316 40037 27 US 50 Vermont 76.3 626562 26 23913 38200 32 US 51 Virginia 77.2 8326290 81 390623 47719 32 US 53 Washington 81.9 7061530 41 329170 47726 29 US 54 West Virginia 66.2 1850330 30 60782 32760 17 US 55 Wisconsin 75.3 5757560 41 229137 40014 25 US 56 Wyoming 76.1 584153 2 33661 58397 22 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 70 Sources % households with broadband Population Total Population density GDP total GDP per cap, PPP Education Australia 2013, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2013, OECD Austria 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Belgium 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Bulgaria 2014, Eurostat 2014, Eurostat 2013, Eurostat Canada 2014, CRTC 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2013, OECD Chile 2012, OECD 2015, OECD 2014, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2013, OECD Czech Republic 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Denmark 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2013, OECD Estonia 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Finland 2014, OECD for Aland, 2007, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD France 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Germany 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Greece 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Hungary 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Iceland 2012, OECD 2015, OECD 2015, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2012, OECD Ireland 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Israel 2013, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2013, OECD Italy 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Japan 2012, OECD 2013, OECD 2013, OECD 2010, OECD 2010, OECD 2010, OECD Korea 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2013, OECD Lithuania 2014, Eurostat 2014, Eurostat 2012, Eurostat Luxembourg 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Mexico 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2010, OECD Netherlands 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD New Zealand 2012, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 71 % households with broadband Population Total Population density GDP total GDP per cap, PPP Education Norway 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Poland 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Portugal 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Slovakia 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Slovenia 2014, OECD 2015, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Spain 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Sweden 2014, OECD 2015, OECD 2015, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Switzerland 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD Turkey 2013, OECD 2015, OECD 2015, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD United Kingdom 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2014, OECD 2011, OECD 2011, OECD 2013, OECD United States 2014, Census Bureau 2015, OECD 2014, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD 2012, OECD Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 72 APPENDIX E Market and Regulatory Background This Appendix contains updated information on regulatory and market developments for the 39 foreign countries for which we obtained smartphone pricing data in Appendix C. In our previous IBDRs, we likewise included market and regulatory background information in Appendix E, 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 the Second, Third and Fourth IBDRs, as supplemented by the new information contained herein. Table 1: Fixed Broadband Subscriptions per 100 Inhabitants by Technology (Dec. 2014) Source: OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.11 1 Although this appendix includes information on 39 countries, OECD rankings only include information for the OECD Member States (plus two countries, Latvia and Colombia, in the process of accession). See generally OECD Broadband Portal, http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/oecdbroadbandportal.htm. The shades of red representing OECD averages correspond to shades of blue for individual OECD countries (i.e., dark red corresponds to dark blue, light red to light blue, etc.). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 DSL Cable Fibre Satellite Other Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 73 Table 2: Mobile Broadband Subscriptions per 100 Inhabitants (Dec. 2014) Source: OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 1. Australia Regulation: In May 2014, then Minister for Communications Malcolm Turnbull called on his ministry to work with the independent regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), on a Spectrum Review as part of the ruling party’s deregulation agenda.2 In November 2014, the Ministry released a consultation paper that included 11 reform proposals for comment, such as transparency and accountability measures.3 In March 2015, the Spectrum Review concluded that “current spectrum management arrangements are slow, rigid and administratively cumbersome” and therefore recommended overhauling spectrum legislation, improving the management of broadcast spectrum and public sector agencies with spectrum interests, and reviewing spectrum pricing arrangements.4 In June 2015, Minister Turnbull announced that his ministry would conduct a review of the ACMA, in order to “ensure the regulator is able to effectively deal with challenges arising from a rapidly changing 2 Dep’t of Commc’ns, Deregulation, https://www.communications.gov.au/deregulation (last visited Nov. 21, 2015). 3 Dep’t of Commc’ns, Consultations Open on Future Directions for Spectrum in Australia (Nov. 11, 2014), http://www.minister.communications.gov.au/malcolm_turnbull/news/consultations_open_on_future_directions_for_ spectrum_in_australia#.Vk-X-pdvk8p. 4 Dep’t of Commc’ns, Spectrum Review Report at 5 (Mar. 2015), https://www.communications.gov.au/publications/spectrum-review-report. 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 74 communications sector.” (Minister Turnbull became Prime Minister of Australia in September 2015, when his party removed former Prime Minister Tony Abbott from his party leadership role.) The results of the review are due to the Minister by the end of 2015.5 Market and Competition: The Australian government-owned wholesale broadband network company (NBN Co) aims to reach eight million premises by 2020,6 and as of the second quarter of 2015, it had reached 1,165 premises.7 NBN Co uses a mix of technology, including fiber, wireless dongles, and satellite. In June 2015, the Australian government announced the new Mobile Blackspot Program, designed to improve mobile phone coverage and competition. The first phase of the program will upgrade or bring new mobile coverage to over 200 square kilometers.8 In June 2015, Australia’s leading wired broadband company by subscribers was Telstra (48.1 percent), followed by Singtel Optus (15.8 percent), iiNet (15.3 percent), TPG Telecom (12.5 percent), and M2 Group (7.7 percent). The remaining market share (0.6 percent) was taken by smaller players.9 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants10 27.7 1.4 4.1 21.6 0.6 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)11 6,536,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013)12 77.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants13 114.4 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)14 27,028,000 2. Austria Regulation: In July 2014, Austria’s regulator, the Regulatory Authority for Telecoms and Broadcasting (Rundfunk & Telekom Regulierungs, or RTR) approved plans for the country’s three wireless operators to refarm their existing GSM frequencies in the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz bands for 3G (UMTS) and 4G 5 Dep’t of Commc’ns, A Future-Focused Regulator for the Communications Market (June 12, 2015), http://www.minister.communications.gov.au/malcolm_turnbull/news/a_future- focused_regulator_for_the_communications_market#.Vfw5HPlVhBc. 6 NBN Co, 2015 Financial Results Presentation at 3 (2015), http://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/documents/FY15-annual-results-presentation.pdf. 7 NBN Co, Weekly Progress Report as of 10 September 2015, http://www.nbnco.com.au/corporate- information/about-nbn-co/corporate-plan/weekly-progress-report.html (last visited Sept. 18, 2015). 8 Dep’t of Commc’ns, Mobile Black Spot Programme, https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we- do/phone/mobile-services-and-coverage/mobile-black-spot-programme (last visited Nov. 19, 2015). 9 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Australia (2015) (last visited Nov. 21, 2015). 10 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 11 Id. 12 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 13 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 14 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 75 (LTE) use.15 According to RTR, the liberalization of the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz bands has increased the usable proportion of wireless broadband spectrum from 59 to 90 percent.16 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$2.2 billion). A1 Telekom Austria (Telekom) paid EUR1.03 billion (US$1.13 billion) 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. T-Mobile Austria (T-Mobile) paid EUR655 million (US$720 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 (Drei) paid EUR330 million (US$363 million) for 2×5 megahertz blocks in the 900 MHz band and 2×20 megahertz in the 1800 MHz band.17 In December 2014, in response to legal challenges from T-Mobile and Drei, 18 the Austrian Administrative Court upheld the auction results and confirmed the legality of multi-band auctions as frequency allocation procedures.19 Market and Competition: Broadband in Austria is “ubiquitous and affordable.”20 Broadband is more affordable in Austria than in almost any other European Union (EU) country; on average, Austrians spend less than 1 percent of their income on a broadband connection, compared to an EU average of 1.4 percent.21 From the second quarter to the third quarter of 2014, Austria experienced a 1.8 percent increase in mobile broadband connections.22 During the same time period, mobile data increased 8 percent, and RTR expects data volumes to continue to grow exponentially.23 Throughout 2014 and 2015, Austria’s three wireless operators, equipped with new spectrum allocations from the 2013 multi-band auction, ramped up deployments in an effort to become the market leader.24 As of April 2015, Telekom’s 4G LTE network covered 60 percent of the country.25 In November 2014, Telekom introduced its inaugural LTE- A network in Graz, Austria’s second-largest city, using a pair of 20 megahertz blocks in the 800 MHz and 15 Telegeography CommsUpdate, RTR to Permit Cellcos to Refarm 2G Frequencies for 3G, 4G (July 30, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/07/30/rtr-to-permit-cellcos-to-refarm-2g- frequencies-for-3g-4g/. 16 Id. See also Press Release, RTR, More Broadband: Regulatory Authority Allows Use of GSM Frequency Bands for UMTS and LTE (July 30, 2014), https://www.rtr.at/en/pr/PI30072014TK. 17 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Austria (2015) (last visited July 13, 2015). 18 T-Mobile challenged the terms of the auction, arguing that it had the right to continue using until 2019 some of the frequencies that were being made available at the auction. See 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/. Drei asserted that the auction was illegal in form and substance and caused financial harm due to the exorbitant prices paid. See 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/. 19 Press Release, RTR, Regulatory Authority’s Legal Opinion on Multiband Auction for Frequency Allocation Confirmed by VwGH Ruling (Dec. 11, 2014), https://www.rtr.at/en/pr/PI11122014TK. 20 Eur. Comm’n, Digital Agenda Scoreboard: Austria, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard/austria (last visited July 13, 2015). 21 Id. 22 RTR, RTR Telekom Monitor at 22 (Mar. 2015), https://www.rtr.at/en/inf/TKMonitor_1_2015/TM1_2015.pdf. 23 Id. at 10. See also Press Release, RTR, RTR Publishes Telecom Monitor Annual Report: Mobile Telecommunications Sector Generated Roughly 60% of Overall Industry Revenues in 2014 (June 11, 2015), https://www.rtr.at/en/pr/PI11062015TK. 24 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Austria (2015) (last visited July 13, 2015). 25 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 76 2600 MHz bands to support theoretical download speeds of up to 300 Mbps.26 In February 2015, Telekom partnered with Eutelsat to provide satellite broadband connections to hard-to-reach “frontier zones and mountain regions.”27 Meanwhile, as of April 2015, T-Mobile’s 4G LTE network also covered 60 percent of Austria; through an ambitious rollout program of 50 new base receiver stations per week, T- Mobile plans to cover 90 percent of the population by the end of 2015 and 95 percent by the end of 2016.28 Finally, as of May 2015, Drei’s LTE network reached 85 percent of the population, with 98 percent coverage expected by the end of 2015.29 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants30 27.5 0.4 8.7 18.2 0.2 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)31 2,351,905 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)32 79.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants33 67.1 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)34 5,729,200 3. Belgium Regulation: In November 2014, Belgium’s newly appointed Minister for the Digital Agenda, Telecommunications and Postal Services announced plans for a revamped digital agenda, which would include a target of broadband access above 100 Mbps and up to one gigabit per second for at least 50 percent of Belgian households by 2020.35 Following a public consultation process, the government launched Digital Belgium in April 2015.36 The action plan is based on five pillars: digital economy, 26 Telegeography CommsUpdate, A1 Telekom Austria Introduces LTE-A in Graz; Ericsson Deployment Complements Slovenian Launch (Nov. 26, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/11/26/a1-telekom-austria-introduces-lte-a-in- graz-ericsson-deployment-complements-slovenian-launch/. 27 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Telekom Austria, Eutelsat Unveil Satellite Broadband Solution (Feb. 10, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/02/10/telekom-austria-eutelsat-unveil- satellite-broadband-solution/. 28 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Austria (2015) (last visited July 13, 2015). 29 Id. See also Telegeography CommsUpdate, 3 Austria Expands LTE Coverage to 85%, Plans 98% By Summer 2015 (May 7, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/05/07/3-austria-expands- lte-coverage-to-85-plans-98-by-summer-2015/. 30 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 31 Id. 32 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 29, 2015). 33 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 34 Id. 35 Eur. Comm’n, Belgium, Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation of the EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communication – 2015, Doc. No. SWD(2015) 126, at 34 (June 19, 2015), http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=9990 [hereinafter EC Belgium Report]. 36 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 77 digital infrastructure, digital skills and jobs, digital confidence and security, and digital government.37 The digital infrastructure pillar encourages operators to continuously roll out advanced broadband infrastructure using a mix of technologies.38 In February 2015, Belgium’s regulator, the Belgian Institute for Postal Service and Telecommunications (BIPT), began accepting applications for the sale of wireless broadband spectrum in the 3.5 GHz band (3410-3500 MHz and 3510-3600 MHz).39 BIPT intended to auction a total of four packets of frequencies, comprising two blocks of 2×20 megahertz, plus two blocks of 2×25 megahertz, with each bidder eligible to acquire up to two blocks.40 By the deadline of March 27, 2015, BIPT had received only one application, from start-up Citymesh SA. BIPT subsequently awarded Citymesh two frequency blocks: 3430-3450 MHz and 3530-3550 MHz. The 10-year license, which became active on May 7, 2015, covers 13 Belgian municipalities.41 Market and Competition: In the fixed broadband sector, DSL remains the most popular access technology among high-speed Internet users, with state-owned incumbent Proximus (known as Belgacom until September 2014) providing virtually universal coverage.42 In February 2014, Proximus activated a nationwide broadband access network based on VDSL2 vectoring, aiming to deliver nationwide download speeds of 70 Mbps by 2016.43 Proximus’s principal competitor is cable network operator Telenet. In August 2014, Telenet announced its plan to become the first regional network in the EU to offer at least 1 gigabit per second download speeds by 2020;44 over the next five years, Telenet plans to invest EUR500 million (US$550 million) to upgrade its 600 megahertz hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) network from current peak download speeds of 160 Mbps to gigabit speed.45 As of March 2015, Proximus led the market with 1.788 million subscribers (46.0 percent market share), followed by Telenet with 1.535 million subscribers (39.4 percent).46 In the wireless broadband sector, Belgium’s three mobile network operators – Proximus, Mobistar, and BASE – each offer 4G LTE services to their entire customer base.47 In April 2015, Telenet acquired BASE from its parent company KPN Belgium for EUR1.33 billion (US$1.46 billion), a move that will 37 Strategy Unit of the Minister for the Digital Agenda, Telecomm. & Postal Services, Digital Belgium (Apr. 2015), http://www.digitalbelgium.be/sites/default/files/downloads/adc_digital_engels.pdf. 38 Id. 39 BIPT, Communication of the BIPT Council of 27 February 2015 on a Call for Candidates Wishing to Obtain User Rights for the 3410-3500/3510-3600 MHz Frequency Bands (Mar. 2, 2015), http://www.bipt.be/public/files/fr/21429/Procdure_3500MHz_FR.pdf. 40 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Belgium Opens 3.5 GHz Sale (Mar. 11, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/03/11/belgium-opens-3-5ghz-sale/. 41 BIPT, Communication by the BIPT Council on the Granting of User Rights in the 3.5 GHz Range Following the Call for Candidates of 27 February 2015 (June 3, 2015), http://www.bipt.be/public/files/fr/21498/Communication_Citymesh.pdf. 42 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Belgium (2015) (last visited July 14, 2015). 43 EC Belgium Report, supra note 35, at 34. 44 Id. 45 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Telenet to Upgrade Cable Networks to Support 1Gpbs Services (Sept. 3, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/09/03/telenet-to-upgrade-cable-networks-to- support-1gbps-services/. 46 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Belgium (2015) (last visited July 14, 2015). 47 EC Belgium Report, supra note 35, at 34. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 78 enable Telenet to launch a fully converged suite of fixed, mobile, Internet, and TV services.48 In May 2015, Mobistar introduced full-scale LTE-A commercial trials in three cities, although BIPT studies have demonstrated that these developments have not yet led to pricing models conducive to heavy mobile data use.49 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants50 36.0 0.1 18.4 17.4 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)51 4,011,201 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)52 81.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants53 57.7 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)54 6,440,133 4. Brazil Regulation: As of January 2015, Internet packages offered under Brazil’s National Broadband Plan, the Plano Nacional da Banda Larga (PNBL), covered over 90 percent of the country’s 5570 municipalities.55 In November 2014, the government announced a new plan to universalize broadband access (Banda Larga para Todos) with the goal of increasing broadband access to 95 percent of the population with high-speed broadband of at least 25 Mbps via fiber by 2018. The remaining 10 percent of connections, particularly in remote areas, would be made via wireless broadband, such as satellite and radio networks. Currently, fiber optic networks cover only 47 percent of cities and 10 percent of households.56 The auction of the 700 MHz band concluded on September 30, 2014, with Brazil’s three main mobile operators, Vivo, TIM Brasil, and Claro, winning licenses.57 The 700 MHz band is currently used by television broadcasters, who are under pressure to complete the digital television migration by 2018. The 48 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Belgium (2015) (last visited July 14, 2015). 49 Id.; EC Belgium Report, supra note 35, at 34. 50 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 51 Id. 52 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 53 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 54 Id. 55 BNAmericas, Brazil PNBL Broadband Coverage Hits 90% (Jan. 28, 2015), http://www.bnamericas.com/news/privatization/brazil-pnbl-broadband-coverage-hits-90. 56 Press Release, Ministry of Commc’ns, “Desafio do PNBL é universalize band larga,” afirma diretor do MiniCom (Nov. 4, 2014), http://www.mc.gov.br/sala-de-imprensa/todas-as-noticias/telecomunicacoes/33200-desafio-do-pnbl- e-universalizar-banda-larga-afirma-diretor-do-minicom. 57 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/. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 79 Minister of Communications has expressed the government’s desire to finish the analog switch-off within a year of the 700 MHz auction so that 4G services can be deployed in the band.58 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.59 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.60 Market and Competition: The main mobile broadband providers are Claro, Vivo, TIM Brasil and Oi. As of January 2015, 56.2 percent of mobile phones in Brazil are can access mobile broadband.61 Since the 4G auction in June 2012 and as of May 2015, 43 percent of the population had access to 4G services. Vivo is the market leader in 4G coverage, with a 4G network that can reach 40.2 percent of the population, followed by Claro (38.3 percent), and TIM and Oi (each with approximately 31 percent).62 The main fixed broadband access technologies are DSL (60.1 percent) and cable (31.5 percent).63 As of March 2015, Claro held 31.8 percent of the fixed broadband market, followed by Oi (23.9 percent), Telefônica (16.1 percent), Global Village Telecom (GVT) (12.5 percent), and Algar Telecom (1.7 percent).64 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants (2013)65 10.08 n/a n/a n/a n/a Fixed broadband subs (2013)66 20,191,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2015)67 39.6 58 Tecnologia, 4G: 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. 59 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/. 60 Ministry of Commc’ns, Satélite geoestacionários (Feb. 20, 2014), http://www.mc.gov.br/infraestrutura/satelites- geoestacionarios. 61 Teleco, 3G: 3rd Generation Cellular in Brazil, http://www.teleco.com.br/en/en_3g_brasil.asp (last visited July 13, 2015). 62 Teleco, 4G: 4th Generation Cellular in Brazil, http://www.teleco.com.br/4g_cobertura.asp (last visited July 13, 2015). 63 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Brazil (2014) (last visited July 13, 2015). 64 Id. 65 ITU, World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database (2015) (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). 66 Id. 67 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Brazil (2015) (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 80 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants68 52.04 Mobile wireless broadband subs (2014)69 157,868,000 5. Bulgaria Regulation: In June 2014, Bulgaria adopted a National Broadband Infrastructure Plan for Next Generation Access. The plan sets two national targets: by 2020, 50 percent of households and 80 percent of businesses should have access to ultra-high speed fixed broadband connections with download speeds of 100 Mbps or more. In March 2015, the government announced its Updated Policy in the Field of Electronic Communications of the Republic of Bulgaria 2015–2018, which emphasizes the expedited roll- out of high-speed broadband infrastructure. In light of this new policy, Bulgaria plans to revise the National Broadband Infrastructure Plan by September 2015.70 In September 2014, prompted by “growing interest” in available spectrum resources, Bulgaria’s regulator, the Communications Regulation Commission (CRC), launched a public consultation on the potential use of the 1800 MHz band.71 CRC announced that it would reserve five megahertz of spectrum for new entrant Bulsatcom, while it would allocate the remaining available spectrum (2×13.4 megahertz) via auction.72 Subsequently, wireless operator MobilTel initiated legal proceedings against CRC, claiming that current regulations required CRC to immediately provide MobilTel with requested spectrum for a flat fee.73 In February 2015, CRC announced that it would decide on whether to award the disputed frequencies by March 2015;74 as of June 2015, however, CRC had not made public any additional information as to the current status of the proceeding. Market and Competition: Bulgaria’s fixed broadband market is highly fragmented, with more than 860 providers offering Internet services as of June 2015. The ten largest ISPs, however, collectively control almost 70 percent of the market.75 As of March 2015, Bulgaria’s former fixed line incumbent Vivacom (registered as the Bulgarian Telecommunications Company, or BTC) claimed the largest percentage of 68 ITU, World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database (2015) (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). 69 Id. 70 Eur. Comm’n, Bulgaria, Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation of the EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communication – 2015, Doc. No. SWD(2015) 126, at 49-50 (June 19, 2015), http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=9990 [hereinafter EC Bulgaria Report]. See also Rep. of Bulg., Europe 2020: National Reform Programme at 59 (Apr. 2015), http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/csr2015/nrp2015_bulgaria_en.pdf. 71 Telegeography CommsUpdate, CRC Consults on Use of Available Spectrum in 1800MHz Band (Oct. 8, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/10/08/crc-consults-on-use-of-available- spectrum-in-1800mhz-band/. 72 Telegeography CommsUpdate, M-Tel, CRC Clash over LTE Spectrum in 1800MHz Band; M-Tel to Invest BGN150m in Networks in 2015 (Feb. 26, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/02/26/m-tel-crc-clash-over-lte-spectrum-in- 1800mhz-band-m-tel-to-invest-bgn150m-in-networks-in-2015/. 73 Id. 74 Telegeography CommsUpdate, CRC to Rule on Additional LTE Spectrum in 1800MHz Band on 12 March (Feb. 27, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/02/27/crc-to-rule-on-additional-lte- spectrum-in-1800mhz-band-on-12-march/. 75 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Bulgaria (2015) (last visited July 14, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 81 total fixed broadband subscribers (23.8 percent).76 Because Vivacom holds a near-monopoly on DSL- based services, there is virtually no competition in the DSL retail market.77 As of December 2014, next generation access (NGA) technologies accounted for 66 percent of all fixed broadband subscriptions in Bulgaria, compared to an EU average of 31 percent.78 The predominance of fiber and other NGA technologies have facilitated access to faster Internet speeds. As of December 2014, 47 percent of fixed broadband subscriptions had access to download speeds of more than 30 Mbps, and five percent to ultra-fast speeds of above 100 Mbps.79 In the wireless broadband sector, Bulgaria’s four main mobile network operators – MobilTel, Telenor Bulgaria (formerly GloBul), Vivacom, and MAX – are each rolling out 4G LTE networks in various stages of development. New entrant MAX introduced Bulgaria’s first LTE network in May 2014; as of June 2015, the network covered 17 cities and towns.80 In June 2015, Telenor announced that its network was LTE-ready, pending the anticipated award of suitable frequencies in the 1800 MHz band.81 Vivacom planned a commercial launch for June 2015, and MobilTel intends to offer commercial LTE services beginning in 2018.82 Operators have attributed the slow deployment of LTE services to the fact that the majority of the 800 MHz band has not yet been freed up for mobile broadband use.83 Operators claim that the Bulgarian government has still not presented concrete plans or a timetable for the release of the spectrum, which would allow them to better develop their investment strategies.84 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants (2013)85 19.39 n/a n/a n/a n/a Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)86 1,396,579 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)87 56 76 Id. 77 EC Bulgaria Report, supra note 70, at 46. 78 Id. 79 Id. at 47. 80 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Bulgaria (2015) (last visited July 14, 2015). 81 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Telenor Bulgaria’s Network LTE-Ready (June 30, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/06/30/telenor-bulgarias-network-lte-ready/. 82 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Bulgaria (2015) (last visited July 14, 2015). 83 EC Bulgaria Report, supra note 70, at 48. Bulgaria missed the EU’s 2013 deadline to free up the band for electronic communications services via the transition from analog to digital television, and subsequently received permission to delay the frequency relocation until 2017. See Press Release, Eur. Comm’n, 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. 84 EC Bulgaria Report, supra note 70, at 48. 85 ITU, World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database (2015) (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). 86 Id. 87 Eurostat, Data Explorer (2015), http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 82 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants88 66.41 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)89 4,760,000 6. Canada Regulation: As part of a review of telecommunications services begun in April 2015, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced measures to foster more competition among broadband providers.90 Starting in July 2015, incumbent ISPs were required to make their fiber facilities available to their competitors. The Connecting Canadians program was launched in July 2014 to bring Internet connections of at least 5 Mbps to an additional 280,000 households in mainly rural and remote regions by 2017. After a competitive bidding process to build the infrastructure in January 2015, the winning ISPs were announced beginning in May 2015, and infrastructure projects were expected to commence in summer 2015.91 Since 2012, over 99 percent of Canadians households have access to broadband speeds of at least 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 2017.92 Market and Competition: As of March 2015, there were five main companies providing broadband services in Canada. The largest broadband provider, by subscribers, is Bell Canada, with 26.6 percent market share, followed by Rogers Communications (16.3 percent), Shaw Communications (15.7 percent), Videotron (12.4 percent), and Telus Communications (12.1 percent).93 Videotron signed a contract to share Rogers Communications’ 4G LTE mobile broadband infrastructure in May 2013, and by June 2015 they had a combined 84 percent LTE population coverage.94 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 using Bell’s infrastructure. As of June 2015, both Bell and Telus had 91% LTE population coverage.95 88 ITU, World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database (2015) (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). 89 Id. 90 Gov’t of Can., CRTC Initiates Review of Basic Telecommunications Services for All Canadians (Apr. 9, 2015), http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=960029; Gov’t of Can., CRTC Fostering Competition in the Broadband Internet Market (July 22, 2015), http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1004669. 91 Gov’t of Can., Connecting Canadians, http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/028.nsf/eng/h_00587.html (last visited July 23, 2015). 92 Gov’t of Can., Digital Canada 150: Connecting Canadians, http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/028.nsf/eng/h_00587.html (last visited Sept. 16, 2014). 93 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Canada (2015) (last visited July 21, 2015). 94 Id. 95Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 83 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants96 35.4 1.7 18.9 13.4 1.4 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)97 12,569,087 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)98 80.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants99 54.2 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)100 19,279,414 7. Chile Regulation: In June 2015, the Chilean Senate approved legislation introduced in May 2014 that guaranteed minimum Internet speeds for fixed and mobile connections.101 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. The Chilean telecommunications regulator, the Sub-Secretaria de Telecomunicaciones (Subtel) is responsible for determining the minimum speeds and implementing the initiative.102 In August 2015, the Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications announced that the rollout of the 4G LTE networks in the 700 MHz band can finally begin. Entel, Movistar and Claro won 4G licenses in the 700 MHz band in October 2013, but they did not receive the licenses immediately due to lawsuits filed by both industry and consumer groups regarding rollout obligations and spectrum caps. The 700 MHz band licenses include the obligation to provide connectivity to 1,281 municipalities and 854 kilometers of highway and provide mobile broadband to 503 educational establishments. Regulations also prohibit operators from charging more for the 4G service in more remote areas than prices charged in the capital of the region for the same service and obliges them to provide connectivity to schools free of charge for 96 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 97 Id. 98 CRTC, Communications Monitoring Report at Fig. 5.3.14 (2015), http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/policymonitoring/2015/cmr5.htm#f5313 (last visited Dec. 28, 2015). 99 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 100 Id. 101 BNAmericas, Chile Advances with Norm to Ensure Minimum Internet Speeds (June 19, 2015), http://subscriber.bnamericas.com/Subscriber/en/news/telecommunications/chile-advances-with-norm-to-ensure- minimum-internet-speeds/. 102 BNAmericas, Chile to Legislate to Guarantee Internet Speeds (May 7, 2014), http://subscriber.bnamericas.com/Subscriber/index.jsp?idioma=I&tipoContenido=detalle&pagina=content&idConte nido=644989&tipoDocumento=1. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 84 the first two years.103 Entel has partnered with Ericsson to deploy the first LTE network in the APT 700 MHz band in Latin America.104 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 2013,105 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.106 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.107 Market and Competition: As of March 2015, Telefónica Chile (Movistar) was the largest fixed broadband provider in terms of subscribers, with a 39 percent market share, followed by VTR (37.6 percent), Claro Chile (11.2 percent), Grupo GTD (8.3 percent), and Entel (1.2 percent).108 As of March 2015, the top three mobile operators by subscribers were Movistar (39.9 percent), Entel PCS (35.7 percent), Claro Chile (23.1 percent), and newcomer WOM (1.3 percent). Claro was the first to launch an LTE network in Chile in June 2013, followed by Movistar in November 2013.109 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.110 By December 2014, Entel’s LTE network had more than 800 points of presence in the country.111 103 BNAmericas, Chile 700MHz Network Rollout Gets Green Light (Aug. 10, 2015), http://subscriber.bnamericas.com/Subscriber/news/telecommunications/chile-700mhz-network-rollout-gets-green- light?idioma=en. 104 Press Release, Ericsson, Ericsson and Entel Chile Renew Strategic Partnership until 2018 (Feb. 13, 2015), http://www.ericsson.com/news/150212-ericsson-and-entel-chile-renew-strategic-partnership_244069647_c. 105 Estrategia On-Line, 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/. 106 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. 107 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/. 108 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Chile (2015) (last visited July 21, 2015). 109 Id. 110 Id. 111 Entel, Annual Report at 7 (2014), http://www.entel.cl/inversionistas/pdf/Memoria_2014_ENGLISH.pdf. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 85 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants112 14.0 0.6 7.0 5.6 0.8 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)113 2,489,717 % of households with fixed broadband access (2012)114 36.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants115 49.8 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)116 8,885,792 8. Czech Republic Regulation: In July 2014, the Czech Republic approved a new strategic plan, the Operational Programme Enterprise and Innovation for Competitiveness 2014–2020.117 According to the program, the Czech Republic plans to allocate EUR521 million (US$575 million) in public funds, with an additional EUR275 million (US$303 million) of national co-financing, for high-speed broadband deployment, including the upgrade of current networks and the rollout of new networks.118 In April 2014, the Czech regulator, the Czech Telecommunications Office (CTU), published proposed rules for auctioning frequencies in the 3600-3800 MHz band.119 CTU proposed holding a simultaneous multiple-round auction in which it would accept offers for sections of three 40 MHz blocks (8×5 megahertz) and one 80 MHz block (16×5 megahertz).120 CTU suggested then allowing winning bidders to reach an agreement on the allocation of the individual 5 megahertz blocks within these sections; if the winning bidders could not agree, CTU would determine individual block placement by drawing lots. 121 The possibility of legislative amendments to spectrum pricing regulations delayed the auction planning 112 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 113 Id. 114 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 115 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 116 Id. 117 Ministry of Industry & Trade, Government Approved the Operational Programme Enterprise and Innovation for Competitiveness 2014–2020 Proposed by MIT (July 14, 2014), http://www.mpo.cz/dokument151397.html. 118 Eur. Comm’n, Czech Republic, Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation of the EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communication – 2015, Doc. No. SWD(2015) 126, at 79 (June 19, 2015), http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=9990 [hereinafter EC Czech Republic Report]. 119 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/. 120 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. 121 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/. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 86 process.122 In March 2015, CTU invited stakeholders to comment on the proposed auction rules.123 Comments closed in May 2015, and CTU plans to hold the auction in late 2015.124 In June 2014, CTU announced its intention to re-auction available frequencies in the 1800 MHz and 2600 MHz bands that remained unsold during an earlier 2013 auction. The public consultation process closed in November 2014, and the CTU plans to auction these frequencies in late 2015, at the same time as the frequencies in the 3600-3800 MHz band.125 Market and Competition: The Czech fixed broadband market is characterized by strong infrastructure- based competition.126 Incumbent O2 Czech Republic holds only 27.6 percent of the fixed broadband market as of September 2015, and the remainder is held by a large number of alternative operators, among the highest in the EU.127 Leading alternative operators include UPC Ceska Republika (14.2 percent), GTS Czech (6.5 percent), Dial Telecom (4.8 percent), and T-Mobile Czech Republic (4.3 percent), with other smaller players making up the remaining 42.6 percent of subscribers.128 As of December 2014, DSL remained the most popular access technology, but cable and fiber continued to gain traction.129 The annual growth rate for fixed broadband has declined steadily from 13.6 percent in 2012 to 8.0 percent in 2013 to 1.5 percent in 2014, reflecting the growing popularity of high-speed mobile connectivity.130 Throughout 2014, all three main cellular operators – T-Mobile Czech Republic, O2 Czech Republic, and Vodafone Czech Republic – undertook large-scale LTE deployments.131 As of March 2015, T-Mobile’s LTE network covered 76 percent of the country,132 and O2’s LTE network covered 72 percent of the country, including 100 percent of Prague.133 Lastly, as of May 2015, Vodafone’s network covered 80 percent of the country. Vodafone plans to roll out LTE in the remaining areas by the end of summer 2015.134 The three operators have continued to compete to upgrade their service offerings, with T-Mobile and O2 launching LTE-A in July 2014 and Vodafone following suit in September 2014.135 Because the conditions of the main operators’ 4G licenses required them to provide wholesale offers, the mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) market has blossomed. As of June 2015, there were 122 CTU, Monthly Monitoring Report at 5 (Sept. 2014), http://www.ctu.eu/164/download/Monitoring_Reports/monitoring_report_09_2014_september.pdf. 123 CTU, An Invitation for Comments on the Draft Text of the Announcement of the Tender for the Award of Rights to Use Radio Frequencies to Ensure Electronic Communications Networks in the 3.7 GHz Frequency Band (Mar. 5, 2015), http://www.ctu.cz/ctu-online/diskuzni-misto.html?action=detail&ArticleId=12322. 124 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Czech Republic (2015) (last visited July 23, 2015). 125 Id. 126 EC Czech Republic Report, supra note 119, at 77. 127 Id.; Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Czech Republic (2015) (last visited Dec. 14, 2015). 128 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Czech Republic (2015) (last visited Dec. 14, 2015). 129 Id. 130 Id. 131 EC Czech Republic Report, supra note 119, at 77. 132 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: T-Mobile Czech Republic (2015) (last visited July 23, 2015). 133 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: O2 Czech Republic (2015) (last visited July 23, 2015). 134 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Vodafone CR Announces 80% Territory Coverage for LTE (June 29, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/06/29/vodafone-cr-announces-80-territory- coverage-for-lte/. 135 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Czech Republic (2015) (last visited July 23, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 87 approximately 80 MVNOs in the Czech Republic. The proliferation of MVNOs has contributed to the wider choice of mobile broadband services for consumers and lower retail prices.136 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants137 28.34 3.9 5.0 9.1 10.3 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)138 2,979,400 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)139 76.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants140 65.1 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)141 6,848,300 9. Denmark Regulation: Under its mandate, the Danish Business Authority (DBA), the nation’s telecommunications regulator, is responsible for “market development, growth, and innovation, and for guaranteeing that all citizens have easy access to wireless communication technologies.”142 Since its launch of a national broadband strategy in March 2013, the Danish government has been steadily implementing the plan’s 22 initiatives for the improvement of broadband services and mobile coverage.143 The strategy calls for 100 percent access at minimum download speeds of 100 Mbps and minimum upload speeds of 30 Mbps for all households and businesses by 2020.144 In February 2015, Danish officials agreed on a further “Growth Plan for Digitization” split into four areas: (1) improved mobile and broadband coverage throughout the country; (2) increased use of ICTs and data in Danish businesses; (3) enhanced digital security; and (4) boosting digital skills and e-learning resources. In order to focus on the first new specific priority, the government decided to free-up the 700 MHz band for mobile broadband via auction by 2019 at the latest, to set coverage requirements for future spectrum auction, to pass new legislation aimed at better utilization of pipes and cables for broadband, and to facilitate coordination and agreements between telecommunications providers and municipalities in view 136 EC Czech Republic Report, supra note 119, at 77. 137 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 138 Id. 139 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 140 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 141 Id. 142 DBA, Telecom and Spectrum, http://danishbusinessauthority.dk/telecom-and-spectrum (last visited Dec. 14, 2015). 143 DBA, Broadband Mapping, http://w2l.dk/file/475201/broadband-mapping.pdf (last visited Dec. 14, 2015). 144 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 88 of improving the local mobile and broadband coverage in remote areas.145 In March 2015, the DBA introduced a new broadband coverage tool which relies on a modeling approach and a single database where operators report the speed of the broadband connections according to locations and end-users interactively report their experience. This tool will be developed further so it can be extended to mobile coverage.146 Market and Competition: Denmark’s overall ICT sector, like many in Europe, suffered from the general economic downturn in 2014, with a marked decrease in terms of investment and revenues reported by operators. However, the market is characterized by growing competition and dynamism in the mobile sector and a fairly stable fixed sector, still dominated by the historic incumbent TDC, which claimed 1.3 million broadband subscribers, split between its DSL and cable platforms, as of end-June 2015. While the incumbent continues to be the country’s largest broadband service provider, its overall market share (currently 53.8 percent) is being steadily eroded by a growing number of alternative operators. With more than 80 companies providing Internet access services at the end of 2014, the market is extremely fragmented, although consolidation amongst TDC’s main rivals has meant that a few companies are now able to provide the incumbent with some level of competition.147 Denmark has four major mobile operators. As of mid-2015, TDC had a 37.6 percent market share of mobile subscribers followed by Telenor (21.7 percent), TeliaSonera (20.7 percent), and Hutchison Whampoa’s Hi3G Access Denmark (14.2 percent).148 As of mid-2015, TDC advertised LTE population coverage of 99.5%, and it is committed to bringing LTE coverage to 99.8% of residents in 207 of the country’s most sparsely populated areas by end-2015.149 Since 2012, no additional spectrum has been made available or assigned for wireless broadband. In total, 1025 megahertz of spectrum are available today for wireless broadband, in the following bands: 800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2 GHz, 2.6GHz, and 3.4-3.8 GHz. Lack of market interest was reported with regard to the higher bands.150 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants151 41.3 8.9 11.6 20.5 0.3 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)152 2,331,830 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)153 85.0 145 Eur. Comm’n, Denmark, Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation of the EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communication – 2015, Doc. No. SWD(2015) 126, at 88-9 (June 19, 2015), http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=9990 [hereinafter EC Denmark Report]. 146 Id. 147 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Denmark (2015) (last visited Sept. 13, 2015). 148 Leila Abboud & Foo Yun Chee, TeliaSonera, Telenor Prepare New Concessions on Denmark Mobile Deal: Sources (Aug. 28, 2015), http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/28/us-teliasonera-telenor-m-a-exclusive- idUSKCN0QX20D20150828. 149 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Denmark (2015) (last visited Sept. 13, 2015). 150 EC Denmark Report, supra note 146, at 90. 151 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 152 Id. 153 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 89 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants154 115.5 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)155 6,518,062 10. Estonia Regulation: Most of the responsibilities under the European Commission (EC) telecommunications regulatory framework fall under one authority: the Estonian Technical Regulatory Authority (ETRA). The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, however, approves Estonia’s National Radio Frequency Allocation Table and National Numbering Plan, as well as promulgating regulations governing the provision of the universal service program.156 There has not yet been discussion in Estonia regarding the extension of the scope of universal service to include broadband connections, since wireless broadband is available to end-users throughout the country, with up to 3.1 Mbps download/1.8 Mbps upload speeds at a price deemed affordable by the government.157 Moreover, Estonian officials have also created a public-private partnership to build a national fiber-based next-generation network providing 100Mb/s to all premises. This project is led by the Estonian Broadband Development Foundation (ELA), which was founded by eight major Estonian telecommunications companies: Elion, EMT, Elisa, Tele2, Levira, Ericsson, Eltel, and Televőrgu AS.158 This non-profit entity operates at the wholesale level, renting dark fiber to any provider under the same commercial conditions. The overall layout of the network (designed in 2009) includes an all-fiber middle-mile network aimed at ensuring 98 percent of all households in Estonia will be located no further than 1.5 kilometers (or 0.75 miles) from the nearest network access point.159 Market and Competition: Estonia has one of the highest broadband penetration rates among Eastern European countries, a fact that is due in part to the continued commitment of its former Prime Minister, Andrus Ansip, to increasing the country’s broadband network infrastructure and services. Mr. Ansip now serves as Vice President and European Commissioner for the Digital Single Market, a post he has held since November 2014. There are currently two main broadband operators, Eesti Telekom (via Elion), the incumbent, and Starman, a cable operator. Fixed-line infrastructure has been upgraded and is geared towards offering broadband services and bundled offerings, with ADSL2+ and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) networks deployed in urban areas and wireless technologies such as WiMAX used to deploy either competing infrastructure or access into rural areas.160 Estonia’s growing mobile broadband sector supports a range of mobile content and applications. In 154 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 155 Id. 156 See Estonian Electronic Communications Act (Jan. 1, 2005), available at https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/ee/Riigikogu/act/501042015003/consolide. 157 Eur. Comm’n, Estonia, Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation of the EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communication – 2015, Doc. No. SWD(2015) 126, at 103 (June 19, 2015), http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=9990. 158 Id. 159 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Estonia (2015) (last visited Sept. 28, 2015). 160 Henry Lancaster, Estonia – Key Statistics, Telecom Market and Regulatory Overviews (May 15, 2015), http://www.budde.com.au/Research/Estonia-Key-Statistics-Telecom-Market-and-Regulatory-Overviews.html. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 90 addition, aggressive LTE deployment continues. By January 2014, three mobile operators – EMT, Elisa, and Tele2 – had obtained 800 MHz licenses to help improve their rollout of 4G services, and in March 2014, Tele2 announced that it had acquired a second 2100 MHz spectrum concession, enabling it to double its 3G mobile broadband capacity and giving it the largest spectrum portfolio of all the Estonian players.161 By spring 2015, Estonia had achieved nationwide 4G coverage.162 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants163 28.2 9.3 6.3 10.7 1.9 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)164 371,009 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)165 81.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants166 114.2 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)167 1,502,044 11. Finland Regulation: The Finnish Information Society Code entered into force on January 1, 2015. The Code updates and consolidates under a single legal instrument a number of regulations in areas such as e- privacy, consumer protection, and communications networks and data security, as well as granting additional powers to FICORA, the Finnish telecommunications regulatory agency.168 In addition, on April 16, 2015, the Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications issued a decree setting a new minimum speed of 2 Mbps for universal broadband services, beginning in November 2015.169 The government argued that such high speeds would be possible because of the dedicated use of the 800 MHz band for wireless broadband and the strict licensee coverage requirement (97 to-99 percent after five years). Moreover, in 2017, the government will undertake a new review of the universal speed requirement, and it announced a new goal of 10 Mbps by 2020.170 161 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Estonia (2015) (last visited Sept. 13, 2015). 162 Id. 163 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 164 Id. 165 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 166 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 167 Id. 168 Eur. Comm’n, Finland, Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation of the EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communication – 2015, Doc. No. SWD(2015) 126, at 108 (June 19, 2015), http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=9990 [hereinafter EC Finland Report]. 169 Id. at 112. 170 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 91 Market and Competition: Finland’s four major wireline broadband operators – Elisa, TeliaSonera, DNA, and the Finnet Group – together account for more than 98 percent of the market.171 DSL connections remain the most popular broadband access technology, but cable modem connections continue to rise in popularity.172 In October 2013, after nine months of bidding, FICORA completed its 800 MHz digital dividend auction, generating EUR 108.01 million (US$119 million).173 Since that time, DNA, Elisa, and TeliaSonera have all used spectrum in the 800 MHz band to improve and enlarge 4G LTE coverage.174 In late 2014, as forecasted, Finnish start-up Ukko Mobile launched the world’s first 4G LTE wireless broadband network using the 450 MHz band.175 No additional spectrum was made available or assigned for wireless broadband over the past year. While the 700 MHz band is currently being used for television broadcasting, this band will become available for wireless broadband services by 2017.176 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants177 32.2 1.1 7.2 17.6 6.3 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)178 1,758,500 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)179 89.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants180 138.0 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)181 7,537,800 12. France Regulation: Between July 2014 and June 2015, the French regulator Autorité de Régulation des Communications Électroniques et des Postes (ARCEP) gained significant regulatory powers over the fixed and mobile markets. In August 2014, Decree 2014-867 restored ARCEP’s authority to sanction operators with a new procedure that separates the investigative and enforcement arms of the agency.182 In February 2015, the economic reform law “Loi Macron” was adopted by the National Assembly and will 171 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Finland (2015) (last visited Sept. 13, 2015). 172 Id. 173 FICORA, End of 4G Spectrum Auction (Oct. 31, 2013), https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/ficora/news/2013/endof4gspectrumauction.html. 174 Id. 175 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Ukko Aims for LTE-450 World-First Launch (June 19, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/06/19/ukko-aims-for-lte-450-world-first- launch/. 176 EC Finland Report, supra note 169, at 109. 177 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 178 Id. 179 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 180 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 181 Id. 182 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: France (2015) (last visited July 21, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 92 allow ARCEP to regulate roaming arrangements between mobile operators.183 Loi Macron also requires operators to provide nationwide 2G coverage by 2015 and full 3G/4G coverage by 2017. On June 29, 2015, ARCEP submitted a draft recommendation for public consultation on the operator requirement to roll out fiber in sparsely populated areas.184 In December 2014, ARCEP announced that the 700 MHz band used for digital terrestrial television will be available for tender in the second half of 2015 and is expected to generate EUR 2.1 billion (US$2.3 billion). In December 2015, the spectrum will be awarded, but the actual transfer will take place between October 2017 and June 2019, depending on the region. Market and Competition: In March 2015, Orange published its new strategic plan for fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) rollout. The plan triples Orange’s current investment in fiber through 2020 and will increase the number of connected households from 3.6 million to 20 million by 2022. Additionally, Orange’s Essentials 2020 plan will attempt to launch a Voice-over-Wi-Fi service in 2015. In April 2015, Orange announced it would create fibered zones in nine cities to facilitate the switch-off of the copper local loop. Currently, Orange and SFR-Numericable are due to renegotiate the distribution of FTTH deployment opportunities in rural areas, but no public announcement has been made. In July 2014, Orange rejected notions that it would attempt to consolidate the wireless market. In October 2014, France conditionally approved the Numericable purchase of SFR. The conditions require SFR- Numericable to allow competitors to use its networks while they develop their own and to divest its mobile operators in the French overseas territories of Reunion and Mayotte. This is the first infrastructure-sharing condition on an acquisition issued in Europe. In June 2015, Altice offered EUR 10.1 billion (US$11.1 billion) for Bouygues Telecom, which prompted SFR-Numericable to announce its exclusive negotiations with Illiad Group for the “resale of a portfolio of assets.”185 As of March 2015, the market share of SFR-Numericable is 24.9 percent, with Orange France at 39.8 percent, Illiad at 22.7 percent, and Bouygues Telecom at 9.6 percent. Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants186 39.2 1.4 3.6 33.8 0.4 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)187 25,969,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)188 77.0 183 Anne Morris, Arcep to Review Free Mobile's National Roaming Deal with Orange (Feb. 23, 2015), http://www.fiercewireless.com/europe/story/arcep-review-free-mobiles-national-roaming-deal-orange/2015-02-23. 184 Press Release, ARCEP, ARCEP Submits to Consultation a Draft Recommendation on Implementing an Obligation of Completeness for Fibre Rollouts (June 29, 2015), http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=1&L=1. 185 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Altice Offers EUR10.1bn in Cash for Bouygues Telecom (June 22, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/06/22/altice-offers-eur10-1bn-in-cash-for- bouygues-telecom/. 186 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 187 Id. 188 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 93 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants189 64.7 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)190 42,810,000 13. Germany Regulation: Germany’s Digital Agenda 2014-2017 requires that 700 MHz spectrum be used for mobile broadband coverage by 2018.191 In December 2014, consensus between the national and state governments regarding the auction of the 700 MHz band was reached and the Federal Network Agency (FNA, also known as Bundesnetzagentur or BNetzA) published its final conditions in January 2015. The FNA planned to auction 270 megahertz in the 700 MHz, 900 MHz, 1500 MHz, and 1800 MHz bands with the condition that the winning bidders must provide 98 percent of all homes with 50 Mbps mobile download speeds. In June 2015, the auction concluded and raised EUR 5.08 billion (US$5.6 billion), which made Germany the first European country to sell 700 MHz spectrum for mobile broadband.192 In June 2014, the EC gave BNetzA three months to lower mobile termination rates, which are more than 80 percent higher than in other EU member states. In September 2014, BNetzA published a proposal for mobile termination rate cuts between December 2014 and November 2016. In June 2015, the EC approved a EUR 3 billion (US$3.3 billion) program for developing next generation access networks in rural areas.193 Market and Competition: In July 2014, the EC approved Telefonica’s acquisition of E-plus for EUR 8.55 billion (US$9.4 billion), combining the two smallest fixed line broadband providers into the nation’s largest.194 As part of the conditions, Telefonica agreed to sell 20 percent of its mobile network capacity to Drillisch, an MVNO, and allow Drillisch to purchase up to 10 percent more capacity. Additionally, Telefonica agreed to offer 20 megahertz of spectrum in the 2100 MHz and/or 2600 MHz bands to a new operator and extend contracts with wholesale partners through 2025. In August 2014, the EC gave final clearance on the conditions and the acquisition was completed on October 1, 2014. In January 2015, Tele Colombus announced it planned to enter the mobile market during 2015.195 Nationally, BNetzA conditioned the Telefonica Deutschland and E-Plus merger on the return of spectrum in the 900MHz/1800MHz bands by December 31, 2015.196 The regulator will conduct a frequency 189 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 190 Id. 191 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Germany (2015) (last visited July 27, 2015). 192 Telegeography CommsUpdate, German Spectrum Auction Raises EUR5.08bn (June 22, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/06/22/german-spectrum-auction-raises-eur5- 08bn/. 193 Press Release, Eur. Comm’n, State Aid: Commission Approves €3 Billion Aid Scheme in Germany to Support High Speed Internet Roll-Out (June 22, 2015), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5186_en.htm. 194 Press Release, Eur. Comm’n, Mergers: Commission Clears Acquisition of E-Plus by Telefónica Deutschland, Subject To Conditions (July 2, 2014), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-771_en.htm. 195 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Tele Columbus Entering Mobile Market This Year; Not Planning Sale of Company alongside IPO (Jan. 14, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/01/14/tele-columbus-entering-mobile-market- this-year-not-planning-sale-of-company-alongside-ipo/. 196 Press Release, BNetzA, Merger of Telefónica and E-Plus (Oct. 20, 2014), http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Frequenzen/Oef Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 94 distribution analysis once the spectrum auction is over to determine whether any additional action is needed. In April 2015, Telefonica abolished all roaming charges between its various national networks, including O2 and E-Plus. As of March 2015, Germany only has three mobile providers: Telefonica Deutschland Holding (38.7 percent market share), Telekom Deutschland (32.6 percent), and Vodafone Germany (28.7 percent).197 Telekom Deutschland allotted EUR 6 billion (US$8.3 billion) for fixed line broadband infrastructure development between 2013 and 2020.198 Using these funds, Telekom Deutschland plans to increase VDSL coverage to 65 percent of households using 10,000 kilometers of fiber by the end of 2016. In September 2014, United Internet acquired Versatel, increasing its market share for fixed broadband from 12.7 percent in September 2014 to 14.2 percent in March 2015.199 The largest provider is Telekom Deutschland (41.7 percent), followed by Vodafone Germany (18.3 percent), Unitymedia KabelBW (9.8 percent), and Telefonica Deutschland Holding (7.1 percent).200 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants201 35.9 0.4 7.2 28.2 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)202 29,572,818 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)203 87.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants204 63.8 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)205 52,575,423 14. Greece Regulation: Greece’s independent regulator, the Hellenic National Telecommunications & Post Commission (EETT), is currently preparing a new five-year national broadband plan (the previous plan covered 2007-2013), following a public consultation with relevant stakeholders in 2014.206 The plan fentlicheNetze/Mobilfunknetze/ZusSchlussvorhTelefonicaEPlus/ZusammenschlussvorhabenTelefonicaEPlus- node.html. 197 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Germany (2015) (last visited July 27, 2015). 198 Press Release, Telekom Deutschland, Deutsche Telekom Launches European Network (Mar. 2, 2015), http://www.telekom.com/media/company/269056. 199 http://www.united-internet.de/en/investor-relations/publications/announcements/announcements- detail/news/united-internet-acquires-100-of-versatel-shares.html (last visited January 28, 2016). 200 http://uk.practicallaw.com/0-619-2253 (last visited January 28, 2016). 201 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 202 Id. 203 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 204 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 205 Id. 206 Eur. Comm’n, Greece, Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation of the EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communication – 2015, Doc. No. SWD(2015) 126, at 139-40 (June 19, 2015), http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=9990 [hereinafter EC Greece Report]. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 95 centers on encouraging private investment in high-speed broadband networks by reducing the cost of network deployment (e.g., simplifying administrative procedures, speeding up the granting of right-of- way authorizations issued by local authorities, encouraging better targeting of investments through infrastructure and service availability mapping, etc.). The EETT is also focusing on increasing broadband availability in rural areas through a dedicated fund of EUR 120 ($USD 132 million), in order to achieve 100 percent population coverage with 30 Mbps by 2020.207 Market and Competition: Overall, Greece continues to rank near the bottom among western European countries in terms of broadband adoption.208 Despite the unprecedented deepening of the economic crisis that has plagued Greece over the last year, the ICT sector has had been one of the most positive aspects of the overall economy, with the sector contributing 3 percent of the nation’s GDP in 2014-15.209 The incumbent provider, OTE, with 44.6 percent market share, has rolled-out ADSL infrastructure to 99 percent of its network and, despite the uncertain economic climate, is slowly pursuing its plan for VDSL deployment. 210 By mid-2015, approximately 34 percent of its access lines were VDSL-enabled, covering approximately 40 percent of Greek households.211 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).212 Broadband services delivered over technologies other than xDSL represent a small fraction of total connections, less than 0.5 percent of overall subscribers, the smallest percentage among EU Member States.213 There are no cable-based services in the country, while fixed wireless and direct fiber broadband services that do exist are either corporate use only, restricted to limited areas, or in the early stages of development.214 As of June 2015, Cosmote (wholly-owned by OTE) led the mobile sector with 43.2 percent market share, followed by Vodafone (30.7 percent), and Wind Hellas (26.2 percent).215 In November 2011, these three wireless operators acquired technology-neutral spectrum licenses in the 900 MHz and 1800 MHz bands.216 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, and its LTE coverage reached 70 percent of the Greek population by the start of 2015, up from 65 percent in October 2014, with coverage over 80 percent in Athens and 90 percent in Thessaloniki.217 In June 2013, Vodafone rolled out its own 4G network, and by January 2015, it had expanded coverage to over 60 percent in both major cities.218 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.219 207 Id. at 140. 208 See generally OECD Broadband Portal. 209 EC Greece Report, supra note 205, at 136. 210 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Greece (2015) (last visited Oct. 14, 2015). 211 EC Greece Report, supra note 205, at 138. 212 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Greece (2015) (last visited Oct. 14, 2015). 213 Id. 214 Id. 215 Id. 216 Id. 217 Id. 218 Id. 219 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 96 There are currently no concrete plans in Greece for the 700 MHz band, as the band is currently the primary means of broadcasting services and is used by the Greek Army. The 800 MHz band was assigned to the mobile operators after completion of the analogue switch-off has completed.220 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants221 28.7 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)222 3,156,071 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)223 65.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants224 41.5 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)225 4,559,958 15. Hong Kong Regulation: In December 2014, the Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA), Hong Kong’s telecommunications regulator, completed its auction of 49.2 megahertz of paired spectrum in the 2100 MHz band. The auction raised a total of US$312 million from China Mobile (US$124.2 million for 19.6 megahertz), SmarTone (US$126.5 million for 19.8 megahertz), and Hutchison 3 (US$60.9 million for 9.8 megahertz) for 15-year licenses.226 Market and Competition: In May 2015, Hong Kong-based PCCW Global, China Telecom Global, and Taiwan’s Chunghwa Telecom signed agreements to establish a unified Internet Protocol Exchange platform spanning Greater China. The agreement includes support for Voice over Internet Protocol Exchange, general packet radio service (GPRS) roaming exchange, high definition calling, high definition video conferencing, Ethernet, cloud offerings, and software-defined networking (SDN). The platform will connect Internet protocol services between mobile and fixed networks using Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS).227 In May 2015, Hutchinson 3 Hong Kong and WhatsApp announced Hong Kong’s first local and roaming WhatsApp-based messaging and VoIP-calling packages, called WhatsApp Roaming Pass. The new 220 EC Greece Report, supra note 205, at 142. 221 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 222 Id. 223 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 224 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 225 Id. 226 Affirunisa Kankudti, Hong Kong 3G Spectrum Auctions; China Mobile, SmarTone Spend Big (Dec. 9, 2014), http://nextelecomasia.com/2g-3g-4g/hong-kong-3g-spectrum-auctions-china-mobile-smartone-spend-big/. 227 Press Release, PCCW Global, PCCW Global, China Telecom Global and Chunghwa Telecom International Create A Unified IPX Platform For Greater China (May 13, 2015), https://www.pccwglobal.com/en/about/newsroom/2015/364-pccw-global-china-telecom-global-and-chunghwa- telecom-international-create-a-unified-ipx-platform-for-greater-china. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 97 international roaming packages enable customers to make over-the-top (OTT) calls and send messages to friends and family whether in Hong Kong or overseas for a fixed daily fee.228 Triple-play provider Hong Kong Broadband Network (HKBN) was Hong Kong’s biggest initial public offering of 2015, and the second largest in Asia Pacific, when it raised US$750 million in March.229 In October 2014, Chinese technology heavyweight ZTE announced that it supported the commercial launch of voice-over-LTE (VoLTE) services by Hong Kong mobile provider CSL (part of the PCCW-HKT group), which has enabled all CSL users to access VoLTE voice and video calling services with compatible devices. In June 2015, PCCW was the leader by subscribers in the retail wired broadband market (56.0 percent), followed by HKBN (27.9 percent), Hutchison Global Communications (7.7 percent), i-Cable (6.5 percent), with other smaller players accounting for the remaining subscribers (1.9 percent).230 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants (2013)231 30.82 n/a n/a n/a n/a Fixed broadband subs (Jan. 2014)232 2,220,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014) n/a Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants233 104.54 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Jan. 2014)234 5,432,000 16. Hungary Regulation: The telecommunications sector in Hungary is subject to an extensive taxation regime.235 In early October 2014, the government introduced a controversial new plan to tax Internet usage. The proposed plan charged Internet service providers (ISPs) (not customers) 150 forints (US$0.62) for every gigabyte of data traffic, with a monthly cap of 700 forints (US$2.49) per individual subscription or 5,000 228 Hutchison 3, WhatsApp Mobile Roaming Plan, http://www.three.com.hk/website/appmanager/three/home?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=P200470391219567710594&la ng=eng&pageid=0031f0506 (last visited Sept. 18, 2015). 229 Prudence Ho, HKBN Raises $750 Million in Hong Kong’s Biggest IPO This Year (Mar. 4, 2015), http://www.wsj.com/articles/hkbn-raises-750-million-in-hong-kongs-biggest-ipo-this-year-1425516808. 230 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Hong Kong (2015) (last visited Nov. 21, 2015). 231 ITU, World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database (2015) (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). 232 Id. 233 Id. 234 Id. 235 European Commission, Hungary, Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation of the EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communication – 2015, Doc. No. SWD(2015) 126, at 153 (June 19, 2015), http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=9990 [hereinafter EC Hungary Report]. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 98 forints (US$17.80) per corporate subscription.236 Following mass protests across Hungary, the government withdrew the proposal in late October 2014.237 In May 2015, the government announced that, as of January 2016, it may lower the value-added tax (VAT) applicable to Internet subscriptions from the current rate of 27 percent to 18 percent. The reduction, however, would only apply to subscriptions from service providers involved in the deployment of ultra-fast broadband networks.238 The government also announced that it may phase out a sector-based utilities tax currently levied on telecommunications companies.239 In February 2015, the Prime Minister’s Office launched a comprehensive public consultation on the future of the Internet in Hungary.240 With respect to broadband, the consultation sought public input on proposed measures to expand the scope of universal service, accelerate the construction of high-speed networks, and stimulate the growth of domestic Internet service providers (ISPs).241 Market and Competition: As of June 2015, four operators – Magyar Telekom (MTel), UPC Hungary, DIGI Telecommunications, and Invitel Holdings – account for approximately 86 percent of the fixed broadband market, with the remaining 14 percent highly fragmented among smaller players.242 According to a March 2015 report by Hungary’s regulator, the National Media and Infocommunications Authority (NMHH), the fixed broadband market continues to experience solid growth across all access platforms, including DSL, cable modem, fiber, and WiMAX.243 With respect to mobile broadband, Hungary has three major mobile networks operators – MTel, which operates under the T-Mobile brand (47.8 percent of subscribers as of June 2015); Telenor Hungary (28.1 percent); and Vodafone (24.1 percent).244 Market leader T-Mobile launched commercial LTE services in Hungary in January 2012, covering approximately 80 percent of the population by May 2015.245 Telenor launched LTE services in July 2012; during 2014, it spent HUF 44.8 billion (US$160 million) to expand its 4G network, which covered 65 percent of the population as of May 2015.246 In February 2015, MTel and Telenor Hungary agreed to jointly develop their respective 800 MHz 4G networks in all parts of Hungary, excluding Budapest. According to the agreement, T-Mobile will gradually implement and operate the 800 MHz network in the Transdanubian region, while Telekom will do so in the rest of Hungary, minus Budapest. Additionally, the two operators each plan to install and manage 800 base transceiver stations by the end of 2015. As a result of the agreement, T-Mobile and Telenor expect to increase their 4G footprints to 97 percent and 95 percent, respectively, by the end of 236 Chris Harris, All You Need to Know about Hungary’s Internet Tax (Oct. 14, 2014), http://www.euronews.com/2014/10/29/all-you-need-to-know-about-hungarys-internet-tax/. 237 Margit Feher, Hungary Drops Internet Tax Plan for Now (Oct. 31, 2014), http://www.wsj.com/articles/hungary- drops-internet-tax-plan-1414744757. 238 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Hungarian Internet Tax Could Fall from 27% to 18% in 2016 (May 12, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/05/12/hungarian-internet-tax-could-fall-from- 27-to-18-in-2016/. 239 Id. 240 EC Hungary Report, supra note 234, at 158. 241 See InternetKon, https://www.internetkon.hu/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2015). 242 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Hungary (2015) (last visited Oct. 30, 2015). 243 Id. 244 Id. 245 Id. 246 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 99 2015.247 Despite efforts to increase the availability of mobile broadband across Hungary, mobile data consumption remains among the lowest in Europe, at less than a fifth of a gigabyte per month per person.248 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants249 26.2 4.0 12.5 8.3 1.4 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)250 2,580,537 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)251 74.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants252 34.3 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)253 3,380,935 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).254 Market and Competition: Broadband adoption in Iceland remains among the highest in the world. In a September 2014 report, the UN Broadband Commission ranked Iceland as first in the world for Internet usage per capita, at 96.5 percent.255 Stimulated by government policies, FTTH has been expanded in the capital and major outlying towns.256 Incumbent operator Siminn is the principal provider of fixed broadband services, accounting for 48.4 percent of subscribers as of June 2015.257 Siminn operates a comprehensive ADSL network in addition to 247 Telegeography CommsUpdate, MTel, Telenor Agree 800MHz 4G Pact (Feb. 27, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/02/27/mtel-telenor-agree-800mhz-4g-pact/. 248 Nancy Scola, Hungary’s Crazy-Expensive Internet is Driving People to Throw Their Computers into the Street (Oct. 28, 2014), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/28/hungarys-crazy-expensive- internet-is-driving-people-to-throw-their-computers-into-the-street/. 249 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 250 Id. 251 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 252 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 253 Id. 254 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Iceland (2015) (last visited Oct. 30, 2015). 255 UN Broadband Comm’n, The State of Broadband 2014: Broadband for All (Sept. 2014), http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/reports/bb-annualreport2014.pdf. 256 Business Wire, Research and Markets, Iceland – Telecoms, IP Networks, Digital Media and Forecasts (Feb. 2014), http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/bxxg4r/iceland_telecoms. 257 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Iceland (2015) (last visited Oct. 30, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 100 an extensive fiber optic network, which provides coverage to more than 80,000 households.258 With 28.9 percent of subscribers, Vodafone is Siminn’s chief competitor.259 Vodafone is also Iceland’s largest fiber-based access provider, accounting for approximately 70 percent of all fiber connections at the end of 2014.260 Fiber-based technologies represent the fastest growing segment of the fixed broadband market, with subscriptions increasing approximately 6 percent from December 2013 to December 2014. There are three key players in Iceland’s mobile market: Siminn (35.6 percent market share as of June 2015), Nova (35.1 percent), and Vodafone (29.4 percent).261 All three companies have taken steps to expand 4G LTE coverage over the past year. As of May 2015, Siminn has the largest footprint, with its networking reaching 84 percent of the population.262 However, newcomer 365 Media, which acquired a 4G license in Iceland’s April 2013 spectrum auction, plans to build a mobile network that extends to 99.5 percent of the population by the end of 2016, with expected peak download speed of 100 Mbps.263 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants264 36.8 9.2 0.0 27.3 0.3 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)265 119,917 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)266 93.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants267 87.3 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)268 284,193 18. India Regulation: Spurred by the Digital India initiative, the Department of Telecommunications established a review committee and released its Report of the Committee on National Optical Fibre Network (NOFN) on March 31, 2015. Its recommendations included renaming the NOFN to BharatNet and designing BharatNet as a multi-technology network. As BharatNet, the national network will connect Indians for less than US$2.30 per month in poor states, and around US$3.80 in wealthier areas. 258 Id. 259 Id. 260 Id. 261 Id. 262 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Siminn Extends LTE Footprint to 85% of Population (May 29, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/05/29/siminn-extends-lte-footprint-to-84-of- population/. 263 Id. 264 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 265 Id. 266 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 267 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 268 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 101 The government has reduced its goal speeds from up to 100 Mbps nationwide, to a range between 2 Mbps and 20 Mbps. BharatNet is projected to cost Rs 72,000 crore (US$10.9 billion). 269 The recommendations were accepted by the government on April 2, 2015.270 In March 2015, India held a spectrum auction for frequencies in the 800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, and 2100 MHz bands and raised US$18 billion. Bharti, Vodafone, and Idea’s bids represented over 75 percent of the total money raised, as they each sought to win back expiring licenses. Reliance Communications also sought to win back expiring spectrum licenses, but lost its 900 MHz licenses in five markets.271 Competition: Loop Mobile, a small player as compared to Bharti Airtel, chose not to renew its 900 MHz license when it did not participate in India’s 2014 spectrum auction, and its license expired at the end of 2014. In February 2015, after a protracted battle for government approval, Airtel finalized a deal to acquire Loop Mobile for US$110 million, including its spectrum licenses and its customers.272 In June 2015, Idea increased data fees by up to 100 percent for prepaid 2G and 3G customers in the Delhi market, and soon afterward Bharti Airtel similarly raised data prices for prepaid 2G and 3G customers in the Delhi market.273 In June 2015, Bharat Sanchar Nigam had the most wireline broadband subscribers in India (61.8 percent of the market), Bharti Airtel has the second most (9.0 percent), followed by Mahanagar Telephone Nigam (7.1 percent), Atria Convergence Technologies (4.5 percent), and YOU Broadband (2.9 percent). A collection of smaller players account for the remaining market share (14.7 percent).274 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants275 1.21 n/a n/a n/a n/a Fixed broadband subs (Jan. 2014)276 15,320,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2015)277 6.3 269 Dep’t of Telecomm., Report of the Committee on National Optical Fibre Network (Mar. 31, 2015), http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/rs/Report%20of%20the%20Committee%20on%20NOFN.pdf. 270 Economic Times Bureau, National Optical Fibre Network Renamed as BharatNet (Apr. 2, 2015), http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-04-02/news/60756567_1_national-optical-fibre-network- broadband-network-digital-india-programme. 271 Bianca Vázquez Toness, Idea, Bharti Lead Spectrum Bids as India Sale Raises $18 Billion (Mar. 25, 2015), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-25/india-said-to-raise-18-billion-from-wireless-airwaves-auction. 272 Press Release, Bharti Airtel, Airtel and Loop Mobile Announce Agreement to Create Mumbai’s Largest Mobile Network (Feb. 18, 2014), http://www.airtel.in/. 273 Press Trust of India, Idea Cellular Hikes Mobile Data Rates By Up To 100% In Delhi (June 4, 2015), http://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/3g-4g/idea-cellular-hikes-mobile-data-rates-by-up-to-100-in- delhi/47541803; Press Trust of India, Airtel Hikes Data Rates For Pre-Paid Customers In Delhi (June 9, 2015), http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/bharti-airtel-hikes-data-rates-for-prepaid-customers-in- delhi/article7298725.ece. 274 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: India (2015) (last visited Nov. 22, 2015). 275 ITU, World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database (2015) (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). 276 Id. 277 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: India (2015) (last visited Nov. 22, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 102 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants278 5.52 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Jan. 2014)279 69,990,000 19. Ireland Regulation: In August 2012, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (DCENR) announced its new National Broadband Plan (NBP), which aimed to bring connectivity at speeds of at least 30 Mbps to every home in the country by 2015.280 Although the NBP accelerated the rollout of high-speed services, most of the investment occurred in urban areas, with many sparsely- populated rural areas experiencing no investment or improvements in the availability of quality broadband services.281 In April 2014, in order to address the growing urban-rural digital divide, DCENR updated the plan and announced the NBP Intervention Strategy, a major state-led fiber build-out to rural areas.282 DCENR launched a public consultation on the proposed strategy in July 2015.283 In April 2014, in tandem with the NBP Intervention Strategy, DCENR embarked on a comprehensive broadband mapping project, intended to identify proposed locations for the fiber-based connections.284 The interactive map, completed in November 2014, indicates the areas that will have access to commercial high-speed broadband services by the end of 2016, as well as the proposed sites for state intervention.285 In July 2014, DCENR launched a comprehensive spectrum policy review.286 To inform the review, DCENR opened a public consultation in July 2014; by the close of the comment period in September 2014, it had received 16 total comments from stakeholders. DCENR planned to issue a revised Spectrum Policy in 2015; however, as of October 2015, it had not yet published the new policy.287 278 ITU, World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database (2015) (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). 279 Id. 280 DCENR, 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. 281 Eur. Comm’n, Ireland, Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation of the EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communication – 2015, Doc. No. SWD(2015) 126, at 162 (June 19, 2015), http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=9990 [hereinafter EC Ireland Report]. 282 See DCENR, Ireland’s Broadband Intervention Strategy (2015), http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/communications/Lists/Consultations%20Documents/NBP%20Intervention%20Strategy%2 0consultation%20reports/NBP%20Intervention%20Strategy%20Report.pdf. 283 DCENR, National Broadband Plan Intervention Strategy Public Consultation, http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/communications/en-ie/Pages/Consultation/NBP-Strategy-Intervention-Public- Consultation.aspx (last visited Oct. 30, 2015). 284 EC Ireland Report, supra note 281, at 162. 285 Id. See also DCENR, Connecting Communities, http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/communications/en- ie/Broadband/Pages/Connecting-Communities.aspx (last visited Oct. 30, 2015). 286 Nick Wood, Ireland Launches Spectrum Policy Review (July 28, 2014), http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=487085. 287 DCENR, Spectrum Policy Consultation, http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/communications/en- ie/Pages/Consultation/Spectrum-Policy-Consultation.aspx (last visited Oct. 30, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 103 Market and Competition: There are two key players in the Irish fixed broadband market: incumbent eir (formerly Eircom) (36.4 percent of subscribers as of June 2015) and its chief competitor Virgin Media Ireland (formerly UPC) (30.4 percent of subscribers).288 At the end of 2014, the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg), Ireland’s regulatory agency, reported that 49.6 percent of residential fixed broadband subscribers accessed download speeds of 30 Mbps or higher.289 Top-placed eir has taken the lead in the deployment of high-speed fiber networks. In October 2014, eir announced its plans to deliver FTTH technology to 1.6 million homes and businesses (approximately 70 percent of the population) by mid-2016.290 In June 2015, eir increased this target by an additional 300,000 premises, announcing plans to invest EUR 400 million (US$440 million) over the next five years to extend its fiber footprint to 1.9 million homes by 2020.291 In the mobile sector, Hutchison 3G Ireland (3 Ireland) completed its long-contested EUR 850 million (US$935 million) takeover of rival O2 Ireland in July 2014, reducing the number of mobile network operators in the country from four to three.292 In September 2013, Meteor Mobile became the first Irish operator to launch LTE service, quickly followed by market leader Vodafone less than a month later.293 As of March 2015, Meter Mobile’s 4G network covered approximately 55 percent of the population, while Vodafone’s network extended to approximately 90 percent.294 The merger with O2 delayed the rollout of LTE by 3 Ireland; however, as of March 2015, the network covered 40 cities and towns.295 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants296 27.3 0.1 7.9 18.0 1.2 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)297 1,258,758 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)298 80.0 288 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Ireland (2015) (last visited Oct. 30, 2015). 289 Id. 290 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Eircom Welcomes Government’s National Broadband Plan (Nov. 25, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/11/25/eircom-welcomes-governments- national-broadband-plan/. 291 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Eircom to Supply 1Gbps Broadband to an Additional 300,000 Rural Premises (June 4, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/06/04/eircom-to-supply- 1gbps-broadband-to-additional-300000-rural-premises/. 292 Telegeography CommsUpdate, 3 Ireland Completes Purchase of Rival O2 (July 16, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/07/16/3-ireland-completes-purchase-of-rival- o2/. 293 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Ireland (2015) last visited Oct. 30, 2015). 294 Id. 295 Id. 296 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 297 Id. 298 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 104 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants299 82.1 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)300 3,787,863 20. Israel Regulation: In November 2014, the Ministry of Communications (MoC), the Israeli telecommunications regulator, approved wholesale broadband reforms intended to boost competition in the fixed-line broadband market and reduce costs for consumers.301 The reforms require Bezeq, Israel’s dominant fixed- line incumbent, to provide wholesale access to its infrastructure.302 They also allow consumers to connect to the Internet without separately contracting with an infrastructure provider and an Internet service provider (ISP), as previously required.303 In May 2015, the Minister of Communications announced plans to draft legislation to break up Bezeq.304 In July 2014, MoC launched an auction of 4G-suitable spectrum in the 1800 MHz band, offering eight available 5 MHz frequency blocks. Six bidders, including all five of Israel’s existing mobile network operators, submitted applications by the October 2014 deadline. In January 2015, MoC announced the results of the auction, which had raised ILS 250.5 million (US$65.6 million). Pelephone acquired the most spectrum, paying a total of ILS 96 million (US$25 million) for 15 megahertz (3×5 megahertz). Partner Communications, Cellcom, HOT Mobile, Golan Telecom, and 018 Xfone each acquired a single 5 MHz block, with the price per block ranging from ILS 32.5 million (US$8.5 million) (Cellcom) to ILS 34.5 million (US$9 million) (HOT).305 The license conditions require the operators to launch 4G services within a year of the spectrum allocation, or lose their licenses with no refund. Moreover, the operators are required to establish LTE networks over 30 percent of the country within 18 months, 65 percent within 36 months, and 100 percent within 48 months.306 As of March 2015, however, MoC had yet to allocate the spectrum to the winning bidders, with no additional information on the status available as of June 2015.307 In October 2011, the Israeli government announced plans for a 25,000-kilometer fiber optic network alongside the nationwide electric grid, aimed at bringing ultra-high speed Internet to Israel and increasing 299 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 300 Id. 301 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Israel Finalises Wholesale Market Reforms (Nov. 19, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/11/19/israel-finalises-wholesale-market- reforms/. 302 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Israel’s Fixed Line Sector Gets a Shake-Up as Wholesale Market Reforms Take Effect (Feb. 18, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/02/18/israels-fixed- line-sector-gets-a-shake-up-as-wholesale-market-reforms-take-effect/. 303 Telecompaper, Israel Opens up Wholesale Broadband Market (Feb. 19, 2015), http://www.telecompaper.com/news/israel-opens-up-wholesale-broadband-market--1066232. 304 Telecompaper, Outgoing Minister Plans Bill to Break up Bezeq (May 19, 2015), http://www.telecompaper.com/news/outgoing-minister-plans-bill-to-break-up-bezeq--1082766. 305 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Israel (2015) (last visited July 23, 2015). 306 Press Release, Ministry of Commc’ns, The Auction for Operating Fourth Generation Services Has Ended (Jan. 12, 2015), http://www.moc.gov.il/sip_storage/FILES/9/4089.pdf. 307 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Israel (2015) (last visited July 23, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 105 competition in the broadband sector.308 The Israel Broadband Company (IBC), a new joint venture between the Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) and a consortium of private companies, began offering services under the “Unlimited” banner in May 2014.309 According to the IEC, the network will cover about 70 percent of Israel by 2020, with FTTH connections available in many parts of the Tel Aviv area by the end of 2015.310 In November 2014, however, press reports indicated that the IBC was struggling to retain customers.311 As of March 2015, five of Israel’s smaller ISPs offered customer access via IBC’s infrastructure; however, the market’s largest providers, including Bezeq, had not signed distribution agreements with IBC.312 Market and Competition: MoC enacted new wholesale reforms in an effort to overhaul the fixed broadband market by facilitating the entry of alternative operators and lowering costs for consumers by up to 20 percent.313 Operators began announcing price reductions as soon as the regulations came into effect. In February 2015, for example, both 018 Xfone and 012 Smile (owned by Partner Communications) began offering Internet access with download speeds of 100 Mbps for ILS 100 (US$26) per month.314 Bezeq has 66.1 percent of total subscribers as of March 2015 and HOT has 33.9 percent.315 Bezeq began migrating its customers to Internet Protocol (IP)-based networks in June 2009, and by the end of 2014, Bezeq had extended its next-generation infrastructure to 99 percent of Israeli households, offering speeds of 100 Mbps.316 By virtue of a July 2014 MoC decision that allowed operators to refarm a small block of spectrum in the 1800 MHz band for the provision of LTE-based services prior to the official auction, some wireless operators began to offer mobile broadband by launching limited commercial 4G services. Partner Communications inaugurated its 4G network in July 2014, and Cellcom and Pelephone followed suit in August 2014. The allocation of the frequencies awarded in January 2015 is anticipated to bolster the rollout of 4G networks.317 308 Ari Rabinovitch, Israel Seeks Investor for New Fiber Optic Network (Oct. 9, 2011), http://www.reuters.com/article/israel-telecom-idUSL5E7L90AT20111009. 309 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Israel Broadband Company (IBC) (2015) (last visited July 24, 2015). 310 David Shamah, Israel Gets ‘Revolutionary’ Fast Fiber Optic Net (May 21, 2014), http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-gets-revolutionary-fast-fiber-optic-net/. 311 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Israeli Fibre Broadband Provider Struggling to Retain Customers? (Nov. 25, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/11/25/israeli-fibre-broadband-provider- struggling-to-retain-customers/. 312 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Israel Broadband Company (IBC) (2015) (last visited July 24, 2015). 313 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Israel’s Fixed Line Sector Gets a Shake-Up as Wholesale Market Reforms Take Effect (Feb. 18, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/02/18/israels-fixed- line-sector-gets-a-shake-up-as-wholesale-market-reforms-take-effect/. 314 Gad Perez, Broadband Policy Reform Lowers Prices (Feb. 18, 2015), http://www.globes.co.il/en/article- broadband-policy-reform-lowers-internet-prices-1001011183. 315 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Israel (2015) (last visited July 24, 2015). 316 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Bezeq (Israel Telecommunication Corporation) (2015) (last visited July 24, 2015). 317 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Israel (2015) (last visited July 24, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 106 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants318 25.3 0.0 8.7 16.6 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)319 2,077,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2013)320 70.7 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants321 49.9 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)322 4,090,000 21. Italy Regulation: In March 2015, in an effort to accelerate the country’s sluggish broadband development, the Italian government announced an ambitious new national broadband plan, the Strategy for Italian Broadband and Digital Growth 2014-20.323 The plan aims to exceed the objectives of the EU’s Digital Agenda by bringing high-speed broadband of 100 Mbps to 85 percent of Italians by 2020 (compared to the 50 percent goal set by the Digital Agenda).324 To achieve this goal, the plan envisions EUR 6 billion (US$6.6 billion) in public funding, coupled with an additional EUR 6 billion investment through public- private partnerships.325 The strategy will offer operators incentives, such as tax exemptions, to invest in upgrading their networks, particularly in the less-developed southern part of Italy.326 Some of the proposed measures, such as the plan to offer vouchers to users migrating to ultra-fast fiber connections, have caused concern among operators, potentially delaying final governmental approval of the strategy.327 Market and Competition: Italy is one of Western Europe’s least developed broadband markets.328 The EU Digital Scoreboard reported in June 2015 that only 59 percent of Italians regularly use the Internet, while 31 percent have never used the Internet, among the lowest percentages in the EU on both 318 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 319 Id. 320 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 321 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 322 Id. 323 Telecompaper, Italian Cabinet Approves EUR 6 Bln National Broadband Plan (Mar. 4, 2015), http://www.telecompaper.com/news/italian-cabinet-approves-eur-6-bln-national-broadband-plan--1068912. 324 Eur. Comm’n, Italy, Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation of the EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communication – 2015, Doc. No. SWD(2015) 126, at 173 (June 19, 2015), http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=9990. 325 Federico Guerrini, Italy’s €6bn Broadband Plan: Spread 100Mbps Far and Wide, Fill in the Rural Notspots (Mar. 6, 2015), http://www.zdnet.com/article/italys-6bn-broadband-plan-spread-100mbps-far-and-wide-fill-in-the- rural-notspots/. 326 Telecompaper, Italian Cabinet Approves EUR 6 Bln National Broadband Plan (Mar. 4, 2015), http://www.telecompaper.com/news/italian-cabinet-approves-eur-6-bln-national-broadband-plan--1068912. 327 Telegeography Comms Update, Italian Broadband Plan Hits Delays (June 25, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/06/25/italian-broadband-plan-hits-delays/. 328 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Italy (2015) (last visited Sept. 9, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 107 measures.329 Italy also lags behind the rest of Europe in terms of broadband speed; as of July 2014, just over 18 percent of broadband lines in Italy offer speeds of 10 Mbps or more, compared to an EU average of 66 percent.330 Telecom Italia is the broadband market leader with 47.7 percent of subscribers, followed by Wind Telecomunicazioni (15.3 percent), FastWeb (14.6 percent), Vodafone Italy (12.4 percent), Tiscali (3.2 percent), and other minor players (6.8 percent).331 In contrast to its underdeveloped fixed broadband market, Italy has one of the region’s most saturated wireless markets. Four incumbent operators compete for subscribers: Telecom Italia (TIM) (34.8 percent of market share), Vodafone Italy (29.1 percent), Wind Telecomunicazioni (24.7 percent), and 3 Italia (11.5 percent).332 As of March 2014, all four operators have launched LTE networks. However, TIM has taken the lead in rolling out the most expansive network, with plans to achieve LTE coverage of 80 percent of the country by the end of 2016.333 Additionally, in November 2014, TIM and Vodafone each launched LTE-A networks.334 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants335 23.6 0.9 0.0 21.4 1.3 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)336 14,373,844 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)337 71.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants338 70.9 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)339 43,104,410 22. Japan Regulation: In June 2014, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) announced its Smart Japan ICT Strategy, an update of the Ministry’s 2013 ICT Growth Strategy and its Initiatives for ICT International Competitiveness Enhancement and International Expansion.340 The strategy includes a focus on programs that will serve as a platform for sustained development and growth of the ICT sector in 329 Eur. Comm’n, Digital Agenda Scoreboard: Italy (2015), https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard/italy (last visited Sept. 9, 2015). 330 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Italy (2015) (last visited Sept. 9, 2015). 331 Id. 332 Id. 333 Id. 334 Id. 335 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 336 Id. 337 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 338 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 339 Id. 340 Press Release, MIC, Announcement of Smart Japan ICT Strategy (June 20, 2014), http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/joho_tsusin/eng/Releases/Telecommunications/140620_01.html. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 108 Japan. Programs include infrastructure improvements; creation of flexible and effective public-private partnership ecosystem; and ICT literacy.341 In June 2015, Japan and the EU announced an agreement to cooperate on 5G mobile technology research, and announced US$13.1 million of funding for 5G projects related to the Internet of Things, cloud technologies, and big data platforms.342 In October 2014, MIC ordered that, beginning in May 2015, all smartphones and tablets must be sold with their SIM cards unlocked at no cost to consumers if consumers so request.343 Market and Competition: In August 2014, NTT DOCOMO and Huawei ran successful trials of LTE over unlicensed 5 GHz spectrum. In March 2015, DOCOMO announced its 5G trials were reaching speeds up to 4.5 Gbps. It carried out the trials in February in the 15 GHz band. DOCOMO has launched or plans to launch trials with Ericsson, Nokia, Huawei, Mitsubishi and others. DOCOMO hopes to have its 5G networks launched by the 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo.344 NEC, a Japanese corporation, won a contract to build and operate a new Trans-Pacific submarine cable funded by a consortium of China Telecom, Global Transit, Google, KDDI, and Singtel investing a total of US$300 million. The system will be branded the FASTER cable and will land in Japan and the United States. In June 2015, NTT had the largest share of retail wireline broadband subscribers (39.4 percent), followed by UQ Communications (21.6 percent), Softbank BB (6.9 percent), KDDI (6.9 percent), J:COM (5.8 percent), and other smaller players (17.7 percent).345 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants346 28.5 20.7 4.7 3.1 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)347 36,261,653 % of households with fixed broadband access (2012)348 75 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants349 124.1 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)350 157,812,151 341 MIC, Smart Japan ICT Strategy, http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000296880.pdf (last visited Sept. 18, 2015). 342 Press Release, Eur. Comm’n, EU and Japan Step up Cooperation on 5G Mobile Technology and Strengthen Research and Innovation Collaboration (May 29, 2015), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5069_en.htm. 343 Teppei Kasai, Japan's Wireless Carriers Told To Unlock Phones Starting Next Year (Oct. 31, 2014), http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/31/us-japan-mobilephone-simcards-idUSKBN0IK0EU20141031. 344 Press Release, NTT DOCOMO, DOCOMO's 5G Outdoor Trial Achieves 4.5Gbps Ultra-High-Speed Transmission (Mar. 2, 2015), https://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/info/media_center/pr/2015/0302_03.html. 345 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Japan (2015) (last visited Nov. 20, 2015). 346 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 347 Id. 348 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 349 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 350 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 109 23. Korea Regulation: In May 2015, the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (MSIP) confirmed plans to license a fourth mobile operator within a year.351 In June 2015, the government announced it would accept applications for the entrant in August 2015.352 In March 2015, Korea announced plans for a 700 MHz spectrum auction by the end of 2015.353 In June 2014, South Korea and the EU signed an agreement to cooperate on 5G research and development.354 Market and Competition: In June 2014, SK Telecom introduced 225 Mbps LTE-A in South Korea.355 In January 2015, Finland’s Nokia Networks and South Korea’s SK Telecom (SKT) announced plans to collaborate on 5G wireless technologies, including gigabit-level data transmission equipment and cloud- based virtual base stations, and announced aims to establish a 5G research and development facility in SKT’s Corporate R&D Centre to develop and test centimeter- and millimeter-wave 5G technologies using 6 GHz or higher spectrum.356 Also in January 2015, the two announced a partnership on an LTE-A technology called Enhanced Inter-Cell Interference Coordination (eICIC).357 In February 2015, SKT selected Samsung as the sole vendor in a nationwide Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) deployment of SKT’s dedicated mobile Internet of Things (IoT) network.358 In June 2015, KT announced GiGA LTE, a technology capable of gigabit download speeds by combining LTE and WiFi technologies. However, the service was only available to those of its 4G customers with Samsung Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge handsets after installation of a required firmware update. Also in June, KT and Ericsson signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for collaboration on Internet of Things research and development and LTE-MTC.359 In May 2015, KT and Alcatel Lucent signed an MoU to collaborate on 5G research and development.360 351 Joseph Waring, Korea to Award 4th Mobile License by End of Year (May 29, 2015), http://www.mobileworldlive.com/asia/asia-news/korea-award-4th-mobile-licence-end-year/. 352 Kim Yoo-chul, Korea Plans Wireless Spectrum Auction (Mar. 8, 2015), http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2015/03/133_174834.html. 353 Id. 354 Press Release, Eur. Comm’n, Landmark Agreement between the European Commission and South Korea on 5G Mobile Technology (June 16, 2014), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-680_en.htm. 355 Telegeography CommsUpdate, SK Telecom Introducing 225 Mbps LTE-A This Week (June 18, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/06/18/sk-telecom-introducing-225mbps-lte-a- this-week/. 356 Business Korea, SKT, Nokia Jointly Open R&D Center For 5G Tech (June 30, 2015), http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/english/news/sciencetech/11215-joint-research-development-skt-nokia-jointly-open- rd-center-5g-tech. 357 Press Release, SK Telecom, SK Telecom and Nokia Networks Announce World’s First Commercialization of eICIC (Jan. 28, 2015), http://www.sktelecom.com/en/press/detail.do?idx=1100. 358 Press Release, Samsung, Samsung’s Virtualized Core Solution Chosen to Support SK Telecom's Nationwide IoT Network (Feb. 5, 2015), http://www.samsung.com/global/business/networks/insights/news/samsungs-virtualized- core-solution-chosen-to-support-sk-telecom. 359 Press Release, GSMA, KT, The First to Commercialize ‘Giga LTE’ In the World, Advances Into 5G Era (June 17, 2015), http://www.gsma.com/membership/kt-the-first-to-commercialize-giga-lte-in-the-world-advances-into-5g- era/. 360 Press Release, Alcatel-Lucent, Alcatel-Lucent and Korea’s KT Sign Collaboration Agreement to Deliver 5G Mobile Networks of the Future (May 19, 2015), https://www.alcatel-lucent.com/press/2015/alcatel-lucent-and- koreas-kt-sign-collaboration-agreement-deliver-5g-mobile-networks-future-0. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 110 As of June 2015, KT Corp had the most wired broadband subscribers in South Korea (44.1 percent of the market), followed by SK Broadband (24.3 percent), LG Uplus (15.2%), and other smaller players (16.4 percent).361 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants362 38.0 25.9 8.9 3.2 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)363 19,198,934 % of households with broadband access (2014)364 98.5 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants365 106.5 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)366 53,751,479 24. Lithuania Regulation: In October 2014, the Lithuanian government adopted an updated national broadband plan, the New Generation Network Access Plan for 2014-2020.367 The EUR 46 million (US$50.6 million) plan aims to connect 100 percent of households to Internet speeds of at least 30 Mbps by 2020.368 According to the plan, approximately 80 percent of households will rely on fixed fiber connections, while the remaining 20 percent of households located in sparsely populated or rural areas will have access via mobile broadband.369 Complementing the New Generation Network Access Plan, Lithuania’s Information Society Development Programme for 2011-2019 also sets targets for extending broadband coverage and increasing the availability of high-speed connections. Among its goals, the program aims to increase the proportion of the population that regularly uses the Internet from 75 percent in 2015 to 85 percent by 2019; extend broadband network access coverage to 98 percent by 2015 and 100 percent by 2019; and 361 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: South Korea (2015) (last visited Nov. 21, 2015). 362 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 363 Id. 364 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015) Korea’s data also includes mobile broadband. 365 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 366 Id. 367 The Lithuania Tribune, Lithuanian Government Plans Broadband for Everyone (Oct. 28, 2014), http://en.delfi.lt/lithuania/economy/lithuanian-government-plans-broadband-for-everyone.d?id=66242390. 368 Eur. Comm’n, Lithuania, Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation of the EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communication – 2015, Doc. No. SWD(2015) 126, at 195 (June 19, 2015), http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=9990. 369 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 111 ensure that at least 70 percent of households are using a broadband connection by the end of 2015, increasing to 80 percent of households by 2019.370 Market and Competition: In the fixed broadband sector, incumbent TEO LT leads the market, with 49 percent of subscribers as of March 2015. The remaining half of the market remains fiercely competitive, with 107 active Internet service providers, a situation that has kept end-user prices low. In terms of technology, Lithuania has become a global leader in FTTH adoption. As of January 2015, Lithuania’s FTTH network covered around 70 percent of households in more than 100 towns and cities.371 Three mobile network operators are active in Lithuania: Omnitel, Tele2 Lithuania, and Bite Lithuania. As of March 2015, Tele2 had 40.3 percent of mobile subscribers, followed by Omnitel (34.9 percent) and Bite Lithuania (24.8 percent). There are also four MVNOs, all operating on Bite’s network, and six licensed resellers; nevertheless, the top three operators account for approximately 99 percent of all mobile subscribers.372 With Lithuania’s extremely high wireless penetration well above the regional average, competition between the three main operators remains strong; faced with a mature market, all three network operators have turned to more advanced data services in an attempt to gain a competitive edge. As of April 2015, Bite and Omnitel have both introduced LTE-A networks, with Tele2 expected to follow suit in August 2015.373 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants (2013)374 22.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a Fixed broadband subs (2013)375 664,168 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)376 65 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants377 58.56 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)378 1,762,000 25. Luxembourg Regulation: In October 2014, the EC sued Luxembourg’s telecommunications regulator, the Institut Luxembourgeois de Regulation (ILR), for failing to conduct a review of market competition.379 Under 370 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Lithuania (2015) (last visited Sept. 8, 2015). 371 Id. 372 Id. 373 Id. 374 ITU, World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database (2015) (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). 375 Id. 376 Eurostat, Data Explorer (2015), http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). 377 ITU, World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database (2015) (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). 378 Id. 379 Press Release, Eur. Comm’n, Telecoms: Commission Refers Luxembourg to Court for Persistent Delays in Analysing Relevant Markets (Oct. 16, 2014), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1147_en.htm. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 112 EU legislation, the ILR is required to perform a review of its competition policies, which it has not done since 2007.380 Market and Competition: In December 2014, broadband providers wrestled with a 2 percent increase in the Value-Added-Tax (VAT). Orange noted that it would not pass the cost on to its customers, while Tango will only pay for some of the increase.381 In mid-December 2014, Tango announced plans to launch a 4G+ LTE-Advanced network during 2015, which will increase the current 4G download speeds from 150 Mbps to 225 Mbps. In January 2015, Tango began offering a “FreeBorders” plan to German, French, and Belgian residents for EUR 35 (US$41) per month. The plan requires a one-year contract without a smartphone purchase and a two-year contract with a smartphone purchase. The dominant mobile operator is state-backed Post Luxembourg, with 462, 000 subscribers and a 50.8 percent market share.382 Tango follows with 286,000 subscribers and a 31.5 percent market share, while Orange Luxembourg serves 125,000 subscribers with a 13.8 percent market share, and Luxembourg Online carries the remaining 36,000 subscribers at a 4 percent market share. In April 2015, Altice partnered with Cisco to deploy a next-generation converged cable access platform across several countries, including Luxembourg.383 This long-term investment strategy will increase customer bandwidth to 10 Gbps. By the end of 2014, 100 percent of households had access to ADSL, 90 percent to VDSL, 70 percent to cable, and 40 percent to FTTH. As of March 2015, the market is dominated by Post Luxembourg with a 68.8 percent market share. Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants384 33.7 3.7 3.6 26.3 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)385 187,600 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)386 93.0 380 To provide market players with legal certainty, EU law requires national regulatory authorities to conduct a market analysis on a regular basis: two years after the adoption of a Commission recommendation on relevant markets, or three years after the last analysis. 381 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Orange Luxembourg Customers Will Not Pay VAT Increase (Dec. 1, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/12/01/orange-luxembourg-customers-will-not- pay-vat-increase/; Telegeography CommsUpdate, It Takes 2% to Tango (Dec. 4, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/12/04/it-takes-2-to-tango/. 382 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Luxembourg (2015) (last visited July 27, 2015). 383 Joao Lima, Cisco & Altice Speed up the Internet Taking IoE on Board (Apr. 22, 2015), http://www.cbronline.com/news/telecoms/connectivity/cisco-altice-speed-up-the-internet-taking-ioe-on-board- 4559579. 384 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 385 Id. 386 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 113 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants387 84.4 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)388 470,000 26. Mexico Regulation: In July 2015, the Mexican regulator Federal Institute of Telecommunications (IFT) announced it would auction 2.5 GHz spectrum for 4G starting in 2016.389 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 wholesale “carrier of carriers” network to counter the market power of America Móvil. The “carrier of carrier” network is set to be operational by 2018.390 The auction is expected to begin in the third quarter of 2015, with the bids being opened in the first half of 2016 and awards announced the second half of 2016.391 In May 2015, the government cut the investment target for the open access network power from US$10 billion to US$7 billion after AT&T entered the Mexican market and the reduced market power of America Móvil.392 The Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (SCT) reported in July 2015 that it had received 39 expressions of interest from domestic and foreign entities interested in rolling out and operating the shared wholesale 700 MHz broadband network.393 Pursuant to the National Digital Strategy launched in November 2013, the President’s office is tracking updates on the 23 aspects of the telecommunications industry via an online document.394 A few examples of the progress made by the end of 2014 towards the 2018 goals include: building 3,500 kilometers of fiber optic backbone of the promised 35,000 kilometers; providing consumers with an additional 387 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 388 Id. 389 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Ifetel Agrees to Release 2.5GHz Band for LTE Use (July 7, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/07/07/ifetel-agrees-to-release-2-5ghz-band- for-lte-use/. 390 Pacto por Mexico, Reforma en material de telecomunicaciones (Mar. 11, 2013), http://pactopormexico.org/reforma-telecomunicaciones/; Telegeography CommsUpdate, Mexican Open-Access 700MHz Network to be Operational by 2018 (Oct. 13, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/05/28/mexico-slashes-investment-target-for- 700mhz-wholesale-network/. 391 Secretariat of Commc’ns &Transp., Red Compartida – Etapas del Processo, http://www.sct.gob.mx/red- compartida/etapas-proceso.html (last visited July 27, 2015). 392 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Mexico Slashes Investment Target for 700MHz Wholesale Network (May 28, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/05/28/mexico-slashes-investment- target-for-700mhz-wholesale-network/. 393 Secretariat of Commc’ns &Transp., Compendio de las Manifestaciones de Interés (MDI) Para la Red Compartida, http://www.sct.gob.mx/red-compartida/descargaPDF/Analisis-manifestaciones-de-interes.pdf (last visited July 27, 2015). 394 See Avances de la Estrategia Digital Nacional, http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/edn/indicadores/ (last visited July 27, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 114 competitor in the mobile market through the creation of one of four MVNOs; and having 65,000 public sites connected to broadband Internet of the targeted 244,000.395 Market and Competition: In October 2014, IFT fined America Móvil’s Telmex US$3.7 million for monopolistic practices and required it unbundle its local loop (in July 2015) to further open the Mexican telecommunications market.396 In terms of fixed broadband, Telmex holds a 56.1 percent subscriber market share as of March 2015. Megacable, the country’s largest cable broadband provider and second largest broadband ISP, has a 9.7 percent market share, followed by Cablemas (5.8 percent), Izzi Telecom (formerly Cablevision) (5.1 percent), and Axtel (3.2 percent).397 As of September 2014, Telcel led the mobile market with a 69 percent market share, followed by Telefónica Mexico (Movistar) (20.8percent), Unefon (4.9 percent), Iusacell (3.6 percent), and Nextel Mexico (1.8 percent).398 Nextel Mexico launched its LTE service in October 2014, joining Movistar and Telcel as operators of LTE networks. As of August 2014, Telcel had the most extensive 4G network, covering 39 cities.399 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants400 10.7 0.7 6.7 3.0 0.3 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)401 12,838,093 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)402 33.7 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants403 42.5 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)404 50,913,677 395 Id. 396 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Telmex Fined USD3.7m for Monopolistic Practices (Oct. 1, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/10/01/telmex-fined-usd3-7m-for- monopolistic-practices/; Telegeography CommsUpdate, Ifetel Hits Telmex with LLU Order; Telco Has 60 Days to Prepare Terms (July 1, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/07/01/ifetel- hits-telmex-with-llu-order-telco-has-60-days-to-prepare-terms/. 397 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Mexico (2015) (last visited July 22, 2015). 398 IFT, Informe Estadístico 3 Trimestre 2014, http://www.ift.org.mx/sites/default/files/contenidogeneral/comunicacion-y-medios/versioncompatible.pdf (last visited Aug. 20, 2015). 399 Id. 400 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 401 Id. 402 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 403 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 404 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 115 27. Netherlands Regulation: During 2014, Agentschap Telecom (AT), the Dutch agency responsible for the management of radio spectrum, issued 10 time division duplex (TDD) licenses of 40 megahertz each for the provision of local wireless broadband services in the 3.5 GHz band. AT also modified the National Frequency Plan to allow for mobile communications in part of the 3.6-3.8 GHz band.405 AT intends to make the 700 MHz band available for wireless broadband as of 2020, with the auction of the band projected to take place during 2018 or 2019.406 Market and Competition: In the fixed broadband market, fiber connections continued to rise in popularity, increasing by 6.6 percent during the fourth quarter of 2014.407 Forecasts predict that there will be more than 3 million fiber lines in service by 2017.408 Incumbent KPN Telecom is working with joint venture partner Reggefiber to facilitate a phased nationwide rollout of FTTH services at a total cost of EUR 6 billion to EUR 7 billion (US$6.6 billion to US$7.7 billion) over the next several years.409 The rollout of advanced technologies, particularly the increase in fiber connectivity, has positively affected Internet access speeds. According to the Dutch regulator, the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), as of December 2014, around 16 percent of total broadband subscribers had a connection of at least 100 Mbps.410 Within the mobile market, three main network operators and over 65 MVNOs provide service. As of March 2015, KPN Mobile had 50.9 percent of mobile subscribers, followed by Vodafone (28 percent) and T-Mobile (20.8 percent).411 In July 2014, KPN became the first operator to introduce LTE-A technology in select cities.412 Subsequently, in March 2015, KPN trialed the Netherlands’ first tri-band carrier aggregation (CA) solution, utilizing frequencies in the 800 MHz, 1800 MHz, and 2600 MHz bands.413 As of May 2015, KPN’s LTE-A networks covered seven major cities.414 Vodafone launched its own LTE-A network in October 2014, and T-Mobile expects to introduce LTE-A by August 2016.415 405 Eur. Comm’n, Netherlands, Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation of the EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communication – 2015, Doc. No. SWD(2015) 126, at 228 (June 19, 2015), http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=9990. 406 Id. 407 Broadband TV News, Fibre Drives Dutch Broadband Market (Mar. 3, 2015), http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2015/03/03/fibre-drives-dutch-broadband-market/. 408 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Netherlands (2015) (last visited Sept. 8, 2015). 409 Id. 410 Id. 411 Id. 412 Telegeography Comms Update, KPN Follows LTE0A Launch with VoLTE Trial (July 28, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/07/28/kpn-follows-lte-a-launch-with-volte- trial/. 413 Telegeography Comms Update, KPN Claims Netherlands’ First Tri-Band CA LTE Launch (Mar. 2, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/03/02/kpn-claims-netherlands-first-tri-band- ca-lte-launch/. 414 Telegeography Comms Update, KPN Expands LTE Coverage to Seven Cities (May 22, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/05/22/kpn-expands-lte-a-coverage-to-seven- cities/. 415 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Netherlands (2015) (last visited Sept. 8, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 116 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants416 40.6 4.0 19.3 17.3 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)417 6,851,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)418 95.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants419 69.0 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)420 11,635,000 28. New Zealand Regulation: In July 2014, the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) announced a review of New Zealand’s Radiocommunications Act 1989, particularly examining competition, licensing, and spectrum interference.421 In March 2015, the MBIE announced it would invest up to US$137 million to expand its Ultra Fast Broadband (UFB) program coverage from 75 to 80 percent of New Zealanders, invest US$65 million to expand the Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI), and invest US$21.3 million to improve mobile coverage in black spot areas along main highways and in popular tourist destinations.422 As of June 2015, the UFB and RBI reached 96 percent of New Zealand schools.423 By the end of June 2015, 54 percent of the UFB had been completed and 14.6 percent of the population within its reach subscribed to the network.424 Market and Competition: Telecom New Zealand rebranded itself as Spark in August 2014.425 In August 2014, Spark launched its first 700 MHz LTE services via twelve sites. Though only two devices were compatible with the network at launch, ten were available to customers by the end of December 2014. By the end of December 2014, Spark’s LTE network covered 70 towns and cities, or roughly two 416 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 417 Id. 418 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 419 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 420 Id. 421 MBIE, Review of Radiocommunications Act 1989, http://www.mbie.govt.nz/about/whats- happening/news/2014/review-of-radiocommunications-act-1989 (last visited Nov. 12, 2015). 422 MBIE, UFB, RBI, Blackspot Expansion, http://www.mbie.govt.nz/about/whats-happening/news/2015/rois-for- ufb-rbi-mobile-black-spot-fund-expansion-programme-close-3-july (last visited Nov. 12, 2015); MBIE, New Initiatives, http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/technology-communications/fast- broadband/new-initiatives (last visited Nov. 12, 2015). 423 MBIE, Ultra Fast Broadband Deployment Map, http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors- industries/technology-communications/fast-broadband/documents-image-library/JUN15%20YEAR%204%20Ultra- Fast%20Broadband%20Deployment%20MAP.pdf (last visited Nov. 13, 2015). 424 MBIE, Quarterly Broadband Deployment Update, http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors- industries/technology-communications/fast-broadband/documents-image-library/quarterly-broadband-deployment- update-june-2015.pdf (last visited Nov. 12, 2015). 425 Press Release, Spark, Spark Takes New Zealand into Digital Future (Aug. 8, 2014), http://www.sparknz.co.nz/news/sparklaunch/. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 117 thirds of New Zealanders.426 In June 2015, Spark announced plans to use its 700 MHz LTE for rural broadband with speeds up to ten times faster than the RBI.427 New Zealand internet service provider CallPlus acquired rival Orcon in July 2014, giving it a 15 percent market share and making it the third largest player in New Zealand.428 In January 2015, Wireless Nation, a New Zealand ISP, doubled the maximum download speeds available via its satellite broadband service to 10 Mbps from 5 Mbps at no extra cost.429 As of June 30, 2015, New Zealanders with uncapped broadband mobile data plans had quadrupled over the last year, from 155,000 to 628,000.430 In June 2015, Spark led the retail subscriber market with 48.5 percent of subscribers, followed by Vodafone (29.2 percent), CallPlus (7.9 percent), Orcon (5.0 percent), and other smaller players (9.4 percent).431 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants432 31.6 1.6 1.4 28.1 0.5 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)433 1,421,621 % of households with fixed broadband access (2012)434 75.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants435 98.8 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)436 4,440,948 426 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Bright Spark: NZ Telco Now Offers LTE in 70 Cities (Dec. 19, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/12/19/bright-spark-nz-telco-now-offers-lte-in- 70-cities/. 427 Press Release, Spark, Spark New Zealand to Launch Fast Rural Wireless Broadband (June 2, 2015), http://www.sparknz.co.nz/news/ruralwirelessbroadband/. 428 New Zealand Herald, Internet Shake-Up as CallPlus Buys Rival Orcon (June 20, 2014), http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11278357. 429 Telegeography CommsUpdate, New Zealand ISP Raise Satellite Broadband Speeds (Jan. 15, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/01/15/new-zealand-isp-raises-satellite- broadband-speeds/. 430 Statistics New Zealand, Internet Service Provider Survey (2015), http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Browse%20for%20stats/ISPSurvey/HOTP2015/ISPSurvey2015HOTP.pdf. 431 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Netherlands (2015) (last visited Nov. 22, 2015). 432 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 433 Id. 434 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 435 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 436 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 118 29. Norway Regulation: In July 2014, the Norwegian Communications Authority (Nkom)437 announced that in January 2015, it would auction three vacant blocks of spectrum in the 1800 MHz band that were not sold in the December 2013 auction.438 The January 2015 auction was postponed after NetCom’s July 2014 acquisition of Tele2 Norge and is scheduled to begin on November 9, 2015.439 In June 2015, Nkom launched a public consultation on a proposed 900 MHz band auction. This auction would occur in summer 2016, and the spectrum would become available in January 2018.440 Market and Competition: Norway currently has close to 100 percent basic broadband coverage.441 Fixed line incumbent Telenor remained the leading broadband provider with 42.5 percent of the market as of March 2015, followed by Altibox (19.9 percent), Get (12.8 percent), NextGenTel (6.8 percent), and Broadnet (3.4 percent).442 As of March 2015, the principal mobile operators were Telenor Norge (55.0 percent), Netcom (43.1 percent), and ice.net (formerly Nordisk Mobiltelefon) (1.9 percent). Multiple MVNOs and resellers also provide mobile services.443 At the end of 2014, LTE was available to 83 percent of the population.444 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants445 38.7 11.3 11.9 14.6 0.8 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)446 1,985,997 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)447 88.0 437 The Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority (NPT) was renamed the Norwegian Communications Authority (Nkom) in January 2015. See Nkom, Annual Report for the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority (NPT) 2014 (Apr. 28, 2015), http://eng.nkom.no/topical-issues/news/annual-report-for-the-norwegian- post-and-telecommunications-authority-npt-2014. 438 Telegeography CommsUpdate, NPT to Re-Auction 1800 MHz Spectrum in January 2015 (July 3, 2014), http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/07/03/npt-to-re-auction-1800mhz-spectrum-in- january-2015/. 439 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Tele2 Norge (2015) (last visited July 20, 2015); Nkom, Auction #23 (1800 MHz) (July 2, 2014), http://eng.nkom.no/technical/frequency-auctions/auctions/planned-completed- auctions/auction-23-1800-mhz. 440 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Nkom Consults on 900MHz Draft Auction (June 10, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/06/10/nkom-consults-on-900mhz-draft- auction/. 441 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Norway (2015) (last visited July 20, 2015). 442 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Norway (2015) (last visited July 20, 2015). 443 Id. 444 Eur. Comm’n, Digital Agenda Scoreboard: Norway, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard/norway (last visited July 20, 2015). 445 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 446 Id. 447 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 119 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants448 88.0 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)449 4,520,385 30. Poland Regulation: In October 2014, the Polish regulator, the Office of Electronic Communications (UKE), issued a decision deregulating wholesale broadband Internet access services in 76 municipalities across Poland after it found that there was sufficient competition in those markets and four conditions were met: (1) the dominant operator Orange’s retail broadband market share was below 40 percent; (2) the area had at least three active broadband ISPs; (3) over 65 percent of premises had access to the infrastructure of at least three competing operators; and (4) more than 90 percent of premises had access to at least one broadband service.450 The UKE restarted the 800 MHz and 2.6 GHz auctions in March 2015 but paused them in April 2015 due to a technical glitch and again in May 2015 to consider a bid cap to speed up the sale process.451 As of mid-July 2015, the auction process was still ongoing without a clear end date.452 Under the “Digital Poland” program, the government will oversee the deployment of a 45,000-kilometer fiber network for a new broadband service that would provide households with an Internet connection of at least 30 Mbps by 2020. This program, announced in December 2014 by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development, is expected to cost US$2.56 billion with US$1.07 billion provided by the EU.453 The operational phase of the program began in March 2015.454 Market and Competition: Poland’s fixed broadband market is quite competitive, with several operators providing broadband Internet access via multiple technologies. 455 As of March 2015, incumbent Orange Poland (formerly Telekomunikacja Polska) had 35.7 percent of the country’s broadband subscribers, followed by cable operator UPC Poland (16.3 percent), Netia (12.7 percent), Multimedia Polska (8.6 448 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 449 Id. 450 UKE, New Regulations Concerning Wholesale Broadband Internet Access Services in Poland (Oct. 7, 2014), https://en.uke.gov.pl/new-regulations-concerning-wholesale-broadband-internet-access-services-in-poland-14775. 451 Telegeography Comms Update, Poland Pauses LTE Auction Again as it Considers Bid Cap (May 26, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/05/26/poland-pauses-lte-auction-again-as-it- considers-bid-cap/. 452 Telegeography, Comms Update, MAC n Jeeze: No End in Sight for Poland’s 4G Auction (July 13, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/07/13/mac-n-jeeze-no-end-in-sight-for- polands-4g-auction/; Adrian Senecki, Digital Poland Program to Provide 30 Mb/s Internet in Every Home (Dec. 12, 2014), http://news.bitspiration.com/news/technology/digital-poland-program-to-provide-30-mbs-internet-in-every- home/. 453 Telegeography CommsUpdate, EU Pumps USD1.1bn into Poland’s Broadband Rollout (June 3, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/06/03/eu-pumps-usd1-1bn-into-polands- broadband-rollout/. 454 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Digital Poland Programme Gets Underway (Mar. 18, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/03/18/digital-poland-programme-gets- underway/. 455 Eur. Comm’n, Digital Agenda Scoreboard: Poland, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard/poland (last visited July 21, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 120 percent), and Vectra (8.1 percent). Other small operators collectively held the remaining 18.6 percent.456 As of early 2015, there are four major mobile operators, a few smaller network operators, and approximately 25 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 March 2015, T-Mobile Poland was the leading mobile operator (27.1 percent of subscribers), followed by Orange Poland (26.6 percent), Polkomtel (23.1 percent), and P4 (21.7 percent).457 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.458 As of June 2014, Aero2’s LTE services covered about 66 percent of the population.459 Polkomtel launched LTE services in October 2012, and covered 66 percent of the population by June 2014.460 Polkomtel filed a complaint with UKE alleging discrimination by UKE in setting the LTE tender rules after failing to win spectrum in the 1800 MHz auction but is expecting to expand its LTE service using spectrum it anticipates winning in the ongoing 800 MHz and 2.6 GHz auction.461 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants462 18.0 0.8 6.0 7.4 3.7 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)463 6,922,890 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)464 71.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants465 55.3 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)466 21,278,710 31. Portugal Regulation: As of June 2015, two and one half years since the implementation of Portugal’s Digital Agenda, 89 percent of Portuguese homes have access to broadband speeds of over 30 Mbps, with 22 percent of homes having access to over 100 Mbps. Thirty percent of Portuguese citizens, however, had 456 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Poland (2015) (last visited July 21, 2015). 457 Id. 458 Id. 459 Id. 460 Id. 461 Id. 462 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 463 Id. 464 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 465 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 466 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 121 never used the Internet, only 39 percent of Portuguese Internet users had participated in ecommerce, and 43 percent of Portuguese Internet users had utilized public services online.467 In April 2015, the Digital Agenda goals were extended until 2020 in accordance with the objectives of the Europe 2020 growth strategy. The regulator, Anacom, will be responsible for coordinating and implementing the Digital Agenda goals related to broadband access and the digital market, increasing digital literacy, and increasing ICT use in the marketplace and in business.468 In April 2015, Anacom launched a public consultation on the availability and use of spectrum in the 3.4- 3.8 GHz band, which it is considering releasing for mobile broadband services, including LTE services.469 Market and Competition: As of March 2015, the main fixed broadband providers were MEO (Portugal Telecom) (47.7 percent market share), Nos (created through the merger of Zon and Optimus) (35.4 percent), Vodafone Portugal (11.4 percent), and Cabovisăo (5.0 percent).470 As of March 2015, Portugal Telecom’s wireless subsidiary, MEO, was the wireless market leader with 47.1 percent of subscribers, followed by Vodafone Portugal (30.4 percent) and Nos (22.5 percent). By year end 2014, LTE was available to 94 percent of the population.471 As of March 2015, 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.472 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants473 27.2 6.0 9.7 10.5 1.1 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)474 2,830,930 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)475 63.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants476 45.8 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)477 4,755,599 467 Eur. Comm’n, Digital Agenda Scoreboard: Portugal, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard/portugal (last visited July 23, 2015). 468 Anacom, Agenda Portugal Digital até 2020 (Apr. 24, 2015), http://www.anacom.pt/render.jsp?contentId=1354358#.VdeJRZdvmDl. 469 Anacom, ANACOM quer ouvir o mercado sobre a utilizaçăo e a dar ao espectro disponível (Apr. 28, 2015), http://www.anacom.pt/render.jsp?contentId=1354566#.VdeON5dvmDk. 470 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Portugal (2015) (last visited July 21, 2015). 471 Eur. Comm’n, Digital Agenda Scoreboard: Portugal, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard/portugal (last visited July 23, 2015). 472 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Portugal (2015) (last visited July 21, 2015). 473 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 474 Id. 475 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 476 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 477 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 122 32. Singapore Regulation: In December 2014, the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA), the telecommunications regulator of Singapore, issued a decision permitting the deployment of 4G and IMT-Advanced systems and services using 3G bands in Singapore (1904.9-1920 MHz and 1920-1979.7 MHz paired with 2110.3- 2169.7 MHz).478 In December 2014, IDA opened a review of its spectrum allocation and regulatory frameworks. The review includes an examination of spectrum pricing, shared use of spectrum, and improving the consistency of spectrum regulations while also reducing regulations as needed.479 In February 2015, Singapore announced plans to build a public sector only telecommunications network as part of its Smart Nation initiative.480 The government opened requests for proposals from the private sector for the building and deployment of the network. In April 2015, IDA closed a public consultation called “Internet Protocol Transit and Peering Landscape in Singapore” and said it would announce its decision “when it is ready.” The consultation sought comment on current market conditions, including competition, choice, cost, and whether there are possible areas that would require regulatory intervention.481 Market and Competition: In July 2014, SingTel launched a 300 Mbps 4G service with a Huawei mobile MiFi device compatible with LTE-A networks.482 In August 2014, responding to consumer demand, Singtel’s mobile division began offering more mobile plans which offer high speed Wi-Fi service to supplement its 4G services.483 Also that August, Starhub announced a dual broadband package which would pair 1 Gbps via fiber and 100 Mbps via cable. As part of a limited launch promotion, Starhub gave dual-band gigabit Wi-Fi routers to customers.484 In May 2015, MyRepublic launched a claimed first in Singapore -- 1 Gbps no-contract fiber broadband plan.485 478 IDA, Deployment of Fourth Generation (“4G”) and International Mobile Telecommunication (“IMT”)-Advanced Systems and Services Using Existing 3G Spectrum Rights (Dec. 12, 2014), https://www.ida.gov.sg/~/media/Files/PCDG/Consultations/20140422_ProposedAllocationSpectrumIMT/Deployme nt_4G_IMT_Advanced_Sys_and_Svsusing_3G_SpectrumRights.pdf. 479 IDA, Proposed Amendments to the Telecommunications (Radio-Communication) Regulations, https://www.ida.gov.sg/Policies-and-Regulations/Consultation-Papers-and-Decisions/Store/Proposed-Amendments- to-the-Telecommunications-Radio-Communication-Regulations (last visited Nov. 12, 2015). 480 Irene Tham, Government to Get Own Telecoms Network in Smart Nation Push (Feb. 2, 2015), http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/government-to-get-own-telecoms-network-in-smart-nation-push. 481 IDA, The Internet Protocol Transit and Peering Landscape in Singapore (Apr. 15, 2015), https://www.ida.gov.sg/Policies-and-Regulations/Consultation-Papers-and-Decisions/Store/The-Internet-Protocol- Transit-and-Peering-Landscape-in-Singapore. 482 Telegeography Comms Update, SingTel Launches Commercial 300Mbps 4G Service with Huawei Mobile MiFi Device (July 24, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/07/24/singtel- launches-commercial-300mbps-4g-service-with-huawei-mobile-mifi-device/. 483 Press Release, Singtel, Singtel Meets Customer Demand for More Data with Asia’s First WiFi-Integrated Mobile Plans (Aug. 12, 2014), http://info.singtel.com/about-us/news-releases/singtel-meets-customer-demand-more-data- asias-first-wifi-integrated-mobile-pl. 484 Press Release, Starhub, Starhub Speeds Ahead with New 1Gbps Dual Network Plan (Nov. 18, 2014), http://www.starhub.com/about-us/newsroom/2014/november/starhub-speeds-ahead-with-new-1gbps-dual-network- plan.html. 485 Jolene Hee, MyRepublic Launches Singapore’s First 1Gbps No Contract Plan (For the Commitment-Phobes), https://vulcanpost.com/240331/myrepublic-launches-singapore-1gbps-no-contract-plan/ (last visited Nov. 12, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 123 As of June 2015, Singtel had the most wired broadband subscribers (40.2 percent of the market), followed by Starhub (32.3 percent), M1 Limited (7.8 percent), MyRepublic (2.2 percent). The remaining market share (17.5 percent) is held by a series of small players.486 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants (2013)487 26.03 n/a n/a n/a n/a Fixed broadband subs (2013)488 1,409,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)489 87.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants490 156.15 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Jan. 2014)491 8,615,000 33. Slovak Republic Regulation: 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 Services (RU), which began operations in January 2014.492 The Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic has the primary responsibility for the national broadband strategy and policies.493 One of the goals of the National Strategy for Broadband Access, adopted in March 2011, is to provide all households in the Slovak Republic access to a high-speed Internet connection of at least 30 Mbps by the end of 2020. As of June 2015, only 63 percent of homes had a connection of at least 30 Mbps.494 Currently there is an applicable state aid measure until the end of 2015 to achieve the construction of a national backhaul network. Further measures are planned for after 2015 in order to meet the goal of providing broadband coverage at speeds above 30 Mbps to the entire population of the Slovak Republic by 2020.495 486 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Singapore (2015) (last visited Nov. 20, 2015). 487 ITU, World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database (2015) (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). 488 Id. 489 IDA, Facts & Figures: Infocomm Usage – Households and Individuals, https://www.ida.gov.sg/Tech-Scene- News/Facts-and-Figures/Infocomm-Usage-Households-and-Individuals#2b (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). 490 ITU, World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database (2015) (last visited Dec. 17, 2015). 491 Id. 492 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Slovakia (2015) (last visited Aug. 20, 2015). 493 Id. 494 Eur. Comm’n, Digital Agenda Scoreboard: Slovakia, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard/slovakia (last visited Aug. 20, 2015). 495 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 124 Market and Competition: As of March 2015, Slovak Telecom remained the dominant fixed broadband provider, with a market share of 37.8 percent, followed by Orange Slovensko (11.4 percent) and UPC (9.9 percent).496 The Slovak Republic’s mobile market is divided among three major mobile operators. As of March 2015, Orange Slovensko had a 42.2 percent market share by subscribers, followed by Slovak Telecom’s mobile arm (32.5 percent), and Spanish-owned O2 Slovakia (25.3 percent).497 At the end of 2014, 4G LTE was available to 52 percent of the population.498 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants499 22.0 5.7 2.8 8.5 5.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)500 1,191,216 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)501 76.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants502 59.9 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)503 3,246,305 34. Slovenia Regulation: Slovenia’s current national broadband plan, adopted in 2008, aims to ensure 90 percent broadband population coverage by 2020 (no speed specified), with a preference for the deployment of FTTH infrastructure.504 In August 2014, the Information Society Directorate of the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, Slovenia’s telecommunications policymaker, launched a public consultation on updating the national broadband plan, particularly by including a 100 Mbps target. Operators contested the draft plan, pointing to the need for clarification as to the scope of the target and calling for a closer look at the role of mobile broadband in the overall strategy. In March 2015, after taking into account the operators’ objections, the government began an ongoing inter-ministerial consultation on a revised broadband plan, which envisions an estimated EUR 766 million (US$843 million) in broadband investment.505 496 Id. 497 Id. 498 Id. 499 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 500 Id. 501 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 502 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 503 Id. 504 Gov’t of the Rep. of Slovn., Broadband Network Development Strategy in the Republic of Slovenia at 41 (July 2008), https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/broadband-network-development-strategy-republic-slovenia. 505 Eur. Comm’n, Slovenia, Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation of the EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communication – 2015, Doc. No. SWD(2015) 126, at 279 (June 19, 2015), http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=9990 [hereinafter EC Slovenia Report]. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 125 In April 2015, the Slovenian regulator, the Agency for Communications Networks & Services (AKOS), launched a public consultation on the award of wireless broadband spectrum licenses in the 700 MHz band, as well as available frequencies in the 1400 MHz, 2300 MHz, 3500 MHz, and 3700 MHz bands. AKOS plans to hold the multi-band auction in 2016.506 In December 2012, Slovenia became the second country in Europe (after the Netherlands) to adopt net neutrality legislation.507 In January 2015, AKOS found that Slovenia’s two largest wireless operators, Telekom Slovenije and Si.mobil, had violated the net neutrality law by engaging in positive price discrimination, also known as zero-rating.508 AKOS gave the companies 60 days to ensure that all data services were priced equally.509 In February 2015, AKOS gave the same warning to two additional operators, Amis and Tusmobil.510 Market and Competition: DSL remains the most popular access technology in Slovenia, but cable and fiber have gained traction in recent years. Fiber-based subscriptions significantly exceed the EU average of 7 percent. As of June 2015, next generation access (NGA) technologies accounted for 39 percent of all fixed broadband subscriptions, well above the EU average of 27 percent. Nevertheless, Slovenia’s overall broadband speeds remain low, with speeds of 30 Mbps or above reaching only 1.8 percent of subscriptions, well below the EU average of 6.9 percent. 511 Former monopoly Telekom Slovenije controls the largest share of the market, with 35.4 percent of subscribers as of March 2015.512 Alternative operators have steadily increased their cumulative market share, however, from 62 to 65 percent from July 2013 to July 2014.513 Telekom Slovenije also leads the mobile market, with 54.1 percent of subscribers as of March 2015, followed by principal competitors Si.mobil (30 percent) and Tusmobil (13.1 percent).514 In May 2015, Tusmobil became the last of these three main wireless operators to launch LTE services.515 Also in May 2015, Telekom Slovenije announced plans to use its 4G LTE wireless infrastructure to begin offering 506 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Slovenian Regulator to Hold Multi-Band Wireless Auction in 2016 (Apr. 23, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/04/23/slovenian-regulator-to-hold- multi-band-wireless-auction-in-2016/. 507 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. 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 (last visited July 24, 2015). See also Slovenia Reinforces Net Neutrality Principles (Jan. 3, 2013), http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/slovenia-reinforces-net-neutrality-principles/. 508 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Slovenian Operators Told to Halt Zero Rating (Jan. 27, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/01/27/slovenian-operators-told-to-halt-zero- rating/. 509 Id. 510 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Two More Operators Found to Be Breaching Net Neutrality Laws (Feb. 25, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/02/25/two-more-operators-found-to- be-breaching-net-neutrality-laws/. 511 EC Slovenia Report, supra note 507, at 276. 512 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Slovenia (2015) (last visited July 24, 2015). 513 EC Slovenia Report, supra note 507, at 275. 514 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Slovenia (2015) (last visited July 24, 2015). 515 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Tusmobil Begins LTE Rollout (May 21, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/05/21/tusmobil-begins-lte-rollout/. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 126 triple-play services to customers in areas not served by fixed broadband networks.516 Following the April 2014 multi-band auction of 4G-suitable spectrum, mobile broadband is expected to play a greater role in providing basic Internet access and supplementing the development of fixed broadband infrastructure, especially in rural areas.517 Telekom Slovenije, currently 72 percent state-owned, has been undergoing a privatization process since May 2013. In the latest development, Slovenia is negotiating a deal to sell its shares to UK-based private equity company Cinven.518 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants519 26.7 5.9 8.4 12.0 0.4 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)520 551,062 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)521 75.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants522 47.0 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)523 968,383 35. Spain Regulation: In 2013, the Spanish government adopted the Digital Agenda for Spain, setting out a comprehensive national ICT strategy for 2013-2015. In May 2014, the main legislative measure provided for in this agenda was completed with the adoption of the “Telecommunications Law (9/2014).” Under this law, Spain committed to rolling out 10 Mbps broadband to the entire population by 2017. By 2020, Spain expects to have universal access to 30 Mbps speeds with 50 percent of the population having access to 100 Mbps download. All schools, universities, libraries, and health centers will have 30 Mbps access by 2016 and 100 Mbps by 2020. In March 2015, Spain completed the digital terrestrial television (DTV) transition in the 800 MHz band.524 516 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Telekom Slovenije to Use LTE as Fixed Broadband Alternative (May 26, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/05/26/telekom-slovenije-to-use-lte-as-fixed- broadband-alternative/. 517 EC Slovenia Report, supra note 507, at 276. 518 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Telekom Slovenije Sale Still Not Settled (June 15, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/06/15/telekom-slovenije-sale-not-yet-settled; Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Telekom Slovenije (incl. Mobitel) (2015) (last visited July 24, 2015). 519 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 520 Id. 521 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 522 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 523 Id. 524 Press Release, Ministry of Indus., Energy & Tourism, The Release of Digital Dividend Will Be Completed Today in Spain, In Compliance with the European Mandate for the Opening Up of the 800 MHz Band (Mar. 31, Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 127 In October 2014, the EC recommended redefining two broadband markets to loosen restrictions on competitive access and investment. In December 2014, Spain’s telecommunication regulatory authority, the Comision Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC), launched a public consultation over a new regulation for the wholesale broadband market that would require Movistar to lease its fiber network at regulated prices.525 Market and Competition: In July 2014, the EC approved Vodafone’s merger with Grupo Corporativo ONO, as their telecommunications services were largely complimentary.526 Vodafone paid EUR 7.2 billion (US$7.9 billion) for the acquisition. In December 2014, the EC investigated Orange’s plans to purchase Jazztel for EUR 3.4 billion (US$3.7 billion), as it would reduce the number of nationwide operators from four to three. In July 2014, the European Court of Justice upheld a fine on Telefonica Espana for anticompetitive behavior for charging wholesale rates close to retail ones.527 Nevertheless, in May 2015, the EC approved Orange’s acquisition of Jazztel, provided that Orange divest an FTTH network covering over 700,000 premises. The operator that acquires the network will have wholesale access to Jazztel’s ADSL for eight years and Orange’s cellular network, including 4G.528 By June 2015, the deal was approved by the Spanish regulator and accepted by a majority of Jazztel’s shareholders. Currently, Telefonica Espana leads the market with 5.9 million subscribers and a 45.4 percent market share.529 After the acquisition of Jazztel, Orange will serve 3.6 million subscribers with a 27.5 percent market share. The final nationwide operator, Vodafone-ONO, will have a 21.5 percent market share and 2.8 million subscribers once the merger is complete. In November 2014, the CNMC announced that mobile broadband revenue of EUR 889 million (US$978 million) surpassed fixed broadband revenue of EUR882 million (US$970 million) for the first time.530 By December 2014, all four mobile operators offered 4G LTE services to over 50 percent of the population.531 LTE-A coverage will be built out after the 800 MHz band from the DTV transition is auctioned off. 2015), http://www.minetur.gob.es/en-US/GabinetePrensa/NotasPrensa/2015/Paginas/20150313-dividendo- digital.aspx. 525 Press Release, CNMC, La CNMC lanza una consulta pública sobre la regulación mayorista de los mercados de banda ancha (Dec. 19, 2014), http://www.cnmc.es/CNMC/Prensa/TabId/254/ArtMID/6629/ArticleID/1044/La- CNMC-lanza-una-consulta-p250blica-sobre-la-regulaci243n-mayorista-de-los-mercados-de-banda-ancha.aspx. 526 Telegeography CommsUpdate, EC Approves Vodafone-ONO Merger; Closure This Month (July 3, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/07/03/ec-approves-vodafone-ono-merger- closure-this-month/. 527 Telegeography CommsUpdate, ECJ Upholds Fine on Telefonica Espana’s For Anticompetitive Broadband Activity (July 11, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/07/11/ecj-upholds- fine-on-telefonica-espanas-for-anticompetitive-broadband-activity/. 528 Press Release, Eur. Comm’n, Mergers: Commission Clears Acquisition of Jazztel by Orange, Subject To Conditions (May 19, 2015), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4997_en.htm. 529 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Spain (2015) (last visited July 27, 2015). 530 Christina Ramon, La banda ancha móvil supera por primera vez a la fija en ingresos (Nov. 5, 2014), http://cnmcblog.es/2014/11/05/la-banda-ancha-movil-supera-por-primera-vez-a-la-fija-en-ingresos/. 531 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 128 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants532 27.6 3.4 4.7 19.3 0.2 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)533 12,834,049 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)534 73.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants535 78.1 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)536 36,267,330 36. Sweden Regulation: In March 2015, the Swedish regulator, the Post and Telecom Authority (PTS), announced that broadcasters must relinquish the 700 MHz band by the end of March 2017, so that the spectrum can be used to supplement 4G coverage in sparsely populated areas. However, broadcasters will not have to give up the 470MHz-694MHz spectrum until the end of March 2020.537 Requirements to expand mobile coverage have not always been met: in April 2014, PTS issued a directive to Tele2/Telenor to fulfill the commitment to increase coverage in sparsely-populated areas that was a condition of its 800 MHz license; in a later order, PTS established incremental deadlines for compliance in June, September, and November 2015.538 Formal regional broadband plans were in place in 17 of 21 Swedish counties by the end of 2014, in time for the transfer of authority over financing rural development from the national government to county governments at the beginning of 2015.539 Sweden’s national rural broadband plan was approved by the EC five months later (in May 2015), and by October 2015, the implementing rules will be in place and the first round of projects approved.540 In February 2015, the PTS responded to new competition and to EC recommendations by finalizing its October 2014 draft orders that relaxed regulations for wholesale broadband markets.541 Market and Competition: TeliaSonera Sweden is the market leader for both fixed broadband access and mobile services.542 On the fixed side, TeliaSonera (39.2 percent) competes with Telenor Sweden (19.3 percent), Com Hern (19.3 percent), Tele2 Sweden (2.3 percent), and several other smaller 532 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 533 Id. 534 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 535 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 536 Id. 537 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Sweden (2015) (last visited Oct. 30, 2015). 538 Id. 539 Id. 540 Id. 541 Id. 542 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 129 providers.543 By the end of 2014, fiber had overtaken DSL as the most popular broadband technology, and is expected to keep increasing.544 In the mobile sector, there has been a rapid expansion in access to mobile broadband in Sweden.545 TeliaSonera leads the market (43.3 percent), followed by Tele2 (25.6 percent), Telenor (17.5 percent), Hi3G Access Sweden (13.1 percent), and Net 1 Sweden (0.6 percent).546 As of March 2015, Telia announced 4G coverage of over 99 percent of the Swedish population.547 Working together, TeliaSonera and Tele2 were also able to achieve 4G coverage of over 99 percent by March 2015, while Hi3G obtained 80 percent coverage by mid-2015.548 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants549 33.8 14.8 6.2 12.7 0.2 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)550 3,281,000 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)551 87.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants552 115.6 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)553 11,204,000 37. Switzerland Regulation: In November 2014, the Federal Council published a report identifying issues that had arisen during the efforts to update Switzerland’s national communications law to reflect advances in technology, such as fiber deployment.554 This review was a response to a March 2012 evaluation conducted by the 543 Id. 544 Id. 545 Press Release, PTS, Rapid Expansion of Mobile Broadband according to PTS Survey (Mar. 2, 2015), https://www.pts.se/en-GB/News/Press-releases/2015/Rapid-expansion-of-mobile-broadband-according-to-PTS- survey/. 546 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Sweden (2015) (last visited Oct. 30, 2015). 547 Id. 548 Id. 549 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 550 Id. 551 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 552 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 553 Id. 554 See generally Fed. Office of Commc’ns, Telecommunications Report 2014 (Nov. 2014), http://www.bakom.admin.ch/dokumentation/gesetzgebung/00512/03498/index.html?lang=en. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 130 Federal Council.555 A bill to resolve these policy issues is to be drafted by the end of 2015, with any unresolved matters left to a future revision of the legislation.556 Market and Competition: Incumbent Swisscom is the market leader for both fixed broadband access and mobile services.557 On the fixed side, Swisscom (54.3 percent) competes with Cablecom (21.3 percent), Sunrise (9.4 percent), and several other smaller providers.558 DSL and cable connections remain the most prevalent broadband technologies, although fiber has continued to increase its share.559 In the mobile sector, Swisscom leads the market (57.8 percent), followed by Sunrise (22.0 percent) and Salt (20.2 percent), which was formerly Orange Switzerland.560 In addition to the three mobile network operators, Switzerland boasts a large number of MVNOs delivering specialized services to niche markets, though many of these MVNOs are now owned by one of the three networks.561 The handover of licenses from Switzerland’s February 2012 800 MHz auction was conducted from July 21 to August 16, 2014.562 Additional spectrum will be released to licensees in 2016.563 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants564 48.9 5.7 14.8 27.7 0.7 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)565 3,990,200 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)566 86.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants567 83.1 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)568 6,780,000 555 See Fed. Office of Commc’ns, Evolution of the Swiss Telecommunications Market: Supplementary Report (Mar. 2012), http://www.bakom.admin.ch/dokumentation/gesetzgebung/00512/03498/index.html?lang=en. 556 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Switzerland (2015) (last visited Oct. 30, 2015). 557 Id. 558 Id. 559 Id. 560 Id. 561 Id. 562 Id. 563 Id. 564 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 565 Id. 566 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 567 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 568 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 131 38. Turkey Regulation: In March 2015, the Ministry of Transport and Communications announced that Turkey planned to hold a multi-band spectrum auction in May, with the goal of extending 4G coverage to 90 percent of the population within six years. According to the Ministry, the government planned to auction frequencies in the 800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2100 MHz, and 2600 MHz bands and reserve a block of spectrum in the 2600 MHz band for a new market entrant.569 Turkey’s regulator, the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA), specified that it would offer 20 spectrum lots across the five bands, with 390.4 megahertz total available for bidding. ICTA set the combined floor price for the licenses on offer at EUR 2.3 billion (US$2.5 billion), with winning bidders permitted to purchase the frequencies outright or in four six-month installment payments.570 In April 2015, President Recap Tayyip Erdogan made headlines by proposing that Turkey should not “lose time” with 4G and instead should jump directly from 3G to 5G within the next two years.571 Subsequently, in May 2015, the Ministry of Transport and Communications postponed the multi-band auction until August, citing the need for additional financial and technical preparations.572 The effect of President Erdogan’s comments on the decision to postpone the auction remains unclear.573 Market and Competition: According to ICTA, there were 331 ISPs officially licensed to provide services in Turkey in September 2014, up from 237 one year earlier and 175 in September 2012. Despite an influx of competitors, incumbent fixed-line operator Turk Telecom (TT) leads the market, with 71.2 percent of subscribers as of March 2015, followed by Turkcell Superonline (14.1 percent) and Turksat (5.7 percent). 574 Mobile broadband has surpassed DSL as the most popular Internet access technology since 2012.575 In contrast to the fixed broadband market, Turkey’s mobile market is characterized by strong competition among three well-established operators: Turkcell (47.9 percent of subscribers as of March 2015), Vodafone Turkey (formerly Telsim) (29 percent), and Avea (23.2 percent). Throughout 2014, competition in the market increased as the operators began to more aggressively target the mobile data sector, offering competitive pricing and new bundled plans.576 All three operators have conducted 4G trials and planned to introduce commercial launches by December 2015, pending the spectrum auction and the allocation of licenses.577 569 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Turkey Staging 4G Tender in May; 2600MHz Licence to Be Offered to 4th Player (Mar. 5, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/03/05/turkey-staging-4g- tender-in-may-2600mhz-licence-to-be-offered-to-4th-player/. 570 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Turkey (2015) (last visited July 27, 2015). 571 See, e.g., Daren Butler, Erdogan Says Turkey Should Not “Lose Time” with 4G Telecoms (Apr. 22, 2015), http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/22/turkey-telecomunications-idUSL5N0XJ0CO20150422. 572 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Turkey Postpones 4G Auction Until 26 August 2015 (May 18, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/05/18/turkey-postpones-4g-auction-until-26- august-2015/. 573 Compare id. (noting that “it is not clear as to whether Erdogen’s words impacted on the watchdog’s decision to delay the auction”) with Ece Toksabay, Turkey Minister Says Might Cancel 4G Tender, Switch to 5G: Newspaper, (Apr. 28, 2015), http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/28/us-turkey-tech-4g-idUSKBN0NJ0MB20150428 (interpreting the President’s remarks as “instructions” for postponing or possible canceling the auction). 574 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Turkey (2015) (last visited July 27, 2015). 575 Kylie Wansink, Turkey – Telecoms, Mobile and Broadband (Sept. 2014), http://www.budde.com.au/Research/Turkey-Telecoms-Mobile-and-Broadband.html. 576 Id. 577 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: Turkey (2015) (last visited July 27, 2015). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 132 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants578 11.6 1.9 0.7 8.9 0.1 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)579 8,866,361 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)580 57.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants581 42.2 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)582 32,360,661 39. United Kingdom (UK) Regulation: In March 2015, Ofcom, the UK’s telecommunications regulatory authority, announced its “Strategic Review of Digital Communications,” a comprehensive ten-year examination of competition, investment, innovation, and product availability in the broadband, mobile, and fixed line markets. 583 Ofcom plans to focus its review on three topics: ensuring the right incentives for private-sector investment in order to deliver availability and quality of service; maintaining strong competition and tackling bottlenecks; and identifying opportunities for deregulation. Ofcom plans to release the initial results of its review by the end of 2015.584 Also in March 2015, to complement Ofcom’s review, the UK government released “The Digital Communications Infrastructure Strategy,” a policy paper published alongside the national budget. The policy paper announced the government’s ambition to make broadband speeds of 100 Mbps or more available to 95 percent of premises by 2017.585 To effectuate this goal, the policy paper proposed the introduction of a universal service obligation for broadband Internet access, thereby establishing broadband as a basic legal right.586 The accompanying budget echoed the need for a future national minimum broadband speed of 100 Mbps, and allocated GBP 600 million (US$885 million) to help clear 578 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 579 Id. 580 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 581 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 582 Id. 583 Press Release, Ofcom, Ofcom Announces Strategic Review of Digital Communications (Mar. 12, 2015), http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2015/digital-comms-review/. 584 Id. 585 Dep’t for Culture, Media & Sport, The Digital Communications Infrastructure Strategy (Mar. 18, 2015), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-digital-communications-infrastructure-strategy/the-digital- communications-infrastructure-strategy. 586 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Policy Sets Broadband as a Basic Legal Right (Mar. 19, 2015), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2015/03/19/policy-sets-broadband-as-basic-legal- right/. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 133 new spectrum for mobile Internet, fund WiFi in public libraries, and install satellite broadband in remote rural areas.587 In November 2014, Ofcom introduced a proposal to auction 190 total megahertz of spectrum in the 2.3 GHz and 3.4 GHz bands in late 2015 or early 2016. Ofcom intends to offer the frequencies in 38 lots of 5 megahertz each, with bidders able to request a minimum bid of four lots per band.588 That same month, Ofcom also revealed plans to release spectrum in the 700 MHz band, currently used for digital terrestrial television, for mobile broadband use by 2022, and possibly up to two years earlier.589 By making available additional spectrum through both of these actions, Ofcom expects consumers to benefit from cheaper and faster mobile data services.590 Market and Competition: The UK broadband market is evolving at a rapid pace.591 Rather than a focus on price-led competition, the market has looked to speeds as the differentiating factor between competing providers.592 As a result, as of June 2015, next-generation access (NGA) coverage in the UK stood at 89 percent of households, well above the EU average of 68 percent. 32 percent of total fixed broadband subscribers take service with speeds of at least 30 Mbps (up from 26 percent in June 2014),593 while more than 80 percent subscribe to speeds of at least 24 Mbps.594 Fixed line incumbent BT remains the UK’s largest broadband provider, with 32.7 percent of subscribers as of March 2015.595 Other notable players include Sky (23 percent), Virgin Media (19.5 percent), and TalkTalk (18.2 percent).596 The UK has a competitive mobile market, with four main wireless operators: EE (34.2 percent of subscribers), O2 UK (33 percent), Vodafone UK (21 percent), and Hutchison 3G UK (11.8 percent). Given the UK’s saturated market, operators have sought to drive growth and revenues through the deployment of new technologies, particularly LTE. All four operators launched commercial LTE networks by August 2014, and Vodafone and HG3 UK expect to achieve 98 percent population coverage by the end of 2015.597 587 Id. See also Juliette Garside, Broadband to Be Basic Legal Right, Says George Osborne (Mar. 18, 2015), http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/18/broadband-to-be-basic-legal-right-says-george-osborne. 588 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Ofcom Outlines Plans for 2.3GHz/3.4GHz Auction (Nov. 10, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/11/10/ofcom-outlines-plans-for-2-3ghz3- 4ghz-auction/. 589 Telegeography CommsUpdate, Ofcom Aims to Release 700MHz Spectrum for Mobile Broadband Use by 2022 (Nov. 24, 2014), https://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/11/20/ofcom-aims-to- release-700mhz-spectrum-for-mobile-broadband-use-by-2022/. 590 Id. 591 Dep’t for Culture, Media & Sport, The Digital Communications Infrastructure Strategy (Mar. 18, 2015), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-digital-communications-infrastructure-strategy/the-digital- communications-infrastructure-strategy. 592 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: United Kingdom (2015) (last visited Sept. 9, 2015). 593 Eur. Comm’n, Digital Agenda Scoreboard: United Kingdom (2015), https://ec.europa.eu/digital- agenda/en/scoreboard/united-kingdom (last visited Sept. 9, 2015). 594 Dep’t for Culture, Media & Sport, The Digital Communications Infrastructure Strategy (Mar. 18, 2015), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-digital-communications-infrastructure-strategy/the-digital- communications-infrastructure-strategy 595 Telegeography GlobalComms Database: United Kingdom (2015) (last visited Sept. 9, 2015). 596 Id. 597 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 134 Wired Total Fiber Cable DSL Other Fixed broadband subs per 100 inhabitants598 36.8 0.0 7.0 29.7 0.0 Fixed broadband subs (Dec. 2014)599 23,729,800 % of households with fixed broadband access (2014)600 88.0 Wireless Mobile wireless broadband subs per 100 inhabitants601 84.8 Mobile wireless broadband subs (Dec. 2014)602 54,718,423 598 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.1 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 599 Id. 600 OECD Stat Extracts, http://stats.oecd.org/ (last visited Dec. 16, 2015). 601 OECD Broadband Portal, Table 1.2.2 (Dec. 2014) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015). 602 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 135 APPENDIX F A. 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 device that enables the hardware to measure actual download and upload speeds, and (ii) software-based tests.1 The most widely collected speed data for international (non-U.S.) cities 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, the physical distance of the end user to the server may influence the results of software-based speed measurement tests. Another point worth noting is that the actual speeds that are observed in each country reflect 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. Despite these shortcomings, the Ookla speed dataset 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 third quarter of 2015 in December 2015. According to this report, the United States has an average connection speed of 12.6 Mbps (ranking 16th in the world).3 This measurement, however, cannot be readily compared to the analysis of the Ookla data 1 Installing special hardware on an end user’s device is usually preferred as the speed measurement is not biased by the subscriber’s device 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 Commission partnered with SamKnows to measure advertised and actual speeds, and the results are summarized in FCC’s “Measuring Broadband America” reports, available at http://www.fcc.gov/measuring- broadband-america. The FCC releases these reports on a regular basis, most recently in December 2015. See FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 2015 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report: A Report on Consumer Fixed Broadband Performance in the United States, rel. Dec. 30, 2015, https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broadband-america/measuring- broadband-america-2015 (“2015 MBA Report”). Raw data for the 2015 report is available at https://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america/2015/raw-data-2014#node-80197 and the validated data is available at https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broadband-america/validated-data-measuring- broadband-america-2015. For information about the U.K. speed testing, see http://infrastructure.ofcom.org.uk/. However for broad-based international data, software-based tests such as Ookla’s speedtest.net are the best readily available data source. 2 Since January 2008, Ookla has collected data on over 8.1 billion speed tests. See https://www.ookla.com/ (last checked January 22, 2016). In this report, we use data for 2013 and 2014. The 2013 data covers January 1 to December 31, including 40 countries with 5.9 million observations for 16,294 cities. For 2014, the data include 6.3 million observations for 17,917 cities from the same 40 countries from January 1 to December 15. The end date of the collection period for 2014 corresponds to the date the data were downloaded from Ookla. 3 Akamai’s State of the Internet, Q3 2015 Report at 24 (December 2015), https://www.stateoftheinternet.com/resources-connectivity-2015-q3-state-of-the-internet-report.html. South Korea holds the number one position in the Akamai rankings, with an average download speed of 20.5 Mbps. Id. at 12. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 136 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’s 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 the 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 2013 and 2014 rankings based on average download speed (Mbps) for 40 countries. The countries included are identical to those included in the Fourth IBDR. 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. Average download speeds in both years increased for the majority of countries in the sample. The data are shown in Figure 1a.7 Luxembourg was first in the 2013 rankings, but it saw the largest decrease in average download speed, a drop of 6.39 Mbps to 36.58 Mbps in 2014, putting it in 11th place in the 2014 rankings. However, the median download speed in Luxembourg has increased each of the past four years.8 Japan was the only other country to observe a slowdown on average speeds from 2013 to 2014. Singapore held the top spot in the 2014 rankings; its average download speeds increased by 27.95 Mbps, from 41.06 Mbps in 2013 to 69.01 Mbps in 2014. The United States ranked 26th of the 40 countries included in our sample in 2014, the same ranking as 2013. With an average download speed of 26.68 Mbps, the United States increased download speeds by 8.01 Mbps from 2013. From 2013 to 2014, the United Kingdom moved from 19th to 22nd even though the average download speed increased from 23.29 Mbps to 29.41 Mbps. In 2014, the bottom five countries did not change rankings, with India remaining last with an average download speed of 5.11 Mbps. By comparison, Akamai ranks the District of Columbia the fastest state/district in the United States with an average speed of 19.5 Mbps. Id. at 18. 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 sizing the transferred payload to “fill the pipe.” For more information, see http://blog.ookla.com/2010/05/14/testing-speed-tests/. 6 According to Professors Bauer, Clark and Lehr of MIT, “the Ookla/Speedtest approach – which typically results in greater 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,” at 3 (2010), http://mitas.csail.mit.edu/papers/Bauer_Clark_Lehr_Broadband_Speed_Measurements.pdf. 7 Throughout this Appendix F, 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 Data for 2011 through 2013 can be found in the Fourth IBDR. 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. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 137 Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by total number of tests. (Data were drawn on Dec. 15, 2014.) In 2014, the median weighted download speed for the United States increased to 24.63 Mbps from 18.43 Mbps in 2013, but its ranking fell one spot to 27th of 40 countries. Similar to the United States, most countries have means and medians that are fairly close together, in both the 2013 and 2014 data. Hong Kong continues to be an exception, as its median download speed in 2014 was 6.69 Mbps slower than its average download speed. In 2013, Luxembourg and Hong Kong had average download speeds exceeding their 2013 median download speeds by 8.20 Mbps and 7.34 Mbps, respectively.9 This discrepancy between the mean and median largely disappeared for Luxembourg in the 2014 data. 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 2013 and 2014. 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 9 A high average relative to the median indicates that a small number of cities posted speeds much higher than the typical city in the country (which increased the overall country average). With the exception of 2013, the mean and median values for Luxembourg since 2011 have been relatively close (within 0.6 Mbps). In Hong Kong, however, the average and median were similar in 2011 and then the median grew rapidly in 2012, outpacing the average. In both 2013 and 2014, the median was at least 5 Mbps lower than the average. These discrepancies between mean and median speeds are more likely to occur in smaller places like Hong Kong and Luxembourg, where there are not many cities. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Sin gap ore Ho ng Ko ng Ko rea Sw ede n Sw itze rla nd Lit hua nia Ne the rla nd s Ice lan d Fin lan d De nm ark Lu xem bou rg Fra nce Est oni a Be lgi um Jap an Slo vak ia Bu lga ria Cz ech Re pub lic No rw ay Hu nga ry Po rtu gal Un ited Ki ng dom Au stri a Ge rm any Sp ain Un ited St ate s Ire lan d Isr ael Ca nad a Po lan d Slo ven ia Ne w Z eal and Au stra lia Ch ile Me xic o Bra zil Tu rke y Gr eec e Ita ly Ind ia Av era ge (W eig hte d) Do wn loa d S pe ed in M bp s Figure 1a Country Average Weighted Speed Rankings (2013-2014): All Available Data 2014 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 138 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 2014, the average download speed increase in the United States of 28.3 percent had a lower bound of 27.9 percent and an upper bound of 28.8 percent. All countries had a positive percent increase except for Luxembourg and Japan. Singapore, New Zealand, Iceland, and Estonia have the widest confidence interval bands, indicating larger variation in the percent change from 2013 to 2014. All percent change data are presented in Appendix F Table 1c. Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by sample size. (Data were drawn on Dec. 15, 2014.) Figure 1c shows the percentage of tests with actual download speeds exceeding 10 Mbps. By 2013, 99 percent or more of tests were above 10 Mbps for 19 countries. The United States nearly reached that threshold in 2014, with 98.2 percent of tests over 10 Mbps. Italy quadrupled the percentage of tests above 10 Mbps between 2013 and 2014, going from 8.56 percent to 35.93 percent. Only 0.07 percent of 2014 tests in India were over 10 Mbps. -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Sin gap ore Ho ng Ko ng Sp ain Ind ia Est oni a Ko rea Isr ael Po lan d Fra nce Slo ven ia Bra zil Sw itz erl and Un ited St ate s Hu nga ry Ne w Z eal and Ch ile Slo vak ia Ire lan d Cz ech Re pu bli c Tu rke y Fin lan d Sw ede n No rw ay Au stri a De nm ark Ita ly Be lgi um Un ited Ki ngd om Ge rm any Ca nad a Me xic o Ne the rla nds Gr eec e Lit hua nia Po rtu gal Bu lga ria Au stra lia Ice lan d Lu xem bou rg Jap an Pe rce nt Ch an ge Figure 1b Percent Change in Average (Weighted) Download Speed with 95% Confidence Interval Bands, 2013-2014 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 139 Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla. (Data were drawn on Dec. 15, 2014.) There were no 2013 data from Israel. Figure 1d shows the percentage of tests with actual download speeds exceeding 25 Mbps. Download speed tests reporting 25 Mbps or greater increased dramatically for nearly every country in the sample. The United States increased in the percentage of tests over 25 Mbps from 0.75 percent in 2013 to 58.89 percent in 2014. Several countries, including Bulgaria, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands had large increases in this speed tier from 2013 to 2014.10 Many European countries experienced tremendous growth in this speed tier from 2013 to 2014; Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and the United Kingdom all improved at least 20 times their 2013 mark and were among the most improved countries in this regard. 10 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. See Section 4 for more detail concerning comparison of actual and advertised speeds. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ice lan d Ko rea Sin gap ore De nm ark Ne the rla nds Ho ng Ko ng Bu lga ria Jap an Est oni a Lu xem bou rg Lit hua nia Sw itz erl and Sw ede n Be lgi um Isr eal Ne w Z eal and Cz ech Re pu bli c Fin lan d No rw ay Un ited Ki ngd om Po rtu gal Ire lan d Slo vak ia Ge rm any Hu nga ry Un ited St ate s Ca nad a Po lan d Au stri a Slo ven ia Au stra lia Sp ain Ch ile Fra nce Tu rke y Me xic o Bra zil Ita ly Gr eec e Ind ia Pe rce nta ge Figure 1c Percentage of Tests Reporting Greater than 10 Mbps of Download Speed, 2013-2014 2014 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 140 Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla. (Data were drawn on Dec. 15, 2014.) India and Greece did not have any tests over 25 Mbps. 2. Speed Comparisons at the City Level The following analysis compares the capital cities of all 40 countries, including Washington, D.C., as well as 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 2014, Olympia fell out of the top quartile, bringing the number of U.S. cities in the top quartile to three. Two thirds of the bottom quartile is comprised of 16 U.S. cities, and in 2014 five new U.S. cities dropped into the bottom quartile. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Ko rea Sin gap ore Ho ng Ko ng Lit hua nia Lu xem bou rg Ne the rla nds Sw ede n De nm ark Est on ia Sw itz erl and Ice lan d Fin lan d Jap an No rw ay Un ite d K ing dom Bu lga ria Hu nga ry Slo vak ia Cz ech Re pu bli c Ge rm any Po rtu gal Be lgi um Fra nce Ire lan d Un ite d S tat es Au str ia Sp ain Isr ael Po lan d Ne w Z eal and Ca nad a Slo ven ia Au str ali a Br azi l Tu rke y Me xic o Ita ly Ch ile Pe rce nta ge Figure 1d Percentage of Tests Reporting Greater than 25 Mbps Download Speed, 2013-2014 2014 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 141 Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by sample size. (Data were drawn on Dec. 15, 2014.) Capital cities consist of 40 country capitals (including Washington, D.C.) and the 50 state capitals for the United States. 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 four years of data—2011-2014. The stratified sample was drawn using 2011 data. We do not redraw the sample for following years; 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 2014 update. Other than the modifications noted, we followed the stratified sampling methodology outlined in the Third IBDR.11 Appendix F Tables 3a and 3b, respectively, present the population proportions for each stratum of non- U.S. and U.S. cities. Figure 3a shows the country speed ranks based on the cities in the sample. In 2014, the U.S dropped one spot to 26th, matching the 26th place ranking the United States holds in the non-stratified 11 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. Vi lni us Pa ris Sin gap ore Lu xem bu rg Seo ul Be rn To ky o Re yk jav ík He lsin ki Am ste rda m So fia Ho ng Ko ng Sto ckh olm Lis bo n Co pen hag en Do ver Tr ent on Os lo An na po lis Bis ma rck Vi enn a Br ati sla va Ol ym pia Ra lei gh Lju blj ana Co lum bu s To pe ka Bo ise Ca nb err a Co lum bia Jer usa lem Au gu sta Me xic o Ch arl est on Ch eye nn e He len a Lin col n Sa nti ago Br así lia Mo ntp eli er An kar a Fr an kfo rt At hen s Ro me Ne w D elh i Sin gap ore Par is Vil niu s Se ou l Ho ng Ko ng Be rn Sto ckh olm He lsin ki Au sti n Do ver Co pen hag en Re yk jav ík Am ste rda m Bra tisl ava An na po lis Os lo Lu xem bu rg Ta llin n So fia Vie nn a Lis bo n Tre nto n Pra gu e De nv er De s M oin es Al ba ny Ch eye nn e Ho no lul u Jef fer son Ci ty He len a Ra leig h Co lum bu s Bo ise Me xic o Co lum bia Ca nb err a Mo ntp eli er Ch arl est on San tiag o Au gu sta Lin col n An kar a Fr an kfo rt Bra síli a Ro me Ath ens Ne w D elh i 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Av era ge Do wn loa d S pee d ( Mb ps) Figure 2 Capital City Average (Weighted) Speed Rankings, 2013-2014 Top and Bottom 25th Percentile 2013 2014 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 142 speed rankings. While speeds may have increased in absolute value (moving from 19.55 Mbps in 2013 to 27.47 Mbps in 2014), speeds in the U.S. cities in the sample increased more slowly than speeds in other cities in the sample. For example, Singapore ranked first both in 2013 with an average speed (based on stratified sampling) of 42.52 Mbps and in 2014 with an average speed (based on stratified sampling) of 73.32 Mbps.12 ,Of the 39 countries that reported data (there is no data on Greece), 37 experienced an increase in their average download speed. Luxembourg posted a 13 Mbps slowdown.13 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. 15, 2014). 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 countries in our sample in 2013 and 2014. The top and bottom quartiles show that considerable variation in download speed exists within the United States, when measured by stratified sample. Nine U.S. states appeared in the top quartile in 2014, an increase of two from 2013. The number of states in the bottom quartile decreased to twelve from thirteen, though there were many states new to it. Utah improved its average download speed by 13.63 Mbps (from 22.91 Mbps in 2013 to 36.54 Mbps in 2014), which helped the state jump from 21stto 11th place and become the highest ranked U.S. state.14 Every U.S. state increased its average download speed as estimated by the stratified sampling technique. Data for all states and countries can be found in Appendix F Table 3d. 12 See Appendix F, Table 3c. 13 Id. 14 See Appendix F, Table 3d. Lu xem bou rg Sin gap ore Sw ede n Ko rea , R epu bli c o f Sw itze rla nd Ne the rla nds Jap an Ho ng Ko ng Be lgi um De nm ark Lit hua nia Fin lan d Po rtu gal Bu lga ria Ice lan d Un ited Ki ngd om Cz ech Re pub lic Slo vak ia Est oni a Ge rm any No rw ay Hu nga ry Fra nce Ca nad a Un ite d S tat es Isr ael Ire lan d Po lan d Au stri a Sp ain Au stra lia Slo ven ia Ne w Z eal and Ch ile Bra zil Ita ly Tu rke y Me xic o Ind ia Sin gap ore Ho ng Ko ng Ko rea Sw itze rla nd Sw ede n Ne the rla nds Be lgi um Fra nce Lit hua nia De nm ark Fin lan d Isr ael Lu xem bou rg Jap an Ge rm any Po rtu gal Un ited Ki ngd om Cz ech Re pub lic Bu lga ria Slo vak ia Hu nga ry No rw ay Ice lan d Est oni a Ire lan d Un ite d S tat es Ca nad a Po lan d Ne w Z eal and Au stri a Sp ain Slo ven ia Au stra lia Ch ile Bra zil Tu rke y Ita ly Me xic o Ind ia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Av era ge W eig hte d D ow nlo ad Sp eed (M bp s) Figure 3a Average (Weighted) Speed Rankings by Country, 2013-2014 (Based on stratified sampling using 2011 cities) 2013 2014**Stratified sample cities for Greece Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 143 Source: Actual Download Speeds from Net Index by Ookla, weighted by sample size. (Data were drawn on Dec. 15, 2014.) Cities used 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. As in past years, there is variation across the United States. While some states appear in the upper quartile, the majority of U.S. states are concentrated in the lower half of the distribution across all strata. 4. Advertised versus Actual Speed Figure 4 presents the shortfall index – i.e., the percent difference between advertised and actual speeds15 – for 2013 and 2014. Exactly half of the countries experienced a decrease in their shortfall index from 2013 to 2014, meaning that providers in those countries are more likely to deliver promised speeds in 2014 than in previous years. New Zealand and Singapore saw the greatest reduction in shortfall at nearly ten percentage points, while Portugal experienced growth in excess of five percentage points. The shortfall index for the United States decreased to 6.2 in 2014 from 7.2 in 2013, moving the United States down one spot in the rankings (from 13th to 14th).16 Thus, even though the shortfall index improved for 15 Ookla also referred 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”). 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). Ookla has discontinued the publication of this dataset. 16 See Appendix F Table 5. Lu xem bou rg Sin gap ore Sw ede n Ko rea Sw itze rla nd Ne the rla nds Jap an Ho ng Ko ng Be lgi um De nm ark Lit hua nia Fin lan d De law are Po rtu gal Ne w J ers ey Ma ryl an d Bu lga ria Vir gin ia Rh od e I sla nd Ma ssa chu set ts Ut ah Ice lan d Wa shi ng ton Ha wa ii Ar ka nsa s Sp ain Mi ssi ssi pp i Te xas No rth Ca rol ina Ida ho Ok lah om a Oh io Au stra lia Slo ven ia Ma ine Ne w Z eal and Ke ntu cky Wy om ing Mo nta na Ch ile Bra zil Ala ska Ita ly Tu rke y Me xic o Ind ia Sin gap ore Ho ng Ko ng Ko rea Sw itze rla nd Sw ede n Ne the rla nds Be lgi um Fra nce Lit hua nia De nm ark Ut ah De law are Fin lan d Ne w J ers ey Mi sso uri Isr ael Lu xem bou rg Ma ryl an d Ne w Y ork Ma ssa chu set ts Vi rgi nia So uth Da ko ta Jap an Ne w Z eal and Mi ssi ssi pp i Ha wa ii Au stri a We st V irg ini a Ne w M exi co Sp ain Slo ven ia Ida ho No rth Ca rol ina Ala ska Mo nta na Oh io Wy om ing Ke ntu cky Ma ine Au stra lia Ch ile Bra zil Tu rke y Ita ly Me xic o Ind ia 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Av era ge W eig hte d D ow nlo ad Sp eed (M bp s) Figure 3b Average (Weighted) Speed Rankings by US States and International Countries, 2012 and 2013, Top and Bottom 25th Percentile (Based on stratified sampling using 2011 cities) 2013 2014 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 144 the United States, the U.S. ranking for this metric went down because other countries had greater improvement (e.g., Singapore, which had a shortfall index of 14.28 in 2013 and 5.23 in 2014).17 Source: Promise Index from Net Index by Ookla. (Data were drawn on Dec. 15, 2014.) The shortfall index may not be entirely representative of 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. The Ookla Promise Index, though imperfect, does provide a means for comparing the ability of broadband carriers to deliver advertised speeds. In addition to constructing a shortfall index, we present the average and advertised download speeds from the Ookla data. Figure 5 shows the actual download speeds from each country, and to what extent that matches what survey respondents reported they were promised. The United States was ranked 23rd of 38 countries for its average advertised speed of 25.35 Mbps in 2014, the same ranking that its 2013 advertised speed of 19.3 Mbps earned. 18 Data for both 2013 and 2014 are presented in Appendix F Table 6. 17 Id. 18 Japan and South Korea do not have actual download speeds reported in this dataset. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Hu nga ry Lit hua nia Slo vak ia Sw itz erl and Bra zil Isr ael Ch ile Cz ech Re pu bli c Ca nad a Slo ven ia Sin gap ore Bu lga ria Po lan d Un ited St ate s Est oni a Ho ng Ko ng De nm ark Me xic o No rw ay Ne w Z eal and Ice lan d Tu rke y Lu xem bou rg Ge rm any Be lgi um Ne the rla nds Sp ain Sw ede n Fin lan d Un ited Ki ngd om Ind ia Au stri a Po rtu gal Au stra lia Fra nce Ita ly Ire lan d Gr eec e Pe rce nt Di ffe ren ce Figure 4 Shortfall Index in 2013-2014 (% Difference Between Advertised and Actual Speed) 2014 2013 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 145 Source: Promise Index from Net Index by Ookla. (Data were drawn on Dec. 15, 2014.) 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 December 30, 2015), like those conducted before, involves actual performance tests for thousands of subscribers of ISPs serving well over 80 percent of the residential market.19 Previous reports (for 2012 and 2013 data) found that at least 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.20 The 2015 MBA Report shows a continuation of this trend. The ratio in September 2014 of the actual download speeds to advertised download speeds, averaged across all panelists, was 105.6 percent, an increase from the 101.6 percent reported last year for September 2013.21 19 See 2015 MBA Report. 20 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, (2014 MBA Report); 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, at 4, http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/measuringbroadbandreport/2013/Measuring-Broadband-America-feb-2013.pdf. 21 2015 MBA Report at 13. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Ho ng Ko ng Sin gap ore Sw itz erl and Sw ede n Ne the rla nd s Be lgi um Lit hua nia De nm ark Fin lan d Lu xem bo urg Ice lan d Isr ael Po rtu gal Est oni a Bu lga ria Cz ech Re pub lic No rw ay Un ited Ki ngd om Hu ng ary Slo vak ia Un ited St ate s Ire lan d Ge rm any Sp ain Slo ven ia Ne w Z eal and Fra nce Po lan d Ca nad a Au stri a Au stra lia Ch ile Tu rke y Gr eec e Me xic o Br azi l Ita ly Ind ia Do wn loa d S pe ed in M bp s Figure 5 Shortfall Index 2013-2014 (Mbps) 2014 Ookla Actual 2013 Ookla Actual Shortfall from advertised Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 146 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 measurements of broadband performance throughout the year, though for reporting purposes, the Commission focuses on test results during a specific time period (September and October 2014, in the case of the December 2015 report).22 The study examines service offerings from 13 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,23 the largest being a European Commission-organized study of actual broadband speeds in 30 countries across Europe, also using SamKnows.24 In the last IBDR, we compared the European Union and MBA actual speed data, finding such comparison warranted due to similarities in methodologies and the time of data collection. We compare the U.S. and European data in this report for the same reason. The data show a continuation of the trend we saw in the last IBDR: the United States still does better than Europe when comparing actual performance to advertised speeds.25 The European study is based on data SamKnows gathered 22 Id. at 22. 23 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 e.g., U.K. fixed-line broadband performance, Ofcom, November 2014, http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/other/telecoms- research/broadband-speeds/broadband-speeds-november2014/. 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. Anatel, the Brazilian regulator, working with SamKnows, has provided meter devices to volunteers to measure broadband speeds. First quarter 2014 test results are available at http://www.anatel.gov.br/Portal/exibirPortalNoticias.do?acao=carregaNoticia&codigo=33476. Germany’s telecommunications regulator, Bundesnetzagentur (BNetza), released the results of its 2012 and 2013 studies of actual broadband speeds experienced by German broadband subscribers (see http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Breitband/Diens tequalitaet/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 (Apr. 11, 2013), http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/technology/internet-speeds-fail-to- meet-promises-in-germany-study-shows.html. BNetza now offers an app for mobile devices so that consumers can measure their mobile broadband speeds. See https://breitbandmessung.de/mobil-testen. According to the SamKnows website, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is in the early stages of planning a broadband measurement study with SamKnows. See https://www.samknows.com/regulators. 24 “Quality of Broadband Services in the EU, October 2014,” Final Report prepared for the European Commission, (Oct. 22, 2015), https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/quality-broadband-services-eu. (2014 EU Broadband 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 the top two or three ISPs (by subscriber number) in their national markets. 25 This observation should be considered when looking at pricing data (section III.C. infra) which is collected with only advertised speeds. Based on the data presented here, it appears that U.S. broadband consumers get more of what they pay for, compared to European consumers. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 147 from Whiteboxes in October 2014 and the latest MBA study is based on Whitebox data gathered in September 2014 and October 2014. The charts below show the peak (7:00 pm-11:00 pm) and non-peak (i.e., 24 hour period) 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.26 Technology U.S. advertised speed (Mbps) Europe advertised speed (Mbps) U.S. actual speed (Mbps) (24 hour) Europe actual speed (Mbps) (24 hour U.S. actual/ Advertised (%)27 Europe actual/ Advertised (%) xDSL 10.16 14.04 10.28 8.5 97 65.07 Cable 40.23 79.8 43.89 70.04 114 90.16 fiber 44.17 64.92 48.34 54.65 112 85.45 Satellite 9.86 NA 16.37 NA 201 NA Technology U.S. advertised speed (Mbps) Europe advertised speed (Mbps) U.S. actual speed (Mbps) (peak) Europe actual speed (Mbps) (peak) U.S. actual/ Advertised (%) Europe actual/ Advertised (%) xDSL 10.16 14.04 9.85 8.27 93 63.32 Cable 40.27 79.8 42.14 66.57 110 86.51 fiber 44.33 64.92 47.11 53.09 110 83.14 Satellite 9.78 NA 15.00 NA 183 NA 26 The U.S.-based MBA testing data does not include all speed tiers for the tested 13 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. The MBA selects sample sets of Whiteboxes from: (1) selected speed tiers; (2) from selected areas/regions; and (3) selected ISPs at a minimum. The MBA does not measure and report on all speed tiers for all regions for all ISPs. Therefore, the reported data is a specific and limited characterization of the actual consumer services and performance. For the 6,000-7,000 Whiteboxes tested at some speed tiers for the largest 13 providers in some regions of the United States, the average speeds were what we show in the tables below. 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. 27 The European report computed these percentages on per-panelist basis and averaged them to form an overall figure (in other words, they did not obtain the percentages simply by dividing average actual speed by average advertised speed for each technology). 2014 EU Broadband Report at 60. We computed the ratio of actual to advertised speed the same way for the MBA data. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 148 Just as we reported in the last IBDR, the data suggest 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. In this report, we look at speeds measured during both peak and non-peak hours, and in both cases, 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, at both peak and non-peak hours.28 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 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 (i.e., the variance in latency), and packet loss. Ookla collects data on these broadband quality measures through user-based tests at pingtest.net.29 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 our 40 sample countries for 2013-2014. The dataset provided 2014 data for 32 countries. From 2013 to 2014, latency in the United States decreased from 80.33 ms to 77.66 ms and the U.S. ranking improved from 27th (of 40 countries) to 15th (of 32 countries).30 Fourteen countries experienced increases in latency in 2014, with the largest growth seen in the Czech Republic from 50.45 ms in 2013 to 101.4 ms in 2014. The United Kingdom has seen increases in latency each of the past three years. Data are shown in Appendix F Table 7a. 28 The U.S. data are publicly available at https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broadband- america/validated-data-measuring-broadband-america-2015. 29 These data are included with the full NetIndex download. 30 The only country missing 2014 data that had a better 2013 ranking than the United States was Hong Kong, meaning the jump in rankings was not mainly due to incomplete 2014 data. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 149 Note: incomplete quality data from Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Switzerland. (Data were drawn on Dec. 15, 2014.) In Figure 6b, we plot the top and bottom quartiles of average (weighted) percent packet loss for the other countries in our sample and most U.S. states (including District of Columbia) for 2013 and 2014. In 2014, the number of U.S. states in the top quartile increased by two, for a total of seven, and the number of states in the bottom quartile decreased from nine to five. Only 27 states are represented in the 2014 data (as compared to 30 states in 2013), which may partially account for the decrease. Michigan jumped from next to last in the 2013 rankings to first in the 2014 rankings by improving latency from 159.45 ms to 34.04 ms. Kentucky and Wisconsin both saw increases in latency of over 20 ms from 2013 to 2014. Data for other countries and the U.S. states which reported data are presented in Appendix F Table 7b. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Bu lga ria Ko rea Fin lan d Hu nga ry De nm ark Est oni a Sin gap ore Au stri a No rw ay Ne w Z eal and Ire lan d Sw ede n Slo ven ia Gr eec e Un ited St ate s Ita ly Ge rm any Ne the rla nds Po rtu gal Po lan d Un ited Ki ngd om Isr ael Me xic o Au stra lia Ch ile Be lgi um Ca nad a Cz ech Re pu bli c Bra zil Sp ain Fra nce Tu rke y Ho ng Ko ng Ice lan d Ind ia Jap an Lit hua nia Lu xem bou rg Slo vak ia Sw itz erl and Av era ge (W eig hte d) La ten cy (m s) Figure 6a Country Average (Weighted) Latency Rankings, 2013-2014 2013 2014 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 150 Note: incomplete quality data from Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Hong Kong, Iceland, Idaho, India, Japan, Kansas, Lithuania, Louisiana, Luxembourg, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Slovakia, South Carolina, South Dakota, Switzerland, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. (Data were drawn on Dec. 15, 2014.) 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 32 countries in our sample with complete data. All but four countries saw increases in jitter between 2013 and 2014. The United States ranked 24th (of 32 countries) in 2014, compared to 35th (of 40 countries) in 2013. Five countries from the top 20 in 2013 did not report 2014 data. The Czech Republic and Belgium nearly doubled their average jitter levels in 2014, while Mexico and Lithuania both improved their rankings. Estonia posted the largest decrease in jitter, decreasing by 13.88 ms from 39.55 ms in 2013 to 25.67 in 2014. Complete data can be found in Appendix F Table 8a. Bu lga ria Ne w J ers ey Ko rea Fin lan d Ar ka nsa s Cz ech Re pub lic Sw itze rla nd Hu nga ry Slo vak ia Vir gin ia Au stri a Te nn ess ee Me xic o De nm ark Ge org ia C ali for nia Mi sso uri Lo uis ian a Sw ede n Be lgi um Ka nsa s Ca na da Wi sco nsi n Ind ia Fra nce T ur key Ida ho Oh io Ma ssa chu set ts Mi chi gan Mi chi gan Ma ryl an d Bu lga ria Co nn ect icu t Ko rea Ok lah om a Ar ka nsa s Fin lan d Hu nga ry De nm ark Au stri a Est oni a Ma ssa chu set ts Sin gap ore Ge org ia Ca lifo rni a Me xic o Au stra lia Ch ile Be lgi um Ala ba ma Ca nad a Cz ech Re pub lic Ke ntu cky Bra zil Sp ain Fra nce Wi sco nsi n Iow a Tu rke y 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Av era ge (W eig hte d) La ten cy (M s) Figure 6b Country Average Weighted Latency Rankings (2013-2014): Top and Bottom Quartiles 2013 2014 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 151 Note: incomplete quality data from Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Switzerland. (Data were drawn on Dec. 15, 2014.) Figure 7b compares U.S. states with the other countries in our sample; the top and bottom quartiles from 2013 and 2014 are displayed. In 2014, seven states appeared in the top quartile, compared to three states in 2013. The number of states in the bottom quartile decreased from ten to eight in 2014, and half of these states were new to the bottom quartile. Data for other countries and all U.S. 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 Bu lga ria Po rtu gal Est oni a Ko rea De nm ark Au stri a Ne w Z eal and Gr eec e Ita ly Ge rm any Hu nga ry Fin lan d Ire lan d Sin gap ore Slo ven ia No rw ay Sw ede n Un ited Ki ngd om Po lan d Bra zil Isr ael Ne the rla nds Au stra lia Un ited St ate s Me xic o Sp ain Ch ile Ca nad a Tu rke y Fra nce Cz ech Re pu bli c Be lgi um Av era ge (W eig hte d) Jit ter (m s) Figure 7a Average (Weighted) Jitter Rankings, 2013-2014 2013 2014 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 152 Note: incomplete quality data from Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Hong Kong, Iceland, Idaho, India, Japan, Kansas, Lithuania, Louisiana, Luxembourg, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Slovakia, South Carolina, South Dakota, Switzerland, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. (Data were drawn on Dec. 15, 2014.) 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 2013-2014 for 32 countries. Packet loss decreased for most countries in 2014, including the United States. In 2014, packet loss in the United States was 1.32 percent, down from 1.39 percent in 2013.31 The countries with the greatest improvement (fewer packets lost) in 2014 were Greece and Ireland, while Israel saw the largest increase in percent packet loss. The United States saw its ranking decrease from fifth in 2013 (of 40 countries) to thirteenth in 2014 (of 32 countries), even though fewer countries reported data. Complete data can be found in Appendix F Table 9a. 31 See Appendix F, Table 9a. Sw itze rla nd Ar ka nsa s Bu lga ria Fin lan d Ko rea Gr eec e Ne w J ers ey Slo vak ia Hu nga ry Ne w Z eal and Ge rm any Ita ly Me xic o Bra zil Flo rid a Lit hua nia Fra nce Ca lifo rni a Ch ile Ida ho Ca nad a Sin gap ore Be lgi um Lo uis ian a Ne w Y ork Mi chi gan Sw ede n Oh io Ma ssa chu set ts Wi sco nsi n Ka nsa s Ala ba ma Mi chi gan Bu lga ria Co nn ect icu t Po rtu gal Ok lah om a Est oni a Ar ka nsa s Ko rea De nm ark Ma ryl an d Au stri a Ne w Z eal and Mi sso uri Ita ly Gr eec e Co lor ad o T urk ey Sp ain Me xic o Illi no is Ch ile Ind ian a Ca nad a Ca lifo rni a Fra nce Cz ech Re pub lic Ha wa ii Be lgi um Wi sco nsi n Vi rgi nia Ala ba ma Iow a 0 20 40 60 80 100 Av era ge (W eig hte d) Jit ter (M s) Figure 7b Country Average Weighted Jitter Rankings (2013 and 2014): All Available Data 2013 2014 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 153 Note: incomplete quality data from Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Switzerland. (Data were drawn on Dec. 15, 2014.) In Figure 8b, we plot the top and bottom quartiles of average (weighted) percent packet loss for countries and U.S. states for 2013 and 2014. 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 other countries and all U.S. states which reported data are presented in Appendix F Table 9b. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Ko rea Be lgi um Po rtu gal Po lan d Sin gap ore Slo vak ia Au stri a Un ited Ki ngd om Sp ain Ire lan d Cz ech Re pu bli c No rw ay Un ited St ate s De nm ark Ca nad a Ita ly Fra nce Ne w Z eal and Bu lga ria Ch ile Sw ede n Ne the rla nds Ge rm any Bra zil Est oni a Sw itz erl and Tu rke y Au stra lia Hu nga ry Isr ael Gr eec e Fin lan d Av era ge (w eig hte d) Pe rce nt Pa ck et Lo ss Figure 8a Country Average (Weighted) Packet Loss Rankings, 2011 and 2012 2013 2014 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 154 Note: incomplete quality data from Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Hong Kong, Iceland, Idaho, India, Japan, Kansas, Lithuania, Louisiana, Luxembourg, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Slovakia, South Carolina, South Dakota, Switzerland, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. (Data were drawn on Dec. 15, 2014.) Ala ba ma Ke ntu cky Ar ka nsa s Sw itze rla nd Slo vak ia Lit hua nia Oh io Ho ng Ko ng Sw ede n Ko rea Slo ven ia Au stri a Vir gin ia Ind ian a Mi chi gan Ch ile Fra nce Au stra lia Te xas Ge rm any Cz ech Re pub lic Sp ain Lo uis ian a Tu rke y Te nn ess ee Ma ryl an d Fin lan d Hu nga ry Be lgi um Bra zil Gr eec e Ma ssa chu set ts Iow a Ko rea Be lgi um Mi chi gan Ar ka nsa s Mi sso uri Ok lah om a Dis tri ct of Co lum bia Ha wa ii Oh io Mi nn eso ta Wa shi ng ton No rth Ca rol ina Po rtu gal Me xic o Sp ain Bra zil Ge rm any Te xas Tu rke y Est oni a Sw ede n Hu nga ry Au stra lia C on nec tic ut Isr ael Al ab am a Gr eec e Vi rgi nia Fin lan d 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Av era ge (W eig hte d) Pe rce nt Pa ck et Lo ss 2013 2014 Figure 8b Country and U.S. State Average Weighted Packet Loss Rankings (2013-2014): Top and Bottom Quartiles Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 155 Table 1a Average (Weighted) Actual Download Speeds (2012-2014): All Available Data 2014 Data 2013 Data Rank Country Mbps Rank Country Mbps 1 Singapore 73.32 1 Luxembourg 42.97 2 Hong Kong 58.24 2 Singapore 42.52 3 Korea 55.15 3 Lithuania 41.72 4 Sweden 52.75 4 Sweden 39.85 5 Switzerland 51.63 5 Korea 39.28 6 Lithuania 49.12 6 Japan 37.42 7 Netherlands 45.88 7 Netherlands 37.02 8 Iceland 40.01 8 Switzerland 36.01 9 Finland 39.93 9 Hong Kong 35.85 10 Denmark 39.25 10 Iceland 33.97 11 Luxembourg 36.58 11 Finland 30.56 12 France 35.35 12 Denmark 30.45 13 Estonia 35.35 13 Bulgaria 27.78 14 Belgium 34.31 14 Belgium 26.04 15 Japan 32.94 15 Portugal 25.86 16 Slovakia 32.44 16 Norway 24.08 17 Bulgaria 32.11 17 France 23.66 18 Czech Republic 31.87 18 Estonia 23.40 19 Norway 31.63 19 United Kingdom 23.29 20 Hungary 31.25 20 Czech Republic 23.18 21 Portugal 30.24 21 Slovakia 23.05 22 United Kingdom 29.41 22 Hungary 22.32 23 Austria 28.55 23 Austria 22.19 24 Germany 27.56 24 Germany 21.73 25 Spain 26.69 25 Ireland 19.28 26 United States 26.68 26 United States 18.67 27 Ireland 26.15 27 Canada 18.06 28 Israel 25.90 28 Spain 17.43 29 Canada 22.68 29 Israel 17.19 30 Poland 22.46 30 Poland 15.35 31 Slovenia 22.11 31 Slovenia 15.00 32 New Zealand 20.71 32 New Zealand 14.53 33 Australia 15.22 33 Australia 13.51 34 Chile 14.34 34 Mexico 10.16 35 Mexico 12.66 35 Chile 10.13 36 Brazil 12.19 36 Brazil 8.35 37 Turkey 11.40 37 Turkey 8.34 38 Greece 9.12 38 Greece 7.53 39 Italy 8.83 39 Italy 6.87 40 India 5.11 40 India 3.33 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 156 Table 1b Median (Weighted) Download Speed (2014): All Available Data Country 2014 Median Download Speed (Mbps) 2014 Rank Country 2013 Median Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Rank Singapore 69.01 1 Singapore 41.06 1 Korea 54.64 2 Korea 35.30 8 Sweden 52.03 3 Sweden 35.46 7 Hong Kong 51.55 4 Hong Kong 28.52 13 Switzerland 50.26 5 Switzerland 38.63 2 Lithuania 49.10 6 Lithuania 36.34 5 Netherlands 45.35 7 Netherlands 36.93 4 Iceland 43.01 8 Iceland 34.77 9 Finland 41.73 9 Finland 35.56 6 Luxembourg 37.71 10 Luxembourg 34.77 10 Denmark 37.69 11 Denmark 29.89 11 Austria 35.92 12 Austria 25.53 16 Czech Republic 35.04 13 Czech Republic 21.61 23 Slovakia 34.23 14 Slovakia 24.74 17 Estonia 34.10 15 Estonia 19.56 25 Bulgaria 33.36 16 Bulgaria 29.61 12 Hungary 32.74 17 Hungary 22.45 19 France 32.71 18 France 20.69 24 Norway 31.76 19 Norway 23.98 18 Belgium 31.24 20 Belgium 25.92 15 Portugal 31.06 21 Portugal 28.04 14 Ireland 30.07 22 Ireland 22.24 21 United Kingdom 28.90 23 United 22.35 20 Japan 28.53 24 Japan 37.57 3 Germany 26.41 25 Germany 21.85 22 Spain 26.34 26 Spain 16.06 29 United States 24.63 27 United States 18.43 26 Israel 23.21 28 Israel 15.76 30 Poland 22.97 29 Poland 16.51 28 Canada 22.94 30 Canada 18.34 27 Slovenia 21.21 31 Slovenia 14.02 31 New Zealand 17.74 32 New Zealand 12.97 32 Chile 15.25 33 Chile 10.09 35 Australia 13.88 34 Australia 11.19 34 Turkey 12.60 35 Turkey 9.28 36 Mexico 12.37 36 Mexico 11.79 33 Brazil 10.32 37 Brazil 8.50 37 Greece 9.20 38 Greece 7.49 38 Italy 8.12 39 Italy 6.17 39 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 157 Country 2014 Median Download Speed (Mbps) 2014 Rank Country 2013 Median Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Rank India 4.51 40 India 2.90 40 Table 1c Percent Change in Average (Weighted) Download Speed, 2013-2014 95% confidence interval bounds Country Percent Change Upper Bound Lower Bound Rank Singapore 73.4 69.3 77.5 1 Hong Kong 62.9 61.5 64.3 2 Spain 56.9 56.1 57.6 3 India 56.1 55.3 56.9 4 Estonia 54.3 52.9 55.6 5 Korea 53.1 51.8 54.3 6 Israel 53.0 52.1 53.8 7 Poland 51.0 50.2 51.7 8 France 50.9 50.6 51.3 9 Slovenia 47.7 45.9 49.4 10 Brazil 46.8 46.5 47.1 11 Switzerland 46.0 45.4 46.7 12 United States 44.5 44.3 44.6 13 Hungary 44.2 43.5 44.9 14 New Zealand 42.4 41.1 43.7 15 Chile 42.3 41.0 43.6 16 Slovakia 41.4 40.4 42.3 17 Ireland 38.3 37.0 39.6 18 Czech Republic 37.3 36.5 38.1 19 Turkey 37.2 35.7 38.7 20 Finland 36.9 36.0 37.8 21 Sweden 33.3 32.5 34.1 22 Norway 32.5 32.1 33.0 23 Austria 30.9 30.3 31.4 24 Denmark 30.0 29.3 30.6 25 Italy 29.2 29.0 29.3 26 Belgium 28.6 28.1 29.0 27 United Kingdom 28.4 28.1 28.6 28 Germany 27.4 27.2 27.7 29 Canada 25.8 25.5 26.1 30 Mexico 25.1 24.7 25.5 31 Netherlands 24.3 24.1 24.5 32 Greece 22.4 21.8 23.0 33 Lithuania 18.0 17.2 18.8 34 Portugal 17.1 16.6 17.6 35 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 158 Country Percent Change Upper Bound Lower Bound Rank Bulgaria 15.2 14.7 15.6 36 Australia 12.9 12.5 13.3 37 Iceland 12.1 9.7 14.4 38 Luxembourg -9.0 -10.9 -7.1 39 Japan -9.8 -10.4 -9.2 40 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 159 Table 1d Percent Tests Reporting At Least 10 Mbps Download Speed, 2013-2014 Rank Country 2014 2013 1 Iceland 100 100 2 Korea 100 100 3 Singapore 100 100 4 Denmark 100 100 5 Netherlands 100 100 6 Hong Kong 100 100 7 Bulgaria 100 100 8 Japan 100 100 9 Estonia 100 100 10 Luxembourg 100 100 11 Lithuania 100 100 12 Switzerland 100 100 13 Sweden 100 100 14 Belgium 100 100 15 Israel 100 16 New Zealand 99.95 99.56 17 Czech Republic 99.82 99.84 18 Finland 99.76 99.68 19 Norway 99.75 99.52 20 United Kingdom 99.30 97.93 21 Portugal 99.16 96.70 22 Ireland 99.12 91.06 23 Slovakia 99.08 97.80 24 Germany 99.06 97.20 25 Hungary 98.36 97.25 26 United States 98.18 96.30 27 Canada 97.77 95.09 28 Poland 97.38 88.95 29 Austria 97.12 93.32 30 Slovenia 96.81 97.05 31 Australia 95.84 80.88 32 Spain 94.24 87.39 33 Chile 93.35 75.97 34 France 89.68 81.74 35 Turkey 70.95 0.14 36 Mexico 58.29 52.73 37 Brazil 58.11 35.33 38 Italy 35.93 8.56 39 Greece 1.03 0.00 40 India 0.07 0.02 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 160 Table 1e Percent Tests Reporting Greater Than Benchmark Speed, 2014 Rank Country >25 Mbps >50 Mbps >75 Mbps 1 Korea 100 94.90 0.23 2 Singapore 100 100 0.00 3 Hong Kong 99.77 99.53 16.22 4 Lithuania 99.69 48.26 0.00 5 Luxembourg 99.24 0.41 0.00 6 Netherlands 99.19 21.07 1.35 7 Sweden 98.87 60.13 4.35 8 Denmark 97.64 4.67 0.64 9 Estonia 97.02 0.00 0.00 10 Switzerland 96.14 70.62 1.07 11 Iceland 94.32 0.00 0.00 12 Finland 93.43 11.92 0.00 13 Japan 93.18 0.34 0.17 14 Norway 85.02 0.12 0.00 15 United Kingdom 82.42 0.90 0.00 16 Bulgaria 81.56 0.00 0.00 17 Hungary 78.47 1.92 0.06 18 Slovakia 77.79 0.00 0.00 19 Czech Republic 77.62 0.38 0.00 20 Germany 70.48 0.24 0.00 21 Portugal 69.76 0.05 0.00 22 Belgium 69.27 14.48 0.05 23 France 65.43 26.30 0.57 24 Ireland 60.16 0.00 0.00 25 United States 58.89 0.75 0.17 26 Austria 58.42 0.00 0.00 27 Spain 53.04 1.87 0.29 28 Israel 49.20 0.00 0.00 29 Poland 36.60 0.41 0.39 30 New Zealand 25.48 0.00 0.00 31 Canada 23.60 0.00 0.00 32 Slovenia 10.03 0.00 0.00 33 Australia 6.03 0.00 0.00 34 Brazil 0.45 0.00 0.00 35 Turkey 0.39 0.39 0.39 36 Mexico 0.13 0.00 0.00 37 Italy 0.03 0.00 0.00 38 Chile 0.00 0.00 0.00 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 161 Table 2 Average (Weighted) Download Speeds (2013-2014): Non-US Capital Cities & US State Capitals and Washington, D.C. Country City 2014 Rank 2014 Speed 2013 Rank 2013 Speed Singapore Singapore 1 73.32 3 42.65 France Paris 2 69.87 2 44.87 Lithuania Vilnius 3 58.25 1 50.76 Korea Seoul 4 53.75 4 39.51 Hong Kong Hong Kong 5 52.58 12 32.42 Switzerland Bern 6 51.27 6 37.38 Sweden Stockholm 7 50.99 13 32.00 Finland Helsinki 8 45.96 9 34.69 United States Austin 9 44.18 60 15.56 United States Dover 10 43.44 15 31.16 Denmark Copenhagen 11 42.04 16 31.13 Iceland Reykjavík 12 41.90 8 34.81 Netherlands Amsterdam 13 40.11 10 33.50 Slovakia Bratislava 14 39.51 22 26.51 United States Annapolis 15 38.81 19 28.13 Norway Oslo 16 38.06 18 28.57 Luxembourg Luxemburg 17 37.99 5 39.20 Estonia Tallinn 18 37.39 28 23.11 Bulgaria Sofia 19 36.89 11 32.78 Austria Vienna 20 36.65 20 27.84 Portugal Lisbon 21 36.35 14 31.20 United States Trenton 22 35.95 17 30.79 Czech Republic Prague 23 35.92 24 24.31 United States Bismarck 24 34.52 21 27.83 Hungary Budapest 25 34.31 25 24.30 Japan Tokyo 26 34.05 7 37.11 United States Concord 27 33.83 38 21.27 Spain Madrid 28 32.72 30 22.68 United States Richmond 29 31.72 27 23.82 United States Harrisburg 30 31.66 26 23.83 Ireland Dublin 31 30.58 31 22.46 United States Olympia 32 28.94 23 26.39 United States DC 33 28.82 50 17.75 United States Montgomery 34 28.20 46 18.83 United States Boston 35 28.04 56 16.32 United States Providence 36 27.90 37 21.29 United States Phoenix 37 27.66 35 21.45 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 162 Country City 2014 Rank 2014 Speed 2013 Rank 2013 Speed United States Atlanta 38 27.64 45 19.04 United States Oklahoma City 39 27.57 65 14.99 United States Nashville 40 27.52 41 19.88 United States Pierre 41 27.45 49 17.88 United States Salem 42 27.14 29 22.78 United States Madison 43 26.47 43 19.76 New Zealand Wellington 44 26.24 51 17.59 Canada Ottawa 45 25.75 36 21.34 United Kingdom London 46 25.49 34 21.69 Poland Warsaw 47 25.17 55 16.75 Germany Berlin 48 25.07 33 22.13 United States Sacramento 49 24.59 63 15.29 United States Salt Lake City 50 24.59 47 18.31 United States Springfield 51 24.54 53 17.00 United States Baton Rouge 52 24.43 44 19.24 United States Lansing 53 24.35 57 16.03 United States Santa Fe 54 24.04 42 19.76 Belgium Brussels 55 23.98 61 15.35 United States Jackson 56 23.41 59 15.87 United States Topeka 57 23.28 71 14.02 United States Tallahassee 58 23.19 39 20.68 United States Saint Paul 59 23.05 40 20.33 United States Carson City 60 22.91 32 22.17 Israel Jerusalem 61 22.77 75 13.60 United States Indianapolis 62 22.68 62 15.34 United States Hartford 63 22.67 54 16.99 United States Juneau 64 22.35 Slovenia Ljubljana 65 22.20 69 14.29 United States Little Rock 66 22.12 64 15.14 United States Denver 67 22.04 48 18.21 United States Des Moines 68 20.84 66 14.67 United States Albany 69 20.78 58 15.92 United States Cheyenne 70 19.11 79 11.90 United States Honolulu 71 18.99 67 14.46 United States Jefferson City 72 18.86 52 17.15 United States Helena 73 18.74 80 10.97 United States Raleigh 74 18.59 68 14.35 United States Columbus 75 18.39 70 14.13 United States Boise 76 18.29 73 13.91 Mexico Mexico City 77 17.57 77 13.21 United States Columbia 78 17.24 74 13.74 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 163 Country City 2014 Rank 2014 Speed 2013 Rank 2013 Speed Australia Canberra 79 16.59 72 13.91 United States Montpelier 80 15.75 83 10.23 United States Charleston 81 15.36 78 12.38 Chile Santiago 82 15.15 82 10.66 United States Augusta 83 13.84 76 13.52 United States Lincoln 84 12.82 81 10.95 Turkey Ankara 85 12.61 85 9.50 United States Frankfort 86 10.64 86 8.60 Brazil Brasília 87 10.58 84 10.15 Italy Rome 88 10.47 88 7.30 Greece Athens 90 9.26 87 7.60 India New Delhi 91 4.15 90 3.02 Table 3a Population Strata for Non-US Cities (2011-2014) (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 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 164 Table 3b Population Strata for US Cities (2011-2014) (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 Table 3c Average (Weighted) Download Speeds by Country: 2013-2014 Based on stratified sampling using 2011 cities Country 2014 Average (Weighted) Download Speed (Mbps) 2014 Rank 2013 Average (Weighted) Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Rank Singapore 73.32 1 42.52 2 Hong Kong 58.14 2 35.75 8 Korea 55.83 3 39.43 4 Switzerland 53.61 4 38.70 5 Sweden 52.89 5 41.53 3 Netherlands 51.72 6 38.54 6 Belgium 40.25 7 30.42 9 France 39.44 8 19.60 23 Lithuania 39.44 9 28.35 11 Denmark 39.37 10 30.29 10 Finland 35.08 11 27.57 12 Israel 34.09 12 19.11 26 Luxembourg 34.02 13 47.32 1 Japan 30.91 14 37.13 7 Germany 30.89 15 21.30 20 Portugal 30.05 16 26.08 13 United Kingdom 29.84 17 22.39 16 Czech Republic 29.41 18 22.18 17 Bulgaria 29.38 19 24.40 14 Slovakia 29.36 20 21.91 18 Hungary 29.23 21 20.44 22 Norway 28.99 22 20.89 21 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 165 Country 2014 Average (Weighted) Download Speed (Mbps) 2014 Rank 2013 Average (Weighted) Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Rank Iceland 28.47 23 22.83 15 Estonia 28.02 24 21.70 19 Ireland 27.82 25 18.37 27 United States 27.47 26 19.55 25 Canada 24.19 27 19.58 24 Poland 23.84 28 18.14 28 New Zealand 21.74 29 12.53 33 Austria 20.94 30 16.95 29 Spain 20.26 31 15.59 30 Slovenia 19.14 32 12.74 32 Australia 15.59 33 13.77 31 Chile 13.83 34 9.36 34 Brazil 12.09 35 8.76 35 Turkey 8.19 36 3.80 37 Italy 8.05 37 6.83 36 Mexico 5.54 38 3.22 38 India 3.32 39 2.74 39 Table 3d Average (Weighted) Download Speed by US State and International Country: 2013-2014, Based on stratified sampling using 2011 cities Country 2014 Average Weighted Download Speed (Mbps) 2014 Rank 2013 Average Weighted Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Rank Singapore 73.32 1 42.52 2 Hong Kong 58.14 2 35.75 8 Korea 55.83 3 39.43 4 Switzerland 53.61 4 38.70 5 Sweden 52.89 5 41.53 3 Netherlands 51.72 6 38.54 6 Belgium 40.25 7 30.42 9 France 39.44 8 19.60 43 Lithuania 39.44 9 28.35 11 Denmark 39.37 10 30.29 10 Utah 36.54 11 22.91 21 Delaware 35.77 12 26.54 13 Finland 35.08 13 27.57 12 New Jersey 34.12 14 26.06 15 Missouri 34.12 15 16.67 64 Israel 34.09 16 19.11 47 Luxembourg 34.02 17 47.32 1 Maryland 33.51 18 25.68 16 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 166 Country 2014 Average Weighted Download Speed (Mbps) 2014 Rank 2013 Average Weighted Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Rank New York 32.60 19 21.41 31 Massachusetts 32.42 20 23.31 20 Virginia 32.21 21 23.60 18 South Dakota 31.86 22 20.61 38 Japan 30.91 23 37.13 7 Germany 30.89 24 21.30 32 North Dakota 30.58 25 19.20 46 Arizona 30.40 26 22.16 26 New Hampshire 30.36 27 21.12 34 Portugal 30.05 28 26.08 14 Texas 29.94 29 14.74 70 United Kingdom 29.84 30 22.39 24 Rhode Island 29.69 31 23.50 19 Kansas 29.66 32 20.81 36 Czech Republic 29.41 33 22.18 25 Bulgaria 29.38 34 24.40 17 Slovakia 29.36 35 21.91 27 Hungary 29.23 36 20.44 39 Norway 28.99 37 20.89 35 Nevada 28.98 38 21.54 30 Connecticut 28.60 39 20.37 40 Iceland 28.47 40 22.83 22 Florida 28.17 41 21.88 28 Pennsylvania 28.07 42 20.04 41 Estonia 28.02 43 21.70 29 Washington 27.92 44 22.75 23 Ireland 27.82 45 18.37 50 California 27.48 46 18.03 54 Illinois 26.35 47 18.73 49 Vermont 26.19 48 17.70 55 Tennessee 25.49 49 19.08 48 Michigan 25.40 50 19.52 45 Oklahoma 25.10 51 14.12 73 Georgia 24.84 52 17.46 56 Oregon 24.84 53 20.73 37 Indiana 24.82 54 18.16 51 Colorado 24.79 55 19.77 42 Minnesota 24.67 56 21.25 33 Nebraska 24.64 57 18.07 53 Canada 24.19 58 19.58 44 Alabama 23.85 59 16.70 63 Poland 23.84 60 18.14 52 Iowa 23.76 61 16.63 65 Arkansas 23.35 62 15.78 67 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 167 Country 2014 Average Weighted Download Speed (Mbps) 2014 Rank 2013 Average Weighted Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Rank Louisiana 22.81 63 17.24 58 Wisconsin 22.44 64 16.96 59 South Carolina 22.10 65 16.81 61 New Zealand 21.74 66 12.53 78 Mississippi 21.34 67 15.59 69 Hawaii 21.07 68 16.04 66 Austria 20.94 69 16.95 60 West Virginia 20.83 70 16.74 62 New Mexico 20.82 71 17.37 57 Spain 20.26 72 15.59 68 Slovenia 19.14 73 12.74 76 Idaho 18.89 74 14.50 72 North Carolina 18.16 75 14.65 71 Alaska 17.75 76 8.07 84 Montana 17.16 77 10.07 81 Ohio 16.90 78 14.00 74 Wyoming 16.62 79 11.21 80 Kentucky 16.61 80 11.63 79 Maine 16.03 81 12.62 77 Australia 15.59 82 13.77 75 Chile 13.83 83 9.36 82 Brazil 12.09 84 8.76 83 Turkey 8.19 85 3.80 86 Italy 8.05 86 6.83 85 Mexico 5.54 87 3.22 87 India 3.32 88 2.74 88 Table 4a Average Download Speed (2013-2014) in Very Small Cities for a Country/State (Based on stratified sampling using 2011 cities) Country 2014 Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) Country 2014 Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) Hong Kong 54.7 34.0 Georgia 26.0 18.3 Switzerland 52.9 37.1 New York 25.9 19.3 Korea 52.3 33.7 Hungary 25.8 17.1 Sweden 51.6 39.8 Tennessee 25.7 19.2 Netherlands 49.5 37.0 Minnesota 25.6 20.2 Denmark 39.8 30.3 Oklahoma 25.3 15.3 Belgium 39.4 29.5 Washington 25.2 21.0 Texas 37.7 14.8 Vermont 25.0 16.8 Delaware 37.5 30.1 Louisiana 24.8 19.4 Finland 37.4 24.6 Indiana 24.8 17.9 Maryland 37.1 28.9 Alabama 24.7 18.8 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 168 Country 2014 Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) Country 2014 Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) Arizona 37.0 24.1 South 24.6 18.3 France 36.2 20.2 Spain 24.5 15.4 Lithuania 35.9 31.6 Canada 24.4 20.0 Israel 34.1 19.1 Michigan 24.2 17.2 Luxembourg 34.0 47.3 Slovakia 23.1 18.7 New Jersey 33.6 27.9 Turkey 22.2 3.0 Massachusetts 33.5 25.8 Ireland 22.0 10.9 Virginia 33.3 25.0 Iowa 21.9 12.4 Nevada 31.9 21.3 Mississippi 21.5 15.3 Germany 31.5 21.0 Kansas 21.5 17.2 Japan 30.9 37.7 Hawaii 21.0 16.9 New Mexico 30.6 N/A Austria 20.9 16.9 Nebraska 30.4 21.4 Colorado 20.7 15.1 Bulgaria 30.1 25.7 Wisconsin 20.6 16.6 Portugal 30.0 26.0 Slovenia 19.1 14.3 Utah 29.2 21.9 West Virginia 19.0 14.1 Pennsylvania 29.2 22.4 North 18.8 15.1 Florida 29.2 22.8 North Dakota 18.8 11.5 Illinois 29.1 19.7 Kentucky 16.6 12.8 Czech Republic 29.0 22.0 Maine 16.4 14.0 Missouri 28.6 17.8 Ohio 16.2 13.4 Connecticut 28.2 19.7 Arkansas 16.1 11.0 Estonia 28.0 21.7 Australia 15.6 13.7 California 27.7 17.7 Montana 15.3 10.3 Norway 27.6 20.2 Idaho 14.2 17.4 New Hampshire 27.5 20.3 Chile 13.9 9.9 Iceland 27.3 20.9 Alaska 13.3 5.9 Rhode Island 27.2 20.6 Wyoming 12.1 8.9 South Dakota 27.1 17.5 Brazil 12.1 8.8 Oregon 26.8 21.5 Mexico 3.9 3.2 Poland 26.2 20.2 India 3.3 2.8 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 169 Table 4b Average Download Speed (2013-2014) in Small Cities for a Country/State (Based on stratified sampling using 2011 cities) Country 2014 Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) Country 2014 Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) Netherlands 57.9 40.8 New York 26.2 22.3 Switzerland 53.8 42.3 Pennsylvania 26.2 18.8 Lithuania 48.2 44.5 Minnesota 26.1 20.2 Mexico 47.5 N/A Indiana 26.1 18.3 Belgium 46.9 38.8 Iowa 26.1 18.0 Sweden 46.7 38.9 Arizona 26.0 20.2 Delaware 38.8 29.0 Bulgaria 24.9 20.5 Denmark 35.7 27.5 Wisconsin 24.2 18.8 Ireland 35.6 27.2 Georgia 23.5 17.4 New Jersey 35.1 26.7 South 23.2 16.3 South Dakota 34.1 26.0 Arkansas 22.3 15.7 Slovakia 33.6 22.9 Finland 22.0 21.9 Massachusetts 33.1 24.9 Mississippi 21.8 16.7 North Dakota 32.8 23.6 Louisiana 21.6 16.1 Virginia 32.6 23.7 Hawaii 21.2 15.2 Texas 31.7 14.4 Missouri 20.7 15.8 Rhode Island 31.5 26.3 Oklahoma 20.1 12.3 Maryland 31.5 24.3 Kansas 19.9 16.7 Portugal 31.2 27.3 Poland 19.5 15.6 New 30.8 21.5 Alabama 19.1 14.6 Connecticut 30.4 23.5 Spain 18.7 15.0 Iceland 30.3 25.5 North 18.3 14.6 Germany 29.1 20.5 Idaho 18.3 13.0 Michigan 29.1 20.2 Kentucky 17.5 13.0 Utah 28.7 22.5 Wyoming 17.1 11.8 Oregon 28.3 21.1 Ohio 16.9 13.6 Hungary 28.1 22.4 Montana 16.8 9.5 West Virginia 27.2 18.8 New Mexico 16.5 12.6 Czech Republic 27.1 21.3 Maine 15.4 11.2 Vermont 27.1 16.9 Nebraska 14.1 12.1 Florida 27.1 19.7 Alaska 13.6 5.6 Illinois 26.8 18.3 France 10.0 8.3 Colorado 26.8 18.9 Australia 9.5 6.3 Washington 26.7 23.4 Nevada 5.5 4.3 California 26.3 18.2 Turkey 4.7 3.8 Tennessee 26.3 20.0 Chile 3.6 2.2 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 170 Table 4c Average Download Speed (2013-2014) in Medium Cities for a Country/State (Based on stratified sampling using 2011 cities) Country 2014 Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) Country 2014 Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) Hong Kong 101.7 59.1 Missouri 26.2 16.5 Switzerland 64.6 36.2 Indiana 26.0 18.5 Sweden 54.5 48.5 Oklahoma 25.9 13.9 Netherlands 50.9 43.1 Georgia 25.3 17.2 Germany 47.5 34.4 Washington 25.3 22.2 North Dakota 41.0 26.5 Nevada 24.9 15.9 Portugal 37.1 29.8 Alabama 24.9 19.6 Hungary 37.0 27.4 Iowa 24.2 16.3 Maryland 35.2 26.4 Finland 24.1 24.6 New Jersey 33.5 25.4 Minnesota 24.1 21.3 Slovakia 33.3 27.1 Illinois 23.9 18.0 New Hampshire 33.0 23.2 Oregon 23.8 20.8 Massachusetts 32.1 24.8 Kansas 23.5 17.2 Texas 31.3 15.1 Michigan 23.3 17.2 Delaware 31.3 23.7 Spain 21.8 17.5 Japan 30.8 23.1 New Zealand 21.7 12.5 Rhode Island 30.4 22.9 Mississippi 21.5 14.3 Bulgaria 30.2 25.1 Louisiana 21.4 16.7 United Kingdom 29.8 23.1 New Mexico 21.0 16.6 Utah 29.6 23.1 Idaho 19.7 15.4 California 29.1 17.1 Poland 19.2 14.0 Florida 28.6 22.1 Wyoming 18.5 10.9 Connecticut 28.5 20.5 South 18.5 14.7 Virginia 28.4 19.4 Wisconsin 18.4 14.6 Arizona 28.4 22.7 Montana 17.6 11.0 Arkansas 27.7 18.1 North 17.6 15.0 Tennessee 27.2 19.0 Ohio 17.2 14.5 Colorado 27.1 22.3 Maine 17.1 12.8 Czech Republic 26.9 20.1 Kentucky 12.9 8.1 Pennsylvania 26.8 18.5 France 9.7 7.3 South Dakota 26.4 20.6 Italy 8.1 6.8 New York 26.4 22.3 Turkey 5.4 4.2 *Vermont Not Included Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 171 Table 4d Average Download Speed (2013-2014) in Large Cities for a Country/State (Based on stratified sampling using 2011 cities) Country 2014 Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) Country 2014 Download Speed (Mbps) 2013 Download Speed (Mbps) Utah 104.6 26.2 Michigan 27.6 20.1 Hong Kong 79.5 47.8 Portugal 27.0 23.2 Switzerland 61.1 32.2 North Dakota 26.5 15.7 Sweden 59.9 42.3 Georgia 25.4 18.1 Korea 57.4 39.6 Tennessee 25.4 18.7 Finland 51.1 36.1 Illinois 25.2 17.8 France 50.3 34.0 Vermont 25.0 12.5 Denmark 38.6 30.6 Colorado 24.3 20.1 Lithuania 38.2 34.6 Germany 24.3 20.7 Missouri 38.0 16.3 New Hampshire 24.2 15.1 South Dakota 37.5 21.7 Alabama 23.9 16.8 New York 37.5 19.9 Louisiana 23.4 16.2 Czech Republic 35.4 26.0 Iowa 22.7 15.1 Maryland 35.3 28.6 Indiana 21.8 14.6 Hungary 34.7 26.0 New Mexico 21.7 18.7 Kansas 34.5 22.8 Canada 21.6 15.8 Norway 33.2 23.8 Oregon 21.0 18.7 Bulgaria 33.2 25.3 South Carolina 19.6 15.3 Virginia 32.7 24.5 Alaska 18.9 8.7 Nebraska 32.2 22.2 Texas 17.9 13.6 Arizona 31.8 22.5 Spain 17.6 14.4 New Jersey 31.6 23.8 Rhode Island 17.5 11.2 Massachusetts 31.4 21.0 North Carolina 17.3 13.9 Japan 30.9 38.8 Montana 17.3 9.2 Florida 30.2 24.1 Ohio 17.2 13.5 Washington 30.1 22.9 Wisconsin 16.9 12.7 Nevada 29.6 22.1 West Virginia 15.0 11.9 Poland 29.1 21.0 Chile 13.9 8.2 Connecticut 28.3 19.5 Kentucky 12.1 9.2 Pennsylvania 28.3 19.6 Arkansas 6.7 3.7 Oklahoma 28.3 14.5 India 2.0 1.8 California 27.6 18.9 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 172 Table 5 Shortfall Index (%), 2013-2014 2014 Rank Country Median Shortfall 2014 Median Shortfall 2013 2013 Rank 1 Hungary 0.14 -0.99 1 2 Lithuania 1.21 1.15 2 3 Slovakia 1.94 1.28 3 4 Switzerland 2.60 2.46 5 5 Brazil 3.37 3.98 6 6 Israel 4.12 2.00 4 7 Chile 4.23 4.05 7 8 Czech Republic 4.56 5.64 11 9 Canada 4.72 7.20 14 10 Slovenia 4.86 4.05 8 11 Singapore 5.23 14.28 20 12 Bulgaria 5.59 5.12 10 13 Poland 6.05 4.75 9 14 United States 6.20 7.15 13 15 Estonia 6.69 7.50 15 16 Hong Kong 7.57 14.77 22 17 Denmark 7.82 7.82 16 18 Mexico 8.26 8.38 17 19 Norway 8.79 5.74 12 20 New Zealand 11.11 20.79 28 21 Iceland 14.10 25.02 32 22 Turkey 14.56 14.52 21 23 Luxembourg 14.60 15.06 23 24 Germany 17.28 18.51 24 25 Belgium 17.54 22.47 29 26 Netherlands 18.29 23.23 30 27 Spain 19.15 19.22 25 28 Sweden 19.48 13.99 19 29 Finland 20.02 13.37 18 30 United Kingdom 21.12 24.59 31 31 India 21.26 19.60 26 32 Austria 24.97 25.12 33 33 Portugal 25.83 19.83 27 34 Australia 33.46 36.11 36 35 France 33.62 38.99 37 36 Italy 36.82 34.85 35 37 Ireland 37.43 33.79 34 38 Greece 55.28 55.75 38 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 173 Table 6 Ookla Actual and Advertised Average Download Speeds, 2013-2014 Country 2014 Actual 2014 Advertised 2013 Actual 2013 Advertised Hong Kong 79.44 85.99 51.0 59.9 Singapore 72.03 76.19 42.0 49.0 Switzerland 52.31 53.70 36.1 37.1 Sweden 50.40 62.51 40.1 46.6 Netherlands 47.28 57.86 36.6 47.7 Belgium 42.26 51.32 31.8 41.0 Lithuania 40.09 40.58 33.9 34.3 Denmark 36.86 39.95 28.0 30.4 Finland 32.46 40.52 22.4 25.9 Luxembourg 32.39 37.86 42.8 50.4 Iceland 32.24 37.59 27.0 36.1 Israel 29.93 31.20 19.8 20.2 Portugal 28.31 38.08 23.7 29.5 Estonia 27.72 29.70 21.9 23.7 Bulgaria 27.67 29.32 24.1 25.4 Czech Republic 26.63 27.91 20.8 22.0 Norway 26.22 28.75 20.3 21.5 United Kingdom 25.57 32.42 19.5 25.8 Hungary 24.96 24.98 18.5 18.3 Slovakia 24.77 25.26 18.3 18.6 United States 23.78 25.35 17.9 19.3 Ireland 23.76 37.95 15.5 23.4 Germany 23.17 28.01 18.5 22.7 Spain 21.25 26.26 14.9 18.5 Slovenia 19.88 20.89 15.4 16.1 New Zealand 19.32 21.75 13.2 16.7 France 19.02 28.72 13.3 21.7 Poland 18.70 19.89 12.8 13.4 Canada 17.59 18.46 14.1 15.2 Austria 16.88 22.52 13.7 18.2 Australia 16.79 25.27 14.4 22.6 Chile 9.73 10.15 7.5 7.8 Turkey 8.75 10.24 6.6 7.7 Greece 8.55 19.11 6.9 15.7 Mexico 6.89 7.49 5.8 6.3 Brazil 6.59 6.82 5.0 5.2 Italy 6.46 10.21 5.5 8.4 India 3.20 4.06 2.2 2.7 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 174 Table 7a Average (Weighted) Latency (Milliseconds) by Country (2013-2014) All Available Data Country 2014 Latency 2014 Rank 2013 Latency 2013 Rank Bulgaria 42.24 1 47.22 2 Korea 47.65 2 45.54 1 Finland 52.91 3 73.07 19 Hungary 55.85 4 58.55 8 Denmark 57.64 5 70.91 18 Estonia 58.35 6 99.31 37 Singapore 58.54 7 86.75 34 Austria 58.54 8 63.36 12 Norway 69.06 9 66.01 14 New Zealand 69.74 10 64.65 13 Ireland 72.91 11 75.49 23 Sweden 75.21 12 81.93 30 Slovenia 75.50 13 85.48 32 Greece 75.58 14 73.45 20 United States 77.66 15 80.33 27 Italy 78.00 16 75.21 22 Germany 78.69 17 66.75 15 Netherlands 79.30 18 61.12 10 Portugal 79.65 19 55.96 5 Poland 81.90 20 73.53 21 United Kingdom 83.68 21 68.05 17 Israel 83.74 22 81.76 29 Mexico 86.91 23 109.70 38 Australia 90.36 24 82.60 31 Chile 90.79 25 76.15 26 Belgium 98.51 26 66.97 16 Canada 99.71 27 86.03 33 Czech Republic 101.40 28 50.45 3 Brazil 102.59 29 75.68 24 Spain 110.35 30 87.79 35 France 115.61 31 95.65 36 Turkey 139.28 32 75.82 25 Hong Kong 63.24 11 Iceland 57.75 7 India 114.83 39 Japan 80.96 28 Lithuania 59.31 9 Luxembourg 118.71 40 Slovakia 56.50 6 Switzerland 55.92 4 *Quality data incomplete from: Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Switzerland Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 175 Table 7b Average (Weighted) Latency by US States and International Countries (2013-2014) All Available Data Country 2014 (Ms) Rank Country 2013 (Ms) Rank Michigan 34.04 1 Bulgaria 37.94 1 Maryland 40.86 2 New Jersey 37.96 2 Bulgaria 41.00 3 Korea 44.26 3 Connecticut 43.12 4 Finland 46.64 4 Korea, Republic of 47.12 5 Arkansas 49.57 5 Oklahoma 49.86 6 Czech Republic 52.48 6 Arkansas 52.77 7 Switzerland 55.86 7 Finland 53.00 8 Hungary 56.92 8 Hungary 56.05 9 Slovakia 57.00 9 Denmark 56.92 10 Virginia 57.54 10 Austria 58.18 11 Austria 59.49 11 Estonia 58.35 12 Tennessee 60.94 12 Massachusetts 58.48 13 Mexico 60.97 13 Singapore 59.05 14 Denmark 63.29 14 Georgia 59.20 15 Georgia 63.31 15 Colorado 62.99 16 Oklahoma 63.46 16 Pennsylvania 63.18 17 Florida 64.65 17 Missouri 63.95 18 Indiana 64.92 18 Oregon 68.45 19 Nevada 65.57 19 Norway 69.01 20 New Zealand 65.78 20 Illinois 69.25 21 Ireland 69.06 21 New Zealand 70.71 22 Hong Kong 69.57 22 Indiana 71.26 23 Lithuania 69.82 23 Nevada 71.85 24 Greece 70.04 24 Virginia 72.59 25 Illinois 70.58 25 Ireland 72.79 26 United Kingdom 70.72 26 Washington 75.21 27 Texas 72.50 27 Florida 75.51 28 Italy 73.37 28 Sweden 75.69 29 Brazil 75.13 29 Greece 75.85 30 Poland 75.59 30 Slovenia 76.37 31 North Carolina 75.78 31 Texas 76.97 32 Pennsylvania 75.89 32 Hawaii 77.20 33 Norway 76.47 33 New York 77.42 34 Maryland 76.62 34 District of 77.49 35 Singapore 78.73 35 Italy 78.44 36 Oregon 79.16 36 Germany 79.30 37 Estonia 79.54 37 Portugal 79.79 38 Kentucky 79.90 38 North Carolina 79.99 39 Slovenia 81.80 39 Netherlands 80.02 40 Minnesota 82.04 40 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 176 Country 2014 (Ms) Rank Country 2013 (Ms) Rank Poland 80.36 41 Netherlands 83.41 41 Israel 83.45 42 Colorado 84.00 42 United Kingdom 83.52 43 Washington 84.57 43 Minnesota 83.60 44 Chile 84.79 44 Ohio 84.19 45 Germany 84.90 45 California 87.18 46 New York 85.46 46 Mexico 87.27 47 Spain 87.22 47 Australia 90.69 48 Australia 89.17 48 Chile 90.80 49 California 89.62 49 Belgium 98.99 50 Missouri 90.75 50 Alabama 100.17 51 Louisiana 91.66 51 Canada 100.52 52 Sweden 91.72 52 Czech Republic 102.58 53 Belgium 92.10 53 Kentucky 102.66 54 Kansas 92.85 54 Brazil 103.29 55 Canada 93.91 55 Spain 109.35 56 Wisconsin 96.17 56 France 115.16 57 India 100.37 57 Wisconsin 124.42 58 France 103.27 58 Iowa 127.29 59 Turkey 113.52 59 Turkey 138.67 60 Idaho 114.64 60 Ohio 130.43 61 Massachusetts 136.87 62 Michigan 159.45 63 Alabama 185.32 64 *Quality data incomplete from: Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Hong Kong, Iceland, Idaho, India, Japan, Kansas, Lithuania, Louisiana, Luxembourg, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Slovakia, South Carolina, South Dakota, Switzerland, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 177 Table 8a Average (Weighted) Jitter by Country (2013-2014) Country 2014 Jitter (Ms) 2014 Rank 2013 Jitter (Ms) 2013 Rank Bulgaria 19.29 1 21.64 4 Portugal 23.56 2 25.10 10 Estonia 25.67 3 39.55 36 Korea 27.59 4 20.67 1 Denmark 28.96 5 28.61 20 Austria 29.04 6 24.17 8 New Zealand 29.10 7 21.84 5 Greece 29.51 8 21.12 2 Italy 29.72 9 24.34 9 Germany 29.90 10 21.35 3 Hungary 29.99 11 25.48 13 Finland 31.66 12 27.67 19 Ireland 32.43 13 29.21 21 Singapore 32.95 14 41.78 38 Slovenia 34.00 15 30.24 23 Norway 34.13 16 31.13 26 Sweden 37.02 17 34.21 31 United 37.17 18 33.22 30 Poland 37.33 19 30.68 25 Brazil 38.24 20 29.46 22 Israel 40.34 21 31.93 28 Netherlands 40.76 22 25.39 12 Australia 41.14 23 32.45 29 United States 43.73 24 39.41 35 Mexico 44.55 25 37.48 33 Spain 45.94 26 27.05 16 Chile 46.36 27 39.58 37 Canada 46.61 28 38.37 34 Turkey 47.80 29 26.62 15 France 48.75 30 36.50 32 Czech 49.72 31 23.39 7 Belgium 56.16 32 31.37 27 Hong Kong N/A 27.34 17 Iceland N/A 30.62 24 India N/A 53.67 39 Japan N/A 27.53 18 Lithuania N/A 25.76 14 Luxembourg N/A 60.01 40 Slovakia N/A 22.72 6 Switzerland N/A 25.22 11 *Quality data incomplete from: Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Switzerland Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 178 Table 8b Average (Weighted) Jitter by US States and International Countries (2013-2014) All Available Data Country 2014 Jitter (Ms) Rank Country 2013 Jitter (Ms) Michigan 14.52 1 Switzerland 11.38 Bulgaria 18.55 2 Arkansas 11.48 Connecticut 18.68 3 Bulgaria 19.74 Portugal 23.50 4 Finland 20.07 Oklahoma 24.83 5 Korea 21.57 Estonia 25.67 6 Greece 23.10 Arkansas 26.14 7 New Jersey 23.61 Korea 26.33 8 Slovakia 23.80 Denmark 27.33 9 Hungary 26.07 Maryland 28.40 10 New Zealand 26.78 Austria 28.87 11 Germany 26.93 New Zealand 29.15 12 Italy 26.95 Missouri 29.34 13 Mexico 27.28 Italy 29.62 14 Brazil 27.40 Greece 29.91 15 Florida 27.84 Colorado 30.00 16 Lithuania 27.85 Hungary 30.23 17 Hong Kong 28.36 Oregon 30.44 18 Virginia 28.44 Germany 30.50 19 Czech Republic 29.58 Finland 30.94 20 Ireland 29.68 North Carolina 31.55 21 Spain 30.47 Ireland 32.71 22 Estonia 30.67 Singapore 33.60 23 North Carolina 31.33 Slovenia 33.78 24 Minnesota 31.35 Nevada 34.22 25 Nevada 31.51 Norway 34.60 26 Slovenia 31.72 Pennsylvania 35.47 27 Missouri 31.83 Massachusetts 35.57 28 Poland 32.39 Poland 36.67 29 Austria 32.90 DC 36.89 30 Georgia 33.08 Sweden 36.89 31 Tennessee 33.41 Minnesota 36.91 32 United Kingdom 33.50 United Kingdom 37.21 33 Turkey 33.87 Brazil 38.98 34 Oregon 34.02 Florida 39.06 35 Texas 34.52 Israel 39.16 36 Colorado 34.92 Georgia 39.23 37 Netherlands 35.72 Australia 41.29 38 Norway 35.79 Washington 41.46 39 Denmark 36.43 Netherlands 41.59 40 Australia 38.27 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 179 Country 2014 Jitter (Ms) Rank Country 2013 Jitter (Ms) Kentucky 43.16 41 Maryland 38.37 New York 43.67 42 Oklahoma 38.46 Ohio 44.73 43 Pennsylvania 38.48 Texas 44.78 44 Kentucky 38.66 Turkey 45.09 45 Washington 39.60 Spain 45.11 46 Indiana 40.44 Mexico 45.51 47 India 42.05 Illinois 46.27 48 Illinois 42.80 Chile 46.43 49 France 43.42 Indiana 46.74 50 California 45.47 Canada 46.89 51 Chile 45.83 California 48.02 52 Idaho 46.68 France 48.40 53 Canada 47.43 Czech Republic 50.63 54 Singapore 47.63 Hawaii 50.85 55 Belgium 49.00 Belgium 56.82 56 Louisiana 51.24 Wisconsin 57.06 57 New York 51.42 Virginia 59.94 58 Michigan 54.89 Alabama 84.65 59 Sweden 55.44 Iowa 99.04 60 Ohio 56.20 Massachusetts 57.26 Wisconsin 59.37 Kansas 59.57 Alabama 63.24 *Quality data incomplete from: Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Hong Kong, Iceland, Idaho, India, Japan, Kansas, Lithuania, Louisiana, Luxembourg, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Slovakia, South Carolina, South Dakota, Switzerland, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 180 Table 9a Average (Weighted) Percent Packet Loss by Country (2013-2014) Country 2014 Packet Loss 2014 Rank 2013 Packet Loss 2013 Rank Korea 0.24 1 0.93 1 Belgium 0.59 2 4.49 36 Poland 0.95 3 2.42 17 Norway 0.96 4 2.12 14 Portugal 0.96 5 3.49 28 Singapore 1.05 6 2.42 16 Austria 1.08 7 2.90 23 United 1.08 8 2.62 20 Slovenia 1.08 9 1.44 6 Ireland 1.16 10 6.97 38 Czech Republic 1.21 11 3.03 24 New Zealand 1.30 12 3.84 31 United States 1.32 13 1.39 5 Denmark 1.40 14 1.72 8 Canada 1.42 15 1.95 13 Italy 1.65 16 2.27 15 France 1.67 17 2.76 21 Netherlands 1.73 18 2.55 19 Bulgaria 1.77 19 4.24 34 Chile 1.81 20 1.79 9 Spain 1.90 21 3.68 29 Mexico 1.94 22 3.91 33 Germany 2.00 23 3.14 26 Brazil 2.09 24 3.88 32 Estonia 2.23 25 2.82 22 Sweden 2.32 26 3.25 27 Turkey 2.36 27 6.08 37 Australia 2.43 28 3.05 25 Hungary 2.51 29 4.25 35 Israel 4.65 30 1.83 11 Greece 4.67 31 10.07 40 Finland 5.57 32 7.13 39 Hong Kong N/A 1.04 2 Iceland N/A 1.26 3 Lithuania N/A 1.33 4 Slovakia N/A 1.58 7 Japan N/A 1.80 10 Switzerland N/A 1.86 12 India N/A 2.48 18 Luxembourg N/A 3.75 30 *Quality data incomplete from: Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia, and Switzerland Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 181 Table 9b Average (Weighted) Percent Packet Loss by US States and International Countries (2013-2014) All Available Data Country 2014 Rank Country 2013 Rank Massachusetts 0.11 1 Alabama 0.20 1 Iowa 0.22 2 Kentucky 0.22 2 Korea 0.26 3 Arkansas 0.22 3 Belgium 0.61 4 Switzerland 0.23 4 Michigan 0.72 5 Slovakia 0.44 5 Arkansas 0.76 6 Lithuania 0.44 6 Missouri 0.76 7 Ohio 0.46 7 Oklahoma 0.81 8 Hong Kong 0.69 8 District of Columbia 0.86 9 Sweden 0.81 9 Hawaii 0.87 10 Korea 0.82 10 Ohio 0.94 11 Slovenia 0.82 11 Minnesota 0.95 12 Austria 0.86 12 Washington 0.95 13 Virginia 0.87 13 North Carolina 0.97 14 Indiana 0.92 14 Portugal 0.98 15 Michigan 0.94 15 Norway 1.01 16 Georgia 0.95 16 California 1.02 17 Massachusetts 0.99 17 Poland 1.04 18 Minnesota 1.02 18 Illinois 1.06 19 Pennsylvania 1.05 19 United Kingdom 1.07 20 Washington 1.05 20 Singapore 1.08 21 California 1.10 21 Austria 1.08 22 Estonia 1.12 22 Nevada 1.11 23 Colorado 1.13 23 Colorado 1.13 24 Bulgaria 1.13 24 Pennsylvania 1.14 25 United Kingdom 1.20 25 Slovenia 1.19 26 Denmark 1.20 26 Oregon 1.19 27 Italy 1.20 27 Czech Republic 1.21 28 Wisconsin 1.22 28 Ireland 1.23 29 Norway 1.23 29 New Zealand 1.27 30 New Jersey 1.25 30 Wisconsin 1.30 31 Oregon 1.25 31 Kentucky 1.31 32 Idaho 1.25 32 Indiana 1.31 33 Missouri 1.28 33 Florida 1.31 34 Illinois 1.29 34 Denmark 1.32 35 Poland 1.33 35 Georgia 1.35 36 Nevada 1.36 36 Canada 1.41 37 New Zealand 1.48 37 Maryland 1.51 38 Netherlands 1.54 38 Italy 1.53 39 India 1.58 39 New York 1.54 40 New York 1.64 40 France 1.67 41 Kansas 1.66 41 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 182 Country 2014 Rank Country 2013 Rank Netherlands 1.73 42 Oklahoma 1.75 42 Bulgaria 1.79 43 Ireland 1.81 43 Chile 1.81 44 Florida 1.82 44 Mexico 1.87 45 North Carolina 1.86 45 Spain 1.88 46 Singapore 1.89 46 Brazil 1.95 47 Mexico 1.96 47 Germany 1.96 48 Canada 2.01 48 Texas 2.00 49 Chile 2.04 49 Turkey 2.18 50 France 2.06 50 Estonia 2.23 51 Australia 2.06 51 Sweden 2.30 52 Texas 2.09 52 Hungary 2.43 53 Germany 2.16 53 Australia 2.44 54 Czech Republic 2.48 54 Connecticut 3.65 55 Spain 2.52 55 Israel 4.20 56 Louisiana 2.70 56 Alabama 4.24 57 Turkey 2.73 57 Greece 4.27 58 Tennessee 2.87 58 Virginia 4.93 59 Maryland 3.17 59 Finland 6.07 60 Finland 3.32 60 61 Hungary 3.82 61 62 Belgium 5.37 62 63 Brazil 5.38 63 64 Greece 6.92 64 *Quality data incomplete from: Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Hong Kong, Iceland, Idaho, India, Japan, Kansas, Lithuania, Louisiana, Luxembourg, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Slovakia, South Carolina, South Dakota, Switzerland, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 183 APPENDIX G Broadband Deployment Comparison with Europe In both the United States and the European Union, governments are tracking broadband deployment, especially in rural areas.1 Historically, rural areas lagged slightly in the deployment of basic broadband, with the gap widening for high-speed broadband.2 Consistent with what we found in the Fourth IBDR with respect to 2011 and 2012 data, data from 2013 and 2014 shows the United States continues to have a smaller rural coverage gap than the EU for high-speed broadband. In the most recent comprehensive study of broadband in Europe,3 high-speed fixed broadband was found to be available to 68 percent of all households at the end of 2014, but only 25 percent of rural households – a gap of 43 percentage points. In contrast, high-speed broadband coverage in the United States in 2014 was higher overall than in the European countries in the EC study,4 and there was a smaller gap between rural coverage and total coverage. By the end of 2014, high-speed broadband was deployed to 89 percent of all U.S. households and 58 percent of rural households – a gap of 31 percentage points. The differences in high speed coverage in rural and non-rural areas are even larger. Between December 2013 and December 2014, the high-speed broadband coverage gap in the United States between rural and non-rural households dropped significantly, from 48 to 38 percentage points. In Europe, the high-speed gap over the same time period barely declined from 52 to 50 percentage points. EC 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 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). The OECD does have more recent information on overall penetration (i.e., subscriptions), but it is not considered here. In the Fourth IBDR, we compared U.S. and European deployment data for 2011 and 2012. See Fourth IBDR at Appendix G. 2 For purposes of this discussion, basic broadband in Europe is defined as service with download speeds of at least 144 kbps and basic broadband in the U.S. is defined as service with download speeds of at least 200 kbps because that is the closest tier in the U.S. data to Europe’s 144 kbps that is available for 2013 and 2014. See notes 6, 21 for more details. Basic broadband in the U.S. was also defined as 200 kbps for the 2011 and 2012 data in the previous IBDR. See Fourth IBDR at Appendix G. High-speed broadband refers to 30 Mbps for Europe in 2013 and 2014 as well as the U.S. in 2014. Because data on 30 Mbps was not collected in the U.S. in 2013, we use data on 25 Mbps, the closest speed available, for high-speed in the U.S. in 2013. 3 Broadband Coverage in Europe in 2014: Mapping Progress Towards the Coverage Objectives of the Digital Agenda, Research Report prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology, European Union, 2015, rel. Oct. 22, 2015, available at http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=11195 (“2014 study”) 4 The European countries in the EC study include the current 28 countries of the European Union (EU28): Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Bulgaria (BG), Croatia (HR), 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 2013 and 2014, the European data includes three additional countries: Iceland (IS), Norway (NO) and Switzerland (CH). We refer to these 31 countries collectively as the European study countries. 5 See 2016 Broadband Progress Report at para. 6, Section I (“Our analysis finds that rural and Tribal areas are being left behind, as well as certain schools and classrooms, from receiving the advanced services envisioned by Congress.”). Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 184 with basic broadband coverage of at least 144 kbps for downloads6 by the end of 2013 and “Next Generation Access” – high-speed – broadband coverage of at least 30 Mbps for downloads by the end of 2020.7 In this report, we compare U.S. and European deployment data from both 2013 and 2014. The European data comes from European Commission (EC) studies released in late 2014 and 2015.8 The 2014 EC study provides a measure of progress towards Europe’s broadband coverage objectives in the study countries. Of particular value, the 2014 EC 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 those international communities that are comparable to U.S. communities with respect to population size, population density, topography, and demographic profile.10 The data are also broken down into rural and non-rural areas. To define whether a region was rural or non-rural, the EC study data for both 2014 and 2013 use the definition of rural introduced for the 2012 dataset.11 The 2013 EC study shows that basic broadband reached 97 percent of European households in the EC study by the end of 2013, and high-speed broadband reached 62 percent of those homes. According to the 2014 EC study, by the end of 2014 the percentage of households with high speed broadband had increased to 68 percent, though the percentage with basic broadband remained the same at 97 percent. Broadband coverage continues to lag for inhabitants of rural areas.12 At the end of 2013, basic broadband (144 kbps) coverage reached 90 percent of households in rural areas of the European countries in the EC study, while high-speed broadband (30 Mbps) reached only 18 percent of those rural 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. An EC study of the state of European broadband in 2014 (cited in note 8 below) defines overall fixed broadband coverage as the combination of the following technologies: DSL, VDSL, standard cable, DOCSIS 3.0 cable, FTTP, and WiMAX. The EC study of the state of European broadband in 2011 that we reviewed for the Fourth IBDR gave the combination of DSL, standard cable, FTTP, and WiMAX the label “standard broadband” as these technologies could only guarantee 144 kbps down. See 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. 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. 8 Broadband Coverage in Europe in 2014: Mapping Progress Towards the Coverage Objectives of the Digital Agenda, Research Report prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology, European Union, 2015, rel. Oct. 22, 2015, available at http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=11195 (“2014 EC study”). Broadband Coverage in Europe in 2013: Mapping Progress Towards the Coverage Objectives of the Digital Agenda, Research Report prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology, European Union, 2014, rel. Dec. 14, 2014, available at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/study-broadband-coverage- europe-2013 (“2013 EC study”). The EC studies did not include service offered by satellite providers. We excluded satellite coverage from the U.S. data to maintain comparability. 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 See 2014 EC Study, page 16 (For the 2012, 2013, and 2014 EC studies, rural areas are defined by “using the Corrine land cover database and creating a database of population and land type in every square kilometre across Europe. Households in square kilometers with population less than one hundred were classified as rural.”). 12 In the EU's 28 countries, the 2014 study estimates that 14 percent of households live in rural areas. According to U.S. census block data, the U.S. rural share of households is similar at 19 percent. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 185 households. By the end of 2014, high speed broadband access had increased to 25 percent of rural households, with basic broadband coverage remaining the same at 90 percent. To reach the EU’s 2020 goal, the 2014 EC study concludes that considerable investment in rural areas will still be necessary.13 Comparison to the United States. In the United States, different statistics are collected, but general comparisons can still be made.14 The EC studies discussed above focus on the NUTS-3 geographical category with the population ranging from 150,000 to 800,000.15 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 3,144 counties and county equivalents such as parishes (hereinafter “counties”) in the United States.16 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 EC study used households as the unit for measuring coverage, we do the same in our comparison.17 In this Report we use the definition of rural set out in the 2014 EC study to classify European households: any square kilometer with a population of less than 100 people is rural. For the U.S. data we use the Census Bureau's determination of rural, which identifies each census block as rural or non-rural.18 We use this definition in our online National Broadband Map, and also our Connect America Fund work.19 Each county is made up of multiple census blocks. We can therefore determine the rural population with and without broadband deployment for each county. For purposes of the comparison, we consider any service above 200 kbps in the United States to be basic broadband, because that is the speed tier in both the NTIA’s State Broadband Initiative data and FCC Form 477 data20 that most closely matches the 144 kbps threshold in the EC study.21 This disparity 13 See map of European coverage on page 41 of the 2014 European study. 14 Because the European data in its study was from December 2013 and 2014, we also use U.S. data from December 2013 and 2014 for comparison. The U.S. data for 2013 comes from the State Broadband Initiative, while the U.S. data for 2014 comes from FCC Form 477. Though the use of different datasets does add complications, neither dataset has sufficient data for both 2013 and 2014 on its own. 15 There are 1342 NUTS-3 regions in Europe and 3,144 counties and county equivalents in the United States. Only 350 counties fall within the NUTS-3 population range of 150,000 to 800,000. Over 115 million Americans live in the 74 counties with populations above the NUTS-3 range, while 112 million and 87 million Americans live in counties within and below the NUTS-3 range respectively. The four least populous U.S. states (plus DC) fall within the NUTS-3 population range. 16 The population of U.S. counties varies widely outside of the NUTS-3 range, with the smallest having a population under 100 and the largest having a population over 10 million. 17 For freely available broadband mapping data online see http://broadbandmap.gov. 18 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. 19 See www.broadbandmap.gov and also www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/connectiong-america. 20 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.” 21 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 1377, para. 3, Section I; 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). In the 2016 Broadband Progress Report, the Commission found that 25 Mbps/3 Mbps standard continues to represent an appropriate benchmark for Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 186 should be remembered when looking at the U.S.’s basic broadband numbers. Similar to the Europeans, the U.S. basic broadband numbers include the following technologies for fixed terrestrial service: aDSL, sDSL, VDSL, standard cable, DOCSIS 3 cable, fiber, copper, and fixed wireless. The EC study does not include satellite connections. Similarly, we also did not include satellite connections. For high-speed broadband, we use 30 Mbps in 2014 as the EC study does, and 25 Mbps in 2013 because that is the closest speed available in the SBI data. Total and Rural Household Broadband Coverage. In the United States, at the end of 2013, 97 percent of all households were covered by basic broadband of 200 kbps or greater. In contrast, 87 percent of rural households were covered by basic broadband. By the end of 2014, basic broadband was available to 98 percent of households overall and 91 percent of rural households in the United States. Comparisons to the EC data are captured in the chart below. As of December 2013, 84 percent of U.S. households nationwide, compared to 62 percent of households in the EC study had high speed broadband coverage of 30 Mbps or more.22 fixed broadband service. 2016 Broadband Progress Report at 19, 51. We use the term “basic broadband” here when referring to access speeds above 200 kbps merely for convenience. The EC study defines an overall broadband threshold as including technologies that it had previously identified as only having speeds of 144 kbps and up, and 200 kbps is the closest tier for which we have data to compare. 22 As noted above, we use U.S. deployment data for 25 Mbps in 2013 for high speed broadband. See n. 2, supra. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Basic 2013 High Speed 2013 97% 62% 97% 84% 2013 Broadband Coverage, All Households EU US 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Basic 2014 High Speed 2014 97% 68% 98% 89% 2014 Broadband Coverage, All Households EU US Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 187 In 2014, high-speed broadband coverage expanded to 89 percent of households in the U.S. and 68 percent in the European countries in the EC study. The chart above shows that in both the United States and the European countries in the EC study, rural coverage of high-speed broadband lags national and regional coverage. At the end of 2013, 90 percent of rural European households and 87 percent of U.S. rural households had basic broadband. At the end of 2013, 18 percent of European rural households and 45 percent of rural households in the United States had high-speed broadband coverage. In 2014, we observe an increase in coverage, but rural coverage is still low in both regions.23 In the European countries in the EC study, 90 percent of rural households had basic broadband coverage and 25 percent of these households had high-speed coverage. In the United States, 91 percent of rural households had basic broadband coverage, while 58 percent of rural households had high-speed broadband coverage. 23 In comparing 2013 and 2014 throughout this Appendix, it must be noted that the U.S. data for those years are derived from different sources, NTIA’s State Broadband Initiative for 2013 and Form 477 data for 2014. See n. 14, supra. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Basic 2013 High Speed 2013 90% 18% 87% 45% 2013 Broadband Coverage, Rural Households EU US 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Basic 2014 High Speed 2014 90% 25% 91% 58% 2014 Broadband Coverage, Rural Households EU US Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 188 While both the Europe and the United States have rural high-speed broadband coverage gaps, by the end of 2013 the United States had a much higher level of high-speed broadband coverage in rural areas – two and a half times the European level. In 2014, high-speed broadband coverage in the United States remained over twice the European level (58 percent in the United States and 25 percent in the European countries in the EC study). Rural and Non-Rural Household Broadband Coverage. The charts above report the data from the 2013 and 2014 EC studies comparing rural household coverage to total household coverage, which includes households in both rural and non-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 the European countries in the EC study in December 2013, basic broadband was deployed to 99 percent of all non-rural households, but only 90 percent of rural households - a gap of 9 percentage points. In the United States, basic broadband was deployed to 100 percent of all non-rural households, but only 87 percent of rural households - a gap of 13 percentage points.24 In Europe, by December 2014, the countries in the EC study had marginally reduced the gap between rural and non-rural areas for basic broadband to 8 percentage points. In the United States, the gap for basic broadband dropped – from 13 to 8 percentage points – as the percent of rural households with basic broadband coverage rose to 91 percent while the percent of non-rural households with basic broadband stayed about the same at 99 percent. Between December 2013 and December 2014, high-speed broadband coverage in the European countries in the EC study increased from 70 to 75 percent for non-rural households and from 18 to 25 percent for rural households. The gap between non-rural and rural thus decreased from 52 percentage points in 2013 to 50 percentage points in 2014. Between December 2013 and December 2014, high-speed broadband coverage in the United States increased from 93 to 96 percent for non-rural households and from 45 to 58 percent for rural households. The high-speed broadband gap between non-rural and rural decreased significantly, from 48 percentage points to 38 percentage points. Thus the gap between rural and non-rural high-speed coverage is smaller in the United States than it is in Europe, the absolute level of coverage of high-speed broadband is higher in the United States in both rural and non-rural areas. 24 We derive non-rural household coverage for the United States and Europe from the reported number of households, total and rural, and from the number of broadband connections for households, total and rural. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 189 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 countries in the EC study and the United States in the years 2013 and 2014. In 2013, with an overall 84 percent high-speed broadband coverage, the United States ranks higher than 23 of the European countries in the EC study. In 2014, with an overall 89 percent high-speed broadband coverage, the United States ranks higher than 21 of the European countries in the EC study. Graph 1: Total high-speed broadband coverage by country, December 2013 0 20 40 60 80 100 Eu rop e ?  Ba sic  20 13 Eu rop e ?  Ba sic  20 14 Eu rop e ?  Hi gh  20 13 Eu rop e ?  Hi gh  20 14 US  ? B asi c 2 01 3 US  ? H igh  20 13 US  ? B asi c 2 01 4 US  ? H igh  20 14 90 90 18 25 87 45 91 58 99 98 70 75 100 93 99 96 Broadband Coverage: Rural vs Non-Rural Rural Non?Rural 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% MT CH BE NL LT LU LV PT US DK UK CY S I HU NO DE EE F I SE AT BG RO ES CZ EU  28 +3 EU  28 IS IE SK PL FR HR EL IT Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 190 Graph 2: Total high-speed broadband coverage by country, December 2014 Rural High-Speed Broadband Coverage by Country. Similarly, the EC studies include data for 2013 and 2014 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 countries in the EC study and the United States. Eight European countries (Belgium, Estonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Slovenia, and Switzerland) had higher rural high-speed broadband coverage than the United States in 2013, and eight European countries (Belgium, Iceland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Slovenia, and Switzerland) had higher rural high-speed broadband coverage than the United States in 2014. Graph 3: Rural high-speed coverage by country, December 2013 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% MT CH BE NL LT LU DK IS LV PT US UK AT EE DE CY HU S I NO SE F I ES IE BG RO EU  28 +3 EU  28 CZ SK HR P L FR IT EL 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% NL LU MT CH BE EE LT S I US CY PT LV UK RO ES DE EU  28 +3 EU  28 HU FR NO AT DK SE PL F I IE CZ SK BG HR EL IS IT Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 191 Graph 4: Rural high-speed coverage by country, December 2014 Broadband Coverage by Technology. The EC studies break down broadband into several categories: DSL, VDSL, FTTP, WiMAX, Standard Cable, DOCSIS 3 Cable, HSPA, LTE, and satellite. We have U.S. data on fiber, Standard Cable, and DOCSIS 3 Cable for 2013 and 2014 that is similar to the EC data. For VDSL we have similar data for 2014, but no data for 2013. For DSL the closest data we have is ADSL coverage, which is available for both 2013 and 2014. U.S. data for specific technologies is limited to those connections with speeds of at least 200 kbps for 2013 and 2014, while the EC data includes slower connections as well. Graphs 5 and 6 below should be understood within the context of these limitations. For basic broadband, Europe relies more heavily on DSL, while most U.S. homes have a combination of DSL and/or 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, 2013 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% MT NL LU CH BE IS LT S I US EE DK CY UK PT LV DE NO PL RO EU  28 +3 EU  28 ES AT FR HU SE HR IE F I CZ SK BG EL IT 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Europe US Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 192 Graph 6: Coverage by Technology, 2014 Total Comparison of Basic, High-Speed, and 100 Mbps Broadband. The 2013 and 2014 EC studies also include separate nationwide estimates of the percent of households with connections that could realistically achieve download speeds of at least 2 Mbps, 30 Mbps, and 100 Mbps. This data was calculated differently from the European data used in the rest of this appendix, and is not used elsewhere because the European studies do not provide corresponding rural calculations.25 The charts below compare the availability of broadband at these speeds in the United States and Europe for 2013 and 2014.26 In both 2013 and 2014 the U.S. led at the highest speeds of broadband. 25 Thus the EC data for 30 Mbps used here is not the same as the data used elsewhere in the report. The data for 30 Mbps elsewhere was defined by technologies that could achieve 30 Mbps theoretically, whereas the 30 Mbps data here is defined by connections that could reach the speed of 30 Mbps realistically, thus excluding some VDSL connections that could theoretically but not realistically reach 30 Mbps. See 2014 EC Study, pages 12, 201. See also n. 8. 26 Because data on 30 Mbps was not collected in the United States in 2013, data for 25 Mbps is used as the closest available speed. Despite the discrepancy, we believe the comparison remains apt. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Europe US Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 193 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Above 2Mbps Above 30/25Mbps Above 100Mbps 2013 Total Broadband Coverage by Speed EU US 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Above 2Mbps Above 30Mbps Above 100Mbps 2014 Total Broadband Coverage by Speed EU US Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 194 Broadband Coverage Maps. The EC study includes maps showing the status of basic and high- speed broadband coverage across the study countries as of December 2014.27 The EC’s 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 2014. Current U.S. maps can be found at the FCC’s broadband map website: broadbandmap.gov. Standard Fixed Broadband Coverage Maps – December 2014 27 See pages 41-42 of the 2014 EC study. Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 195 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 196 High-Speed Fixed Broadband Coverage Maps – December 2014 Federal Communications Commission DA 16-97 197