Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Communications Marketplace Report ) GN Docket No. 20-60 2020 COMMUNICATIONS MARKETPLACE REPORT Adopted: December 31, 2020 Released: December 31, 2020 By the Commission: Commissioner Carr approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a statement; Commissioner Rosenworcel concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner Starks approving in part, dissenting in part and issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 II. ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF COMPETITION ........................................................................ 4 A. The Mobile Wireless Marketplace ................................................................................................... 6 1. Overview of the Mobile Wireless Marketplace ......................................................................... 9 a. Service Providers ................................................................................................................ 9 b. Connections/Subscribers and Connections Market Share ................................................ 20 c. Churn ................................................................................................................................ 26 d. Data Usage ........................................................................................................................ 27 2. Mobile Wireless Spectrum and Service Providers Spectrum Holdings ................................. 29 3. Wireless Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 34 4. Pricing Levels and Trends ....................................................................................................... 37 a. Postpaid Service ................................................................................................................ 38 b. Prepaid Service ................................................................................................................. 41 c. Price Indicators for Mobile Wireless Services .................................................................. 44 5. Non-Price Competition ............................................................................................................ 50 a. Investment ......................................................................................................................... 50 b. Innovation and Technological Change ............................................................................. 52 c. Mobile Wireless Devices, Services, and Advertising ....................................................... 58 d. Speed of Service ............................................................................................................... 62 6. Network Coverage ................................................................................................................... 66 a. FCC Form 477 .................................................................................................................. 67 b. Mobile Wireless Coverage Estimates ............................................................................... 72 B. The Fixed Broadband Services Marketplace ................................................................................. 82 1. Overview of the Fixed Broadband Marketplace ..................................................................... 83 a. Technologies Deployed .................................................................................................... 85 b. Service Providers .............................................................................................................. 92 c. Connections/Subscribers ................................................................................................... 99 d. Adoption Rates ............................................................................................................... 101 2. Competition in Fixed Broadband .......................................................................................... 105 a. Investment Trends ........................................................................................................... 106 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 b. Pricing ............................................................................................................................. 109 c. Speed ............................................................................................................................... 115 d. Access to Multiple Providers .......................................................................................... 125 3. Competition between Fixed and Mobile Broadband Service ................................................ 130 C. Voice Telephone Services ............................................................................................................ 143 D. The Video Marketplace ................................................................................................................ 150 1. Overview of the Video Programming Marketplace .............................................................. 150 2. Multichannel Video Programming Distributors .................................................................... 154 a. Providers and Subscribers ............................................................................................... 154 b. Channel Packages and Bundling ..................................................................................... 160 c. Pricing ............................................................................................................................. 163 d. Video Revenue ................................................................................................................ 167 e. Content Ownership ......................................................................................................... 168 f. Commercial Availability of Equipment Used to Access MVPD Programming and Services ........................................................................................................................... 170 3. Online Video Distributors ..................................................................................................... 176 a. OVD Service Offerings .................................................................................................. 177 b. Original Content and Content Ownership ....................................................................... 189 c. OVD Usage, Subscribers, and Revenue ......................................................................... 193 4. Broadcast Television Stations ............................................................................................... 201 a. Station Licensing and Ownership ................................................................................... 202 b. Distribution and Delivery ............................................................................................... 205 c. Programming and Content Ownership ............................................................................ 208 d. Broadcast Television Revenue ........................................................................................ 213 5. Competition in Video ............................................................................................................ 218 6. Report on Cable Industry Prices ............................................................................................ 233 E. The Audio Market ........................................................................................................................ 240 1. Overview of the Audio Programming Market ....................................................................... 241 2. Terrestrial Radio Broadcasters .............................................................................................. 245 3. Satellite Radio ....................................................................................................................... 255 4. Online Audio Providers ......................................................................................................... 259 5. Competition in Audio Programming ..................................................................................... 265 III. ASSESSMENT OF BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ...................................................................... 275 A. Access to Advanced Telecommunications Capability ................................................................. 276 1. Broadband Deployment Estimates ........................................................................................ 281 a. Deployment of Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability ................................. 282 b. Deployment of Mobile 4G LTE ...................................................................................... 283 c. Deployment of Fixed Services and Mobile 4G LTE ...................................................... 284 d. Additional Deployment Estimates .................................................................................. 287 B. Demographic Data ....................................................................................................................... 288 1. Tribal Lands Data .................................................................................................................. 292 C. International Broadband Data Report .......................................................................................... 294 1. Broadband Speed and Performance Comparison .................................................................. 296 2. Broadband Price Comparison ................................................................................................ 299 3. Broadband Deployment Comparison with Europe ................................................................ 302 4. Demographics ........................................................................................................................ 305 5. International Regulatory Developments ................................................................................ 306 IV. ENTRY AND EXPANSION CONDITIONS IN THE COMMUNICATIONS MARKETPLACE .............................................................................................................................. 319 A. The Mobile Wireless Communications Marketplace ................................................................... 320 B. The Fixed Communications Marketplace .................................................................................... 327 1. Fixed Terrestrial .................................................................................................................... 327 2. Satellite .................................................................................................................................. 332 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 C. The Video and Audio Communications Marketplace .................................................................. 336 V. COMMISSION ACTIONS ALREADY TAKEN TO CLOSE DIGITAL DIVIDE, ENHANCE COMPETITION, AND ENCOURAGE DEPLOYMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ................................................................................................... 351 A. The Mobile Wireless Communications Marketplace ................................................................... 352 1. Universal Service Support ..................................................................................................... 352 2. Spectrum Challenges ............................................................................................................. 354 3. Wireless Infrastructure Siting ................................................................................................ 366 B. The Fixed Communications Marketplace .................................................................................... 371 1. Enhancing Competition, Removing Barriers to Investment, and Encouraging Deployment ........................................................................................................................... 371 2. Universal Service Support ..................................................................................................... 387 3. Satellite .................................................................................................................................. 404 C. The Video and Audio Communications Marketplace .................................................................. 409 D. Efforts To Ensure and Improve Connectivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic ........................ 419 VI. COMMISSION AGENDA TO FURTHER ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT, INNOVATION, DEPLOYMENT, AND COMPETITION .......................................................................................... 433 A. The Mobile Wireless Communications Marketplace ................................................................... 434 B. The Fixed Communications Marketplace .................................................................................... 442 C. The Video and Audio Communications Marketplace .................................................................. 446 VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ............................................................................................................. 451 APPENDIX A: List of Commenters APPENDIX B: Mobile Wireless Communications Market APPENDIX C: Fixed Communications Market APPENDIX D: 9th and 10th Fixed Measuring Broadband America Reports APPENDIX E: Cable Industry Prices Report APPENDIX F: Broadband Deployment and Advanced Telecommunications Capability APPENDIX G: International Broadband Deployment Report I. INTRODUCTION 1. Every two years, the Commission is required to publish a Communications Marketplace Report that, among other things, assesses generally the state of competition across the broader communications marketplace, including competition to deliver voice, video, audio, and data services among providers of telecommunications, providers of commercial mobile service, multichannel video programming distributors, broadcast stations, providers of satellite communications, Internet service providers, and other providers of communications services.1 The Commission must consider all forms of competition, including  the effect of intermodal competition, facilities-based competition, and competition from new and emergent communications services. 2 The Commission also must assess whether laws, regulations, regulatory practices whether federal, state, local, Tribal, or foreign or marketplace practices pose a barrier to competitive entry into the communications marketplace or to the competitive expansion of existing providers of communications service.3 1 47 U.S.C. §§ 163(a), (b)(1); see also Section 401 of the Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018 (RAY BAUM S Act of 2018), Pub. L. No. 115-141, 132 Stat. 1087 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 163) (RAY BAUM S Act of 2018). 2 47 U.S.C. § 163(d)(1). 3 47 U.S.C. § 163(b)(3). In assessing the state of competition under subsection (b)(1) and regulatory barriers under subsection (b)(3) of the Act, the Commission must also  consider market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the communications marketplace in accordance with the national policy under section 257(b). (continued& .) 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 2. In December 2018, the Commission adopted the first Communications Marketplace Report, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the state of the communications marketplace (as of year- end 2017).4 In February 2020, the Commission updated certain figures, maps and tables contained in the 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, to reflect the most recent data available as of year-end 2018.5 On February 27, 2020, the Commission adopted a Public Notice seeking input on the state of the communications marketplace to inform its assessment of competition in the communications marketplace in its second Communications Marketplace Report (2020 Communications Marketplace Report) to Congress.6 3. With this second 2020 Communications Marketplace Report, the Commission fulfills the requirement set forth in RAY BAUM S Act of 2018 to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the state of competition in the communications marketplace in the United States. As required, this Report assesses the state of all forms of competition in the communications marketplace; the state of deployment of communications capabilities; barriers to competitive entry, including market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses. Further, this Report describes the actions taken by the Commission in the previous two years to address challenges and opportunities in the communications marketplace. It also discusses the actions taken by the Commission to help Americans in the face of the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, this Report discusses the Commission s agenda for continuing to address the challenges and opportunities in front of us over the next two years. II. ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE OF COMPETITION 4. RAY BAUM S Act of 2018 requires the Commission to assess the state of competition in the communications marketplace. We first assess the state of competition separately within several specific components of the broader communications marketplace, including the mobile wireless marketplace, the fixed broadband marketplace, the voice services marketplace, the video marketplace including cable industry prices, and the audio marketplace. 5. In assessing the state of competition, we report on several economic indicators. These include indirect measures of competition such as the number of providers along with barometers of market concentration that are recognized as being associated with the level of competition. We also report, among other things, prices and product offerings. This entails looking at the major factors that affect prices, including inputs such as spectrum, infrastructure, or video content, as well as the quality of the service being offered to consumers and quality enhancing investment. The Report further recognizes that some markets are interrelated, and so assesses competition between some of these markets, such as between fixed and mobile broadband and between multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), online video distributors (OVDs), and broadcast television stations. 47 U.S.C. § 163(d)(3). The Commission must include the International Broadband Data Report required by section 103(b)(1) of the Broadband Data Improvement Act as part of the Communications Marketplace Report. See RAY BAUM S Act of 2018 § 402(c), 132 Stat. at 1089; 47 U.S.C. § 163; 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b)(1). 4 Communications Marketplace Report et al., GN Docket No. 18-231 et al., Report, 33 FCC Rcd 12558 (2018) (2018 Communications Marketplace Report). 5 FCC Releases Certain Data Updated as of December 31, 2018 for the Communications Marketplace Report, GN Docket No. 18-231, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 1479 (OEA 2020) (CMR Updated Data Public Notice); FCC, 2018 Communications Marketplace Report  Updates, https://www.fcc.gov/communications-marketplace-report-updates (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 6 See generally Office of Economics and Analytics Seeks Comment On The State Of Competition In The Communications Marketplace, GN Docket No. 20-60, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 1577 (OEA 2020) (2020 Public Notice). The comment period was scheduled to end on April 13, 2020, and the reply comment period was scheduled to end on May 13, 2020. These deadlines were extended on April 10, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and community and business efforts to respond to this public safety crisis. The revised comment date was April 27, 2020, and the revised reply comment date was May 28, 2020. Appx. A of this Report provides a list of all parties who filed in this proceeding. 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 A. The Mobile Wireless Marketplace 6. We assess competition among mobile wireless service providers and discuss the resulting pricing, quality, and other related outcomes. In addition to the three facilities-based nationwide mobile wireless service providers, the mobile wireless marketplace consists of numerous regional and local facilities-based providers, mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) who purchase mobile wireless services wholesale, cable providers that rely on a hybrid wholesale/hotspot arrangement to offer service, and mobile satellite providers who currently primarily focus on niche services like tracking services for aircraft and ships and operations in remote locations. Additionally, as a condition following the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, DISH has committed to building its own independent fifth-generation (5G) mobile network. Mobile wireless services are an important and increasingly prevalent part of Americans daily lives, and competition in the provision of mobile wireless services drives innovation and investment to the ultimate benefit of the American people and economy. In this section, we present and review available 2019 data for all mobile wireless services, including voice, messaging, and broadband, and we also present certain information as of mid-2020. 7. Mobile wireless service connections have grown by 2 to 5% per year since year-end 2017, while data usage has continued to grow substantially faster, rising to 9.2 GB per subscriber per month at year-end 2019, an increase of approximately 39% from year-end 2018. Growing consumption is made possible by the increasing availability of unlimited data plans from both postpaid and prepaid mobile wireless brands as well as the increased speeds offered by nationwide service providers. For instance, nationwide Long Term Evolution (LTE) download speeds increased from 16 Mbps in the second half of 2017 to 26.2 Mbps in the second half of 2019, an increase of approximately 64%. 8. The wireless industry is currently undertaking the implementation and construction of 5G mobile wireless networks that are expected to deliver even faster download speeds, reduced latency, and better security to users than 4G LTE networks. This has entailed increased deployment of small cells and Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) to fill local coverage gaps, densify networks, and increase local capacity. At the same time, the Commission has made available significant amounts of mid-band spectrum as well as nearly 12 gigahertz of licensed and unlicensed millimeter wave (mmW) spectrum to meet service needs. In addition to the quality improvements that this investment and access to spectrum allow, CTIA data indicate that industry prices declined, with ARPU decreasing from roughly $39 in 2017 to approximately $37 in 2019, an indicator of strong competition in the mobile wireless marketplace. 1. Overview of the Mobile Wireless Marketplace a. Service Providers 9. Facilities-Based Service Providers. Following the completed merger of T-Mobile and Sprint on April 1, 2020,7 there are three facilities-based mobile wireless service providers in the United States that this Report terms  nationwide service providers : AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless. Although none of these three nationwide service providers has a network that is truly ubiquitous, the three service providers each have networks that they report cover a substantial majority of the country at least 98% of the U.S. population and at least 84% of U.S. road miles with their 4G LTE networks.8 7 The Commission approved the transaction between T-Mobile and Sprint, subject to certain conditions, on October 16, 2019. See generally Applications of T-Mobile US, Inc., and Sprint Corporation For Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations; Applications of American H Block Wireless L.L.C, DBSD Corporation, Gamma Acquisition L.L.C., and Manifest Wireless L.L.C. for Extension of Time, WT Docket No. 18-197, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Order of Proposed Modification, 34 FCC Rcd 10578 (2019) (T-Mobile- Sprint Order). In this Report, we present and review data for year-end 2019, and as such, T-Mobile and Sprint data are, for the most part, reported separately. See also Press Release, T-Mobile, T-Mobile Completes Merger with Sprint to Create the New T-Mobile (Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.t-mobile.com/news/un-carrier/t-mobile-sprint-one- company. 8 See infra section II.A.6. 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Collectively, these three service providers account for over 400 million connections.9 U.S. Cellular, currently the fourth largest facilities-based service provider in the United States, is best characterized as a multi-regional service provider, and has developed wireless networks and customer service operations in portions of 20 states.10 As of December 31, 2019, U.S. Cellular accounted for approximately five million connections.11 Two other larger regional service providers include C Spire, which provides service to nearly one million subscribers in the Southeastern United States,12 and Claro, which provides service to approximately 920,000 subscribers in Puerto Rico.13 There are also dozens of other facilities-based mobile wireless service providers throughout the United States, many of which provide service in a single, often rural, geographic area.14 These non-nationwide facilities-based service providers increase choices for consumers and help make facilities-based service more widely available in rural areas.15 10. T-Mobile-Sprint Transaction. In April 2018, T-Mobile and Sprint announced their intent to merge. T-Mobile and Sprint claimed that the merger would represent a total implied enterprise value of approximately $146 billion and would rapidly allow them to create a nationwide 5G network with a combined company that would have lower costs and better quality than the standalone competitors.16 In its initial filing to the Commission, T-Mobile emphasized that the proposed merger would spur 5G network deployment nationally, improve rural coverage, and permit the combined companies to compete with wired broadband providers through a new in-home fixed broadband service offering.17 11. This transaction involved the transfer of multiple spectrum licenses and authorizations, and was subject to Commission review to determine whether the transaction would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.18 Accordingly, we assessed the extent to which this merger of two firms that compete in many of the same geographic and product markets might lessen some elements of competition, and whether any potential harms would be counterbalanced by the potential benefits of the transaction. In response to Commission staff s concerns about certain aspects of the proposed transaction, in May 2019, T-Mobile made several commitments to the Commission including a pledge to divest Sprint s Boost Mobile business and various 5G deployment commitments.19 On October 16, 2019, the 9 See infra Fig. II.A.1. 10 United States Cellular Corp., 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 1 (filed Feb. 25, 2020). U.S. Cellular is a majority-owned (82%) subsidiary of Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. Id. 11 See id. 12 C Spire, About C Spire, C Spire Celebrates 30 Years of Customer Inspiration This Month (Feb. 13, 2018), https://www.cspire.com/company_info/about/news_detail.jsp?entryId=29600003. 13 América Móvil, América Móvil's Second Quarter of 2020 Financial and Operating Report at 23 (July 14, 2020), https://www.americamovil.com/investors/reports-and-filings/quarterly-results/default.aspx. 14 Examples of regional facilities-based service providers include Appalachian Wireless, Carolina West Wireless, Cellcom, Choice Wireless, GCI, Nex-Tech Wireless, and Sagebrush Cellular. Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 17-126, Twentieth Report, 32 FCC Rcd 8968, 8975, para. 14 & n.50 (2017) (Twentieth Wireless Competition Report). 15 Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6133, 6207, paras. 179-80 (2014) (Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order). 16 Press Release, T-Mobile, T-Mobile and Sprint to Combine, Accelerating 5G Innovation & Increasing Competition (Apr. 29, 2018), https://www.t-mobile.com/news/press/5gforall. 17 See generally Applications of T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Sprint Corporation for Consent To Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, ULS File No. 0008224209 (Lead Application) (filed June 18, 2018, amended July 5, 2018), Exh. 1 Description of the Transaction, Public Interest Statement, and Related Demonstrations at 2. 18 47 U.S.C. §§ 214(a), 310(d). 19 See T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10801-28, Appx. G. 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Commission adopted the T-Mobile-Sprint Order, which required,  as a condition of our approval, that the Applicants fulfill a series of commitments to address the potential for lost price competition, such as the divestiture of Boost Mobile. 20 12. Mobile Virtual Network Operators. MVNOs do not own any network facilities, but instead they purchase mobile wireless services wholesale from facilities-based service providers and resell these services to consumers.21 In 2019, TracFone, an América Móvil subsidiary,22 was the largest MVNO, with approximately 21 million subscribers.23 In 2015, Google launched  Project Fi, an MVNO in partnership with T-Mobile and Sprint whereby Google Fi subscribers switched between Wi-Fi networks and these two service providers 4G LTE networks.24 13. Cable providers have also begun entering the mobile wireless market through MVNO arrangements. These products rely on combining the mobile networks of facilities-based partners with hotspot or small-cell networks that send traffic through the cable provider s infrastructure.25 In 2016, 20 T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10582, para. 11. 21 Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8976, para. 15. The Commission is not able to provide an exact figure of the number of MVNOs that currently offer services. This is partly because, as resellers of service offered by facilities-based service providers, MVNOs are not licensees and typically do not file section 214 applications. Furthermore, as the Commission has found in prior competition reports,  [c]omprehensive data on MVNO subscribers are generally not reported by either MVNOs or facilities-based providers that host MVNOs. Estimates of the number of MVNOs operating in the United States vary considerably. Many MVNOs are privately-held companies that do not publicly report financial or subscriber data. Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, Sixteenth Report, 28 FCC Rcd 3700, 3739, para. 32 (2013) (Sixteenth Wireless Competition Report). 22 Verizon announced that it has entered into an agreement with América Móvil to acquire TracFone Wireless, Inc., the leading pre-paid and value mobile provider in the United States. The consideration for the transaction will include $3.125 billion in cash and $3.125 billion in Verizon common stock, subject to customary adjustments, at closing. The agreement also includes up to an additional $650 million in future cash consideration related to the achievement of certain performance measures and other commercial arrangements. Verizon expects the transaction to close in the second half of 2021. See Verizon Wireless, Verizon to acquire TracFone Wireless (Sept. 14, 2020), https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-to-acquire-tracfone. 23 TracFone, TracFone Home, http://www.tracfone.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); BestMVNO, For the First Time Straight Talk Has More Subscribers Than All Other Tracfone Brands Combined (Feb. 24, 2020), https://bestmvno.com/straight-talk/for-the-first-time-straight-talk-has-more-subscribers-than-all-other-tracfone- brands-combined/. 24 FierceWireless, Google Unveils  Project Fi MVNO with Sprint and T-Mobile as Partners (Apr. 22, 2015), http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/google-unveils-project-fi-mvno-sprint-and-t-mobile-partners/2015-04-22. In June 2016, Google added U.S. Cellular as a partner. FierceWireless, Google s Project Fi to Add U.S. Cellular to Partner Network (June 8, 2016), http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/googles-project-fi-add-us-cellular-partner- network/2016-06-08. Similar Wi-Fi service is also provided by two other MVNOs: FreedomPop, FreedomPop Home, https://www.freedompop.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020) and Republic Wireless, Republic Wireless FAQ, https://republicwireless.com/faqs (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 25 Chris Mills and Fiona Armstrong, Tutela, Special Report: State of MVNOs at 18 (Oct. 2019) ( The most immediate solution for wireless traffic offload are the networks of public or semi-public hotspots operated by the cable companies. Comcast . . . claims to operate a network of 18 million  xfinitywifi hotspots nationwide ); see also id. at 21. ( Altice Mobile is also well positioned to exploit future technology improvements and spectrum deployments to embrace the  hybrid MVNO model. Altice operates the core network, device SIMs, and in some cases has infrastructure agreements in place with Sprint for small cells. ), https://www.tutela.com/hubfs/Assets/USA%20State%20of%20MVNOs%20Report%20-%20October%202019.pdf. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 both Comcast26 and Charter,27 the nation s two largest cable providers, activated MVNO options they held with Verizon Wireless. Comcast launched its Xfinity Mobile wireless service in the spring of 2017, which has since grown to more than 2 million subscribers by year-end 2019.28 Charter began offering its service in the summer of 2018 and has grown to approximately 1.1 million customers by year-end 2019.29 Altice,30 another cable provider, launched an MVNO service on Sprint s network in September 2019, and it had 69,000 subscribers by the end of 2019.31 14. DISH. As a condition of the T-Mobile-Sprint transaction,32 DISH entered into an agreement with T-Mobile to provide mobile wireless service.33 On July 1, 2020, DISH acquired the Boost Mobile brand and its approximately 9 million customers from T-Mobile,34 as a result of the required divestiture by the Commission and Department of Justice in approving the T-Mobile-Sprint merger.35 Initially this offering will be an MVNO,36 which would make it the second largest in the nation behind TracFone. The MVNO agreement between T-Mobile and DISH allows DISH to use T-Mobile s wireless network to provide service to its customers, offers DISH the option to construct and use its own network, and requires T-Mobile to interconnect with DISH s network.37 Unlike traditional MVNOs, however, DISH has committed to building its own independent 5G network,38 using its AWS-4, Lower 26 FierceWireless, Comcast to Launch Wireless Service in 2017 with Verizon MVNO, 15M Wi-Fi Hotpots (Sept. 20, 2016), http://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/comcast-to-launch-wireless-service-2017-verizon-mvno-15m-wi-fi- hotspots. 27 FierceCable, Rutledge: Charter Has Asked Verizon to Activate MVNO Agreement (Sept. 21, 2016), http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/rutledge-charter-has-asked-verizon-to-activate-mvno-agreement. 28 FierceWireless, Comcast Adds 261,000 Wireless Subscribers in Q4, Its Largest Gain Yet (Jan. 23, 2020), https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/comcast-adds-261-000-wireless-subscribers-q4-its-largest-gain-yet. 29 FierceWireless, Charter s Mobile Service Crosses 1M Subscriber Mark (Feb. 3, 2020), https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/charter-s-mobile-service-crosses-1-million-subscriber-mark. 30 Altice describes itself as an  infrastructure-based Mobile Virtual Network Operator, as it operates its own core network infrastructure to provide wireline broadband, though it does not have its own radio access network for its mobile offering. The distinction in Altice s ability to leverage its own facilities has allowed it to obtain numbers directly under waiver. See Numbering Policies for Modern Communications; Number Resource Optimization, WC Docket No. 13-97; CC Docket No. 99-200, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 12501 (WCB 2018). 31 FierceWireless, Altice Mobile Raises Prices by $10 for New Customers (Feb. 13, 2020), https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/altice-mobile-raises-price-by-10-for-new-customers. 32 T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10591-3, paras. 34-36; see also United States et al. v. Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Mobile US, Inc. Softbank Group Corp. and Sprint Corp., Competitive Impact Statement, No. 1:19-cv-02232, at 8 & n.2 (D.D.C.) (filed July 30, 2019). 33 See Letter from Charles Mathias and Catherine Matraves, FCC, to Kathleen O Brien Ham, Counsel to T-Mobile, DA 20-421, 35 FCC Rcd 3556 (filed Apr. 16, 2020) (Mathias and Matraves Letter). 34 DISH, DISH Enters Retail Wireless Market with Close of Boost Mobile, Advances Build of the Nation s First Standalone 5G Network (July 1, 2020), http://about.dish.com/2020-07-01-DISH-enters-retail-wireless-market-with- close-of-Boost-Mobile-advances-build-of-the-nations-first-standalone-5G-network. 35 T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10591-92, 10661, paras. 33-34, 189; see also DISH, DISH to Become National Facilities-based Wireless Carrier (July 26, 2019), http://about.dish.com/2019-07-26-DISH-to-Become- National-Facilities-based-Wireless-Carrier. 36 T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10591-92, paras. 33-34. 37 Id. at 10592-3, para. 34; see also Mathias and Matraves Letter at 1-2. 38 T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10594, 10740, paras. 37, 369; see also DISH, DISH Enters Retail Wireless Market with Close of Boost Mobile, Advances Build of the Nation s First Standalone 5G Network (July 1, 2020), http://about.dish.com/2020-07-01-DISH-enters-retail-wireless-market-with-close-of-Boost-Mobile-advances-build- of-the-nations-first-standalone-5G-network. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 700 MHz, and H Block spectrum licenses.39 As DISH expands its network, it will operate as a hybrid of a facilities-based operator and an MVNO, and ultimately the Commission expects it to become a standalone facilities-based operator.40 15. In its second 2020 quarterly earnings call, DISH stated it intends to cover 20% of the U.S. population by mid-2022 and deploy over 15,000 cell sites by mid-2023, with an eventual nationwide network of 50,000 cell sites with a $10 billion investment cost.41 DISH spent more than $900 million for 5,492 licenses for 5G-capable mid-band spectrum in Auction 105, the second largest amount of any winning bidder.42 Further, we note that DISH has already made arrangements with suppliers, including Fujitsu for radios, VMWare for cloud networking, and Altiostar and Mavenir for software.43 16. Mobile Satellite Providers. In the United States, and globally, satellites provide telecommunications infrastructure for communications, including voice, video, audio, and data services.44 Mobile satellite service (MSS)45 generally involves transmitting and receiving communications signals from mobile earth stations located on land, on sea, or on airplanes.46 MSS operates in a 70 megahertz range of spectrum allocated in the L-band, in a 40 megahertz range in the 2 GHz MSS band, in a 33 megahertz range in the Big LEO band, and in a 4 megahertz range in the Little LEO band.47 Voice and 39 See T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10829-41, Appx. H. 40 See id. at 10594, 10741-45, 10829-41, paras. 37, 372-38, Appx. H. 41 CitiResearch, DISH Network Corp (DISH), Wireless Outlook Needs to Pivot Beyond Tech to the TAM, at 1 and 3 (Aug. 9, 2020); J.P. Morgan, DISH Network, Strong Video Trends as Focus Shifts to Wireless Execution; Boost Likely Loses Subs from Here, at 1 (Aug. 7, 2020). 42 Auction of Priority Access Licenses in the 3550-3650 MHz Band; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 105, AU Docket No. 19-244, Public Notice, DA 20-1009, Exh. A, at 1, https://auctionfiling.fcc.gov/form175/search175/index.htm, (OEA, WTB Sept. 2, 2020) (3.5 GHz Public Notice). 43 DISH, DISH Selects Mavenir to Deliver Cloud-Native OpenRAN Software for Nation's First Virtual 5G Wireless Broadband Network (Apr. 23 , 2020), http://about.dish.com/2020-04-23-DISH-Selects-Mavenir-to-Deliver-Cloud- Native-OpenRAN-Software-for-Nations-First-Virtual-5G-Wireless-Broadband-Network; DISH, DISH advances O- RAN network, Selects Fujitsu for 5G radio units and Altiostar for virtualized RAN software solution (June. 30, 2020), https://about.dish.com/2020-06-30-DISH-advances-O-RAN-network-Selects-Fujitsu-for-5G-radio-units-and- Altiostar-for-virtualized-RAN-software-solution; VMWare, DISH Selects VMware to Help Build the Most Advanced, Automated, End-to-End 5G Network in the U.S., https://www.vmware.com/company/news/releases/vmw- newsfeed.DISH-Selects-VMware-to-Help-Build-the-Most-Advanced-Automated-End-to-End-5G-Network-in-the- U.S.459a7317-5c39-48ec-a2c1-fef8509d4075.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 44 Satellites function as relay stations in space that receive signals from an earth station and then re-transmit the signal to a distant point located often thousands of miles from the point of signal origination. An earth station is a station located either on the Earth s surface or within the major portion of the Earth's atmosphere and intended for communication: (1) With one or more space stations; or (2) With one or more stations of the same kind by means of one or more reflecting satellites or other objects in space. 47 CFR § 25.103. The Commission s definition is identical to the definition established by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). ITU, Radio Regulations Articles (ed. 2016), at 13 (Article 1, 1.63), http://search.itu.int/history/HistoryDigitalCollectionDocLibrary/1.43.48.en.101.pdf (ITU Radio Regulations) (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 45 MSS generally refers to services provided to mobile earth stations using MSS frequency bands. The newer ESIMs, discussed below, refer to services provided to mobile earth stations using the FSS frequency bands. 46 47 CFR § 25.103. 47 There are MSS allocations in the 1525-1559 MHz (space-to-Earth) band and the 1626.5-1660.5 MHz (Earth-to- space) band of the L-band, and in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands of the 2 GHz band. Other frequency bands with MSS allocations have been given specific labels in the Commission rules: the Big LEO bands (1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz) and the Little LEO bands (137-138 MHz, 400.15-401 MHz, and 148- 150.5 MHz). 47 CFR § 25.103. Due to encumbrances, not all of the allocated spectrum is available for use by MSS providers. 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 data services are conducted in the L-band, Big LEO band, and 2 GHz bands, while the Little LEO band is limited to non-voice services.48 Examples of MSS applications include voice, low-speed data, and tracking services for aircraft and ships, as well as handsets operating in remote locations on land. 17. Currently, five satellite operators provide MSS in the United States: Inmarsat, Ligado (formerly known as LightSquared),49 Iridium, Globalstar, and ORBCOMM.50 Due to technological differences, MSS services vary significantly in characteristics, such as cost, geographic availability, required customer equipment, data bandwidth and allowances, two-way capabilities, latency, network reliability, and ease of use.51 Inmarsat, the largest MSS operator, provides extensive voice, video, and data communications services to mobile earth stations using GSO satellites, five of which have been granted access to the U.S. market.52 In 2019, MSS generated approximately $700 million in U.S. revenues.53 18. Over the last ten years, the Commission also has allowed the operation of Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs) within the spectrum bands allocated to fixed satellite services (FSS).54 Earth Stations on Vessels, Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations, and Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft collectively designated as ESIMs55 are mobile in nature, but nevertheless operate in FSS spectrum because at any point in time, their emissions have the same characteristics as those of a fixed earth station transmitting from the same location. Given that ESIMs have access to a significant amount of FSS spectrum and they use directional 48 See, e.g., Terrestrial Use of the 2473-2495 MHz Band for Low-Power Mobile Broadband Networks; Amendments to Rules for the Ancillary Terrestrial Component of Mobile Satellite Service Systems, IB Docket No. 13-213, RM- 11685, Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 13801, 13802 & n.2 (2016) (noting distinction between Big LEO systems, which operate with voice and higher data-rate capabilities, and Little LEO systems, which do not provide voice service and generally operate with lower data-rate capabilities). 49 Ligado Amendment to License Modification Applications IBFS File Nos. SES-MOD-20151231-00981, SAT-MOD- 20151231-00090, and SAT-MOD-20151231-00091 et al., IB Docket No. 11-109, Order and Authorization, 35 FCC Rcd 3772 (2020). 50 See Inmarsat, Our Satellites, https://www.inmarsat.com/about-us/our-technology/our-satellites/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Ligado, Covering a Continent with the Ligado SkyTerra 1 Satellite, https://ligado.com/wp- content/uploads/SkyTerra1_InfoSheet_0819.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Iridium, Iridium Global Network, https://www.iridium.com/network/globalnetwork/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Globalstar, Our Technology, https://www.globalstar.com/en-us/corporate/about/our-technology (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); ORBCOMM, Satellite IoT and M2M Networks, https://www.orbcomm.com/en/networks/satellite (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 51 Inmarsat Plc, 2018 Annual Report and Financial Statements at 1, https://www.inmarsat.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/12/Inmarsat-Group-Limited-Annual-Report-2018.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Iridium Communications, Inc., 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 2-5 (filed Feb. 25, 2020); Globalstar, 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 3-9 (filed Feb. 28, 2020). 52 FCC, Space Station Approval List, https://www.fcc.gov/approved-space-station-list. (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 53 Mobile satellite 2019 revenues totaled $0.7 billion in both 2018 and 2019, approximately 1% of total U.S. satellite services revenue. SIA Comments at 5, SIA Ex Parte. For total mobile satellite revenues from 2013 through 2017, see 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12673, Fig. F-1. 54 See generally Procedures to Govern the Use of Satellite Earth Stations on Board Vessels in the 5925-6425 MHz/3700-4200 MHz Bands and 14.0-14.5 GHz/11.7-12.2 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 02-10, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 674 (2005); see also Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission s Rules to Allocate Spectrum and Adopt Service Rules and Procedures to Govern the Use of Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations in Certain Frequency Bands Allocated to the Fixed-Satellite Service, IB Docket No. 07-101, Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 10414 (2009). 55 O3b Limited; Request for Modification of U.S. Market Access for O3b Limited's Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit System in the Fixed-Satellite Service and in the Mobile-Satellite Service, Order and Declaratory Ruling, 33 FCC Rcd 5508, 5516, para. 21 & n.59 (2018) (O3b Modification Order). 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 antennas that enhance throughput,56 ESIMs are able to transmit and receive very high data-rate broadband communications while in motion.57 Licensees increasingly use ESIMs to deliver broadband to ships, vehicles, trains, and aircraft using the same frequency bands, hardware, satellites, transponder beams, and gateways used to serve earth stations at fixed locations.58 19. FSS operators provide broadband services to aircraft and maritime vessels, which include government organizations, commercial entities, and individual clients.59 For example, Intelsat and Telesat offer broadband services for maritime vessels (including maritime enterprise VSAT services60 and broadband connectivity for cruise ships), as well as broadband connectivity for in-flight entertainment and Wi-Fi services for the aeronautical industry.61 SES and ViaSat provide broadband service on commercial airlines and cruise ships.62 Hughes/Echostar also provides broadband service on commercial airlines.63 56 The use of directional antennas required for FSS spectrum use means that FSS spectrum can be re-used repeatedly, for each satellite spot beam, unlike MSS services which traditionally use non-directional antennas, preventing the reuse of spectrum. O3b Modification Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 5516, para. 21 & n.59. 57 O3b Modification Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 5516, para. 21 & n.59. ESIMs enable the provision of very high data rate broadband communications, navigational, situational awareness, and other services to mobile platforms that often cannot be served using other communications technologies. See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission s Rules to Facilitate the Use of Earth Stations in Motion Communicating with Geostationary Orbit Space Stations in Frequency Bands Allocated to the Fixed Satellite Service, IB Docket No. 17-95, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 9327, 9328-29, para. 3 (2018) (ESIMs Order). The Commission continues to distinguish ESIMs, which operate in FSS spectrum, from mobile earth stations, which operate in MSS spectrum. ESIMs Order 33 FCC Rcd at 9328-30, paras. 3-4, 10 (defining ESIMs to collectively designate the three types of FSS earth stations that the Commission authorizes to transmit while in motion: Earth Stations on Vessels (ESVs), Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMESs), and Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft (ESAAs)); 47 CFR § 25.103 (Mobile Earth Station) (defining mobile earth station as  [a]n earth station in the Mobile-Satellite Service intended to be used while in motion or during halts at unspecified points. ). 58 ESIMs Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 9328, para. 2. 59  Satellites are playing an increasingly profitable role in the aviation industry. A $1B market today, the London School of Economics projects that airline broadband will encompass a $30B market by 2035. Connected aircraft could also save airlines $15B annually in operating costs, according to the same study. SIA Comments at 8-9. See also Grous, Alexander, Sky High Economics. Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics and Political Science (2017), http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/87438/1/Grous_Sky%20High_Author.pdf. 60 Vessels can connect to the global communications network with VSAT technology, which provides crew and passengers with high-speed Internet access and phone service. iDirect, ViaSatellite, The Coming Wave of Maritime VSAT Growth, https://www.satellitetoday.com//long-form-stories/maritime-vsat/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 61 See Intelsat, 2019 SEC Form 10-K, at 11 (filed Feb. 20, 2020) (Intelsat 2019 SEC Form 10-K); Telesat Canada, 2019 SEC Form 20-F at 34 (filed Feb. 27, 2020) (Telesat Canada 2019 SEC Form 20-F). For example, Telesat has a long-term contract with Panasonic Avionics Corporation (Panasonic) to provide satellite capacity to support Panasonic s in-flight entertainment and communications systems. See Telesat, Panasonic Signs Long Term Contract For Multiple Transponders on Telesat Satellites to Expand Aeronautical Broadband Service Over Latin America (Nov. 14, 2012), www.telesat.com/news-events/panasonic-signs-long-term-contract-multiple-transponders- telesat-satellites-expand. Likewise, Intelsat leases transponder capacity to GoGo for aviation. Intelsat, Gogo Adds Intelsat 29e Services to Provide Broadband Connectivity for Aircraft Crossing the North Atlantic (Nov. 17, 2016), http://www.intelsat.com/news/press-release/gogo-adds-intelsat-29e-services-to-provide-broadband-connectivity-for- aircraft-crossing-the-north-atlantic/. 62 SES plans to launch SES-17 in 2021 to provide aviation service over the Americas and Atlantic. SES, 2019 Annual Report at 36, 41, https://www.ses.com/sites/default/files/2020- 04/SES_Annual_Report_2019_HighRes_1.pdf (SES 2019 Annual Report) (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); ViaSat, 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 3-4 (filed May 28, 2020) (ViaSat 2019 SEC Form 10-K). 63 Hughes, Thales and SES Select Hughes for Next-Generation Aviation Connectivity Network to Provide Increased Capacity, Coverage and Redundancy over the Americas (Mar. 8, 2017), https://www.hughes.com/resources/press- (continued& .) 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 b. Connections/Subscribers and Connections Market Share 20. To estimate the number of mobile wireless subscribers/connections, this Report uses Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) data,64 which track how many phone numbers have been assigned to mobile wireless devices,65 and CTIA data.66 As shown in Figure II.A.1 below,67 NRUF estimates of mobile wireless connections at year-end 2018 were approximately 422 million, an increase of around 3% from year-end 2017, and at year-end 2019 were approximately 430 million, an increase of around 2% from year-end 2018. CTIA estimates of mobile wireless connections at year-end 2018 were approximately 422 million, an increase of around 5% from year-end 2017, and at year-end 2019 were approximately 442 million, an increase of approximately 5% from year-end 2018. releases/thales-and-ses-select-hughes-next-generation-aviation-connectivity-network; Hughes, Aeronautical Broadband Solutions, https://www.hughes.com/what-we-do/by-industry/aeronautical-broadband-solutions (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 64 NRUF data indicate the number of assigned phone numbers that a wireless service provider has in a particular rate center (there are approximately 18,000 rate centers in the country). Rate centers are geographic areas used by local exchange carriers for a variety of reasons, including the determination of toll rates. Harry Newton, Newton s Telecom Dictionary: 19th Expanded & Updated Edition at 660 (July 2003). All mobile wireless service providers must report to the Commission the quantity of their phone numbers that have been assigned to end users, thereby permitting the Commission to calculate the total number of mobile wireless subscribers. For purposes of geographical analysis, the rate center data can be associated with a geographic point, and all of those points that fall within a county boundary can be aggregated together and associated with much larger geographic areas based on counties. We note that the aggregation to larger geographic areas reduces the level of inaccuracy inherent in combining non-coterminous areas, such as rate center areas and counties. 65 While NRUF provides a measure of the number of mobile wireless connections or connected devices that have assigned telephone numbers, the data have limitations, like providing only the quantity of mobile wireless connections that have a telephone number, rather than the number of consumers subscribed to mobile broadband or voice service. Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8977-78, n.65. If a mobile broadband or voice subscriber uses a device that does not have a telephone number assigned to it (e.g., a tablet), then that subscriber will not be recorded. See Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, WC Docket No. 11-10, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 6329, 6337, para. 26 & n.38 (2017) (2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM). These data also do not reflect when consumers move to a different state and retain the same telephone number. See Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection et al., WC Docket No. 19-195, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 7505, 7530-31, para. 60 (2019) (Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice). 66 Different sources refer to their data as connections or subscribers, and when discussing the different data, we will use the terminology most currently used by the source and, where possible, provide a definition of this term. For example, CTIA explains its use of the terms  subscribers and  connections as follows:  Traditionally, the term  subscribers was used as a term of art, reflecting the number of revenue-generating units, equally describable as  wireless connections  the equivalent of wired telephone  lines. The terms  subscriber does not indicate a unique individual person. Indeed, the growing number and variety of non-traditional devices and machine-to-machine applications mean that the term  subscribers is increasingly less descriptive of a growing share of the universe of active units. CTIA, CTIA s Wireless Industry Indices Report, Year-End 2019 Results at 16 (CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report). 67 For details of total mobile wireless connections over time, see Appx. B.1 of this Report. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Source: NRUF, CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report. 21. Figure II.A.2 presents data on total connections by service segment, based on UBS Investment Research data. It shows that, in 2019, the postpaid segment accounted for approximately 59% of all connections, while the prepaid segment accounted for approximately 15% of all connections. Most notably, Internet connected devices surpassed prepaid connections in the middle of 2018 and is now the second-largest segment by volume, accounting for approximately 22% of all wireless connections.68 68 These wireless connections are  composed almost entirely of data-capable devices, with web-capable devices, smartphones, tablets/laptops and wireless broadband modems composing the vast majority of all wireless-connected devices. In addition, the number of data-only devices such as connected cars, IoT devices and wearables increased to approximately 175 million in 2019. CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report at 6. 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.A.2 Quarterly Total Mobile Wireless Connections by Service Segment 2017-2019 470.2 478.1 500 457.3 464.2 444.7 452.1 432.5 438.3 450 417.6 418.3 420.4 427.3 400 ) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Total Connections (Millions Connections Total 0 1Q17 2Q17 3Q17 4Q17 1Q18 2Q18 3Q18 4Q18 1Q19 2Q19 3Q19 4Q19 Quarter, Year Postpaid Prepaid Wholesale Connected Devices Source: UBS Investment Research. UBS Data 2017-2019. Published with permission from UBS. 22. Figure II.A.3 presents data on total mobile wireless connections for the largest publicly traded service providers operating in the United States, including an estimate of their respective market shares as of year-end 2019.69 As of the end of 2019, the market shares for Verizon Wireless and AT&T were each greater than the next three largest providers, T-Mobile, Sprint, and U.S. Cellular, combined. Fig II.A.3 Estimated Total Connections for Publicly Traded Facilities Based Mobile Wireless Service Providers (in thousands): 2016 2019 Service EOY 2016 EOY 2017 EOY 2018 EOY 2019 EOY 2019 Providers (% Connection Market Share) Verizon 145,859 151,978 155,798 169,602 35.4 AT&TWireless 134,875 146,847 157,095 163,388 34.1 T-Mobile 71,455 74,040 79,651 86,046 18.0 Sprint 59,515 54,683 54,495 54,165 11.3 U.S. Cellular 5,079 5,063 5,041 4,948 1.0 Top 5 Service 416,783 432,611 452,080 479,149 Source:Providers UBS Investment Research. UBS Data 2016-2019. Published with permission from UBS. Total estimated connectionsTotal figure includes data only for the service providers reported in this table. 23. Estimates of the number of net additions in 2018 and 2019 vary, likely due to differences in the way in which connections are measured. As shown in Figure II.A.4, for 2018, there were approximately 12.3 million net additions based on NRUF data, compared with 4.3 million based on CTIA data. Mobile voice subscriber data as reported by service providers on FCC Form 477 show that for 69 The size of a company, typically measured by service revenues or subscribers, relative to the total size of the industry determines its market share. See, e.g., The MIT Dictionary of Modern Economics at 268 (4th ed. 1992). 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 2018, net subscriber additions totaled approximately 8.1 million. In 2019, NRUF showed 11.0 million additions, CTIA showed 21.6 million additions, and preliminary figures from FCC Form 477 showed 7.8 million additions.70 Fig. II.A.4 Total Mobile Wireless Connections Annual Net Additions (2016-2019) 25 21.6 20.2 20 18.0 15 12.3 12.3 11.0 NRUF 10 8.1 CTIA 7.8 6.1 Form 477 Net Additions (Millions) 5 4.3 4.3 1.9 0 2016 2017 2018 2019 Year Source: NRUF, CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report, FCC Form 477. 24. Figure II.A.5 below shows that in both 2018 and 2019, a substantial majority of wireless additions were connected devices, accounting for approximately 69% and 75% of all wireless additions in those two years, respectively. Additionally, wholesale additions surpassed postpaid additions in 2018, perhaps in part due to the entry of cable providers into the wireless market. Lastly, prepaid connections declined in each of the last three years. Figure II.A.6 shows net subscriber additions by the four nationwide service providers from 2016 through 2019. 70 Based on FCC Form 477 data, the preliminary total number of mobile voice telephone subscriptions at year-end 2019 was 356 million, as compared to 348 million at year-end 2018. We again note that the year-end FCC Form 477 data are preliminary only, are subject to corrections as appropriate by the service provider, and the final data will be published in due course by the agency. See, e.g., FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Voice Telephone Services: Status as of December 31, 2018 (Mar. 6, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/voice-telephone-services-report. These data do not include non-voice devices. 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Source: UBS Investment Research. UBS Data 2016-2019. Published with permission of UBS. Fig. II.A.6 Annual Net Additions by Service Provider: 2016-2019 16,000 ) 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 - (2,000) Net Subscriber Additions (Thousands 2016 2017 2018 2019 Verizon 4,955 5,222 6,069 6,392 AT&T 6,196 9,474 11,581 13,804 Sprint 2,411 1,173 129 (330) T-Mobile 8,173 5,658 7,044 7,011 Source: UBS Investment Research. UBS Data 2016-2019. Published with permission of UBS. 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 25. Market Concentration. High market concentration levels in any market may raise some concern that a market is not competitive, although it is not necessarily the case.71 To measure mobile wireless market concentration, the Commission employs the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), widely used in competition analysis.72 The HHI is calculated by summing the squared market shares of all firms in the given market. In this Report, we calculate HHIs based on the NRUF data by Economic Area (EA) to maintain continuity with past reports and to ensure that we do not compromise the confidential information found in the NRUF data. As of year-end 2017, the weighted average HHI (weighted by population across the 172 EAs in the United States) for mobile wireless services was 3,106.73 As of year- end 2019, taking into account the transaction between T-Mobile and Sprint, the weighted average HHI for mobile wireless services by EA was 3,622.74 c. Churn 26. Churn measures the percentage of connections that are disconnected from mobile wireless service during a given time period.75 A service provider s churn rate depends on many factors, such as the distribution of its customers between postpaid and prepaid service plans, customer satisfaction with their service provider, and switching costs.76 High levels of industry churn can indicate that consumers are not only willing but are also able to easily switch between service providers. For 2019, CTIA reported an annual industry-wide churn rate of 19.5%, and a monthly rate of 1.6%.77 Figure II.A.7 shows the industry weighted churn rates, according to UBS, for the nationwide providers by quarter. At the end of 2019, stronger wireless competition among the top four providers and new competition from cable MVNOs resulted in a slight increase in churn rates.78 71 It is well understood that we can observe intense competition even with a small number of firms in the market. See, e.g., Ernest Gellhorn, Antitrust Law and Economics 117 (4th ed. 1994) (stating  [m]arket shares are not synonymous with market power; they should mark the beginning for careful analysis, not the end of it. ); Michael Whinston, Antitrust Policy toward Horizontal Mergers, Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. 3, (eds. Mark Armstrong and Robert Porter 2007); John Sutton, Sunk Costs and Market Structure (1991); Joseph Farrell and Carl Shapiro, Antitrust Evaluation of Horizontal Mergers: An Economic Alternative to Market Definition, 10(1) The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics 1 (2010); Gregory J. Werden and Luke M. Froeb, Unilateral Competitive Effects of Horizontal Mergers, Handbook of Antitrust Economics (ed. Paolo Buccirossi 2008). 72 To the extent that this section uses the term  markets, we do not intend it to be interpreted as synonymous with the antitrust concept of the  relevant market, which the Commission defines in the context of secondary market transactions review. See, e.g., T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10601, para. 55. 73 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12582-83, para. 30. 74 Antitrust authorities in the United States generally classify markets into three types: Unconcentrated (HHI < 1500), Moderately Concentrated (1500 < HHI < 2500), and Highly Concentrated (HHI > 2500). U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, Horizontal Merger Guidelines (Aug. 19, 2010), http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/hmg-2010.pdf. 75 CTIA defines churn as  a measure of the number of subscribers disconnecting from service during the period. CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report at 35. Churn is calculated by dividing the aggregate number of wireless connections that canceled service during a time period by the total number of wireless connections at the beginning of that time period. For an annual calculation, if a service provider has an average monthly churn rate of 2%, the service provider would lose 24% of its subscribers over the course of a year. Service providers publish their monthly churn rate information as part of their quarterly filings with the SEC. 76 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12567, para. 11. 77 CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report at 37. For prepaid services, CTIA reported an annual industry-wide churn rate of 47.2% and a monthly churn rate of 4.45%. Id. at Appx. C, 14. 78 Instinet, LLC, Equity Research, Churn Return: 2020 to Interrupt Years of Progress at 3 (2020); Bevin Fletcher, Sprint sheds subscribers as churn climbs (Jan. 27, 2020), https://www.fiercewireless.com/financial/sprint-sheds- subscribers-as-churn-climbs. 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.A.7 Quarterly Churn Rate for Nationwide Mobile Wireless Providers 1st Quarter 2017- 4th Quarter 2019 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% Churn Churn Rate 0.5% 0.0% 1Q17 2Q17 3Q17 4Q17 1Q18 2Q18 3Q18 4Q18 1Q19 2Q19 3Q19 4Q19 AT&T 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.2% 1.1% 1.2% 1.3% Verizon Wireless 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% Sprint 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.6% 1.8% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.9% 2.0% T-Mobile 1.7% 1.7% 2.0% 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.3% 1.7% 1.5% Source: UBS Investment Research. UBS Data 2017-2020. Published with permission of UBS. d. Data Usage 27. As shown in Figure II.A.8, monthly data usage per smartphone subscriber rose to an average of 9.2 GB per subscriber per month, an increase of approximately 39% from year-end 2018 to year-end 2019.79 Figure II.A.9 further shows that total network annual data usage increased by approximately 30% from 2018 to 2019, with a commensurate increase in total annual minutes of voice use (MOUs) of approximately 29%,80 while total messaging traffic experienced a much smaller increase of approximately 3%.81 79 CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report at 15. 80 Id. at 13. 81 Id. This provider-reported messaging traffic does not include traffic from over-the-top messaging applications and services, which would only appear in the total data traffic figures, thereby contributing to the total MB of data traffic. See id. 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.A.8 Mobile Data Usage per Subscriber 2010 - 2019 10.0 9.2 7.1 8.0 6.6 5.8 6.0 5.1 3.9 4.0 2.9 2.9 3.3 2.2 1.4 2.0 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 Data Capable Unit 0.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Average Average Monthly GB perAverage Data Capable Unit Smartphone Source: CTIA Year-End Wireless Industry Indices Report at 15, Chart 4. Fig. II.A.9 Annual Minutes, Messages, and Megabytes of Wireless Traffic 45,000 40,000 37,060 35,000 30,000 28,585 37.1 trillion 25,000 MBs 20,000 15,687 13,719 15,000 9,650 10,000 1,468 4,061 388 867 3,230 2.1 trillion text 5,000 messages Billions of MOUs / Messages / MB / Messages MOUs of Billions 2,098 2,108 2,356 2,264 2,006 2,073 2,108 1,939 1,768 2,046 2,881 3,078 3.1 trillion 0 2,241 2,296 2,300 2,618 2,455 2,751 2,180 2,389 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 MOUs Messages MB of Data Usage Source: CTIA Year-End Wireless Industry Indices Report at 13, Chart 2. 28. This growth in data usage is primarily driven by increasing data demanded per device. According to a 2019 Pew survey, smartphone and tablet ownership were 81% and 52%, respectively, largely unchanged from the 77% and 53% ownership figures reported in 2018.82 Pew reported that 17% of American adults are  smartphone-only Internet users they own a smartphone, but do not have traditional fixed home broadband service a 3-point decrease from a year earlier.83 Comparatively, the U.S. Census Bureau s American Community Survey (ACS) found that, as of 2019, approximately 10% of total U.S. households subscribed to a cellular data plan with no other type of Internet subscription.84 82 Pew Research Center, Mobile Fact Sheet (June 12, 2019), http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/ (Pew Mobile Fact Sheet). 83 See Pew Mobile Fact Sheet. 84 U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Types of Computers and Internet Subscriptions, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=S2801%3A%20TYPES%20OF%20COMPUTERS%20AND%20INTERNET %20SUBSCRIPTIONS&tid=ACSST1Y2019.S2801&hidePreview=true (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). We note that (continued& .) 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Many consumers also choose to depend on some combination of fixed and mobile broadband access, while discontinuing their landline telephone services. In fact, according to preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of June 2019, the percentage of U.S. adults living in households that were identified as having wireless-only telephone service (no landline telephone service) was approximately 59%.85 2. Mobile Wireless Spectrum and Service Providers Spectrum Holdings 29. Spectrum is a critical input in the provision of mobile wireless services.86 It can affect whether, when, and where existing service providers and potential entrants will be able to expand capacity or deploy networks.87 Incumbent service providers may need additional spectrum to increase their coverage or capacity, while new entrants need access to spectrum to enter a geographic area at all. Spectrum bands vary in breadth and in their propagation characteristics, and these variations have implications for how spectrum is deployed.88 The effective supply of spectrum capacity available for mobile wireless service depends on several aspects of spectrum policy, including allocation and licensing policies, as well as interference and technical rules.89 Increasing the total supply of spectrum bandwidth that the Commission allocates and licenses to mobile wireless service providers can increase network capacity and reduce the degree of frequency reuse required to achieve a given level of capacity.90 The efforts of the Commission to allocate more mid-band and mmW spectrum to meet consumer demand for mobile broadband services and to fuel innovation and investment in the mobile wireless market are detailed in sections V and VI below. 30. Subject to Commission approval, licensees may transfer licenses, in whole or in part (through partitioning and/or disaggregation), on the secondary market.91 In reviewing proposed transfers Pew surveys U.S. adults while ACS relies on sampling households, which is a likely source of divergence for these respective statistics. 85 CDC, NCHS, Stephen J. Blumberg and Julian V. Luke, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January-June 2019, National Center for Health Statistics (May 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless202005-508.pdf. For a more detailed discussion of competition between fixed and mobile, see infra section II.B.3. 86 Non-spectrum inputs in the provision of mobile wireless services include cellular base stations and towers to carry transmissions and backhaul, which routes voice and data traffic from base stations to mobile switching centers. Backhaul may be provided via wireless spectrum, copper, or fiber, though we note copper may lack sufficient capacity for current data demands. 87 Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6134, para. 2. 88 Spectrum below 1 GHz (low-band spectrum) has certain propagation advantages for network deployment over long distances, and for penetrating buildings and urban canyons, while spectrum above 1 GHz (mid- or high-band spectrum) allows for the better transmission of large amounts of information. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6135, para. 3. In this sense, low-band spectrum may be thought of as  coverage spectrum, and higher band spectrum may be thought of as  capacity spectrum. Service providers deploy their spectrum bands differently depending on the nature of the service, geography, density, or other factors in their network build-out. See 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12584, para.31 & n.99; Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8992, para. 36 & n.112. 89 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12584-85, para. 31. 90 See Theodore Rappaport, Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice at 58 (2d ed. 2002). 91 As part of its secondary market policies, the Commission also permits mobile wireless licensees to lease all or a portion of their spectrum usage rights for any length of time within the license term and over any geographic area encompassed by the license. 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 of control of spectrum, the Commission uses an initial spectrum screen92 to help identify, for case-by-case review, local markets where changes in spectrum holdings resulting from the transaction may be of particular concern.93 In addition, the Commission determined that increased aggregation of below-1-GHz spectrum would be treated as an  enhanced factor under its case-by-case review of license transfers if post-transaction the acquiring entity would hold approximately one-third or more of the currently suitable and available spectrum below 1 GHz.94 31. In the past decade, in the context of its review of secondary market transactions, as well as in rulemakings, the Commission periodically has determined that additional spectrum was suitable and available for mobile wireless use, and therefore subject to inclusion in the spectrum screen.95 The current suitable and available spectrum included in the spectrum screen, with an associated spectrum trigger of 250 megahertz, is shown in Figure II.A.10. 92 The Commission includes spectrum that it finds suitable and available for the provision of mobile wireless services in the spectrum screen. See, e.g., T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10607-08, paras. 70-72; Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6169, para. 71. 93 See, e.g., T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10607-08, paras. 70-72; Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6221-22, para. 225. In the case of transfer of business units, the Commission s initial Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) screen identifies, for further case-by-case market analysis, those markets in which, post-transaction: (1) the HHI would be greater than 2800 and the change in HHI would be 100 or greater; or (2) the change in HHI would be 250 or greater, regardless of the level of the HHI. See, e.g., T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10614-15, para. 87 & n.277; Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6140-41, para. 13 & n.34. 94 See, e.g., T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10614-15, para. 87; Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6240, paras. 282-88. 95 See Incentive Auction Closing and Channel Reassignment, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 2786 (WTB 2017); Applications of SprintCom, Inc., Shenandoah Personal Communications, LLC, and NTELOS Holdings Corp. for Consent To Assign Licenses and Spectrum Lease Authorizations and To Transfer Control of Spectrum Lease Authorizations and an International Section 214 Authorization, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 3631, 3637-38, paras. 15-16 (WTB, IB 2016) (Sprint-Shentel-NTELOS Order); Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6172-90, paras. 82-134; Applications of AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, Comcast Corporation, Horizon Wi-Com, LLC, NextWave Wireless, Inc., and San Diego Gas & Electric Company for Consent To Assign and Transfer Licenses, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 16459, 16470-71, para. 31 (2012); Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission s Rules to Govern the Operation of Wireless Communications Services in the 2.3 GHz Band, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 11710, 11711, para. 1 (2010); Applications of Sprint Nextel Corporation and Clearwire Corporation for Consent To Transfer Control of Licenses, Leases, and Authorizations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 17570, 17598-99, paras. 70, 72 (2008); Applications of AT&T Inc. and Dobson Communications Corporation for Consent To Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 20295, 20307-08, para. 17 (2007). 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.A.10 Spectrum Included in the Spectrum Screen96 Spectrum Band Megahertz (Amount) 600 MHz 70 700 MHz 70 Cellular 50 SMR 14 Broadband PCS 130 AWS-1 90 AWS-3 65 AWS-4 40 H Block 10 WCS 20 BRS 67.5 EBS 116.5 Total Amount of Spectrum 743.0 32. With respect to high-band spectrum, the Commission has made available nearly 12 gigahertz of licensed and unlicensed mmW spectrum through its Spectrum Frontiers proceedings. The 64-71 GHz band is available for unlicensed use, and an additional 4950 megahertz is available for licensed use, as shown in Figure II.A.11 below.97 The Commission adopted a separate threshold for mmW spectrum holdings, with an associated trigger of 1850 megahertz, as an initial analytical tool to aid in identifying certain markets for further review in proposed secondary market transactions.98 Figure II.A.12 shows average megahertz holdings by licensee in the mmW spectrum bands. 96 We previously discounted the available 112.5 megahertz of EBS spectrum such that 89 megahertz was included in the screen for review of proposed secondary market transactions. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6177-79, 6184-6187, paras. 100-102, 118-25. Following the adoption of the 2.5 GHz Report and Order, which became effective on April 27, 2020, the amount of EBS spectrum now included in the spectrum screen is 116.5 megahertz. Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 18-120, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 5446, 5481, 5482-83, para. 96 & n.279, paras. 99-100. 97 See Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, et al., Third Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 5576 (2018) (Spectrum Frontiers Third Report and Order); Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, GN Docket No. 14-177, Second Report and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 10988, 10990, para. 2 (2017) (Spectrum Frontiers Second Report and Order); Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, et. al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 8014 (2016) (Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order). 98 See, e.g., T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10614-15, para. 87; Application of Verizon Communications Inc. and Straight Path Communications, Inc. for Consent To Transfer Control of Local Multipoint Distribution Service, 39 GHz, Common Carrier Point-to-Point Microwave, and 3650-3700 MHz Service Licenses, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 188, 194-95, paras. 18-19 (WTB 2018); Spectrum Frontiers Second Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 11009-11, paras. 70, 74 & n.189; Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 8082, para. 185. 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.A.11 Spectrum Included in the mmW Spectrum Threshold Spectrum Band Megahertz (Amount) 24 GHz 700 28 GHz 850 Upper 37 GHz 1000 39 GHz 1400 47 GHz 1000 Total Amount of Spectrum 4950 Fig. II.A.12 Population-Weighted Average Megahertz Holdings by Licensee, by mmW Frequency Band 24 GHz 28 GHz Upper 37 GHz 39 GHz 47 GHz Spectrum Counted 700 850 1,000 1,400 1,000 AT&T 255 - 4 782 - DISH 17 28 10 0.4 609 T-Mobile 334 126 - 321 380 US Cellular 27 24 4 27 - Verizon Wireless 6 610 974 126 - Other 58 60 6 136 8 33. Service Providers Spectrum Holdings. Figures II.A.13 and II.A.14 below present spectrum holdings by service provider. As of July 2020, the three nationwide service providers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless together held approximately 78% of all the spectrum included in the spectrum screen, measured on a MHz-POPs basis. Figure II.A.15 shows the population-weighted average megahertz spectrum holdings of licensees by frequency band.99 99 We consider population-weighted spectrum holdings in order to account for customer density in different geographic areas. A spectrum license in Los Angeles or New York City, for example, covers more customers than a spectrum license over the same amount of land area in White Sands, New Mexico. 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.A.13 Percentage Spectrum Holdings, Measured on a MHz-POPs Basis by Licensee, by Frequency Band 600 700 H Cell. SMR PCS AWS-1 AWS-3 AWS-4 WCS BRS EBS MHz MHz Block Spectrum 70 70 50 14 130 10 90 65 40 20 67.5 116.5 meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. 100 AT&T 0.0% 42.3% 44.6% 0.0% 29.4% 0.0% 16.5% 33.5% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% T-Mobile 45.3% 14.9% 0.1% 96.5% 51.0% 0.0% 41.2% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 93.1% 79.2% VZW 0.0% 31.0% 47.7% 0.0% 16.9% 0.0% 40.1% 19.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% USCC 2.6% 3.5% 3.9% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.8% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% DISH 26.2% 6.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 34.8% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other 25.8% 1.7% 3.7% 3.5% 1.6% 0.0% 1.4% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.9% 20.8% Staff estimates as of July 2020. Numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Abbreviations for spectrum bands: Cell. (Cellular), SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio Service), PCS (Personal Communications Service), BRS (Broadband Radio Service), and EBS (Educational Broadband Service). Fig. II.A.14 Population-Weighted Average Megahertz Holdings by Licensee, by Frequency Band101 600 700 H Cell. SMR PCS AWS-1 AWS-3 AWS-4 WCS BRS EBS MHz MHz Block Spectrum 70 70 50 14 130 10 90 65 40 20 67.5 116.5 Counted meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg. meg meg. . AT&T 0.0 29.7 23.6 0.0 38.3 0.0 14.9 20.3 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 T-Mobile 30.8 10.4 0.0 13.8 66.5 0.0 37.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 62.9 92.2 VZW 0.0 21.7 25.2 0.0 22.0 0.0 36.1 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 USCC 1.8 2.4 2.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DISH 17.8 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 21.1 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 17.5 1.2 2.0 0.5 2.1 0.0 1.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 4.6 24.3 Staff estimates as of July 2020. 100 In the 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, we erroneously calculated Sprint s EBS holdings; see 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12587, Fig. A-24. The correct percentage as of Aug. 2018 was 75.7%. 101 The population-weighted average megahertz for each provider is calculated by multiplying that provider s spectrum in a county by the county s population (MHz-POPs), summing for all counties, and then dividing by the 2010 total U.S. population. 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.A.15 Spectrum Holdings by Band Weighted by Population Mobile Wireless Provider Spectrum Holdings by Band Weighted by Population 120 EBS BRS WCS 100 AWS-4 AWS-3 AWS-1 H Block PCS SMR 80 Cellular 700 MHz 600 MHz 60 Pops (Billions) - 40 MHz 20 - Verizon Wireless AT&T T-Mobile US Cellular DISH Other Staff estimates as of July 2020. 3. Wireless Infrastructure 34. Wireless infrastructure facilities constitute another major input in the provision of mobile wireless services.102 In addition to towers and other tall structures%such as lattice towers, guyed towers, monopoles, rooftops, water towers, and steeples%wireless infrastructure also includes DAS and small cells.103 In order to expand or to improve coverage in existing service areas, and to accommodate newer technologies, mobile service providers have deployed additional cell sites. According to CTIA, as shown in Figure II.A.16, cell sites in commercial use increased from 308,334 in 2016, to 323,448 in 2017, to 349,344 in 2018, and to 395,562 in 2019.104 102 Another component is the backhaul connections that link a mobile wireless service provider s cell sites to the mobile switching centers that provide connections to the provider s core network, the PSTN, or the Internet, carrying wireless voice and data traffic for routing and onward transmission. Backhaul facilities are generally provided by incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), competitive fiber and microwave wholesalers, cable providers, tower companies, and independent backhaul operators. Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd 8968, 8997-98, para. 42 & n.135; Sixteenth Wireless Competition Report, 28 FCC Rcd 3700, 3912, para. 336; see also American Tower 2019 Annual Report, Part I at 1 ( We also hold & fiber& that we lease primarily to communications service providers and third-party tower operators. ); Crown Castle 2018 Corporate Sustainability Report, at 4 ( 75,000+ route miles of dense, high-capacity fiber ). 103 See Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8997, para 42 & n.133, n.134 (provides a full description of DAS and small cells). 104 CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report, Chart 19, at 53. The reported cell sites include small cells and distributed antenna systems which may be located on rooftops, monopoles, and other pre-existing (continued& .) 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Figure II.A.16 Year-End Cell Site Counts by Service Provider, 2016 2019 Cell Sites 2016 2017 2018 2019 AT&T 67,000 70,300 74,500 81,800 Sprint 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 T-Mobile 59,417 61,457 64,285 66,319 Verizon Wireless 58,300 61,800 64,000 66,500 U.S. Cellular105 6,415 6,460 6,531 6,578 Total by Top Wireless Service Providers 241,132 250,017 259,316 271,197 CTIA Reported Total Cell Sites 308,334 323,448 349,344 395,562 Source: Cell site counts for individual service providers are from UBS Data: 2016-2019. The total industry-wide cell count is from CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report. 35. Mobile service providers have increased deployment of small cells and DAS sites to fill local coverage gaps, to densify networks and increase local capacity, and to build their 5G networks.106 The telecommunications industry is deploying small cells in cities across the country, often through attaching small-scale antennas/radios near the top of light or small utility poles.107 These small cells are structures as well as on lattice towers. Because multiple cell sites can be co-located at the same  tower site, the reported cell sites should not be equated with  towers. In addition, the reported cell sites may include repeaters and other cell-extending devices. CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report at 53. 105 U.S. Cellular 2019 cell site count is from U.S. Cellular 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 2; 2018 cell site count is from U.S. Cellular 2018 SEC Form 10-K at 2 (filed Feb. 22, 2019); 2017 cell site count is from U.S. Cellular 2017 SEC Form 10-K at 2 (filed Feb. 26, 2018); 2016 cell site count is from U.S. Cellular 2016 SEC Form 10-K at 2 (filed Feb. 24, 2017). 106 Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 8998, para. 43; see also T-Mobile 2019 Annual Report at 7 ( 66,000 macro cell sites and 25,000 small cell/distributed antenna system sites ); AT&T Inc., 2019 Annual Report at 29 (filed Feb. 20, 2020), https://investors.att.com/~/media/Files/A/ATT-IR/financial-reports/annual- reports/2019/complete-2019-annual-report.pdf (AT&T 2019 Annual Report) ( The industry-wide deployment of 5G technology, & , will involve significant deployment of  small cell equipment. ); Mike Dano, Charter Is Preparing to Build a Wireless Network, LIGHT READING (Sept. 13, 2019), https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/4g- lte/charter-is-preparing-to-build-a-wireless-network/d/d-id/754100 ( Altice USA has already deployed more than 20,000 LTE small cells in parts of Long Island and elsewhere that sit atop its wired cable network ); Monica Alleven, Verizon pledges 5x more small cells in 2020 (Feb. 14, 2020), https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/verizon- pledges-5x-more-small-cells- 2020#:~:text=Verizon%20is%20building%20on%20its,small%20cells%20to%20do%20it; Thompson Reuters, EDITED TRANSCRIPT Crown Castle Q1 2020 Earnings Call (Apr. 30, 2020), at 3 ( with approximately 45,000 small cells on air, and expect to deploy approximately 10,000 this year ), https://investor.crowncastle.com/static- files/ce31f824-7ca7-413f-911b-23fc5cb88bfa; CTIA Comments at 46 ( The vast majority of 25,000 additional cell sites in 2018 were new small cell ). 107 See, e.g., City of Sacramento, 5G SMALL CELL DEPLOYMENT IN SACRAMENTO, https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Smart-City/5G ( install 5G small cell towers on more than 300 utilities poles ) (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); City of Palo Alto, Project Description  AT&T Small Cell Wireless Project (June 12, 2019), at 1, https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=73333.24&BlobID=72243; City of Dallas, Deployment Update of Small Cell Network Nodes (May 10, 2019), at 8, https://dallascityhall.com/government/Council%20Meeting%20Documents/msis_3_deployment-update-of-small- cell-network-nodes_combined_051319.pdf; Jonathan Andrews, Chicago and Minneapolis turn on 5G as San Diego lays groundwork (Apr. 11, 2019), https://cities-today.com/chicago-and-minneapolis-turn-on-5g-as-san-diego-lays- groundwork/; Linda Hardesty, NYC allows 5G equipment on streetlamps (Feb. 4, 2020), https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/nyc-allows-5g-equipment-streetlamps; Crown Castle, Small Cell 101, https://www.crowncastle.com/communities/small-cell-information ( Small cells are & usually attached to existing infrastructure in the public right of way like utility poles or streetlights ) (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 connected primarily to fiber backbones.108 CTIA estimates that 80% of future wireless infrastructure deployments will be in the form of small cells.109 Rather than building their own DAS deployments, some service providers share neutral host systems owned by third-party operators.110 Today, there are more than 130 tower and DAS operators in the United States,111 and a majority of towers are now owned or operated by independent tower companies rather than by mobile wireless service providers.112 In most cases, tower operators and property owners lease antenna, rooftop, and other site space to multiple wireless service providers.113 36. The three largest publicly traded neutral host providers are American Tower, Crown Castle, and SBA Communications. As of July 2020, according to one estimate, these three infrastructure providers owned or operated approximately 97,554 towers (not including DAS and small cells).114 At the end of December 2019, Crown Castle and SBA had an average of 2.1 and 1.8 tenants per tower site, 108 See, e.g., Fiber Optic Association, Reference Guide, https://www.thefoa.org/tech/ref/appln/SmallCells.html ( Small cells are designed to operate on fiber backbones ) (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); see also Crown Castle, Small Cell 101, https://www.crowncastle.com/communities/small-cell-information ( Small cells are always connected by fiber optic cable ) (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); RVA, Status Of U.S. Small Cell Wireless/ 5G&Smart City Applications From The Community Perspective at 8 (March 2018), https://nextcenturycities.org/wp- content/uploads/5Gresearch.pdf ( Small cell deployment is clearly correlated with& fiber deployment ). 109 CTIA, The Wireless Industry Data (Topic=Small Cell), https://www.ctia.org/the-wireless-industry/infographics- library?topic=60 (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). See also Scott Bergmann, A Year of Accelerated Wireless Infrastructure Investment (March 22, 2019), https://www.ctia.org/news/a-year-of-accelerated-wireless- infrastructure-investment (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 110 American Tower Corporation 2019 Annual Report at 3 ( small cells and other network architectures that may support our tenants networks ); see also Crown Castle 2018 Corporate Sustainability Report at 32 ( providing our customers with space on or access to our towers (including other structures, such as rooftops), small cell networks, and fiber ); SBA 2019 Annual Report, Item I, at 1 ( We generally have constructed or acquired towers that accommodate multiple tenants ). 111 See Wireless Estimator, Top 100 Tower Companies in the U.S., http://wirelessestimator.com/top-100-us-tower- companies-list/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 112 Major nationwide wireless service providers have sold their towers to neutral third-party tower companies. See Press Release, Crown Castle, Crown Castle Announces $4.85 Billion AT&T Tower Transaction (Oct. 20, 2013), https://investor.crowncastle.com/news-releases/news-release-details/crown-castle-announces-485-billion-att-tower- transaction; Jarad Matula, American Tower buys Verizon towers for $5B (Feb. 5, 2015), https://www.rcrwireless.com/20150205/cell-tower-news/cell-tower-news-american-tower-buys-verizon-towers-5b- tag8; Press Release, Crown Castle, Crown Castle and T-Mobile USA Announce $2.4 Billion Tower Transaction, (Sept. 28, 2012), https://investor.crowncastle.com/news-releases/news-release-details/crown-castle-and-t-mobile- usa-announce-24-billion-tower; Fierce Wireless, Sprint sells off towers to pay down debt (July 24, 2008), https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-sells-off-towers-to-pay-down-debt. 113 See, e.g., American Tower 2019 Annual Report, Part I at 1 ( Our primary business is the leasing of space on communications sites to wireless service providers&  ); see also Crown Castle 2018 Corporate Sustainability Report, at 5 ( Shared Infrastructure Model ); Verizon Wireless 2019 Annual Report, at 51 ( We lease network equipment including towers, distributed antenna systems, small cells, &  ); T-Mobile 2019 Annual Report, Part I, Item 2, at 27 ( As of December 31, 2019, we primarily leased approximately 66,000 macro towers and 25,000 distributed antenna system and small cell sites ). 114 See Wireless Estimator, Top 100 Tower Companies in the U.S. (Crown Castle at 40,567, American Tower at 40,586, and SBA at 16,401, not including rooftop sites, DAS and small cells), http://www.wirelessestimator.com/t_content.cfm?pagename=US-Cell-Tower-Companies-Complete-List (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); see also American Tower 2019 Annual Report, Part I, at 1 (40,974 sites in the United States as of Dec. 31, 2019); Crown Castle, Company Overview (August 2020), at 4 (over 40,000 towers), https://investor.crowncastle.com/static-files/e2d9530c-7a09-4247-8e63-449ea2bc3926; SBA 2019 Annual Report, Item I, at 3 (16,401 sites as of Dec. 31, 2019). 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 respectively.115 The three tower companies also have significant capacity available for additional antennas or tenants.116 Figure II.A.17 shows that, as of May 2020, there were three or more tower or cell site operators in 2,885 (around 89%) counties nationwide, and four or more tower operators in 2,457 (around 76%) counties nationwide based on information from 32 tower or cell site operators in the United States.117 Fig. II.A.17 Number of Counties with a Certain Number of Site Operators, May 2020 700 662 590 600 519 500 428 400 319 300 237 201 200 73 101 100 32 46 19 0 Number Number Countiesof 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Site Operators in a County Source: 32 tower companies data on standalone towers, rooftops, DAS, and small cells (May 2020). 4. Pricing Levels and Trends 37. Mobile service providers continue to offer nationwide pricing plans throughout their service areas, with little variation in monthly recurring charges between rural and non-rural markets.118 The majority of mobile wireless subscribers in the United States are  postpaid subscribers, billed each 115 Crown Castle Earnings Materials Q4 2019, Supplemental Information Package and Non-GAAP Reconciliations, Fourth Quarter (Dec. 31, 2019), at 8 (average of 2.1 tenants per tower), https://investor.crowncastle.com/static- files/8e62e78b-eacc-4aed-8d36-e13f2d475b8a; SBA 2019 Annual Report, Item 1, at 1 (average of 1.8 tenants per tower). 116 American Tower 2019 Annual Report, Part I, at 4 ( We believe that the majority of our towers have capacity for additional tenants and that substantially all of our towers that are currently at or near full structural capacity can be upgraded or augmented to meet future tenant demand with relatively modest capital investment. ); SBA 2019 Annual Report, Item 1, at 1 ( most of our towers have significant capacity available for additional antennas ); Crown Castle Earnings Materials Q1 2020, Supplemental Information Package and Non-GAAP Reconciliations, First Quarter (Mar. 31, 2020), at 3, https://investor.crowncastle.com/static-files/8e62e78b-eacc-4aed-8d36- e13f2d475b8a ( We seek to increase our site rental revenues by adding more tenants on our shared communications Infrastructure ). 117 Tower site information was downloaded from 32 tower providers websites between February and May 2020 (except the Crown Castle data that are from April 2018 since the general public can no longer download Crown Castle s tower list from its website). See Wireless Estimator, Top 100 Tower Companies in the U.S., http://www.wirelessestimator.com/t_content.cfm?pagename=US-Cell-Tower-Companies-Complete-List (last visited Oct. 27, 2020) 118 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12570, para. 14; Sixteenth Wireless Competition Report, 28 FCC Rcd at 3797, para. 137. The pricing analysis included in this section shows that mobile service providers offer nationwide pricing plans available throughout their service area, with no pricing disparity between rural and urban markets, rendering unnecessary a separate standalone rate survey authorized in the 2011 Order that modernized the universal service program for awarding support to mobile service providers in high-cost areas. See Connect America Fund, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663, 17694, 17708-09, paras. 85, 113, 114 (2011). 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 month after service has been provided, while fewer are  prepaid subscribers paying for services in advance of receiving them.119 a. Postpaid Service 38. In 2019, service providers continued the trend of offering unlimited data plans,120 with major providers adding tiers to their unlimited data plans.121 Providers also continued not to count certain types of data towards deprioritization and data limits (T-Mobile s  Binge On program, for example).122 Competition is intensifying as companies expand their service offerings to compete in an ever more connected world. As CTIA states,  Wireless consumers are benefitting in the form of lower prices, device promotions, unlimited data services, bundled service offerings, additional incentives, free add-ons, and more. 123 39. T-Mobile, for example, introduced two new unlimited plans in June 2019, Magenta and Magenta Plus.124 Magenta and Magenta Plus are upgraded versions of T-Mobile ONE and T-Mobile One Plus.125 In contrast to T-Mobile ONE, the Magenta plan adds 3 GB of high-speed smartphone hotspot or tethering per line and unlimited 3G tethering thereafter. Magenta Plus keeps all the value in T-Mobile ONE Plus including a Netflix Standard subscription for families. As with the T-Mobile ONE plan, customers would continue to get unlimited talk, text, and 4G LTE smartphone data, free data and texting in 210+ countries and destinations, an hour of Gogo inflight Wi-Fi and unlimited texting on domestic flights, and more. Subsequently, in August 2019, Verizon Wireless introduced a new lineup of unlimited 119 The prepaid and postpaid versions of a given pricing plan or promotion still differ somewhat, largely because prepaid subscribers may lack the credit background or income necessary to qualify for postpaid service. To prevent credit losses and mitigate the credit risk associated with the prepaid segment, service providers require advance payment for both prepaid service and handsets. 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12570, para. 14. 120 While a majority of unlimited plans are offered to postpaid subscribers, some providers now also offer unlimited plans to their prepaid subscribers. 121 Postpaid subscribers who use up their plan s data allowance in a given month generally experience data deprioritization only during network congestion. See, e.g., T-Mobile, Magenta, https://www.t-mobile.com/cell- phone-plans/magenta (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Verizon Wireless, Get More Unlimited FAQs, https://www.verizonwireless.com/support/get-more-unlimited-faqs/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Verizon Wireless, Get More Unlimited  Data plan FAQs, https://www.verizonwireless.com/support/above-unlimited-faqs/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). AT&T, on their Mobile Share Plus plans, offers zero overages, as well as  Rollover Data, which allows its postpaid subscribers to roll over their unused data at no additional cost. AT&T, Save More with Unlimited Your WaySM, https://www.att.com/shop/wireless/data-plans.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); AT&T, Rollover Data FAQs, https://att-bundles.com/faq/wireless/does-att-offer-rollover-data/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 122 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12570, para. 15. On all T-Mobile plans, during congestion, a small fraction of customers using more than 50 GB a month may notice reduced speeds until the next bill cycle due to prioritization. See T-Mobile, Unlimited video streaming with Binge On, https://www.t- mobile.com/offers/binge-on-streaming-video (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 123 CTIA Comments at 30. 124 T-Mobile, Love Your Discount, Not Your Carrier? T Mobile Will Match or Beat that Discount on Magenta (May 23, 2019), https://www.t-mobile.com/news/press/uncarrier-launches-discount-match. T-Mobile, Plans, https://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phone-plans (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 125 T-Mobile ONE offered unlimited 4G LTE smartphone data; unlimited talk and text; industry-first Un-carrier benefits; unlimited smartphone mobile hotspot data (tethering) at 2G speeds; and 200 MB domestic roaming off- network. T-Mobile, T-Mobile ONE Fact Sheet, https://www.t-mobile.com/news/press/t-mobile-fact-sheet (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). In addition to everything the T-Mobile ONE plan offers, T-Mobile One Plus customers received unlimited HD streaming in the United States; 20 GB of 4G LTE mobile hotspot data with unlimited 3G data; twice the data speeds abroad; unlimited in-flight Wi-Fi on Gogo-enabled flights to, from, or within the United States; voicemail to text; and name ID (identify calls from unknown numbers). See T-Mobile, T-Mobile One Plus, https://www.t-mobile.com/support/plans-features/t-mobile-one-plus (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 plans starting at $35 per line for four lines, which include: Start Unlimited, Do More Unlimited, Play More Unlimited, Get More Unlimited, and Just Kids (introduced in April 2019). Verizon Wireless s largest plan, Get More Unlimited, includes 75 GB of 4G LTE data, along with 720p HD video streaming for $90 (1 line) per month.126 40. In November 2019, AT&T launched three new unlimited plans: AT&T Unlimited Starter for $35 per line for four lines, AT&T Unlimited Extra for $40 per line for four lines, and AT&T Unlimited Elite for $50 per line for four lines.127 The largest plan, AT&T Unlimited Elite, includes 30 GB of mobile hotspot data per line, HD streaming, and HBO.128 U.S. Cellular offered a new unlimited plan that removes previous caps on 4G LTE data, starting at $55 per month for one line in August 2019.129 In November 2019, U.S. Cellular further introduced new unlimited plans, including Basic, Everyday, and Even Better Unlimited Plans, starting at $30 per line for four lines allowing customers to choose and customize their plans.130 b. Prepaid Service 41. The three nationwide service providers also offer prepaid service under their own prepaid brands, in addition to selling mobile wireless service wholesale to MVNOs. Verizon Wireless has the smallest share of prepaid subscribers among the nationwide service providers, with only one prepaid brand, Verizon Wireless Prepaid.131 To varying degrees, the other two nationwide service providers pursue a multi-brand prepaid strategy.132 TracFone, the largest MVNO, also has multiple prepaid brands, including Net10 Wireless, Straight Talk, Clearway, Walmart Family Mobile, SIMPLE Mobile, Telcel, SafeLink, Page Plus, and GoSmart Mobile, which target different market and demographic segments such as premium, Hispanic, or low-income subscribers.133 42. In addition, T-Mobile entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Sprint and DISH, whereby DISH would acquire Sprint s prepaid wireless business, operated under the Boost Mobile and Sprint prepaid brands (excluding the Assurance brand Lifeline customers and the prepaid wireless 126 Access to Verizon s 5G Ultra-Wideband network is $10 per month with any of the unlimited plans, and for a limited time was included in the Get More Unlimited, Do More Unlimited and Play More Unlimited plans. Verizon Wireless, Verizon customers get more plans to fit everyone in the family with more ways to save (Aug. 2, 2019), https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-customers-get-more-plans. 127 AT&T, AT&T to Offer Its Best Unlimited Wireless Plans at an Incredible Value (Oct. 30, 2019), https://about.att.com/story/2019/new_unlimited_plans.html. 128 AT&T Unlimited Starter offers unlimited data, talk, and text in the United States, as well as in Mexico and Canada; AT&T Unlimited Extra gives all the benefits of Starter, plus 15GB of mobile hotspot data per line. 129 Fierce Wireless, US Cellular drops data cap with new $55/month unlimited plan (Aug. 9, 2019), https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/us-cellular-drops-data-cap-new-55-month-unlimited-plan. 130 U.S. Cellular s new Everyday Unlimited Plan comes with bonus features such as HD video streaming, roaming in Mexico and Canada, 15 GB of hotspot access, 25 GB of priority data and one free movie night per month/line through the company s new entertainment partner, Redbox, for $40 per line/month for four lines. U.S. Cellular, U.S. Cellular Offers Customers Choice and Customization with New Unlimited Plans Starting at $30 per Month (Nov. 4, 2019), https://www.uscellular.com/get-to-know-us/our-company/press-room/2019/USCellular-Offers-Customers- Choice-and-Customization-with-New-Unlimited-Plans-Starting-at-30-per-Month. 131 As noted above, Verizon Wireless announced that it has entered into an agreement to acquire TracFone from América Móvil. Verizon Wireless, Verizon to acquire TracFone Wireless (Sept. 14, 2020), https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-to-acquire-tracfone. 132 AT&T prepaid brands include AT&T Prepaid and Cricket; T-Mobile prepaid brands include Metro by T-Mobile (formerly MetroPCS). 133 TracFone Wireless Inc., Brands, http://www.tracfonewirelessinc.com/en/brands/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 customers of Shenandoah Telecommunications Company and Swiftel Communications, Inc.).134 On July 1, 2020, DISH announced that it had completed its $1.4 billion acquisition of Boost Mobile. With this purchase, DISH officially entered the retail wireless market, serving more than nine million customers. The company continues to promote the Boost Mobile brand.135 43. Furthermore, as postpaid offerings have shifted away from term contracts and equipment subsidies, facilities-based service providers have adopted pricing plans and promotions for their high-end prepaid monthly service offerings that are similar to their postpaid offerings. For example, in October 2018, T-Mobile s Metro by T-Mobile introduced new all-unlimited plans. For one line at $60 per month, customers get: Unlimited 4G LTE data (reduced after 35 GB, 480p streaming only), a 15 GB 4G LTE mobile hotspot, Google One s 100 GB tier of cloud storage, and Amazon Prime.136 AT&T s Cricket offered new customers, as a limited time offering, their Unlimited BYOD Plan for $40 a month in November 2019.137 In July 2020, DISH s Boost Mobile offered its customers a $35 10 GB plan that includes unlimited talk and text.138 Generally, prepaid subscribers who reach the limit of their high-speed data allowance in a given month may continue to use their handsets for data service on an unlimited basis, but at reduced speeds.139 For example, Cricket reduces data download speeds to a maximum of 128 kbps after the customer s high-speed data allowance is used.140 c. Price Indicators for Mobile Wireless Services 44. As can be seen from the discussion above, it is difficult to directly compare prices between providers or over time, because providers offer a variety of plans, frequently under multipart pricing and bundling schemes. Plans also vary in non-price terms and features, such as the consequences of reaching usage limits.141 Figure II.A.18 presents monthly postpaid prices for the three nationwide service providers basic, mid-level, and premium unlimited plans, including now-common discounts for automatic payments.142 Basic unlimited plans offer little more than unlimited talk, text, and data, and 134 T-Mobile, 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 75 (filed Feb. 6, 2020) (T-Mobile 2019 SEC Form 10-K) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001283699/000128369920000026/tmus-20191231.htm. 135 DISH, DISH enters retail wireless market with close of Boost Mobile, advances build of the nation's first standalone 5G network (July 1, 2020), http://about.dish.com/2020-07-01-DISH-enters-retail-wireless-market-with- close-of-Boost-Mobile-advances-build-of-the-nations-first-standalone-5G-network. 136 Fierce Wireless, T-Mobile rebrands MetroPCS prepaid service as  Metro by T-Mobile (Sept. 24, 2018), https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/t-mobile-rebrands-metropcs-prepaid-service-as-metro-by-t-mobile. 137 Cricket, Calling All New Customers: Bring Your Device to Cricket this Holiday for  Unlimited Wireless Savings (Nov. 20, 2019), https://www.cricketwireless.com/newsroom/news-release/40-Dollar-BYOD.html. This promotional price ran from November 22, 2019 through January 30, 2020. 138 DISH, DISH enters retail wireless market with close of Boost Mobile, advances build of the nation's first standalone 5G network (July 1, 2020), http://about.dish.com/2020-07-01-DISH-enters-retail-wireless-market-with- close-of-Boost-Mobile-advances-build-of-the-nations-first-standalone-5G-network. 139 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12572, para. 17. 140 Cricket Wireless, Mobile Broadband Information (July 24, 2020), https://www.cricketwireless.com/legal- info/mobile-broadband-information.html. 141 It is therefore difficult to identify sources of information that track mobile wireless service prices in a comprehensive and consistent manner. In addition, data on subscribership is not available at the plan level. Thus, a comparison of average prices would require assumptions regarding the number of customers who subscribe to each plan that each company offers, which would not likely be accurate due to a lack of data. See, e.g., 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12572, para. 18; Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9006, para. 57. 142 In addition, T-Mobile incorporates taxes and fees into its advertised prices for its Magenta and Magenta Plus plans. As these fees vary by locality, we are unable to fully account for the differences in pricing in Fig. II.A.18 in this Report. 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 speeds that are deprioritized during network congestion. Mid-level plans typically offer increased data before deprioritization, some high-speed mobile hotspot data, discounted or free subscription to an online video service (e.g., Netflix or Disney+), and improved video streaming quality. Premium plans typically offer increased mobile hotspot data limits, video quality, and other varying features across the providers. Figure II.A.19 shows the current monthly prices for major prepaid service providers. Unlimited service is also the primary offering of prepaid plans, although postpaid users frequently are given priority over prepaid users on a given network during times of peak congestion.143 Further, postpaid and prepaid users may also experience deprioritized speeds during periods of peak network congestion after they have exceeded certain monthly data thresholds, depending on their plan type. The limits are shown in Figures II.A.20 and II.A.21. Fig. II.A.18 Monthly Postpaid Unlimited Prices for Top 3 Service Providers Plan Type Basic Mid-Level Premium Provider 1 Line 4 Lines 1 Line 4 Lines 1 Line 4 Lines AT&T $65 $140 $75 $160 $85 $200 T-Mobile $60 $120 $70 $160 $85 $200 Verizon Wireless $70 $140 $80 $180 $90 $220 Fig. II.A.19 Monthly Prepaid Unlimited Prices for Top 4 Service Providers Plan Type Basic Premium Provider 1 Line 4 Lines 1 Line 4 Lines Boost Mobile $50 $140 $60 $180 Cricket $50 $100 $55 $130 Metro $50 $140 $60 $150 Straight Talk $55 N/A N/A N/A Note: The prices for unlimited data plans in Figures II.A.18 and II.A.19 were taken from service providers websites on July 31, 2020. Prices include any per line charges indicated by the service provider, but exclude fees and taxes. Prices do not include any additional charges such as for equipment installment plans, insurance, international use, or mobile hotspots. If a service provider includes any such feature as part of its unlimited data plan without extra charge, the above price would include this feature. Further, the above prices do not include any one-time charges paid, such as activation fees and termination fees, nor promotions that are advertised as short-term. Prices and the specifics of the plans are subject to change. Fig. II.A.20 Data Deprioritization Limits for Top 3 Postpaid Service Providers 143 For example, MetroPCS in its Terms and Conditions indicates that  [t]o differentiate the services we sell, at times and at locations where there are competing customer demands for network resources, we give the data traffic of customers who choose T-Mobile-branded services precedence over the data traffic of customers who choose non-T- Mobile-branded services such as Metro by T-Mobile. See Metro by T-Mobile, Metro by T-Mobile Terms and Conditions of Service, https://www.metropcs.com/terms-conditions/terms-conditions-service.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). See also Cricket, Mobile Broadband Information (July 24, 2020), https://www.cricketwireless.com/legal- info/mobile-broadband-information.html ( Congestion Management may affect certain customers on the Cricket Core Plan or the Cricket More Plan that provides unlimited data access. On these unlimited plans, customers may experience reduced data speeds and increased latency during periods of network congestion as compared to other customers using the same cell site. ). 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Plan Type Provider Basic Mid-Level Premium AT&T Congestion 50 GB 100 GB T-Mobile Congestion 50 GB 50 GB Verizon Wireless Congestion 25-50 GB 75 GB Fig. II.A.21 Data Deprioritization Limits for Top 4 Prepaid Service Providers Plan Type Provider Basic Premium Boost Mobile 35 GB 35 GB Cricket Congestion Congestion Metro 35 GB 35 GB Straight Talk 60 GB N/A Note: The deprioritization limits in Figures II.A.20 and II.A.21 were taken from service providers websites on July 31, 2020.  Congestion indicates that users are deprioritized when there is congestion on the network, regardless of the amount of data a customer has consumed in a given month. 45. Consumer Price Index. The CPI is a measure of the average change over time in the prices consumers pay for a fixed market basket of goods and services. As documented in previous Reports, the Wireless Telephone Services CPI144 shows that mobile wireless prices have declined significantly since the mid-1990s.145 According to the CPI data, the price (in constant dollars) of mobile wireless services has continued to decline: From 2018 to 2019, the annual Wireless Telephone Services CPI decreased by approximately 3% while the broader Telephone Services CPI fell by 1%, and the overall CPI increased by approximately 2%.146 Further, from 2017 through 2019, the annual Wireless Telephone Services CPI decreased by approximately 5%, the Telephone Services CPI decreased by approximately 3%, and the overall CPI increased by approximately 4%. 46. Average Revenue Per Unit. Various measures of Average Revenue per Unit (ARPU) are frequently used as a proxy for price, particularly in industries with multiple pricing plans and complicated rate structures, such as mobile wireless services.147 As shown in Figure II.A.22 below, which is based on CTIA data, from 2017 to 2019 industry ARPU fell from $38.66 to $36.86, a decline of approximately 144 All CPI figures were taken from Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) databases (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Home Page, http://www.bls.gov (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). The index used in this analysis, the CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), represents about 93% of the total U.S. population. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index: Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.bls.gov/cpi/questions-and-answers.htm (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). The CPI category  Telephone Services has two components: Wireless telephone services and landline telephone services. Additional information can be found at U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index: How the Consumer Price Index Measures Price Change for Telephone Services, https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/telephone-services.htm (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 145 See, e.g., 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12574, para. 19. 146 For changes in the CPI over time, see Appx. B-2 of this Report. 147 See Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, Seventeenth Report, 29 FCC Rcd 15311, 15328, para. 35 & n.52 (WTB 2014) (Seventeenth Wireless Competition Report); Patrick McCloughan and Sean Lyons, Accounting for ARPU: New evidence from international panel data, Telecommunications Policy 30, 521-32 (2006); Eun-A Park and Krishna Jayakar, Competition between Standards and the Prices of Mobile Telecommunication Services: Analysis of Panel Data, TPRC 2015 (Aug. 15, 2015). 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 5%.148 Recent changes by service providers, such as the removal of overage charges, the move toward unlimited data plans, multiple line pricing, and Equipment Installment Plans (EIPs) have all contributed to the reported decline in ARPU.149 Fig II.A.22 Total Wireless Subscribers, ARPU 1994 - 2019 500 $70.00 450 442 $60.00 400 350 $50.00 300 $40.00 250 200 $30.00 $36.86 150 $20.00 100 $10.00 50 0 $0.00 Year Reported Subscribers (millions) ARPU ($) Source: CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report. 47. Average Revenue Per Unit by Service Provider. Based on UBS estimates, as seen in Figure II.A.23, from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2019, subscriber-based ARPU declined for all service providers. Specifically, AT&T s ARPU declined by approximately 19%; Sprint s ARPU declined by approximately 1%; and T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless s ARPU both declined by approximately 5%. Industry ARPU declined by approximately 10% over this time period. 148 CTIA reported an industry average measure of ARPU which is calculated  based on total reported wireless service revenues for the period, divided by the average reported subscriber units during the survey period. CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report at 8. 149 Fig. II.A.22 presents more than 20 years of subscribers/connections and ARPU. For additional details on ARPUs from 1993 to 2019, see Appx. B-3 of this Report. 34 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.A.23 ARPU Estimates of National Facilities-Based Mobile Wireless Service Providers 4th Quarter 2016 4th Quarter 2019 Nationwide Providers 4Q16 4Q17 4Q18 4Q19 AT&T $36.58 $34.13 $29.57 $27.71 Sprint $32.03 $32.49 $33.31 $32.04 T-Mobile $33.80 $35.62 $34.27 $33.73 Verizon Wireless $37.52 $35.27 $33.98 $33.52 Industry ARPU $35.93 $34.73 $32.51 $31.38 Source: UBS Investment Research. UBS Data 2016-2019. Published with permission of UBS. 48. Revenue Share by Service Provider. As shown in Figure II.A.24, AT&T and Verizon Wireless faced declining service revenues from 2016 through 2018, however their revenues increased in 2019. Sprint s service revenues fell in each reporting period. Finally, T-Mobile had significant revenue growth each year from 2016 through 2019. Fig. II.A.24 Service Revenues and Shares Among Nationwide Wireless Service Providers ($ millions) 2016 2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 Service Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Providers Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Share Share Share Share AT&T 59,153 33.3% 57,023 33.0% 54,294 31.7% 55,331 31.6% Sprint 24,200 13.6% 22,736 13.1% 21,980 12.8% 20,971 12.0% T-Mobile 27,844 15.7% 30,160 17.4% 31,992 18.7% 33,994 19.4% Verizon Wireless 66,580 37.5% 63,121 36.5% 63,020 36.8% 64,979 37.1% Source: UBS Investment Research. UBS Data 2016-2019. Published with permission of UBS. 49. Estimated Average Revenue per GB. Given the variation in data plans, including shared plans, the lack of information on how much data users consume across these different plans, and the fact that revenues specific to data consumption are no longer reported by service providers, we lack the necessary information to measure precisely the price per GB of mobile broadband data. By making certain assumptions,150 however, we can provide various industry-wide estimates of the average revenues 150 To derive $/GB (Total Rev), we divide the Total Service Revenues by the Total Wireless Data Traffic, assuming that 100% of service revenues are attributable to data. CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices at 39, 62. To derive $/GB (All Users) and $/GB (Smartphones) we divide ARPU by the monthly average GB data usage, and we calculate this metric both with all users and with smartphone users only. Again, this assumes that 100% of revenues are attributable to data and that average revenue is the same for both smartphone users and non-smartphone users. CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry at 44, 63. Finally, for $/GB (Est. Data Rev), we estimate the percentage of total revenues that are attributable to data by dividing Internet Access Service Revenues by Total Revenues for NAICS 5172, U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 Annual Service Survey, Table 4: Estimated Sources of Revenue for Employer Firms: 2013 through 2018, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/econ/services/sas-naics.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). The 2019 data percentage was estimated based on the average growth rate across 2015 to 2018. We then applied these percentages to the CTIA data (Total Service Revenues/Total Wireless Data Traffic). CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices at 39, 62. This does not take into account the fraction of revenues (continued& .) 35 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 per GB. Figure II.A.25 below shows four different estimates of the average revenue per GB, based on data from CTIA and the U.S. Census Bureau. All four estimates indicate that average revenue per GB has been declining. Specifically, as of year-end 2019, these estimates show a decrease of approximately 20% to 30% compared to 2018, and a decrease of approximately 62% to 68% compared to 2016. Fig. II.A.25 Estimates of Wireless Average Revenue per GB: 2015-2019 $25 $/GB (Total Rev) $20 $/GB (All Users) $15 $/GB (Smartphones) $/GB (Est Data Rev) $10 Estimated Estimated Revenue per GB $5 $0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report; U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 Annual Service Survey. 5. Non-Price Competition a. Investment 50. Over the past 10 years, according to CTIA data,151 mobile wireless service providers have invested over $286 billion in their networks, with service providers reporting $29.1 billion in incremental investment in 2019.152 As a result of the continued investment in their networks, consumers have benefitted greatly from the resulting increase in higher data speeds, expanded network coverage, and increased network densification.153 Based on the most current data from UBS Investment Research, in that are made up of messaging. Note that prior Reports reported a $/MB figure. However, we will now report a price per GB, as the price per MB is below one cent. 151 According to CTIA, the capital investment reported  excludes the cost of licenses used to deliver wireless service, whether acquired at private or public auctions, or via other acquisition processes. Likewise, investment by third-party tower erectors, and non-carrier owners or managers of networks, is not tracked by nor reflected in CTIA s survey. CTIA s survey collects only historical (past data) and not projected or planned investment. CTIA Year-End 2019 Wireless Industry Indices Report at 47. 152 Id. 153 We note that capital expenditure (CapEx) in system/network assets may be cyclical or  lumpy because technological change in the mobile wireless service industry is commercially implemented in successive generations of technologies. Consequently, CapEx may vary between periods, and fluctuations in measures of CapEx are (continued& .) 36 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 2019, wireless service providers made total capital investments of $30.7 billion, of which the nationwide providers accounted for $29.8 billion.154 51. Figure II.A.26 shows capital investment by providers. In 2016-2017, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless each had CapEx of approximately 16.3% to 17.4% of service revenue.155 CapEx by Sprint, on the other hand, has varied considerably over the years, from approximately 17% of service revenue in 2015, to 7.5% in 2016, and to 11% in 2017. In the last few years, all four nationwide providers have invested a higher percentage of their revenues into their respective networks in preparation for 5G. Overall, over the past three years, the CapEx for the nationwide providers averaged approximately 17% of service revenues.156 As the mobile wireless industry prepares for a full rollout of 5G services, equipment vendor, Ericsson, for example, reported that worldwide, it currently has over 100 commercial agreements for the deployment of 5G, and that in the United States, all of the nationwide providers have selected it as an equipment vendor.157 S&P Global Market Intelligence recently reported that it estimates that capital investment by U.S. mobile providers could  grow at 5% for 2020, boosted by small cells, 5G deployments and to a lesser extent, a new wireless entrant, 158 namely DISH. consistent with the cyclical nature of technological adoption in the mobile wireless service industry. Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9014, para. 68. 154 UBS and CTIA numbers may differ as they use different methodologies for accounting for CapEx. CTIA s data are based on their voluntary survey of all wireless providers (with a very high response rate). UBS uses quarterly and annual filings from publicly traded service providers along with their wireless model to calculate industry investment. 155 UBS Investment Research. UBS Data, 2016-2019. 156 Id. 157 Ericsson 5G, Discover the Power of 5G, https://www.ericsson.com/5g/5g-networks/5g-contracts (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 158 S&P Global Market Intelligence: Wireless Investor: Capex rising with 5G (last accessed Aug. 3, 2020). 37 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.A.26 Wireless Capital Expenditures by Provider 2016 - 2019 $14,000 11,725 $12,000 11,240 11,300 10,310 10,500 9,750 10,053 $10,000 9,400 9,575 8,486 $8,000 5,918 $6,000 5,208 5,179 4,724 4,416 4,702 4,043 3,884 $4,000 2,510 1,797 $2,000 Capital Expenditures ($ Millions)($ Expenditures Capital $0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Verizon AT&T T-Mobile Sprint Source: UBS Investment Research. UBS Data 2016-2019. Published with permission of UBS. b. Innovation and Technological Change 52. Focusing first on 4G LTE, we note that 4G LTE networks transformed the wireless industry: Increases in download speeds and network capacities allowed consumers to use their mobile devices in new ways, such as streaming video in high definition, accessing ride sharing platforms, and live-mapping driving routes.159 CTIA reports that from the initial deployment of 4G LTE networks in 2010 through the end of 2019, the average 4G download speed has increased by a factor of 31, from 1.3 megabits per second to 41 megabits per second.160 Mobile data consumption also increased dramatically: In 2019, Americans used more than 37 million gigabytes of data, a 96-fold increase from 2010.161 In a series of surveys, Pew found that 81% of Americans owned a smartphone in 2019 compared to just 35% in 2011.162 Between January 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020, users worldwide installed an estimated 71.5 billion apps from the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store.163 CTIA reports that the number of American jobs that depend on the wireless industry has grown significantly from 3.7 million in 2011 to 20.4 million in 2019.164 159 Letter from Kara Graves, Assistant Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, OEA Docket No. 20-60, WTB Docket No. 19-348, Attach., The 4G Decade: Quantifying the Benefits at 10 (filed Aug. 6, 2020) (CTIA 4G Decade Report). 160 CTIA 4G Decade Report at 10. 161 Id. at 11. 162 See Pew Mobile Fact Sheet. 163 Sarah Perez, Global App Revenue Jumps to $50B in the First Half of 2020, in part Due to COVID-19 Impacts, Tech Crunch, (June 30, 2020), https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/30/global-app-revenue-jumps-to-50b-in-the-first- half-of-2020-in-part-due-to-covid-19-impacts/. 164 CTIA 4G Decade Report at 6. 38 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 53. The wireless industry is currently implementing the new 5G technology standard.165 Industry participants expect 5G networks to deliver faster download speeds and reduced latency to users than previous technologies, while also expanding network capacity.166 Further, the new reliability and security standards of 5G167 could support a large number of connected devices.168 In addition to the low- and mid-band spectrum used by previous cellular technologies such as 4G LTE, 5G may also be deployed on high-frequency spectrum bands (mmW spectrum).169 Bands with higher frequencies can transmit more information but have less favorable propagation characteristics, especially in indoor settings.170 5G, however, makes high-frequency bands practical for wireless use through advances in antenna design and the use of small cells that reduce transmission distances.171 54. 5G s expected performance gains could improve both how consumers use their mobile devices on a day-to-day basis and the productivity in a wide range of industries.172 For example, 5G networks could allow users to access content more quickly, stream video at higher qualities, and use fully immersive virtual reality and augmented reality technologies.173 As 5G networks continue to expand, their ability to support high-definition video chat has the potential to enhance mobile telemedicine visits in a greater number of areas, allowing patients to seek care more quickly and conveniently.174 As the Free State Foundation (FSF) explains,175 the additional capacity of 5G may also allow service providers to provide fixed wireless broadband access,176 which may be particularly useful in rural areas with limited wireline infrastructure, but high wireless penetration.177 In urban areas, 5G networks using mmW spectrum would create the potential for gigabit data rates, low latency, and increased capacity, which would improve network performance in heavily trafficked areas.178 Further, improved antenna beam 165 For purposes of 5G mapping, the Commission has adopted the 5G-NR technology standards developed by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 7524, para.44; Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection et al., WC Docket No. 19-195, 11- 10, Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 7460, 7476-7483, paras. 38- 51 (2020) (Digital Opportunity Data Collection Second Order and Third Further Notice). 166 See WEF World Economic Forum, The Impact of 5G: Creating New Value Across Industries and Society, at 7, (Jan. 2020), http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Impact_of_5G_Report.pdf (WEF 5G Impact Report). 167 See 3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP TR 21.915 V15.0.0 (2019-09) Technical Report, (Sept. 2019), https://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/archive/21_series/21.915/21915-f00.zip. 168 See IHS Markit, The 5G Economy: How 5G Will Contribute to the Global Economy, at 11-14, (Nov. 2019), https://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/files/ihs-5g-economic-impact-study-2019.pdf (IHS 5G Economic Impact Study). 169 IHS 5G Economic Impact Study at 15. 170 See generally e.g., Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order. 171 CTIA Comments at 59. 172 See IHS 5G Economic Impact Study at 14-19. 173 See AMTA The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association, 5G & EMF Explained 5G & EMF, at 4 (March 2018), https://amta.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/5GEMF_Explained_May2018_Final-1.pdf (AMTA 5G Explained). 174 See AT&T, 5 Ways 5G Will Transform Healthcare, https://www.business.att.com/learn/updates/how-5g-will- transform-the-healthcare-industry.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 175 FSF Comments at 13. 176 WEF 5G Impact Report at 7. 177 IHS 5G Economic Impact Study at 28. 178 Id. at 15. 39 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 steering creates more reliable connections when users are moving at high speeds, thus improving the consumer experience when traveling by car or public transit.179 55. Other use cases could benefit primarily from 5G s potential to expand applications of the Internet of Things (IoT). 5G networks can support a greater number of connected devices operating in concert, which should allow both businesses and individuals to implement more intricate IoT systems.180 GSMA estimates that the number of connected devices will increase from 9.1 billion in 2018 to 25.2 billion in 2025, and that 3.1 billion of those devices will use cellular technologies.181 Precision agriculture, which involves the use of IoT in farm management, is expected to be important in the years to come.182 With access to 5G networks, farmers will be better positioned to manage crops using specialized connected devices, such as autonomous vehicles for field tasks,183 and sensors that monitor moisture levels and the chemical composition of soil.184 Remote monitoring is also expected to be applied in industrial settings, where IoT connected devices can be used to optimize production, predict maintenance, and monitor safety risks that otherwise could not be detected.185 Additionally, the low latency of 5G connections potentially allows firms to automate precise and time-sensitive processes.186 56. Smart home devices are also expected to increasingly leverage 5G cellular networks, with the goal of improving device reliability and alleviating difficulties in device setup.187 In telehealth, the expansion of IoT medical devices could allow healthcare providers to monitor more patients remotely and to improve health outcomes.188 GSMA s 2019 5G report suggests that cities could see significant benefits from 5G deployment.189 For example, GSMA suggests that cities may be able to better manage traffic through IoT connected traffic lights and road cameras.190 5G is also expected to play an important role in autonomous vehicles. In the short term, 5G networks may be used to create more effective driver assistance features, while in the long run 5G networks have the capability to offload the large amounts of data needed to make vehicles fully autonomous.191 179 AMTA 5G Explained at 5. 180 See GSMA, Internet of Things in the 5G Era: Opportunities and Benefits for Enterprises and Consumers, at 3 (Nov. 2019), https://www.gsma.com/iot/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/201911-GSMA-IoT-Report-IoT-in-the-5G- Era.pdf (GSMA IoT Report). 181 See GSMA, The GSMA Guide to the Internet of Things, at 2 (Sept. 2018), https://www.gsma.com/iot/wp- content/uploads/2018/09/4048-GSMA-IOT-Guide2018-WEB.pdf. 182 See, e.g., Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural America, GN Docket No. 20-32, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 3994, 3996, para. 5 (2020) (5G Fund NPRM and Order). 183 CTIA Comments at 36. 184 IHS 5G Economic Impact Study at 19. 185 Id. at 31. 186 WEF 5G Impact Report at 7. 187 IHS 5G Economic Impact Study at 30-31. 188 AT&T Business Editorial Team, 5 ways 5G will transform healthcare, https://www.business.att.com/learn/updates/how-5g-will-transform-the-healthcare-industry.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 189 GSMA IoT Report at 4. 190 Id. at 8. 191 IHS 5G Economic Impact Study at 31. 40 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 57. In contrast to prior generations of technologies, the costly process of transitioning spectrum from 4G use to 5G use may be largely avoided through Dynamic Spectrum Sharing (DSS).192 DSS allows service providers to allocate spectrum resources between 4G and 5G in real time.193 In effect, 4G and 5G users would be able to coexist within the same spectrum band, alleviating the need to completely clear bands during transition.194 c. Mobile Wireless Devices, Services, and Advertising 58. In addition to competing on device promotions, price, and network quality, mobile wireless providers compete using differentiated plans and bundled services. Wireless providers frequently offer a variety of plans and services to appeal to subsets of consumers.195 As noted in section II.A.4,196 plans may differ in features such as video streaming services, streaming quality, data limits, and thresholds that trigger speed limits.197 Wireless providers also compete by offering mobile hotspots with differing available speeds and data limits, cloud storage differentiated by storage allowances, and international service capabilities.198 59. Mobile wireless service providers frequently offer special promotions for customers porting their numbers from competitors or adding new lines to their account.199 For example, in December 2019, AT&T, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular, and Verizon Wireless all offered different promotions involving the Samsung Galaxy S10E.200 AT&T offered a free Galaxy S10E with the purchase of a standard S10 or S10 Plus using the company s annual trade-in plan. Similarly, Verizon Wireless offered a free S10E with purchase of an S10 or S10 Plus, with the requirements that the consumer must start at least one new line of service and also pay off the balance if they leave Verizon Wireless within 24 months of receiving the promotion. T-Mobile offered the $750 S10E for $360 to customers adding a new line, paid over 36 monthly installments. Finally, U.S. Cellular offered 50% off the price of the S10E to be paid over 30 months to new or current customers with the  Total Plan with Unlimited Plus Data. 201 60. Individuals use devices such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops to access wireless services. For example, a Deloitte survey reported that smartphone penetration had grown from 82% in 192 In February 2020, Ericsson s Head of Networks stated that they expected 80% of their commercial 5G partners to use DSS within the 12 months. Fierce Wireless, Ericsson Defends Dynamic Spectrum Sharing (Feb. 27, 2020), https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/ericsson-defends-dynamic-spectrum-sharing. 193 See Qualcomm, Key breakthroughs to drive a fast and smooth transition to 5G standalone (Aug. 19, 2019), https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2019/08/19/key-breakthroughs-drive-fast-and-smooth-transition-5g- standalone. 194 See Qualcomm, Key breakthroughs to drive a fast and smooth transition to 5G standalone (Aug. 19, 2019), https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2019/08/19/key-breakthroughs-drive-fast-and-smooth-transition-5g- standalone. 195 CTIA Comments at 30. 196 See infra section II.A.4 for additional details on service providers plans and services. 197 CTIA Comments at 30-31. 198 Jason Cipriani, Compared: 5G data plans from Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile, ZDNet (Oct. 22, 2020), https://www.zdnet.com/article/compared-5g-data-plans-from-verizon-at-t-sprint-and-t-mobile/. 199 See infra section II.A.4; see also, e.g., AT&T, Switch and Save, https://www.att.com/wireless/switch-and-save/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 200 Jeffery Van Camp, How to Pick the Right Galaxy S10, and Where to Order It, Wired (Dec. 3, 2019), https://www.wired.com/story/samsung-galaxy-s10-deals/. 201 See Jeffery Van Camp, How to Pick the Right Galaxy S10, and Where to Order It, Wired (Dec. 3, 2019), https://www.wired.com/story/samsung-galaxy-s10-deals/. 41 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 2017 to 85% in 2018.202 Statista, on the other hand, reported smartphone penetration rates of 80% in 2018, and 82% in 2019.203 To access 5G-capable networks, many smartphone users will need to upgrade their devices.204 Handset manufacturers including Samsung, Motorola, and LG are releasing 5G capable devices in 2020,205 and Apple has just announced the release of its 5G iPhone 12.206 The Consumer Technology Association (CTA) predicts that around 20 million 5G-capable phones will ship in 2020, contributing $15 billion in revenue and representing 19% of total smart phone revenue.207 61. Mobile wireless providers also compete for customers through extensive advertising and marketing campaigns.208 Service providers marketing campaigns often focus on aspects such as network quality,209 5G capabilities,210 price differences,211 differentiating services,212 and device promotions.213 In 2019, AT&T spent $6.1 billion on advertising,214 Sprint spent $1.1 billion,215 T-Mobile spent $1.6 billion,216 and Verizon Wireless spent $3.1 billion.217 During the period covered by this report, service 202 Deloitte, 2018 Global Mobile Consumer Survey: U.S. Edition at 2 (2018), https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/us-tmt- global-mobile-consumer-survey-exec-summary-2018.pdf. 203 Statista, Smartphone User Penetration as Share of Population in the United States from 2018 to 2024 (Apr. 21, 2020), https://www.statista.com/statistics/201184/percentage-of-mobile-phone-users-who-use-a-smartphone-in-the- us/. 204 Phillip Prado, Should You Upgrade Now or Wait for One of 2020 s 5G Phones (Dec. 15, 2019), https://www.androidauthority.com/5g-smartphones-2020-1063813/. 205 See, e.g., Press Release, Samsung, Capture Your World in a Whole New Way: Samsung Galaxy S20 5G Series Available Today (Mar. 6, 2020), https://news.samsung.com/us/samsung-galaxy-s20-5g-series-available-today- capture-your-world; Larry Dignan, Motorola Enters Flagship Smartphone Fray, Launches Moto Edge, Edge Plus at $999, ZDNET (Apr. 22, 2020), https://www.zdnet.com/article/motorola-enters-flagship-smartphone-fray-launches- moto-edge-edge-plus-at-999/; AT&T News, AT&T Expands 5G Device Lineup with the LG V60 ThinQ 5G Coming Soon, AT&T (Feb. 26, 2020), https://about.att.com/story/2020/lg_v60_thinq_5g.html. 206 Press Release, Apple, Apple announces iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini: A new era for iPhone with 5G (Oct. 13, 2020), https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/10/apple-announces-iphone-12-and-iphone-12-mini-a-new-era-for- iphone-with-5g/. 207 This prediction was  [p]rior to the current crisis of COVID-19 and actual shipments are likely to be lower. CTA Comments at 6-7. 208 CTIA Comments at 32-33. 209 ispot.tv, Verizon TV Commercial,  Ned: $650 When You Switch, https://www.ispot.tv/ad/IxQq/verizon-ned-650- when-you-switch (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 210 ispot.tv, T-Mobile TV Commercial,  A New Moment in Wireless Has Begun, https://www.ispot.tv/ad/nqlA/t- mobile-a-new-moment-in-wireless-has-begun (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 211 ispot.tv, T-Mobile Essentials TV Commercial,  Families Save Big: 50 Percent, https://www.ispot.tv/ad/nR50/t- mobile-families-save-big-50-percent (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 212 ispot.tv, Verizon TV Commercial,  Disney+ on Us, https://www.ispot.tv/ad/ZAFd/verizon-disney-on-us (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 213 ispot.tv, AT&T Unlimited TV Commercial,  Innovations: Jeans: Samsung Galaxy S10e , https://www.ispot.tv/ad/IJY8/at-and-t-unlimited-innovations-jeans-samsung-galaxy-s10e (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 214 AT&T Inc., SEC Form 10-K at n.22 (filed Feb. 20, 2020) (AT&T 2019 SEC Form 10-K). 215 Sprint, SEC Form 10-K at F-18 (filed May 29, 2020) 216 T-Mobile 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 70. 217 Verizon Communications Inc., SEC Form 10-K at n.15 (filed Feb. 21, 2020) (Verizon 2019 SEC Form 10-K). 42 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 providers have increasingly focused on 5G in their advertisements.218 CTIA reports that, in 2019, AT&T spent roughly $90 million on advertisements with 5G in the title, while Verizon Wireless spent roughly $86 million.219 d. Speed of Service 62. Network speed is a key characteristic of mobile wireless performance, and the Commission has recognized the importance of accurate and timely data on wireless upload and download speeds.220 Mobile broadband speeds experienced by consumers can vary greatly with a number of factors, including the service provider s received signal quality, cell traffic loading and network capacity in different locations, as well as the capabilities of consumers devices.221 Because these and other factors cause variations in mobile network performance, various methodologies have been employed to measure mobile network speeds. The two most prevalent methodologies rely on crowdsourced data and structured sample data. Crowdsourced data are user-generated data produced by consumers who voluntarily download speed test applications on their mobile devices. Structured sample data, by contrast, are generated from tests that control for the location and time of the tests as well as for the devices used in the test.222 This Report presents speed data using the Ookla Net Index data (crowdsourced), OpenSignal data (crowdsourced), and RootMetrics (structured sample).223 63. Figures II.A.27 and II.A.28 present the nationwide mean and median 4G LTE download and upload speeds by service provider based on Ookla data for the second half of 2018 through the second half of 2019.224 Figure II.A.29 presents the increase over time for mean and median 4G LTE 218 Alexandra Bruell, Wireless Carriers Revamp Ad Strategies for 5G, The Wall Street Journal (Feb, 26, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/wireless-carriers-revamp-ad-strategies-for-5g-11551236521. 219 CTIA Comments at 33. 220 See generally Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 19-285, 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd 8986 (2020) (2020 Broadband Deployment Report). In addition, in section III.A, we assess the extent to which Americans are covered by mobile 4G LTE (based on FCC Form 477 data at minimum advertised speeds of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps, and Ookla data at a median speed of 10 Mbps/3 Mbps or higher). 221 As we have pointed out, crowdsourced data have certain limitations. For example, bias is often introduced into speed test data because tests are performed only at specific times and places, potentially providing a less accurate snapshot of mobile broadband performance. Further, we noted that the methods by which different speed test apps collect data can vary and may not use techniques that control for certain variables. Digital Opportunity Data Collection Second Order and Third Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 7487-7488, para. 65. For additional discussion of the various factors, see Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9033, para. 87; Sixteenth Wireless Competition Report, 28 FCC Rcd at 3895, para. 293. 222 For a detailed discussion of crowdsourcing and structured sample data, see Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9033-34, para. 88. Many apps that collect crowdsourced data collect data via background or automated tests, as well as through user-initiated tests. 223 While speed metrics based on the FCC Speed Test (available for both Android phones and the iPhone) were reported in the Seventeenth Wireless Competition Report through the Nineteenth Wireless Competition Report, we stopped reporting these metrics in the Twentieth Wireless Competition Report and do not report them in this Report due to certain anomalies found in the underlying data. We may include data from the FCC Speed Test in future Reports, as the anomalies are aged out of the dataset. An in-depth discussion of the Measuring Broadband America Program s FCC Speed Test is available in the Seventeenth Wireless Competition Report. Seventeenth Report, 29 FCC Rcd at 15467, Appx. VI., paras. 7-9; see also FCC, Measuring Mobile Broadband Performance, https://www.fcc.gov/general/measuring-mobile-broadband-performance (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 224 Ookla gathers crowdsourced mobile speed data through the use of its Speedtest mobile app. Speedtest, Speedtest Apps for Mobile Data, http://www.speedtest.net/mobile/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). An in-depth discussion of the Ookla speedtest is available in the Seventeenth Report. Seventeenth Report, 29 FCC Rcd at 15465-66, Appx. VI., paras. 1-6. The upload and download speeds were calculated by Ookla and provided to the Commission for use in this Report. In addition, we present 5G download and upload speed data in Appx. B-4 of this Report. 43 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 download speeds for all providers, from the first half of 2014 through the second half of 2019.225 Based on Ookla data, Figure II.A.29 indicates that the median 4G LTE download speed increased from 11.0 Mbps to 26.2 Mbps, an increase of approximately 138%, over this time period. Fig. II.A.27 Ookla Speedtest%Estimated 4G LTE Download Speeds by Service Provider, Nationwide 2H2018 1H2019 2H2019 Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Service Down Down Number Down Down Number Down Down Number Provider load load of Tests load load of Tests load load of Tests Speed Speed ( 000s) Speed Speed ( 000s) Speed Speed ( 000s) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) AT&T 29.03 20.79 2,642 37.08 28.33 3,167 41.18 30.43 3,188 Sprint 26.30 16.73 1,794 32.44 21.72 1,594 36.74 23.71 1,441 T-Mobile 32.29 23.88 3,052 34.29 25.28 2,688 34.92 25.45 3,180 Verizon 30.69 22.97 3,886 32.36 24.47 3,419 33.28 24.53 3,708 Wireless Source: Ookla SPEEDTEST intelligence data, © 2020 Ookla, LLC. All rights reserved. Published with permission of Ookla. 225 Note that in recent years, Ookla has updated its data cleaning and aggregation rules. In Fig. II.A.29, the legacy rules are reflected in the speeds through the first half of 2016, and updated cleaning rules are reflected in the speeds in the second half of 2016 and beyond. 44 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.A.28 Ookla Speedtest - Estimated 4G LTE Upload Speeds by Service Provider, Nationwide 2H2018 1H2019 2H2019 Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Service Number Number Number Upload Upload Upload Upload Upload Upload Provider of Tests of Tests of Tests Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed ( 000s) ( 000s) ( 000s) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) AT&T 7.88 5.34 2,642 9.18 6.90 3,167 9.89 7.93 3,188 Sprint 3.28 2.48 1,794 3.61 2.70 1,594 4.18 3.15 1,441 T-Mobile 11.75 9.54 3,052 12.98 10.40 2,688 14.23 11.61 3,180 Verizon 9.90 6.99 3,886 10.48 7.52 3,419 10.94 7.81 3,708 Wireless Source: Ookla SPEEDTEST intelligence data, © 2020 Ookla, LLC. All rights reserved. Published with permission of Ookla. Fig. II.A.29 Ookla Speed Test: Total 4G LTE Download Speeds, Nationwide 40.0 36.3 34.1 35.0 29.9 27.9 30.0 26.2 25.4 25.3 25.0 23.4 22.0 21.6 20.2 20.2 20.0 18.3 15.9 16.4 15.1 15.5 16.0 14.4 14.0 15.0 12.7 11.0 11.6 11.5 10.0 4G LTE Downalod Speed (Mbps) Speed Downalod LTE 4G Mean 4G LTE Download Speed Median 4G LTE Download Speed Source: Ookla SPEEDTEST intelligence data, © 2020 Ookla, LLC. All rights reserved. Published with permission of Ookla. 64. Nationwide average 4G LTE download and upload speeds for the second half of 2018 through the second half of 2019 from OpenSignal are presented in Figures II.A.30 and II.A.31 below.226 Fig. II.A.30 OpenSignal%Estimated 4G LTE Download Speeds, Nationwide Service Provider 2H2018 1H2019 2H2019 226 OpenSignal gathers crowdsourced mobile speed data through the use of its mobile app as well as through partner apps. The partners it works with are strategically selected to cover a wide range of users, demographics, and devices. Opensignal, Methodology Overview: How Opensignal Measures Mobile Network Experience, https://www.opensignal.com/sites/opensignal-com/files/opensignal_methodology_overview_june_2020.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 45 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Average Average Average Download Download Download Speed Speed Speed (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) AT&T 19.5 24.6 29.1 Sprint 15.5 21.1 25.9 T-Mobile 21.9 24.3 26.3 Verizon Wireless 22.0 23.8 25.9 OpenSignal, © 2020 OpenSignal. Fig. II.A.31 OpenSignal  Estimated 4G LTE Upload Speeds, Nationwide 2H2018 1H2019 2H2019 Average Average Average Service Provider Upload Upload Upload Speed Speed Speed (Mbps) (Mbps) (Mbps) AT&T 5.1 5.4 6.4 Sprint 2.6 2.6 3.0 T-Mobile 7.0 7.5 8.8 Verizon Wireless 7.4 7.2 8.2 Source: OpenSignal, © 2020 OpenSignal. 65. RootMetrics mobile wireless indices within the United States for the second half of 2018 through the second half of 2019 are presented in Figure II.A.32.227 Fig. II.A.32 RootMetrics National Speed Index Data, 2nd Half 2018--2st Half 2019 2nd Half 2018 1st Half 2019 2nd Half 2019 Service Provider Speed Data Text Speed Data Text Speed Data Text Index Index Index Index Index Index Index Index Index AT&T 89.2 93.8 96.5 89.9 94.4 96.5 90.2 94.7 96.8 Sprint 81.3 86.0 95.1 83.4 88.8 95.0 83.9 88.9 95.5 T-Mobile 88.7 91.9 92.1 89.0 92.2 91.7 89.0 92.1 92.0 Verizon 90.4 95.0 96.8 91.2 95.5 96.3 90.7 95.1 96.5 Wireless Source: RootMetrics Data, © 2020 RootMetrics. All rights reserved. Published with permission of RootMetrics. 6. Network Coverage 66. This section first provides a description of the FCC Form 477 data that are used in this Report for both analyzing mobile and fixed coverage. We then describe how the Commission has already 227 RootMetrics, Methodology, http://rootmetrics.com/en-US/methodology (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). RootMetrics performs drive tests and stationary tests in specific locations, using leading Android-based smartphones for each network. RootScores are scaled from 0 to 100. An in-depth discussion of the RootMetrics dataset is available in the Seventeenth Report, 29 FCC Rcd at 15467-68, Appx. VI, paras 10-11. 46 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 reformed%and is further proposing to reform%the FCC Form 477 data collection. Finally, we evaluate mobile coverage as of year-end 2019. Fixed coverage is assessed in section III.A. a. FCC Form 477 67. The FCC Form 477 data are currently the most comprehensive data available to evaluate broadband deployment.228 The FCC Form 477 deployment data are also available to the public, which increases the transparency of our analysis and permits the public to independently assess our broadband service deployment data.229 The Commission has collected FCC Form 477 deployment data since 2014, and, thus, these data have provided a consistent yardstick against which to measure year-over-year broadband deployment.230 68. We measure mobile network coverage based on a set of maps that contain information on deployment at a detailed geographic level.231 In conducting this analysis, we use the actual-area methodology, which analyzes FCC Form 477 mobile broadband data on a sub-census-block level and calculates the percentage of each census block covered by each service provider by technology. Unlike the centroid methodology,232 in which a particular entire census block is either considered to be covered 228 See 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8997-98, para. 24; Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 18-238, 2019 Broadband Deployment Report, 34 FCC Rcd 3857, 3868, para. 25 (2019) (2019 Broadband Deployment Report); 2018 Communications Marketplace Report 34 FCC Rcd at 12651, para. 184. 229 FCC, Form 477 Resources, https://www.fcc.gov/economics-analytics/industry-analysis-division/form-477- resources (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). All FCC Form 477 data used in this Report have been certified as accurate by the filers. We note that the Report s analysis may understate or overstate consumers options for services to the extent that broadband providers fail to report data or misreport data. See FCC, Explanation of Broadband Deployment Data, https://www.fcc.gov/general/explanation-broadband-deployment-data (last visited Oct. 27, 2020) (describing quality and consistency checks performed on providers submitted data and explaining any adjustments made to the FCC Form 477 data as filed). 230 See AACG Reply Comments at 3 (asserting that FCC Form 477 data provide a consistent set of measures to allow parties to see the evolution of broadband across time and geography). 231 Currently, FCC Form 477 collects broadband deployment data from facilities-based providers of fixed and mobile broadband service. See 47 CFR § 1.7001(b). The FCC Form 477 reporting requirements exclude providers of terrestrial wireless  hot spot services, like local-area Wi-Fi or Wi-Fi within public places, but include facilities- based network providers that provide resale of mobile services. Facilities-based providers of mobile service submit polygons in a shapefile format representing geographic coverage nationwide (including U.S. territories) for each transmission technology (e.g., 5G-NR, 4G LTE, CDMA-based, GSM-based), indicating the geographic areas in which users should expect to receive the minimum upload and download speeds advertised by the service provider for the deployed technologies. FCC Form 477, Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting Instructions (May 21, 2020), https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477inst.pdf. The scope and nature of the FCC Form 477 data on mobile services coverage is an improvement over earlier data sources in certain key respects, such as the uniformity of data reporting. See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 31 FCC Rcd 699, 708-09, para. 22 (2016) ( [D]ata from the Form 477 . . . help us better analyze mobile broadband deployment than in years past. ). 232 The centroid methodology considers a census block covered if the geometric center point, or centroid, is covered. The methodology estimates coverage of population, land, and road miles by aggregating the totals for  covered census blocks. Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9016-17, para. 71. In practice, actual-area and centroid methodologies yield similar results at the national level. Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9017-18, para. 72. In this Report, we provide mobile wireless coverage maps in Appx. B-5, and we report our results based on the centroid analysis in Appx. B-6. We include the continental United States, Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, and exclude all water-only blocks in our analysis. 47 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 or not, the actual-area methodology estimates the area of the census block that is covered.233 However, because we currently do not know the distribution of the population at the sub-census-block level, we must approximate the population covered by each technology. To do this, we assume, for purposes of this Report, that the population of a census block is uniformly distributed such that the fraction of the population covered in a block is proportional to the fraction of the actual area covered. We then sum the estimated covered population across blocks to estimate the total covered population within the United States. Likewise, we assume that the fraction of the road miles covered in a block is proportional to the fraction of the actual area covered.234 69. We measure fixed deployment data at the census block level. FCC Form 477 filers report a list of census blocks in which they provide access to broadband.235 For purposes of the analysis of access to advanced telecommunications capability in this Report, a census block is classified as served if the FCC Form 477 data indicate that service is available in the census block, even if not to every location.236 Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that every household, housing unit, or person will have coverage from a given service provider in a census block that this analysis indicates is served.237 Thus, as the Commission has previously explained, this analysis could overstate the coverage experienced by some consumers, especially in large or irregularly-shaped census blocks.238 While some commenters 233 This sub-census-block analysis can determine the unique combination of service providers serving a particular percentage of the area in a census block with a certain technology. As this analysis was done at each technology level, the set of unique combinations that it produces are valid for each individual technology, but not across multiple technologies. Essentially, we can distinguish the unique percentages covered by various service providers at the sub-census-block level using a particular technology (e.g., 4G LTE), but we currently cannot determine how this interplays with other technologies (e.g., with 2G or 3G technologies). 234 In order to fully take advantage of the increase in precision offered by the actual-area coverage methodology, spatially accurate representations of population and road miles would be necessary. We do not have access to such information for the current Report, however. 235 See Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, WC Docket No. 11-10, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 9887, 9902, para. 32 (2013). 236 The Commission s instructions for completing FCC Form 477 state:  For purposes of this form, fixed broadband connections are available in a census block if the provider does, or could, within a service interval that is typical for that type of connection that is, without an extraordinary commitment of resources provision two-way data transmission to and from the Internet with advertised speeds exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction to end-user premises in the census block. FCC, FCC Form 477 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Report Instructions, at 17 (Dec. 5, 2016), https://us-fcc.box.com/v/Form477InstThruJune19 (2018 FCC Form 477 Instructions); FCC, FCC Form 477 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Report Instructions at 18 (May 21, 2020), https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477inst.pdf (2019 FCC Form 477 Instructions) (current version). 237 A household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. A house, an apartment or other group of rooms, or a single room, is regarded as a housing unit when it is occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters; that is, when the occupants do not live with any other persons in the structure and there is direct access from the outside or through a common hall. U.S. Census Bureau, Subject Definitions, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/subject-definitions.html#household (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). Commission staff developed population estimates for 2011-19 by updating the 2010 census block population estimates. These estimates are based upon annual U.S. Census mid-year county (or county- equivalent) level population and housing unit estimates for the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These data are used in conjunction with U.S. Census Bureau TIGER data to indicate new roads, that is, new housing development, to distribute population amongst the census blocks comprising each county (or county- equivalent). FCC, Staff Block Estimates, https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/data/staff-block-estimates (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 238 See, e.g., 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8998, para. 26; 2019 Broadband Deployment Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3869, para. 25 & n.92. 48 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 criticize as overly inclusive the use of census-block reporting for fixed providers,239 these data remain the best and most granular data available for our analysis at this point in time. In addition, we find that using a consistent unit of measurement (the census block) is an effective tool for evaluating how deployment is progressing over time. Our analysis of deployment for both fixed and mobile 4G LTE services in section III.A uses 2010 census block population data that Commission staff has updated to account for population growth and economic development.240 70. As the Commission has repeatedly stated, having accurate and reliable broadband deployment data is critical not only to the Commission, but also to other federal policymakers, state policymakers, and consumers.241 We observe that, while the current FCC Form 477 deployment data are an improvement over the deployment data previously available on a national scale, questions have arisen in various contexts over the past several years regarding the accuracy of coverage reported by FCC Form 477 deployment data.242 We note, however, that this Report is not the appropriate vehicle for the Commission to make changes to the data collection. Indeed, in August 2019, the Commission adopted new requirements for broadband mapping as part of its Digital Opportunity Data Collection proceeding for collecting granular, precise coverage data.243 After the Commission initiated its Digital Opportunity Data Collection proceeding, Congress enacted the Broadband DATA Act, which largely affirmed the approach to broadband mapping the Commission adopted in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection.244 239 See INCOMPAS Comments at 9-11 (critiquing use of the data, but also conceding that they are not aware of any sufficient information that is accurate and verifiable for the FCC to conduct its analysis); Common Cause/NHMC Reply Comments at 5-7; OTI Reply Comments at 2-3. 240 Commission staff developed population estimates for 2011-19 by updating the 2010 census block population estimates. These estimates are based upon annual U.S. Census mid-year county (or county-equivalent) level population and housing unit estimates for the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These data are used in conjunction with U.S. Census Bureau TIGER data to indicate new roads, that is, new housing development, to distribute population amongst the census blocks comprising each county (or county-equivalent). FCC, Staff Block Estimates, https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/data/staff-block-estimates (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 241 See Digital Opportunity Data Collection Second Order and Third Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 7461, para. 1; Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 7549, para. 112; 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 6331-32, para. 8. For purposes of this Report, the  Digital Opportunity Data Collection proceeding refers collectively to the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Second Order and Third Further Notice, and the Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice. See, FCC, Digital Opportunity Data Collection, https://www.fcc.gov/digital-opportunity-data-collection-dodc (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). The Commission has also used this proceeding to implement the Broadband DATA Act s provisions since its passage. 242 Digital Opportunity Data Collection Second Order and Third Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd, 7462-63, para. 5; Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 7509, para. 10; 2017 Data Collection Improvement FNPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 6332-33, para. 10; see also Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force, Mobility Fund Phase II Coverage Maps Investigation Staff Report (2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-361165A1.pdf. 243 See Digital Opportunity Data Collection Second Order and Third Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 7461, para. 1; see generally Digital Opportunity Data Collection Report and Order and Second Further Notice. 244 Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act (Broadband DATA Act), Pub. L. No. 116- 130, 134 Stat. 228 (2020) (codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 641-46). Under the Broadband DATA Act, the Commission must establish rules: (1) requiring the collection of granular data from providers on the availability and quality of service of broadband internet access service, which the Commission will use to create publicly available coverage maps; (2) adopting processes for challenging and verifying the coverage maps and submitted data; and (3) instructing mobile providers to submit propagation maps depicting current 4G LTE mobile broadband coverage, along with propagation model details, that consider the effect of clutter and demonstrate minimum specified parameters. 47 U.S.C. §§ 642 (b)(5), (a)(1)(B)(i), (b)(2)(B). The Act also requires the Commission to create a common dataset of all locations where fixed broadband Internet access service can be installed. 47 U.S.C. § 642 (b)(1)(A)(i). 49 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 However, the Broadband DATA Act prohibits the Commission from relying on the Universal Service Administrative Company the administrator of the Universal Service Fund and the entity the Commission intended to carry out various administrative responsibilities in connection with the new broadband maps. As a result, the Commission must wait for Congress to appropriate necessary funding to develop these new maps.245 71. Starting with the December 2019 FCC Form 477 data collection, the wireless reporting requirements were changed to provide more useful information to the public and to streamline unnecessary filings.246 Specifically, minimum advertised or expected speeds and provider-specific coverage data, reported to the FCC but previously kept confidential, are now publicly released.247 Mobile providers are no longer required to report coverage by spectrum band as the FCC usually collects band- specific data from providers directly when needed.248 Mobile providers now must separately report coverage that satisfies the 5G-NR standards developed by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP).249 In general, mobile broadband coverage data must be submitted in four streamlined categories: 5G-NR, 4G LTE, CDMA-based, and GSM-based, instead of the previous nine codes.250 The voice coverage data reporting requirements have been simplified consistent with the revisions to the requirements for FCC Form 477 mobile broadband reporting.251 b. Mobile Wireless Coverage Estimates 72. Overall Coverage by Individual Service Provider. Figure II.A.33 presents estimates of mobile wireless coverage by individual mobile wireless service provider using any technology.252 Because the data are from December 2019, and thus before the consummation of the merger between T- Mobile and Sprint, coverage for both firms is presented in this Report.253 Figure II.A.33 indicates that AT&T covered census blocks containing over 99% of the population, while the comparable approximate percentages are 98% for Verizon Wireless, 98% for T-Mobile, and 93% for Sprint. AT&T and Verizon Wireless each covered approximately 92% of the road miles, T-Mobile covered approximately 85%, and Sprint covered approximately 57%. In terms of land area, AT&T and Verizon Wireless each covered over 70%, while T-Mobile covered over 60% and Sprint covered over 30%. 245 Broadband DATA Act. 246 See Digital Opportunity Data Collection Second Order and Third Further Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 7474-83, paras. 32-51; Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 7521-37, paras. 35-75. 247 Id. at 7521-22, paras. 36-40. 248 Id. at 7523-24, paras. 41-43. 249 Id. at 7524-25, paras. 44-45. 250 Id. at 7525-27, paras. 46-51. 251 Id. at 7527-29, paras. 52-56. 252 Importantly, we note that even though a particular service provider has indicated that it has network coverage in a particular census block, that does not necessarily mean that it offers service to residents in that census block. This note extends to all coverage figures presented in this section. 253 As noted above, the T-Mobile/Sprint merger closed on April 1, 2020. T-Mobile, T Mobile Completes Merger with Sprint to Create the New T Mobile (Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.t-mobile.com/news/un-carrier/t-mobile-sprint- one-company/. 50 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.A.33 Estimated Wireless Coverage by Provider FCC Form 477, Actual Area Coverage, December 2019 99.5% AT&T 92.3% 73.3% 93.3% Sprint 56.5% 31.9% 98.1% T-Mobile 84.7% Service Provider Service 63.5% 97.9% Verizon Wireless 91.5% 72.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Wireless Coverage % of U.S. Population % of U.S. Road Miles % of U.S. Square Miles Source: Based on actual area coverage analysis of December 2019 FCC Form 477 and 2010 Census data. 73. 4G LTE Mobile Broadband Coverage. Figure II.A.34 presents 4G LTE mobile broadband coverage by number of service providers. It shows that, as of December 2019, approximately 95% of the U.S. population lived in areas with 4G LTE coverage by at least four service providers. These census blocks, however, only accounted for approximately 64% of road miles and approximately 39% of the total land area of the United States. 74. Figure II.A.35 presents estimates of 4G LTE mobile broadband coverage by individual mobile wireless service provider. It shows that AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless each provided 4G LTE coverage to census blocks containing over 97% of the population, while Sprint provided 4G LTE coverage to approximately 93% of the population. In terms of road miles and land area, Verizon Wireless covered approximately 91% of road miles and 72% of the land area, AT&T covered approximately 89% of road miles and 68% of the land area, T-Mobile covered approximately 84% of road miles and 63% of the land area, and Sprint covered approximately 56% of road miles and 31% of the land area with 4G LTE. 51 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.A.34 Estimated 4G LTE Coverage by Census Block FCC Form 477, December 2019, Actual Area Coverage 99.9% 1 or more 96.8% 79.9% 99.7% 2 or more 92.7% 72.6% 99.0% 3 or more 85.7% 62.9% 94.6% 4 or more 63.8% 39.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Number of Service Providers with Coveragewith Providers Service ofNumber 4G LTE Coverage % of U.S. Population % of U.S. Road Miles % of U.S. Square Miles Source: Based on actual area coverage analysis of December 2019 FCC Form 477 and 2010 Census data. Fig. II.A.35 Estimated 4G LTE Coverage by Provider FCC Form 477, Actual Area Coverage, December 2019 99.2% AT&T 88.9% 68.3% 93.1% Sprint 55.7% 31.2% 98.0% T-Mobile 84.1% 62.9% Service Provider Service 97.9% Verizon Wireless 91.0% 71.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 4G LTE % of U.S. Population % of U.S. Road Miles % of U.S. Square Miles Source: Based on actual area coverage analysis of December 2019 FCC Form 477 and 2010 Census data. 52 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 75. Rural/Non-Rural Comparisons. Since 2004, the Commission has used a  baseline definition of a rural county as one with a population density of 100 people per square mile or less.254 We use this same baseline definition to analyze coverage in rural versus non-rural areas for our mobile broadband coverage analysis. To determine whether counties are rural or non-rural, we first excluded all water-only census blocks within each county. We then divided the county population by the total geographic area of the county to determine the population density. For those counties with a population density of 100 people per square mile or less, all census blocks within those counties were considered rural. Under this definition and using 2010 U.S. Census population data, approximately 56 million people, or approximately 18% of the U.S. population, live in rural counties. These counties comprise approximately 3 million square miles, or approximately 84%, of the geographic area of the United States. 76. Figure II.A.36 presents mobile wireless coverage (using any technology) of the rural and non-rural U.S. population by individual mobile wireless service provider. Our analysis indicates that each of the four nationwide service providers covered at least 98% of the non-rural population with mobile wireless service. Rural wireless coverage by service provider is more limited: AT&T covered approximately 98%, Verizon Wireless covered approximately 96%, T-Mobile covered approximately 92%, and Sprint covered approximately 69% of the rural population with wireless service. Fig. II.A.36 Estimated Wireless Coverage by Provider in Rural vs. Non-Rural Areas FCC Form 477, Actual Area Coverage, December 2019 99.9% AT&T 97.6% 98.6% Sprint 69.3% 99.5% T-Mobile 91.8% Service Provider Service 98.4% Verizon Wireless 95.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Wireless Coverage % of U.S. Non-Rural POPs % of U.S. Rural POPs Source: Based on actual area coverage analysis of December 2019 FCC Form 477 and 2010 Census data. 77. Figure II.A.37 presents 4G LTE population coverage in rural and non-rural census blocks by number of service providers. Our estimates show that approximately 99% of the non-rural population was covered by at least three 4G LTE service providers, while approximately 96% of the rural population was covered by at least three 4G LTE service providers. Over 98% of the non-rural American population had 4G LTE coverage from four or more service providers, while only approximately 77% of the rural population was covered by at least four 4G LTE service providers. 78. Figure II.A.38 presents 4G LTE coverage by individual service provider of both the rural and non-rural U.S. population. Our estimates show that each of the four nationwide service providers covered at least 98% of the non-rural population with 4G LTE. Regarding 4G LTE coverage in rural 254 See Facilitating the Provision of Spectrum-Based Services to Rural Areas and Promoting Opportunities for Rural Telephone Companies To Provide Spectrum-Based Services, WT Docket No. 02-381, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 19 FCC Rcd 19078, 19086-88, paras. 10-12 (2004). 53 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 areas, Verizon Wireless covered approximately 96%, AT&T covered approximately 96%, T-Mobile covered approximately 91%, and Sprint covered approximately 69% of the rural population with 4G LTE. Fig. II.A.37 Estimated 4G LTE Coverage by Census Block in Rural vs. Non-Rural Areas FCC Form 477, December 2019, Actual Area Coverage 100.0% 1 or more 99.6% 99.9% 2 or more 98.7% 99.8% 3 or more Coverage 95.5% 98.5% 4 or more 76.9% Number of Service Providers with Providers of Service Number 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 4G LTE Coverage % of U.S. Non-Rural POPs % of U.S. Rural POPs Source: Based on actual area coverage analysis of December 2019 FCC Form 477 and 2010 Census data. Fig. II.A.38 Estimated 4G LTE Coverage by Provider in Rural vs. Non-Rural Areas FCC Form 477, Actual Area Coverage, December 2019 99.9% AT&T 96.4% 98.5% Sprint 68.5% 99.5% T-Mobile 91.2% Service Service Provicer 98.4% Verizon Wireless 95.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 4G LTE Coverage % of U.S. Non-Rural POPs % of U.S. Rural POPs Source: Based on actual area coverage analysis of December 2019 FCC Form 477 and 2010 Census data 79. 5G Coverage. In August 2019, the Commission made certain changes to the FCC Form 477 data collection program, including directing wireless service providers to report their 5G deployment.255 As of December 2019, these data report that T-Mobile covered 27.7% of U.S. square miles, 41.8% of road miles, and 63.5% of the population; Sprint covered 6.7% of the population, Verizon had negligible 5G coverage and AT&T reported no mobile 5G coverage at all. 255 See Digital Opportunity Data Collection Order and Second Further Notice, 34 FCC Rcd at 7524, para. 44. 54 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 80. Since the beginning of 2020, Verizon,256 AT&T, 257 T-Mobile,258 Sprint, 259 and US Cellular260 have reported further deployments of 5G. Other firms also provide or have the potential to provide 5G services.261 For example, CTIA suggests that cable companies are  well positioned to deploy fixed and mobile 5G operations and compete directly with mobile network operators on a national basis. 262 As part of its acquisition of Boost Mobile, DISH has committed to deploy  a facilities-based 5G broadband network capable of serving 70 percent of the U.S. population by June 2023. 263 Starry provides fixed wireless broadband through a  pre-standard 5G, point-to-multipoint fixed wireless technology. 264 81. Finally, as one of the conditions of approval for the T-Mobile-Sprint transaction, T- Mobile committed to covering 97% of the United States population with low-band 5G service within three years of the consummation of the merger and 99% within six years.265 T-Mobile made commitments to deploy 5G service using mid-band spectrum, with 75% of the population being covered within three years and 88% within six years.266 Under its commitments, 5G services with at least 50 Mbps download speeds would be available to 75% of the population within three years and 99% within six years.267 5G services with at least 100 Mbps download speeds would be available to 63% of the population within three years and 90% within six years.268 Further, within three years, T-Mobile committed to deploy a 5G network to 85% of the rural population with low-band spectrum, 55% with mid-band spectrum, and to 66.7% with download speeds of at least 50 Mbps, verified by drive testing, and 55% of at least 100 Mbps downloads, verified by drive testing.269 B. The Fixed Broadband Services Marketplace 82. We next assess the state of competition in the fixed broadband marketplace. In section II.B.1, we will first examine the various fixed technologies that Internet service providers (ISPs) currently deploy, describe the service providers, and provide information on connections/subscribers and adoption rates. In section II.B.2, we will consider competition in fixed broadband, including a discussion of 256 Verizon, Verizon 5G Ultra Wideband service available in more cities (Oct. 14, 2020), https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-5g-ultra-wideband-service-available-more-cities. 257 AT&T, AT&T Continues to Build 5G on Nation s Best Network (July 23, 2020), https://about.att.com/newsroom/2020/5g_announcements.html. 258 T-Mobile coverage of Alaska was achieved via partnership with GCI. T-Mobile, T-Mobile is First with 5G in all 50 States! (June 1, 2020) https://investor.t-mobile.com/news-and-events/t-mobile-us-press-releases/press-release- details/2020/T-Mobile-is-First-with-5G-in-all-50-States/default.aspx. 259 Sprint, Sprint 5G Overview (Feb. 11, 2020), https://newsroom.sprint.com/sprint-5g-overview-1-2.htm. 260 U.S. Cellular, U.S. Cellular 5G, https://www.uscellular.com/plans/network-innovation/5g-technology (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 261 See CTIA Comments at 23-27. 262 Id. at 23. 263 DISH, DISH to Become National Facilities-based Wireless Carrier (Jul. 26, 2019), http://about.dish.com/2019- 07-26-DISH-to-Become-National-Facilities-based-Wireless-Carrier. 264 Starry, Starry Wins Licenses in the 24 GHz Band, Enabling Expansion to 40 Million Households Nationwide (June 18, 2019), https://dyajmw2sca9cs.cloudfront.net/press/pdf/Starry+Auction+102+Results+-+FINAL.pdf. 265 See T-Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10589, 10810, para 26, Appx. G. 266 See id. at 10589, 10810, para 28, Appx. G, Attach. 1. 267 See id. at 10589, 10810, para 26, Appx. G. 268 See id. 269 See id. at 10589, 10810, para 28, Appx. G, Attach. 1. 55 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 investment trends, pricing, speed, and access to multiple providers. In addition, we will describe findings from the latest Measuring Broadband America reports, which provide a snapshot of fixed broadband Internet access service performance in the United States. 1. Overview of the Fixed Broadband Marketplace 83. Since the 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, more Americans have access to fixed broadband services, and those who previously had access now have access to newer broadband technologies capable of faster speeds. In particular, FCC Form 477 data shows an increase in fiber and DOCSIS 3.1 cable broadband technologies available to residential consumers, both of which advertise faster speeds than other technologies do. Additionally, the total number of providers has continued to increase in both rural and urban areas.270 Subscribership is also on the rise, with total fixed connections consistently increasing for the last five years. Most of the growth in subscribership can be attributed to cable and fiber connections, Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) connections have decreased and satellite and terrestrial fixed wireless connections have remained relatively constant. As income and population density increase, the adoption of Internet services also increases for all speed tiers. 84. This Report analyzes three metrics commonly thought to be affected by competition in the fixed broadband marketplace: speed, investment, and pricing. While actual speeds consumers experience vary by connection technology, consumers continue to have access to faster speeds, and this Report shows that connections capable of 100 Mbps have increased by a factor of six since 2015. In terms of access to multiple providers, the Report shows that approximately 84% of Americans have at least two options for 10/1 Mbps fixed terrestrial service; approximately 74% have at least two options for 25/3 Mbps fixed terrestrial service; approximately 67% have at least two options for 50/5 Mbps service; approximately 55% have at least two options for 100/10 Mbps service; and approximately 35% have at least two options for 250/25 Mbps service. Further, capital investment by service providers has increased in recent years. FCC Form 477 data also show that deployment of newer technologies such as DOCSISI 3.1 has increased over the past few years. Pricing is a difficult metric to capture, as it is dependent on many product characteristics and can change with time or bundle offer. This Report provides a snapshot of prices for Internet-only packages. We show that as broadband speeds increase, so do prices across cable, DSL, fiber, and fixed wireless technologies. For speeds under 150 Mbps, cable is generally less expensive and terrestrial fixed wireless technologies are generally the most expensive. a. Technologies Deployed 85. Consumers access the Internet through a variety of fixed technologies, including cable broadband service, DSL, fiber to the premise, terrestrial fixed wireless service and satellite service. These services differ in their availability and characteristics, such as price, speed, and latency.271 To compete with other providers and to meet consumer s expectations, providers are continually investing in network upgrades and implementing technological developments that improve the quality of their services and increase the speed of their networks.272 86. We primarily use FCC Form 477 data as of December 31, 2019 to assess the level of deployment of fixed services. Consistent with previous findings by the Commission,273 the FCC Form 477 data are currently the most accurate and complete data available to the Commission for this 270 Most broadband service providers serve less than 1% of the U.S. population; and only ten providers serve more than 5%. 271 Latency refers to the time it takes for a data packet to travel back and forth through the network. 272 The Tenth Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report and the Ninth Measuring Broadband America are attached as Appx. D to this Report. 273 See 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8997-98, para. 24; 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12651, para. 184. 56 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 analysis.274 For purposes of FCC Form 477 analysis, a census block is classified as served if the FCC Form 477 deployment data indicate that service can be provided to some, even if not all, locations in the census block. To give context to consumer purchase patterns of these technologies, we also provide an overview of consumer subscription to these services. Figure II.B.1 reports, by technology, household deployment estimates and residential connections for any speed reported in the FCC Form 477 data.275 Fig. II.B.1 Deployment (millions) and Total Residential Connections (millions) of Fixed Services in the United States, by Technology, for Any Reported Speed (Dec. 31, 2019) Deployment (Any Reported Speed) Residential Technology Households % Connections Cable 111.176 88.8% 67.140 DOCSIS 3.1 105.023 83.9% DSL 112.520 89.9% 17.551 Fiber (FTTP) 50.896 40.7% 16.681 Satellite Services 125.119 99.9% 1.795 Terrestrial Fixed Wireless 58.508 46.7% 1.493 87. Cable Broadband Service. Cable broadband service uses infrastructure originally deployed for cable television to deliver broadband. This service is provisioned over coaxial cables that deliver cable TV programming and Internet service on separate channels (or frequencies). Currently, most providers of cable broadband service have deployed a hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) technology that transmits signals over a fiber from the provider s facility to an optical node near the consumer.276 These providers typically use coaxial cable to send the signal from the optical node to the customer s end location. Data Over Cable Service Interface Specifications 3.1 (DOCSIS 3.1), the latest standard currently deployed to approximately 84% of U.S. households, is capable of achieving 10 Gbps download speed and a 1 Gbps upload speed. The weighted mean advertised download speed for subscribers participating in the Commission s Measuring Broadband America program was approximately 155 Mbps.277 The industry has recently released specifications for DOCSIS 4.0 which will enable multi- gigabit symmetric services.278 88. DSL. DSL, the oldest broadband technology still in use, is commonly used by traditional telephone companies, and transmits data via a modem over traditional copper telephone lines to consumers.279 Although widely available because it is built on the existing telephone network, this 274 We recognize that improvements to such data are needed, and have undertaken such efforts as part of the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, but that collection is not yet available for use in this Report. See generally Digital Opportunity Data Collection proceeding. 275 The data presented in Fig. II.B.1 are for the States, District of Columbia and U.S. Territories. The FCC Form 477 deployment data are grouped into the following categories: cable (technology codes 40, 41, 42, and 43); DOCSIS 3.1 (technology code 43); DSL (all copper based services, i.e., technology codes 10, 11, 12, 20, and 30); fiber (technology code 50); satellite (technology code 60); and terrestrial fixed wireless (technology code 70). In contrast, the FCC Form 477 residential connection/subscriber data include only one response category for cable services. This means that we cannot separately report residential connections to a DOCSIS 3.1 technology from residential connections to older cable technologies. The maximum reported speed is capped at 1 gigabyte. As of 2019, there are 125.2 million households in the United States. FCC, Staff Block Estimates, https://FCC.gov/reports- research/data/staff-block-estimates (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 276 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12645, para. 174. 277 See infra Appx. D-2: Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 12. 278 NCTA Comments at 3. By gigabit service, we refer to service with a download speed of at least 1 Gbps. 279 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12646, para. 175. 57 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 service is generally slower than other types of broadband services.280 DSL service is limited by the distance between the telephone provider s central office and the consumer s home such that the speed of the service decreases as the distance between these two endpoints increases.281 The weighted mean advertised download speed for subscribers participating in the Commission s Measuring Broadband America program was 13 Mbps.282 89. Fiber. Fiber-based Internet service may be provisioned by fiber-to-the-node (FTTN), fiber-to-the-curb (FTTC), or fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP). FTTP uses optical fiber to deliver a signal from the operator s equipment to the residential customer.283 This service can offer the consumer the highest speed among all currently available services because the fiber connects directly to the consumer s residence.284 In contrast, FTTN and FTTC services rely on a fiber-optic connection from a local central office to the neighborhood (node or curb) and then a twisted-pair copper wiring from the node or utility pole to the consumer s home.285 FTTN and FTTC services are typically slower than FTTP services because the connection to the consumer is over twisted-pair copper, although they are typically faster than service provided entirely over copper.286 FTTN and FTTC services are reported in FCC Form 477 as DSL service.287 The weighted mean advertised download speed for subscribers participating in the Commission s Measuring Broadband America program was 208 Mbps.288 90. Fixed Satellite Service. FSS is the transmitting and receiving of communications signals from earth stations, including customer stations, that are located at fixed points on earth. The Commission has allocated specific spectrum bands for FSS, most importantly, the C-, Ku-, and Ka- bands.289 More recently, there also has been interest in use of the V-band frequencies.290 Examples of 280 See infra Appx. D-2: Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 11. 281 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12646, para. 175. FTTN and FTTC services are reported in FCC Form 477 as DSL service because this service is ultimately delivered to the end-user via twisted- pair copper wiring. FCC Form 477 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting Instructions for Filings as of December 31, 2019 and Beyond, at 30. 282 See infra Appx. D-2: Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 12. 283 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12643-644, para.173. 284 See Internet Experts, Differences between FTTH, FTTC, and FTTN, https://www.attinternetservice.com/resources/different-types-fiber/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 285 See 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12647, para. 176; Internet Experts, Differences between FTTH, FTTC, and FTTN, https://www.attinternetservice.com/resources/different-types-fiber/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); FCC Form 477 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting Instructions for Filings as of December 31, 2019 and Beyond, at 30. 286 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12647, para. 176. 287 FCC Form 477 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting Instructions for Filings as of December 31, 2019 and Beyond, at 30. 288 See infra Appx. D-2: Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 12. 289 47 CFR § 25.103. The conventional C-band refers to the 3700-4200 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to-space) FSS frequency bands, while the extended C-band refers to the 3600-3700 MHz (space-to-Earth), 5850-5925 MHz (Earth-to-space), and 6425 6725 MHz (Earth-to-space) FSS frequency bands. The conventional Ku-band refers to the 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 14.0-14.5 (Earth-to-space) FSS frequency bands, while the extended Ku-band refers to the 10.95-11.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 11.45-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth), and 13.75- 14.0 GHz (Earth-to-space) FSS frequency bands. The conventional Ka-band refers to the 18.3-18.8 GHz (space-to- Earth), 19.7-20.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 28.35-28.6 GHz (Earth-to-space), and 29.25-30.0 GHz (Earth-to-space) frequency bands, which the Commission has designated as primary for GSO FSS operation. 47 CFR § 25.103. 290 We use the term  V-band to refer to frequencies ranging from 37.5 GHz to 52.4 GHz, although there is no domestic allocation for satellite services in 42.0-42.5 GHz band and there is no domestic or international allocation for satellite services in the 51.4- 52.4 GHz frequency band. We have recently approved applications for V-band (continued& .) 58 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 FSS offerings include wholesale transponder services,291 managed services (also known as enterprise services), and consumer broadband services. One of the benefits of satellite technology is its ability to deliver services in remote areas that are unserved or underserved by terrestrial services, and satellite can play a key role in delivering services in disaster areas, e.g., Puerto Rico in the aftermath of the 2017 hurricane season.292 91. Terrestrial Fixed Wireless Broadband. Terrestrial fixed wireless providers deliver broadband service to consumers using licensed, unlicensed and shared access spectrum while often relying on fiber optics to form parts of the rest of their network infrastructure.293 Terrestrial fixed wireless providers receive broadband content from an external distribution point via fiber or microwave connections.294 They deliver service to a customer s fixed antenna from wireless transmitters on towers that transmit the signal via licensed, shared access spectrum or unlicensed spectrum.295 In some instances, this technology is capable of delivering gigabit speed services.296 One terrestrial fixed wireless provider, Starry, currently advertises 200 Mbps service and is rolling out a point-to-multipoint technology that will deliver gigabit-capable service to the home.297 b. Service Providers 92. Fixed Terrestrial. As of December 2019, there were 2,052 entities of varying sizes and deployment footprints that reported providing fixed broadband services to residential consumers.298 Figure II.B.2 presents the number of total providers, as well as the number of providers in rural and urban areas, from June 2014 through December 2019.299 The total number of providers has consistently increased period over period, and has grown by approximately 26% since June 2014. The growth in the systems in portions of 37.5-50.2 GHz frequency range. See, e.g., O3b Modification Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 5519-20, para. 30; Audacy Corporation; Application for Authority to Launch and Operate a Non-Geostationary Medium Earth Orbit Satellite System in the Fixed- and Inter-Satellite Services, Order and Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 5554, 5562, para. 20 (2018); Policy Branch Information, Satellite Space Applications Actions Taken, IBFS File Nos. SAT- LOA-20170621-00092 and SAT-AMD-20170908-00128, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 2869 (2018) (granting in part and deferring in part; deferring consideration of Hughes Network Systems request for operations in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band); Space Exploration Holdings, LLC; Application for Approval for Orbital Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX V-band NGSO Satellite System, 33 FCC Rcd 11434 (2018); Telesat Canada; Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Grant Access to the U.S. Market for Telesat's V-Band NGSO Constellation, 33 FCC Rcd 11469 (2018). 291 A transponder is the part of a satellite that receives signals transmitted from earth stations to the antennas onboard a satellite and retransmits these signals to the Earth. See Dennis Roddy, Satellite Communications 199 (4th ed. 2006). The number of transponders onboard any given satellite may vary, ranging approximately from 24 to 72. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Telecommunications: Competition, Capacity, and Costs in the Fixed Satellite Services Industry, at 5 (Sept. 2011), https://www.gao.gov/assets/330/322861.pdf. 292 See SIA Comments at 15-16; SpaceX Comments at 1; SES and O3b Reply Comments at 3, 5-6. 293 See WISPA Comments at 6-8; 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12647, para. 177. 294 Id. 295 Id. 296 CTIA Comments at 25. 297 Id. 298 The data for this section include U.S. territories. 299 We use FCC Form 477 deployment data for residential consumers. For a detailed description of the FCC Form 477 data collection, see Twentieth Wireless Competition Report, 32 FCC Rcd at 9015, para. 69. For purposes of presenting estimates for rural and urban areas, in this section we aggregate all similarly categorized areas. The designation of a census block as urban is based upon the 2010 Census. An urban census block encompasses all population, housing, and territory included within a census block categorized as in an urban area or urban cluster. A rural census block encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within urban census blocks. 59 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 total number of providers is similar in urban and rural areas. Between June 2014 and December 2019, the number of providers in urban areas and rural areas increased by approximately 30% and 25%, respectively. Fig. II.B.2 Total Providers of Residential Fixed Services Over Time 2,000 1,500 1,000 TotalProviders 500 0 June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019 Total Providers 1,634 1,687 1,697 1,718 1,758 1,800 1,834 1,895 1,916 1,996 2,012 2,052 Rural Providers 1,579 1,627 1,644 1,666 1,713 1,752 1,780 1,828 1,849 1,931 1,947 1,976 Urban Providers 1,248 1,310 1,331 1,340 1,387 1,426 1,458 1,505 1,525 1,581 1,596 1,623 Total Providers Rural Providers Urban Providers Source: FCC Form 477 deployment data for residential consumers and 2010 Census data. 93. While there are over 2,000 providers of residential services, there is considerable variation in provider size and deployment footprint. The overwhelming majority of providers each cover less than 1% of the U.S. population. Figure II.B.3 shows that in December 2019, only ten providers covered 5% or more of the U.S. population, based on their reported deployment data. As presented in Figure II.B.4, these providers are AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Verizon, CenturyLink, Frontier, Cox, TDS, JAB Wireless,300 and Altice. AT&T covered approximately 41% of the United States population, making it the provider with the largest fixed broadband footprint, followed closely by Comcast and Charter, covering approximately 36% and 33% of the U.S. population, respectively. Verizon reported coverage to approximately 17% of the population, followed by CenturyLink at 16%, Frontier at 12%, and TDS at 10%. The remaining three providers each covered between 5% and 7% of the U.S population. 300 Fixed wireless technology accounts for the majority of the deployment footprint for TDS and JAB Wireless; additionally 93% of TDS deployment footprint is from the fixed wireless operations of its U.S. Cellular subsidiary. 60 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.3 Total Providers of Residential Fixed Services of the United States by Population Coverage (Dec. 31, 2019) 1000 912 900 800 700 600 533 500 432 400 Total Providers Total 300 200 137 100 15 4 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 Percent of U.S. Population Source: FCC Form 477 deployment data for residential consumers and 2010 Census data. 61 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.4 Top Ten Provider Footprints for Residential Fixed Services in the United States by Population Coverage (Dec. 31, 2019) 45.0% 40.7% 40.0% 35.5% 35.0% 33.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 17.3% 16.2% 15.0% 11.5% Percent of US Population Covered Population US of Percent 9.8% 10.0% 6.8% 6.7% 5.4% 5.0% 0.0% AT&T Comcast Charter Verizon Century Frontier TDS Cox JAB Altice Link Wireless USA Source: FCC Form 477 deployment data for residential consumers and 2010 Census data. 94. Figure II.B.5 shows the change in U.S. population coverage over time for each of the top ten providers, as described above. For the most part, population coverage has remained constant over time, with a few significant exceptions. For example, Charter jumped from approximately 9% population coverage in June 2014 to 33% population coverage in June 2016 due to its acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.301 In addition, Frontier more than doubled its population coverage between June 2014 and December 2019, from approximately 5% to 12%. This increase was primarily driven by its acquisition of certain wireline operations from Verizon in 2016,302 and therefore largely offset by a decrease in population covered by Verizon. 301 Commission Approves Charter, TWC and Bright House Merger, MB Docket No. 15-149, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 6327, para. 1 (2016). 302 Transfer of Control Applications Granted for Frontier and Verizon, MB Docket No.15-44, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 9812, para. 4 (2015). 62 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.5 Provider Population Coverage for Residential Fixed Services in the United States Over Time 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% Percent of US Population Covered Population US of Percent 5% 0% AT&T Comcast Charter Verizon Century Link Frontier TDS Cox JAB Wireless Altice USA Source: FCC Form 477 deployment data for residential consumers and 2010 Census data. 95. Figure II.B.6 shows a detailed breakdown of the technology composition of the ten largest providers deployment footprints. As seen in Figure II.B.6, Comcast and Charter almost exclusively provide fixed broadband through cable across their footprints. In contrast, AT&T provides broadband access with a combination of technologies, covering approximately 96% of its service area with DSL in addition to covering approximately 29% of its service area with FTTP. CenturyLink and Frontier also each use a combination of technologies, covering almost their entire service areas with DSL and also covering approximately one-fourth and one-third of their service areas with FTTP, respectively. Verizon covers almost 64% of its footprint with fiber and also covers approximately 87% of its footprint with DSL. TDS and JAB Wireless each cover approximately 6% of the U.S. population through terrestrial fixed wireless (TFW) technologies, while Altice and Cox have a similar population coverage but primarily through cable connections. 63 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.6 Technology Composition of Provider Footprint for Residential Fixed Services in the United States (Dec. 31, 2019) Source: FCC Form 477 deployment data for residential consumers and 2010 Census data. 96. Satellite. Intelsat, SES, Eutelsat, Telesat, Hughes/Echostar,303 and ViaSat currently provide nearly all of the satellite communications services in FSS spectrum in the United States.304 Telesat provides satellite services to the U.S. government, and provides Ka-band satellite capacity to ViaSat, which uses the capacity to provide broadband services in the United States.305 ViaSat and Hughes/EchoStar both provide wholesale and retail commercial broadband services to customers in the United States.306 Intelsat, Telesat, SES, ViaSat, and EchoStar have high-throughput satellites serving 303 EchoStar provides its consumer broadband and managed services through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Hughes Network Services. 304 Intelsat 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 5-21; SES 2019 Annual Report; Eutelsat, Satellites, https://www.eutelsat.com/en/satellites.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Telesat Canada 2019 SEC Form 20-F at 27- 37; Hughes Comments at 2-4; ViaSat 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 3-14. 305 Telesat Canada 2019 SEC Form 20-F at 34. 306 ViaSat 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 3; Hughes Comments at 2-3. Hughes states that it is  currently constructing its next-generation, Commission-licensed, ultra-high-density satellite, EchoStar XXIV (also known as Jupiter 3), which will provide service in the United States and throughout the Americas at speeds of 100 Mbps or more and  is expected to launch and begin commercial service in 2021. Hughes Comments at 2. 64 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 North America.307 SES provides services using both Geostationary Orbit (GSO) and Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) satellites.308 97. Some FSS operators supply managed network services,309 which are a complete, end-to- end communications system that includes leased satellite bandwidth, ground facilities, terrestrial transmission links, and management of the end-to-end communications service.310 Customers of managed satellite services include U.S. and foreign government agencies, government contractors, and commercial entities.311 Also, satellite provision of backhaul services is expected to grow in the coming years.312 FSS operators in the United States provide transponder capacity for lease through complex contracts for variable quantities of bandwidth, frequency, orbital location, geographic coverage, power, and length of 307 Through the use of small beams, high-throughput satellites are capable of reusing the same frequency band multiple times over their coverage area. This allows the use of more spectrum for each of their small beams, making higher throughput available anywhere in their coverage area. Satcom Post, Defining High Throughput Satellites (HTS) (May 3, 2013), http://satcompost.com/defining-high-throughput-satellites-hts/; Hughes Network Systems, LLC, The View from JUPITER: High-Throughput Satellite Systems at 2 (July 2013), https://www.hughes.com/sites/hughes.com/files/2017-04/JUPITER_H50283_HR_08-01-13.pdf. For example, ViaSat indicates that their  high-capacity satellite systems are designed to grow with increased global broadband demand enabling faster service speeds, higher quality and enhanced reliability. ViaSat, High-Capacity Satellite System: Transforming Satellite Broadband, https://www.viasat.com/products/high-capacity-satellites (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 308 SES combines GEO and MEO satellite constellations to provide service, and has proposed adding Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites.  Our GEO HTS satellites combine with our O3b MEO fleet to create the industry's only multi-orbit, multi-band services, including network resiliency, and intelligent application-aware load balancing solutions. SES, GEO HTS: Global reach with superior performance, https://www.ses.com/networks/networks- and-platforms/geo-hts (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). SES launched and completed in 2019 its O3b Ka-band constellation of 20 satellites in medium earth orbit, to provide lower latency broadband connectivity for mobile use. SES plans to launch 7 next generation MEO O3b mPOWER satellites in 2021. SIA Comments at 9, 11-13; SES 2019 Annual Report at 22, 23, 34, 36; SpaceNews, SES details LEO constellation and expanded MEO constellation to FCC (May 29, 2020), https://spacenews.com/ses-details-leo-constellation-and-expanded-meo-constellation-to- fcc/. 309 See, e.g., SES, Managed Network Services, https://www.ses.com/networks/services/managed-network-services; (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Hughes, Hughes Managed Services, https://business.hughes.com/resources/collateral- library/hughes-managed-services (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Intelsat, INTELSATOne Flex, http://www.intelsat.com/intelsatone-flex/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 310 Examples of third-party providers of managed services include Digisat International Inc., Speedcast International Limited, and Artel, LLC. See Digisat, Satellite Communications Network Management Services, https://www.digisat.org/managed-network-services (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); Speedcast, Managed Network Solutions, https://www.speedcastgov.com/our-solution/managed-network-services/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). Artel, HISPASAT s Amazonas Nexus Satellite will embed the Pathfinder 2 mission for the United States Space Force (June 24, 2020) ( For 30 years, Artel has provided secure network communication services to Federal Government agencies. & Artel is a carrier-agnostic network integrator  allowing us to develop customized solutions for our customers. ), https://www.artelllc.com/hispasats-amazonas-nexus-satellite-will-embed-the-pathfinder-2-mission-for- the-united-states-space-force/. 311 See, e.g., Third Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Domestic and International Satellite Communications Services; Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Domestic and International Satellite Communications Services, IB Docket Nos. 09-16, 10-99, Third Report, 26 FCC Rcd 17284, 17304, para. 41-42 (2011) (Third Satellite Competition Report) (noting that value-added resellers provide managed services to government and corporate clients (e.g., U.S. Army, Federal Bureau of Investigation, commercial shipping) that need communications in  thin markets or need to extend the reach of their corporate networks). 312 See Mark Holmes, Telcos Talk Bluntly About Satellite s Backhaul Future, ViaSatellite (July 2020), http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via/july-2020/telcos-talk-bluntly-about-satellites-backhaul-future/. 65 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 service of the transponders required by the customer.313 Many wholesale customers of FSS operators only lease transponder capacity and self-supply their own earth stations and terrestrial links. Applications of leased transponder capacity include point-to-point transponder capacity for use by providers of media services, point-to-multipoint transmission of video programming to multichannel cable programming distributors, and the transport of point-to-point telecommunications transmissions to terrestrial telecommunications operators and corporate users.314 Leased transponders can also be used for the provision of broadband to aircraft and vessels. 98. Satellite broadband providers, Hughes/Echostar and ViaSat, play a role in closing the digital divide across the United States, especially in the most rural and remote areas of the country, where it may be uneconomical to build terrestrial networks.315 These operators now serve a combined approximately 2 million subscribers and, as their infrastructure expands, they are increasing the speeds made available to consumers.316 The planned launches of next-generation GSO satellites Jupiter 3/EchoStar XXIV and ViaSat-3, and proposed low latency NGSO satellite constellations, may result in higher-speed satellite broadband offerings in the future.317 Figure II.B.7 provides aggregated U.S. satellite services revenues for 2013 to 2019 with respect to fixed satellite services. Fig. II.B.7 U.S. Fixed Satellite Services Revenue (2013-2019) Service Total Revenue ($ billions) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Satellite Broadband 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.2 2.6 Managed Services318 3.4 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.7 4.9 5.1 Transponder 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 Agreements319 Source: SIA Comments at 5, Appx. B; 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12673, Fig. F-1.320 c. Connections/Subscribers 99. The number of residential fixed connections in the United States increased approximately 14.5% from over 91 million connections in June 2015 to approximately 105 million connections in 313 See Third Satellite Competition Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 17292-99, paras. 15-35 (discussing complexities of output produced by commercial satellite operators). The pricing of transponder services and the specific attributes of the service to be supplied to the customer are bilaterally negotiated between the customer and the satellite operator. Id. at 17291-92, para. 14. 314 See Third Satellite Competition Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 17296-97, paras. 26-28. 315 SIA Comments at 9-10. 316 Id. at 6-7, 9-10. 317 ViaSat 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 3-4; Echostar 2019 Annual Report at 4 (Mar. 18, 2020), http://ir.echostar.com/static-files/51503a9e-9aea-40ae-8ed5-34e8f85c8703; Hughes, EchoStar XXIV, https://www.hughes.com/technologies/hughes-high-throughput-satellite-constellation/echostar-xxiv (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); SIA Comments at 11-14. 318 According to SIA, the revenue represented for  Managed Services includes VSAT, mobility, and in-flight connectivity. Id. at 22. 319 According to SIA, the revenue represented for  Transponder Agreements includes capacity for direct-to-home satellite TV and some mobility service platforms. Id. at 22. 320 SIA Ex Parte, Attach. SIA estimates that the U.S. share of global satellite services revenue in 2019 was 41%. Id. SIA s estimate of global satellite services revenue includes revenue derived from direct-to-consumer retail services (e.g., satellite TV, radio, and broadband), fixed and mobile satellite services, and remote sensing services. Id. 66 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 December 2019. The number of connections over time overall and by technology are presented in Figure II.B.8. Connections have increased for all technologies except DSL, for which the number of connections has decreased in every reporting period, and satellite, which has had periods of both growth and decline during the reporting period. FTTP has experienced approximately 89% subscriber growth since 2015, making it the fastest growing technology available to residential consumers. Figure II.B.9 shows the percentage of total residential fixed connections that each technology represents, from June 2015 to December 2019. Cable continued to be the dominant technology of residential fixed broadband subscriptions throughout this period of time. In December 2019, approximately 64% of fixed residential connections were cable, 17% were DSL, 16% were FTTP, and the remaining 3% were a combination of satellite, terrestrial fixed wireless, and other technologies. Fig. II.B.8 Residential Connections over 200 kbps in at Least One Direction 2015-2019 (in thousands)321 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Technology Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec Jun Dec aDSL 26,157 25,139 24,486 23,691 22,774 21,653 20,671 19,692 18,280 17,476 sDSL 18 16 10 8 12 9 9 4 4 5 Other 59 54 51 32 74 67 74 74 61 74 Wireline322 Cable 53,544 55,799 57,358 59,145 59,687 61,567 62,320 63,802 65,476 67,140 FTTP 8,842 9,592 10,140 10,956 11,776 12,702 13,663 14,632 16,025 16,681 Satellite 1,875 1,891 1,897 1,676 1,637 1,688 1,751 1,787 1,805 1,795 Fixed 944 943 1,059 1,100 1,112 1,160 1,270 1,330 1,409 1,509 Wireless Total Fixed 91,439 93,434 95,001 96,607 97,071 98,847 99,758 101,321 103,059 104,680 Source: Staff calculations based on FCC Form 477 data. 321 FCC Form 477 defines an Internet access connection as a wired line or wireless channel that terminates at an end- user location or mobile device and enables the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the Internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction. This definition is outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations regarding the scope and content of filed reports. See 65 FR 19684, Apr. 12, 2000; 65 FR 24654, Apr. 27, 2000, as amended at 67 FR 13224, Mar. 21, 2002. 322 Other wireline includes: all copper-wire based technologies other than xDSL (examples include Ethernet over copper and T-1); additionally, power line technologies are included in this category to maintain confidentiality. 67 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.9 Residential Connections over 200 kbps in at Least One Direction by Technology 2015-2019 100% 3.1% 3.1% 3.2% 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 3.1% 3.1% 3.2% 3.2% 9.7% 10.3% 10.7% 11.3% 12.1% 90% 12.9% 13.7% 14.4% 15.5% 15.9% 80% 70% 60% 58.6% 59.7% 60.4% 61.2% 61.5% 62.3% 62.5% 63.0% 50% 63.5% 64.1% 40% 30% 20% Percentage of Residential Fixed Connections 28.6% 26.9% 25.8% 24.5% 23.5% 21.9% 20.7% 10% 19.4% 17.7% 16.7% 0% June 2015 Dec 2015 June 2016 Dec 2016 June 2017 Dec 2017 June 2018 Dec 2018 June 2019 Dec 2019 DSL Cable FTTP All Other Source: Staff calculations based on FCC Form 477 data. 100. Figure II.B.10 below shows the total number of residential subscribers of each company as reported on their SEC Form 10-Ks filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.323 These five companies Charter, CenturyLink, Frontier, AT&T, and Comcast along with Verizon,324 have the largest population coverage for residential fixed services.325 Fig. II.B.10 Total Residential Subscribers for the Largest Public Providers (in millions) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Charter 5.2 21.4 22.5 23.6 24.9 CenturyLink 6.0 5.9 5.7 4.7 4.8 Frontier 2.5 4.3 3.9 3.7 3.5 AT&T 12.4 12.9 14.5 14.8 14.7 Comcast 21.6 22.8 23.9 25.1 26.4 323 All 10-K data were accessed through the SEC website. SEC, EDGAR Company Filings, https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html, (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 324 Verizon does not disclose the total number of customers they have for fixed services in its 10-K. Verizon 2019 SEC Form 10-K, https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/732712/000073271220000014/a2019q410- k.htm. 325 See section II.B.1. 68 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 d. Adoption Rates 101. Residential connections vary by location and largely depend on the underlying population of an area. Figure II.B.11 shows the ratio of total residential connections over 200 kbps to total households for each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The darker the shaded area, the more households have residential Internet connections in a state. The ratio varies from 0.39 for Puerto Rico to 1.02 for Hawaii.326 Mississippi has the lowest connections per household of any state with a ratio of 0.66. Fig. II.B.11 Residential Fixed Connections over 200 kbps per Household by State (Dec. 31, 2019) Source: Staff calculations based on FCC Form 477 data as of December 31, 2019 and ACS 5-year estimates; Census 2010. 102. Our assessment of adoption from 2015-2019 is based upon FCC Form 477 subscriber/connection data that are collected at the census tract level and FCC Form 477 deployment data that is collected at the census block level. For this analysis, we aggregate data up to the geographic level reported in each of the figure, e.g., the United States, the tract level, or the county. We evaluate the adoption of fixed terrestrial services at speeds of 10/1 Mbps, 25/3 Mbps, 50/5 Mbps, 100/10 Mbps, and 250/25 Mbps. The reported adoption rates are the number of residential connections divided by the number of households in the area where the FCC Form 477 deployment data indicate that fixed terrestrial services of at least the designated speed are deployed. 326 The denominator for these calculations is a different data source than the numerator; the ACS population data is used to normalize values between states, but the reporting years can be different than the FCC Form 477 reporting year. Normalizing values between two different data sources can result in values exceeding 1, and should not be interpreted as more connections than households. 69 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 103. Figure II.B.12 reports adoption rates based upon year-end data from 2015 to 2019 for the United States as a whole (excluding the U.S. Territories),327 urban and non-urban core areas,328 and Tribal lands.329 Figure II.B.12 shows year-to-year increases in the adoption of broadband services across the vast majority of areas, including Tribal lands. 327 We exclude data from the U.S. Territories when showing the five-year progression of deployment and adoption of broadband services because of anomalies in the historical data for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands whose population account for over 92% of the total combined population of the U.S. Territories. The historical data suggest a 21.7 percentage point increase in deployment between 2015 and 2016. 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8998, para. 28 & n.95. The year-end 2017 deployment data most likely significantly overstate deployment in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands at that time because the data do not reflect infrastructure damage caused by Hurricanes Maria and Irma. We include data from the U.S. Territories in figures that report data since 2018 only as we believe these FCC Form 477 data collections provide reliable estimates for the U.S. Territories. 328 Connection data are reported at the census tract level. We aggregate deployment data up to the census tract to identify urban core and non-urban core areas. A census tract is designated as  Urban Core if it has a land area less than three square miles and a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. A census tract is designated as  Non-Urban Core if we have not designated the census tract as Urban Core. 329 A census tract is designated Tribal lands if more than 50% of the land area is Tribal land. For purposes of the analysis of Tribal lands in this Report, we use the definition that was used in the 2018 Commercial Marketplace Report and in the Commission s Broadband Deployment Reports since 2012. See 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12652, para. 187 & n.598; Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 11-121 Eighth Broadband Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd 10342, 10414-15 (2012). We acknowledge that the Commission has used other definitions of Tribal lands. See, e.g., 2.5 GHz Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 5465-66, paras. 51- 55 (2019), Bridging the Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers, Fourth Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry, 32 FCC Rcd 10475 (2017); Connect America Fund et al., Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Order on Reconsideration, 33 FCC Rcd 11893, 11910-11, para. 55 & n.122 (2018); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Procedures for 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority Window, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 308, 313, para. 19 (WTB 2020) (2.5 GHz Tribal Priority Window Public Notice). However, for purposes of this Report, we maintain our definition as previously employed. Our assessment of Tribal lands in this Report begins by examining the census blocks that have been coded by the Census Bureau as federally recognized Tribal lands for the 2010 Census. These areas fall into one of the following American Indian Area/Alaska Native Area/Hawaiian Home Land Class Code categories: (1) Joint Use Areas; (2) legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation and associated off-reservation trust land; (3) legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation only; (4) legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of off-reservation trust land only; (5) statistical American Indian area defined for a federally recognized Tribe that does not have reservation or off-reservation trust land, specifically a Tribal designated statistical area (TDSA) or Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (OTSA); (6) Alaskan Native village statistical area; and (7) Hawaiian Home Lands established by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921. We exclude state recognized areas from the analysis of Tribal lands. We note that the Tribal Statistical Areas are largely in Oklahoma, but they also include areas in California, New York, and Washington. To assess adoption rates on Tribal lands we designate a census tract as Tribal lands if more than 50% of the land area is Tribal land. 70 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.12 Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services at Different Speed Tiers 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 10/1 Mbps United States330 62.2% 66.3% 69.7% 73.3% 77.0% Non-Urban Core Areas 55.8% 60.3% 63.5% 67.4% 71.8% Urban Core Areas 67.0% 71.0% 74.7% 78.1% 81.4% Tribal Lands 42.4% 43.1% 46.3% 51.2% 55.5% Non-Urban Core Areas 36.1% 36.9% 40.4% 45.3% 50.1% Urban Core Areas 56.8% 59.1% 62.3% 68.1% 71.1% 25/3 Mbps United States 48.1% 53.5% 60.2% 65.1% 69.4% Non-Urban Core Areas 43.2% 48.9% 55.1% 59.9% 64.5% Urban Core Areas 51.5% 56.9% 64.0% 69.2% 73.3% Tribal Lands 31.7% 33.4% 37.9% 44.0% 46.5% Non-Urban Core Areas 28.5% 30.3% 34.5% 38.7% 40.6% Urban Core Areas 37.1% 39.4% 45.1% 56.1% 61.8% 50/5 Mbps United States 33.9% 44.4% 54.8% 60.6% 64.8% Non-Urban Core Areas 27.8% 41.2% 50.8% 56.4% 60.9% Urban Core Areas 38.0% 46.7% 57.7% 63.8% 67.7% Tribal Lands 25.0% 28.9% 34.2% 37.8% 42.4% Non-Urban Core Areas 20.4% 25.3% 30.9% 34.0% 38.7% Urban Core Areas 32.0% 34.9% 40.5% 45.6% 50.3% 100/10 Mbps United States 16.7% 19.2% 29.6% 45.7% 50.9% Non-Urban Core Areas 16.4% 17.9% 27.0% 44.3% 50.0% Urban Core Areas 16.9% 20.0% 31.4% 46.6% 51.5% Tribal Lands 7.4% 10.5% 18.3% 30.2% 36.2% Non-Urban Core Areas 6.4% 9.8% 17.0% 26.4% 33.1% Urban Core Areas 8.7% 11.6% 20.4% 37.3% 42.5% 250/25 Mbps United States 4.2% 1.8% 4.1% 5.5% 9.1% Non-Urban Core Areas 6.7% 2.3% 4.1% 5.0% 8.3% Urban Core Areas 3.1% 1.6% 4.1% 5.8% 9.7% Tribal Lands 1.4% 1.8% 4.4% 7.5% 11.5% Non-Urban Core Areas 1.7% 2.1% 4.5% 8.0% 11.8% Urban Core Areas 0.2% 1.5% 4.3% 6.7% 11.0% 104. Figure II.B.13 reports average county-level adoption rates for fixed terrestrial services against the quartile ranking for median household income, population density, the poverty rate and the proportion of the population that resides in a rural area.331 The data are further disaggregated by speed tier.332 In general, these data suggest that the average household adoption rate in a county increases with median household income and population density, and decreases with increases in the poverty rate and rural population rate.333 71 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 330 We present adoption data for each state, U.S. Territory, and the District of Columbia in Appx. C-1. 331 This demographic analysis is based upon county level adoption rates and the ACS Five-Year Estimates 2014- 2018 for income and poverty measures for county-level data for the states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (income measures are not available for the other U.S. Territories). Median household income is based on 2018 data and is measured in 2018 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars. The household poverty rate is the proportion of households living below the poverty level. The ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2015-2019 will not be released until December 10, 2020. U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 Data Release Schedule (Mar. 3, 2020), https://www.census.gov/programs- surveys/acs/news/data-releases/2019/release-schedule.html. Population Density is the total population residing in the county as of 2019 divided by the square miles of land in the county, where the estimate of land area is based upon the 2010 Census. The proportion of the population residing in a rural area is the total population residing in the county rural census block (based on the 2010 Census) divided by the total population in the county. A rural census block encompasses all population, housing and territory not identified as an urban census block in the 2010 Census. 332 We note that this analysis is based upon the best data currently available and may not accurately reflect how adoption may be associated with the subscriber s demographic data. Our data is based upon the subscriber data submitted by the providers, and we do not know the demographics of the providers subscribers to their fixed broadband services. 333 The adoption of fixed terrestrial broadband varies across demographic groups and households with less income are less likely to subscribe to a fixed broadband service for their home. See Pew Research Center, Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet (June 12, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet- broadband/#who-has-home-broadband. Incomes tend to be lower in rural areas, and subscription to home broadband services is generally lower in rural areas. See Michael J.R. Martin, Rural and Lower-Income Counties Lag Nation in Internet Subscription (Dec. 13, 2018), https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/12/rural-and- lower-income-counties-lag-nation-internet-subscription.html. Counties with a higher proportion of rural population will tend to have lower population density because fewer people live in these counties than in counties with more urban areas. In Figure II.B.12, the quartile with the lowest population density will likely correspond to the quartile with the highest rural population rate. Thus, the observation that the average overall adoption rate for fixed terrestrial services increases with population density is akin to the observation that the average overall adoption rate for fixed terrestrial services decreases as the rural population rate increases. 72 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.13 Average County Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services by County Level Demographic Variable (Dec. 31, 2019)334 100/10 250/25 10/1 Mbps 25/3 Mbps 50/5 Mbps Mbps Mbps Median Household Income First Quartile (Lowest Median 38.4% 28.3% 23.4% 20.2% 4.7% Household Income) Second Quartile 51.6% 41.6% 36.4% 31.0% 6.0% Third Quartile 58.8% 47.6% 42.2% 35.2% 6.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median 71.2% 61.3% 56.7% 43.8% 8.1% Household Income) Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Population 48.8% 34.2% 26.8% 22.7% 8.0% Density) Second Quartile 43.9% 34.3% 30.1% 25.0% 4.8% Third Quartile 55.1% 46.5% 42.6% 36.0% 5.0% Fourth Quartile (Highest 72.0% 63.6% 58.8% 46.1% 7.8% Population Density) Household Poverty Rate First Quartile (Lowest Household 67.2% 55.9% 50.9% 39.8% 7.6% Poverty Rate) Second Quartile 59.4% 48.7% 43.4% 36.0% 6.7% Third Quartile 52.7% 43.1% 38.5% 33.1% 6.5% Fourth Quartile (Highest 40.7% 31.1% 26.0% 21.5% 4.3% Household Poverty Rate) Rural Population Rate First Quartile (Lowest Rural 71.0% 62.3% 57.3% 44.9% 8.0% Population Rate) Second Quartile 57.4% 47.8% 43.0% 36.1% 5.7% Third Quartile 46.8% 37.0% 32.7% 27.7% 5.0% Fourth Quartile (Highest Rural 44.6% 31.5% 25.2% 21.0% 6.5% Population Rate) 2. Competition in Fixed Broadband 105. Internet service providers continue to invest in their networks to improve the quality and availability of their services, typically in competition with each other.335 As we have explained previously, our data understate the benefits that come from competition because: (1) fixed Internet service providers have strong incentives, even when facing a single competitor, to capture customers or induce greater use of their networks; and (2) competitive pressures often have spillover effects across a given provider, meaning an Internet service provider facing competition broadly, if not universally, will tend to treat customers that do not have a competitive choice as if they do.336 334 All data presented for the United States in Fig. II.B.13 exclude U.S. Territories other than Puerto Rico. 335 See Restoring Internet Freedom, WC Docket Nos. 17-108, 17-287, and 11-42, Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 311, 385, paras. 126-27 (2017) (Restoring Internet Freedom Order). 336 Id. at 383-85, paras. 126-27. 73 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 a. Investment Trends 106. According to USTelecom, U.S. fixed broadband providers invested approximately $80 billion in CapEx in 2018, up from approximately $75 billion in 2016.337 Overall, broadband providers have invested more than $1.7 trillion in CapEx since 1996.338 Multiple commenters cite this investment as a sign of a competitive marketplace. For example, NCTA notes that cable operators now  offer gigabit services to 80% of American consumers, up from just 9% in 2016. 339 NCTA also reports that  more than 73% of the population has access to 25/3 Mbps terrestrial broadband service from a non-cable service provider (fiber, DSL, or fixed wireless). 340 Further, even during the COVID-19 pandemic  over 99% of the customers of major cable operators have not experienced any material impact, 341 which highlights the benefits of earlier investment. America s Communications Association (ACA Connects) notes that its members invest about $1 billion annually to upgrade networks, leading to decreases in the price per Mbps for consumers.342 107. While deployment data are not synonymous with investment dollars, an increase in investment likely leads to an increase in deployment, and also an increase in speeds deployed. Figure II.B.14 shows how each fixed broadband technology covers the U.S. population over time. Investment in technology and infrastructure is likely a large driver of the increase in the deployment of FTTP and cable DOCSIS 3.1, two technologies that have considerable download speed capabilities. 337 USTelecom Comments, Attach. at 12, 26. 338 Id. at 12. 339 NCTA Comments at 3. 340 Id. at 4. 341 Id. at 7. 342 ACA Connects Comments at 4. 74 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.14 U.S. Population Coverage by Technology 100% 90% 80% DOCSIS 3.1 70% 60% 50% 40% Percentage of Population US 30% 20% FTTP 10% 0% All DSL All FTTP All Cable Cable DOCSIS 3.1 All Fixed Wireless Source: FCC Form 477 data. 108. Access to FTTP and cable DOCSIS 3.1 differs in rural areas as compared to urban areas. Figure II.B.15 shows the change in population coverage of FTTP and cable DOCSIS 3.1 technology in rural, urban, and Tribal lands. The growth rate of FTTP coverage is similar in rural and urban areas: Each area s FTTP coverage has increased by a factor of over two since 2015. However, urban areas still have approximately twice the percentage of population covered by FTTP than rural areas, which suggests that providers may have invested more in FTTP technology in urban areas than in rural areas. Compared to other technologies, DOCSIS 3.1 covers the largest number of individuals in the United States as of 2019, and has seen the largest increase in growth over the last five years, suggesting providers have prioritized investment into DOCSIS 3.1 technology. The widespread deployment of this technology is likely one of the drivers of the increase in access to 250/25 Mbps speeds, as it is capable of download speeds up to 10 Gbps. However, there is disparity in where providers invest in this technology. Figure II.B.15 shows approximately 90% of urban areas have access to DOCSIS 3.1, while approximately only 46% of rural areas and 43% of Tribal lands have access.343 We note, however, that the overall population covered by cable technologies stayed relatively constant as seen in Figure II.B.14; this is due to companies retiring older technologies as they deployed DOCSIS 3.1. 343 These deployment patterns correspond to speed availability metrics from the 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, which shows approximately 94% of the urban population, 52% of the rural population, and 46% of the tribal population have access to 250/25 Mbps. 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 9007-08, para. 41 & Fig. 4. 75 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.15 Rural, Urban, and Tribal Population Coverage for Fiber and Cable DOCSIS 3.1 Technology 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Percentage of Population Covered 20% 10% 0% Urban FTTP Urban DOCSIS 3.1 Rural FTTP Rural DOCSIS 3.1 Tribal FTTP Tribal DOCSIS 3.1 Source: FCC Form 477 data and Census data. b. Pricing 109. Pricing for fixed services depends on several factors, including speed tier, technology, region of service, contract length, and an array of bundling options. USTelecom s Broadband Pricing Index compares the prices of both the most popular plans and the plans with the highest speed tiers between 2015 and 2020, and find that prices for both categories have decreased considerably during this time.344 Prices have fallen by over 20% for the largest providers most popular plans (which now average 16% faster speeds).345 Prices also have decreased for the providers highest speed offerings. Compared to 2015, these high-speed plans  are now priced 37.7% lower and offer 27.7% faster speeds in 2020 on an averaged subscriber-weighted basis. 346 One of the underlying data sources for USTelecom s pricing index is the FCC s Urban Rate Survey. The 2020 Urban Rate Survey reports the following weighted means for prices of Internet-only packages: $60.30 per month for DSL, $80.67 per month for cable, $86.48 per month for fixed wireless, and $102.63 per month for fiber.347 344 Arthur Menko, 2020 Broadband Pricing Index Report, USTelecom (Sept. 16, 2020), https://www.ustelecom.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/USTelecom-2020-Broadband-Pricing-Index.pdf. 345 Id. at 3. 346 Id. 347 The underlying sample design and weighting methodology for the Urban Rate Survey can be found on the survey s homepage. FCC, Urban Rate Survey Data & Resources (July 2020), https://fcc.gov/economics- analytics/industry-analysis-division/urban-rate-survey-data-resources. 76 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 110. To undertake our pricing analysis in this Report, we use BroadbandNow.com data.348 BroadbandNow.com collects price information from approximately 2,000 providers349 on a monthly basis, from either the provider s website or in some cases directly from the provider itself.350 The BroadbandNow data provide information on 9,185 residential plans as of July 2020.351 We focus on prices for Internet-only packages.352 111. Fig. II.B.16 shows the average monthly price and download speed by technology for Internet-only plans, and indicates a positive relationship between price and download speed.353 On average, for download speeds up to 150.9 Mbps, terrestrial fixed wireless plans are the most expensive, followed by DSL plans, FTTP plans, and then cable plans, which are priced similarly for this speed range. The price for terrestrial fixed wireless plans dips in the 151-500 Mbps range compared to slower speeds, which is likely because there are very few plans for this technology that offer these higher speeds, and therefore the small sample is limited to providers that offer lower prices.354 Only FTTP and cable plans offer download speeds over 1 Gbps, and they cost significantly more per month than any other speed tier. 348 While BroadbandNow is an independent website, it does receive advertising revenue and/or a referral fee from some of the companies whose information they provide. BroadbandNow, Advertiser Disclosure, https://broadbandnow.com/advertising-disclosure (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 349 BroadbandNow, The Complete List of Internet Providers in the United States, https://broadbandnow.com/All- Providers (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 350 We verified BroadbandNow prices by comparing them to data used in the International Broadband Data Report which was manually collected by Commission staff. The International Broadband Data Report includes fixed pricing set of plans across the top four providers of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter from Los Angeles and Washington, DC, along with a manual collection of plans from each state capital. 351 Our final sample removed plans that were either part of a bundle, a package specific to a region, or missing non- promotional prices. This resulted in a sample of 8,517 plans across 1,862 providers. 352 Google Fiber notes that  when providers offer discounts that are tied to the purchase of a bundle, it may distort consumer understanding of the true price of the individual elements of that service. Consumers may believe that the broadband element of their bundle is more expensive than it is because of how pricing is structured in a bundle. Google Fiber Comments at 7. 353 Average monthly price is a measure of the average monthly Internet-only plan prices after the promotion period ends; both average monthly price and average promotional price are calculated by excluding $0 prices. Each plan had a specific download and upload speed, but we grouped these plans by download speed into speed tiers based on the download speed. Download tiers were chosen so that observations were smoothed across the groups. 354 Plans are grouped by the advertised maximum download speed, in Mbps. In the final sample, there are 16 plans in the 151-500 Mbps range for terrestrial fixed wireless technology, compared to 98 in the 61-150.9 Mbps range, 358 in the 26-60.9 Mbps range, 554 in the 16-25.9 Mbps range, 878 in the 10-15.9 Mbps range, and 1,466 that are less than 10 Mbps. 77 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.16 Average Monthly Price for Internet-Only Plans by Download Speed and Technology Source: Published with permission of BroadbandNow.com. 112. Many providers offer introductory promotional rates for new customers, which can be considerably discounted from the plan s regular monthly price.355 Figure II.B.17 shows the average promotional monthly price and the average non-promotional monthly price for each speed tier.356 On average, the promotional monthly price is discounted by 32%. There is no evidence of promotional pricing for plans with download speeds of over 1 Gbps. Packages with download speeds less than 10 Mbps have the least discounted promotional prices, averaging a 12% discount. Conversely, packages with download speeds between 16 and 26 Mbps have the most discounted promotions, averaging a 41% discount. 355 BroadbandNow, The Complete List of Internet Providers in the United States, https://broadbandnow.com/All- Providers (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 356 Promotional prices ranged from six months to a three-year promotion period. The promotional averages along with the non-promotional averages exclude $0 values, which represented packages for which BroadbandNow did not have data. 78 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.17 Promotional Price and Non-Promotional Price by Speed Tier $284 $300 $250 $200 $134 $150 $99 $82 $90 $71 $79 $54 $85 $100 $63 $70 $47 $44 $46 $51 $50 $0 $0 Average Monthly Price Monthly Average Speed Tier (in Mbps) Promotional Price Non-Promotional Price Source: Published with permission of Broadbandnow.com. 113. Figure II.B.18 illustrates the average monthly promotional price compared to the regular monthly price for Internet-only cable, DSL, fiber (as described on the provider s website),357 and terrestrial fixed wireless packages. Terrestrial fixed wireless packages have the smallest discount for promotional pricing, averaging an approximate 2% discount. DSL, fiber, and cable have average promotional prices discounted by 30%, 26%, and 25% respectively. 357 Fiber plans are collected by BroadbandNow and categorized as fiber by the individual provider s website. Thus, it is possible FTTC, FTTN, and FTTP are all included in the fiber category. 79 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.18 Promotional Price and Non-Promotional Price by Technology $94 $100 $90 $73 $74 $80 $68 $70 $72 $70 $60 $55 $47 $50 $40 $30 $20 Average Monthly Price Monthly Average $10 $0 Cable DSL FTTP Fixed Wireless Technology Promotional Price Non-Promotional Price Source: Published with Permission of BroadbandNow.com. 114. Figure II.B.19 shows the average non-promotional monthly price for fixed technologies for the top four Internet providers: AT&T, Charter, Comcast, and Verizon. These prices are limited to Internet-only packages that are available throughout the provider s service area.358 Of all the technologies, cable plans have the widest range of prices and download speeds, and are all provided by either Comcast or Charter. Charter s 940 Mbps plan is the most expensive cable package, at $129.99, and Comcast s 15 Mbps plan is the cheapest cable plan, priced at $49.95. DSL technology only has two speed plans: Verizon offers download speeds up to 15 Mbps and AT&T offers download speeds up to 100 Mbps; both plans are priced at $59.99. Unlike DSL, fiber exhibits far more variety in prices and download speeds, with plans provided by Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast. Comcast has the most expensive fiber plan, priced at $299.95 for download speeds up to 2 Gbps, while Verizon has the cheapest fiber plan at $39.99 for speeds up to 200 Mbps. 358 This figure displays averages of non-promotional monthly prices; in some cases, BroadbandNow only had data on promotional prices without a corresponding regular rate. In these cases, promotional prices were used when non- promotional prices could not be found. 80 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.19 Average Monthly Prices for the Largest Four Providers of Fixed Services 350 $299.95 300 250 200 150 $129.99 $94.99 100 $77.95 $79.99 $79.99 Average Average Monthly Price $69.99 $69.99 $59.99 $59.99 $59.99 $69.99 $49.95 $59.99 50 $39.99 0 15 100 300 400 600 940 1000 15 100 200 400 940 1000 2000 Cable DSL FTTP Technologies by Download Speeds AT&T Charter Comcast Verizon Source: Published with Permission of BroadbandNow.com. c. Speed 115. Measuring Broadband America Report. Our assessment of non-price competition in fixed broadband services considers quality measures including the actual speed of service experienced by consumers, consistency of advertised speeds, latency, and packet loss. Each one of these measures focuses on a different aspect of the consumer experience. Every page, image, and video on the Internet comes to home devices as small pieces of data, or packets. Upload and download speed refer to throughput, the rate at which packets reach their destination within a specific time period. Different types of online applications require different minimum speeds. Speeds experienced by a consumer may fluctuate during the day. This fluctuation is typically caused by increased traffic demand and the resulting stress on different parts of the network infrastructure. A significant reduction in speed for more than a few seconds can force a reduction in video resolution or an intermittent loss of service. Consistency measures examine how dramatic these fluctuations are across a particular network. Sometimes, because of the way networks are built and how much traffic they move, there can be delays in how packets travel. Latency is the time it takes for a data packet to travel across a network from one point on the network to another. Consumers using services with high latency may experience reduced quality for interactive services, e.g., voice communications, video chat, video conferencing, and online multiplayer games. Finally, packet loss measures the fraction of data packets sent that fail to be delivered to the intended destination. If packet loss occurs with interactive services and streaming applications, it may affect the consumer s perceived quality of service. These aspects of consumer experience may affect the consumer s ultimate purchasing decision when multiple technology options are available, and encourage ISPs to ensure high quality services. 81 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 116. This discussion summarizes results from the Commission s recently released Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report.359 The Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report provides a snapshot of fixed broadband Internet access service performance in the United States. The Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report is based on data collected from 12 ISP/technology configurations between September 6 and October 3, 2019 (inclusive) and October 8 and 9, 2019 (inclusive).360 We measure the network performance delivered on selected service tiers to a representative sample set of the population. The thousands of volunteer panelists are drawn from subscribers of the ISPs serving a large percentage of the residential marketplace in the United States.361 The results presented in the Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report suggest that consumer experience varies noticeably with the connection technology.362 117. Actual Speed. As reported, actual speed is the median speed experienced by the sampled panelists within a specific speed tier, by ISP. Specifically, for each ISP, performance is measured by weighting the median speed for each service tier by the number of subscribers in that tier.363 We continue to find that consumers actual broadband service speeds are generally close to or exceed advertised speeds.364 Of the 12 ISP/technology configurations included in the report,365 only Cincinnati Bell DSL (at 79%) performed below 90% of its advertised speed.366 118. Consistency of Service. We summarize two measures of consistency of service discussed in the Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report. The first metric is the percentage of an ISP s sampled panelists who experience an actual monthly average download speed that was greater than 95%, 359 See generally Tenth Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report; see also Ninth Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report. The Measuring Broadband America program is a rigorous, ongoing, nationwide study of consumer broadband performance that relies upon a sample that aims to include those tiers that constitute the top 80% of the subscriber base per ISP. Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 6. The Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report is based on data gathered from over 2,900 volunteer panelists across the United States, and includes only panelists that are subscribed to the tiers that were tested as part of the sample plan. Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report, Technical Appendix at 6-8. 360 Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 6. The Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report is based upon data for ten ISPs: CenturyLink, Charter, Cincinnati Bell, Comcast, Cox, Frontier, Mediacom, Optimum, Verizon, and Windstream. Id. at 7. For the Ninth Measuring Broadband America Report, although AT&T did not participate, the Commission continued to evaluate AT&T s sets of tiers with sufficient numbers of panelists. Ninth Measuring Broadband America Report, at 6, 20. The participants in the Ninth and Tenth Measuring Broadband America Reports provide service by DSL, cable, or fiber (FTTP). Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report, at 10. Participation in the program by ISPs is voluntary. For purposes of satisfying the Commission s transparency requirements that apply to Internet service providers, fixed providers that choose to participate in the Measuring Broadband America program may disclose their results as a sufficient representation of the actual performance their customers can expect to experience. Restoring Internet Freedom Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 441, para. 222 & n.818. 361 Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 6. 362 Id. at 14-17. 363 Id. at 7. 364 Id. at 14-17, 29. 365 The ISP/technology configurations are: DSL (CenturyLink, Cincinnati Bell DSL, Frontier DSL, Windstream); Cable (Altice Optimum, Charter, Comcast, Cox, and Mediacom); and Fiber (FTTP) (Cincinnati Bell, Frontier Fiber, Hawaiian Telcom Fiber and Verizon Fiber). Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 10. AT&T, Hughes Network Systems and Viasat/Exede have left the program. However, for the Ninth Measuring Broadband America Report the Commission reported raw data results using lightweight tests for Hughes Network Systems and Viasat/Exede. Ninth Measuring Broadband America Report at 20 & n.17; see also Ninth Measuring Broadband America Report, Technical Appendix. Lightweight speed tests, as compared to standard tests, use one rather than eight concurrent transfer control protocol sessions so as to provide less strain on consumer accounts that are data- capped. Ninth Measuring Broadband America Report at 23. 366 Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 14, 27, 39. 82 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 between 80% and 95%, and less than 80% of advertised speeds. The seven best performing ISPs when measured by this metric were Charter, Comcast, Cox, Mediacom, Optimum, Frontier-Fiber, and Verizon- Fiber; more than 80% of their panelists were able to attain an actual median download speed of at least 95% of the advertised download speed.367 119. The second metric, the  80/80 consistent speed metric, considers how speeds experienced by an ISP s sampled panelists vary during the day. The  80/80 consistent speed metric is the minimum actual speed experienced by 80% of the sampled panelists during at least 80% of the peak usage period. Consistency of speed may be more important to consumers using applications that are both high-bandwidth and sensitive to variations in actual speed such as video content.368 Measured by this service metric, Charter, Comcast, Cox, Mediacom, Optimum, Frontier-Fiber, and Verizon-Fiber provided greater than 90% of the advertised speed during peak usage period to more than 80% of panelists for more than 80% of the time.369 In contrast, the 80/80 consistent download speed was 46% for Cincinnati Bell s DSL.370 120. Latency. The differences in median latency among terrestrial-based services are relatively small and unlikely to affect the perceived quality of highly interactive applications (voice communications, video chat, and interactive gaming). Thus, the median latencies ranged from 10 ms to 27 ms in our measurements (with the exception of CenturyLink-DSL and Cincinnati Bell-DSL which had median latencies of 40 ms and 34 ms, respectively).371 121. Packet Loss. The Measuring Broadband America program denotes a packet to be lost if the latency exceeds three seconds or if the packet is never received, and that a 1% standard for packet loss is the point at which highly interactive applications such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) would experience significant degradation.372 ISPs using fiber technologies have the lowest packet loss, while ISPs using copper-based technologies, e.g., DSL, have the highest packet loss.373 122. Residential Connections and Speed. Figure II.B.20 shows total residential connections grouped by advertised download speed tier, from June 2015 to December 2019. As of December 2019, approximately 63% of the 105 million residential connections advertised download speeds of at least 100 Mbps. Thus, almost 66.4 million connections had access to download speeds of 100 Mbps in December 2019, which is more than 5.5 times the number of connections capable of 100 Mbps in June 2015. In addition, the number of connections with download speeds less than 100 Mbps declined year over year. 367 Id. 16. 368 Id. 369 Id. at 16-17. 370 Id. at 17. 371 Id. Satellite providers no longer participate in the program; however, the Eighth Measuring Broadband America Report stated that,  Technology-determined latencies are typically small for terrestrial broadband services and are thus unlikely to affect the perceived quality of applications. The higher latencies of geostationary satellite-based broadband services may impair the perceived quality of such highly interactive applications. FCC, Eighth Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report (2018) at 8, https://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring- broadband-america/2018/2018-Fixed-Measuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf. 372 Tenth Measuring Broadband America Report at 18. 373 Id. 83 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.20 Residential Fixed Connections by Download Speed 2015-2019 1.5 1.3 100.0 1.7 6.2 2.2 2.1 7.2 2.8 2.4 7.9 3.9 8.8 4.6 10.3 11.8 5.2 13.0 11.6 12.6 13.6 13.3 80.0 14.4 14.5 15.6 16.2 19.0 18.0 20.8 20.9 21.4 21.0 22.4 24.6 60.0 23.1 31.2 36.8 40.0 36.4 38.5 37.2 66.4 35.6 57.4 60.9 49.9 Residential Residential Connections in Millions 20.0 39.0 28.2 23.6 17.7 11.9 14.9 0.0 June 2015 Dec 2015 June 2016 Dec 2016 June 2017 Dec 2017 June 2018 Dec 2018 June 2019 Dec 2019 At least 100 Mbps At least 25 Mbps & less than 100 Mbps At least 10 Mbps & less than 25 Mbps At least 3 Mbps & less than 10 Mbps Less than 3 Mbps Source: Staff calculations based on FCC Form 477 data. 123. Figure II.B.21 shows a cross section of technology and download speed tiers for all residential connections in the United States as of December, 2019. Approximately 81% of cable connections can receive download speeds of at least 100 Mbps, while FTTP technology provides about 23% of its connections with download speeds in the 25 Mbps to 100 Mbps range, and about 68% of its connections with speeds of 100 Mbps or more. Just under one-third of fixed terrestrial fixed wireless connections fall in the 3 Mbps to 10 Mbps range, and DSL technology delivers download speeds between 10 Mbps and 25 Mbps to approximately 35% of its connections, and download speeds between 3 Mbps to 10 Mbps to approximately 28% of its connections. Satellite provides speeds between 10 Mbps and 25 Mbps to approximately 30% of its connections. 84 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.21 Residential Fixed Connections by Download Speed Tier and Technology As of December 31, 2019 (in thousands)374 At least At least Less At least 3 At least 25 1.5 Mbps 10 Mbps than Mbps & Mbps & less At least 100 Technology & less & less Total 1.5 less than than 100 Mbps than 3 than 25 Mbps 10 Mbps Mbps Mbps Mbps aDSL 383 701 4,893 6,194 4,951 354 17,476 sDSL 1 # 1 1 * * 5 Other Wireline^ # 1 3 6 8 57 74 Cable 23 17 399 3,508 8,780 54,413 67,140 FTTP 29 21 388 1,043 3,773 11,426 16,681 Satellite 22 3 61 538 * * 1,795 Fixed Wireless 29 73 446 537 316 108 1,501 Total 489 817 6,190 11,826 18,991 66,367 104,680 Source: Staff calculations based on FCC Form 477 data. 124. In terms of advertised download speeds available to the end user, Figure II.B.22 shows that Comcast and Charter each provide 100 Mbps throughout their entire service area, and 500 Mbps to approximately 97% and 99% of their service areas, respectively. Of the ten providers reported in Figure II.B.22, only three (AT&T, Cox, and Altice) provide 1 Gbps to a substantial portion of their footprint. Cox makes this speed tier available to approximately 99% of its service area; AT&T makes it available to almost 30% of its service area; and Altice provides this speed to approximately 17% of its service area. While Frontier and Verizon do not report 1 Gbps service within their service areas, Verizon does offer 500 Mbps to about 64% of its service area, and Frontier offers 100 Mbps to approximately 43% of its service area. JAB Wireless and TDS tend not to offer speeds over 25 Mbps, largely because it is difficult to do so through terrestrial fixed wireless technology. 374 # = Rounds to Zero; * = Data withheld to maintain firm confidentiality; ^ Power Line and Other are summarized with Other Wireline to maintain confidentiality. 85 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.22 Available Download Speed within the Provider Footprint for Residential Fixed Services in the United States (Dec. 31, 2019) Source: FCC Form 477 deployment data for residential consumers and 2010 Census data. d. Access to Multiple Providers 125. We provide an assessment of the number of fixed broadband provider options available to consumers in the United States and the U.S. Territories using FCC Form 477 deployment data as of December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Our analysis considers options for fixed terrestrial at five minimum speed thresholds 10/1 Mbps, 25/3 Mbps, 50/5 Mbps, 100/10 Mbps, and 250/25 Mbps. Using these data and ACS demographic data,375 we also analyze the demographics of areas where consumers have access to multiple broadband providers. 126. Figures II.B.23 and II.B.24 report estimates of the percentage of the U.S. population where FCC Form 477 data indicate that zero, one, two, and at least three providers of fixed terrestrial broadband services are deployed as of December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Focusing on the population with access to two or more providers, the 2019 data show that approximately 84% of Americans have at least 2 options for 10/1 Mbps fixed terrestrial service; approximately 74% have at least two options for 25/3 Mbps fixed terrestrial service; approximately 67% have at least two options for 50/5 375 For this analysis, we examine population density, the number of households and median household income. We rely upon the ACS Five-Year Estimates 2014-2018 for median household income (in 2018 inflation-adjusted dollars) reported at the census block group level. 86 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Mbps service; approximately 56% have at least two options for 100/10 Mbps service; and approximately 35% have at least 2 options for 250/25 Mbps service.376 Fig. II.B.23 Population (millions) by Provider Options for Fixed Terrestrial Services (Dec. 31, 2019) 10/1 Mbps 25/3 Mbps 50/5 Mbps 100/10 Mbps 250/25 Mbps Providers pop. % pop. % pop. % pop. % pop. % Zero 7.146 2.2% 14.520 4.4% 20.697 6.2% 27.520 8.3% 42.721 12.9% One 46.309 14.0% 72.596 21.9% 89.659 27.0% 118.654 35.8% 172.548 52.0% Two 153.411 46.2% 148.611 44.8% 150.411 45.3% 141.207 42.6% 103.394 31.2% At Least 124.912 37.6% 96.051 29.0% 71.011 21.4% 44.396 13.4% 13.114 4.0% Three Fig. II.B.24 Population (millions) by Provider Options for Fixed Terrestrial Services (Dec. 31, 2018) 10/1 Mbps 25/3 Mbps 50/5 Mbps 100/10 Mbps 250/25 Mbps Providers pop. % pop. % pop. % pop. % pop. % Zero 8.329 2.5% 18.310 5.5% 24.554 7.4% 32.223 9.7% 50.349 15.2% One 51.198 15.5% 87.650 26.5% 102.548 31.0% 129.725 39.2% 179.582 54.3% Two 161.009 48.7% 153.147 46.3% 152.212 46.0% 135.435 40.9% 89.391 27.0% At Least 110.204 33.3% 71.632 21.7% 51.426 15.5% 33.357 10.1% 11.417 3.5% Three 127. Comparing the data year over year also shows an increase in the service options available for all speed tiers, where, for example, between 2018 and 2019, the percentage of the population with two or more provider options offering 25/3 Mbps service increased from approximately 68% to approximately 74%. If we were to include satellite broadband in the analysis below, the FCC Form 477 data indicate that nearly all areas in the country377 have access to satellite broadband as an alternative for fixed terrestrial broadband service at both the 10/1 Mbps and 25/3 Mbps levels, but not yet at the higher speed thresholds reported in the above figures. 128. We next evaluate the population estimates and the percentage of the population with coverage of multiple fixed terrestrial broadband service providers in rural and urban areas, and on Tribal lands.378 Our analysis of the population shows that, in general, more Americans had multiple provider 376 The percentage of the population with an estimated number of fixed terrestrial provider options in a census block is equal to the population covered by the specific number of providers (e.g., zero, one, two, more than two) within the geographic area divided by the total population in the census block. Throughout this section, percentages provided may not sum to exactly 100% due to rounding. 377 The FCC Form 477 deployment data for satellite broadband indicate that satellite service offering 25/3 Mbps speeds is available to all but 0.02% of the population. As we have previously noted, these data could overstate the availability of satellite services. While satellite signal coverage may enable operators to offer services to wide swaths of the country, overall satellite capacity may limit the number of consumers that can actually subscribe to satellite service at any one time. 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 9000, para. 30 & n.99. 378 We separately provide estimates of the percentage of the population with multiple provider options for fixed terrestrial broadband services, for each state, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territory, as of Dec. 31, 2019. See (continued& .) 87 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 options in 2019 than in 2018. For example, comparing Figures II.B.25 and II.B.26 below, there was approximately an 8 percentage point increase between 2018 and 2019 for 25/3 Mbps service in rural areas, and approximately a 5 percentage increase in urban areas. On Tribal lands, the change in the percentage of the population with multiple provider options increased by over 7 percentage points for 25/3 Mbps service. Fig. II.B.25 Population (millions) by Provider Options for Fixed Terrestrial Services (Dec. 31, 2019) 10/1 Mbps 25/3 Mbps 50/5 Mbps 100/10 Mbps 250/25 Mbps Providers POP. % POP. % POP. % POP. % POP. % Rural Areas Zero 4.854 7.4% 11.261 17.2% 16.364 25.1% 21.636 33.1% 29.024 44.4% One 19.646 30.1% 26.063 39.9% 29.095 44.5% 30.991 47.4% 29.555 45.2% Two 24.342 37.3% 19.265 29.5% 15.570 23.8% 10.947 16.8% 6.065 9.3% At Least 16.481 25.2% 8.734 13.4% 4.294 6.6% 1.749 2.7% 0.679 1.0% Three Urban Areas Zero 2.292 0.9% 3.260 1.2% 4.333 1.6% 5.884 2.2% 13.697 5.1% One 26.663 10.0% 46.533 17.5% 60.564 22.7% 87.663 32.9% 142.993 53.7% Two 129.069 48.4% 129.346 48.5% 134.840 50.6% 130.260 48.9% 97.330 36.5% At Least 108.431 40.7% 87.317 32.8% 66.718 25.0% 42.647 16.0% 12.436 4.7% Three Tribal Lands Zero 0.488 12.0% 0.849 20.9% 1.254 30.9% 1.470 36.3% 2.042 50.4% One 1.367 33.7% 1.443 35.6% 1.639 40.4% 1.753 43.3% 1.608 39.7% Two 1.278 31.5% 1.104 27.2% 1.030 25.4% 0.759 18.7% 0.390 9.6% At Least 0.920 22.7% 0.657 16.2% 0.129 3.2% 0.070 1.7% 0.013 0.3% Three infra Appendices C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, and C-6. For these figures, we aggregate census blocks within a state by competitor count category, i.e., we group census blocks within each state by the number of competitors in the census block and then sum the population in these census blocks by competitor count category. The census blocks within a state are aggregated by the number of provider options (zero, one, two, and at least three). We also provide estimates of the percentage of the population residing in urban areas with multiple provider options fixed terrestrial services, segmented by urban area type (urban clusters and urbanized areas). The Census Bureau categorizes census blocks as part of an urbanized area, an urban cluster or neither (rural). Urbanized areas are areas with populations over 50,000 and urban clusters are in areas with populations from 2500-50,000. Areas with fewer than 2500 people are considered rural. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban Area FAQs, https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/ua/2010ua_faqs.pdf (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). See also infra Appx. C-7. Our assessment of Tribal lands is conducted by examining the census blocks that have been identified by the Census Bureau as federally recognized Tribal lands for the 2010 Census. 88 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.26 Population (millions) by Provider Options for Fixed Terrestrial Services (Dec. 31, 2018) 10/1 Mbps 25/3 Mbps 50/5 Mbps 100/10 Mbps 250/25 Mbps Providers Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Rural Areas Zero 6.032 9.3% 14.398 22.2% 19.030 29.4% 24.272 37.5% 31.468 48.6% One 21.210 32.8% 28.121 43.4% 29.808 46.0% 30.365 46.9% 28.311 43.7% Two 24.156 37.3% 16.709 25.8% 13.237 20.4% 8.799 13.6% 4.567 7.1% At Least 13.344 20.6% 5.515 8.5% 2.667 4.1% 1.306 2.0% 0.396 0.6% Three Urban Areas Zero 2.297 0.9% 3.912 1.5% 5.524 2.1% 7.951 3.0% 18.881 7.1% One 29.988 11.3% 59.529 22.4% 72.740 27.3% 99.360 37.4% 151.271 56.9% Two 136.853 51.4% 136.438 51.3% 138.975 52.2% 126.636 47.6% 84.824 31.9% At Least 96.860 36.4% 66.118 24.9% 48.758 18.3% 32.051 12.0% 11.021 4.1% Three Tribal Lands Zero 0.527 13.1% 1.117 27.7% 1.400 34.7% 1.619 40.1% 2.202 54.5% One 1.333 33.0% 1.458 36.1% 1.646 40.7% 1.814 44.9% 1.563 38.7% Two 1.081 26.8% 0.929 23.0% 0.861 21.3% 0.554 13.7% 0.270 6.7% At Least 1.098 27.2% 0.534 13.2% 0.132 3.3% 0.051 1.3% 0.005 0.1% Three 129. Figures II.B.27 to II.B.31 present a demographic analysis of the average percentage of the population with coverage for the number of provider options and speed tiers by population density quartile, median household income quartile, and household count quartile.379 We observe that the number of provider options increases with the number of households in the census block group, population density, and median household income.380 In general, the census block groups in rural areas will have the 379 For these figures, we include only the areas for which we have complete data. We aggregate census blocks within a census block group by competitor count category, that is, we group census blocks within a census block group by the number of competitors and then sum the population in these census blocks by competitor count category. The census blocks within a state are aggregated by provider number option groups (zero, one, two, and at least three). The census block group is the smallest geographic area for which income data is available. We use the ACS Five-Year Estimates 2014-2018 for income measures for the states, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico; income measures are not available for the other U.S. Territories. Median household income is based on 2018 data and is measured in 2018 inflation-adjusted dollars. Population Density is the total population residing in the census block group as of 2018 divided by the square miles of land in the census block group, with the estimate of land area is based upon the 2010 Census. 380 We use the ACS Five-Year Estimates 2014-2018 for income measures. Median household income in the past twelve months is measured in 2018 inflation-adjusted dollars. 89 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 lowest population density and the lowest number of households, and are likely to have the largest percentage of the population with zero provider options, i.e., no deployment of the reported service.381 Fig. II.B.27 Average Percentage of Population with Multiple Provider Options for 10/1 Mbps by Census Block Group Demographic Variable (Dec. 31, 2019) Zero One Two At Least Three Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Pop. Density) 7.1% 29.9% 37.4% 25.6% Second Quartile 1.1% 14.2% 48.5% 36.2% Third Quartile 0.6% 9.7% 47.1% 42.6% Fourth Quartile (Highest Pop. Density) 0.5% 6.7% 52.0% 40.7% Median Household Income ($2018) First Quartile (Lowest Median Household 2.9% 19.6% 42.9% 34.6% Income) Second Quartile 3.0% 17.6% 43.9% 35.5% Third Quartile 2.0% 13.9% 46.3% 37.8% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household 0.9% 8.8% 52.2% 38.1% Income) Household Count First Quartile (Lowest Household Count) 3.1% 17.5% 46.5% 32.9% Second Quartile 2.3% 15.5% 46.2% 36.0% Third Quartile 2.2% 15.0% 46.0% 36.8% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Count) 1.8% 12.6% 46.2% 39.4% 381 For these figures, we aggregate census blocks within a census block group by competitor count category, i.e., we group census blocks within a census block group by the number of competitors and then sum the population in these census blocks by competitor count category. The census blocks within a state are aggregated by provider number option groups (zero, one, two, and more than two). The census block group is the smallest geographic area for which income data are available. 90 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.28 Average Percentage of Population with Multiple Provider Options for 25/3 Mbps by Census Block Group Demographic Variable (Dec. 31, 2019) Zero One Two At Least Three Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Pop. Density) 16.5% 40.9% 29.6% 13.1% Second Quartile 1.8% 25.1% 47.0% 26.1% Third Quartile 0.8% 16.9% 48.2% 34.0% Fourth Quartile (Highest Pop. Density) 0.7% 12.7% 51.4% 35.3% Median Household Income ($2018) First Quartile (Lowest Median Household 6.3% 29.1% 39.7% 24.9% Income) Second Quartile 6.9% 27.1% 41.2% 24.7% Third Quartile 4.5% 23.4% 44.5% 27.6% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household 1.5% 15.3% 51.3% 31.9% Income) Household Count First Quartile (Lowest Household Count) 6.2% 27.0% 43.3% 23.5% Second Quartile 5.3% 24.7% 43.6% 26.3% Third Quartile 4.9% 23.8% 43.8% 27.5% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Count) 3.4% 20.0% 45.5% 31.2% 91 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.29 Average Percentage of Population with Multiple Provider Options for 50/5 Mbps by Census Block Group Demographic Variable (Dec. 31, 2019) Zero One Two At Least Three Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Pop. Density) 23.5% 46.3% 23.9% 6.3% Second Quartile 2.3% 32.9% 47.1% 17.7% Third Quartile 1.0% 22.5% 51.4% 25.0% Fourth Quartile (Highest Pop. Density) 0.7% 15.3% 53.5% 30.5% Median Household Income ($2018) First Quartile (Lowest Median Household 7.9% 35.4% 39.1% 17.6% Income) Second Quartile 9.7% 32.6% 40.7% 16.9% Third Quartile 7.1% 28.9% 44.1% 19.9% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household 2.3% 19.4% 52.8% 25.5% Income) Household Count First Quartile (Lowest Household Count) 8.5% 32.7% 42.3% 16.6% Second Quartile 7.5% 30.2% 43.3% 19.0% Third Quartile 6.9% 29.0% 43.7% 20.4% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Count) 4.7% 25.1% 46.7% 23.5% 92 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.30 Average Percentage of Population with Multiple Provider Options for 100/10 Mbps by Census Block Group Demographic Variable (Dec. 31, 2019) Zero One Two At Least Three Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Pop. Density) 30.7% 49.9% 16.9% 2.5% Second Quartile 3.4% 44.7% 42.4% 9.5% Third Quartile 1.3% 33.6% 50.3% 14.7% Fourth Quartile (Highest Pop. Density) 0.9% 21.5% 53.8% 23.9% Median Household Income ($2018) First Quartile (Lowest Median Household 10.0% 43.4% 35.8% 10.8% Income) Second Quartile 12.7% 40.6% 36.5% 10.1% Third Quartile 9.8% 37.5% 40.5% 12.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household 3.2% 28.0% 51.3% 17.5% Income) Household Count First Quartile (Lowest Household Count) 10.8% 40.1% 38.5% 10.6% Second Quartile 9.9% 38.0% 39.8% 12.3% Third Quartile 9.2% 37.2% 40.6% 13.0% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Count) 6.4% 34.5% 44.4% 14.7% 93 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.31 Average Percentage of Population with Multiple Provider Options for 250/25 Mbps by Census Block Group Demographic Variable (Dec. 31, 2019) Zero One Two At Least Three Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Pop. Density) 41.8% 48.1% 9.2% 0.8% Second Quartile 8.7% 59.1% 29.1% 3.0% Third Quartile 3.7% 54.2% 37.8% 4.3% Fourth Quartile (Highest Pop. Density) 1.6% 45.2% 46.3% 6.9% Median Household Income ($2018) First Quartile (Lowest Median Household 16.4% 54.6% 26.1% 3.0% Income) Second Quartile 19.0% 51.7% 26.0% 3.3% Third Quartile 14.4% 52.2% 29.7% 3.8% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household 5.4% 48.6% 40.9% 5.0% Income) Household Count First Quartile (Lowest Household Count) 16.0% 50.8% 30.1% 3.1% Second Quartile 15.0% 50.4% 30.8% 3.8% Third Quartile 14.1% 52.1% 30.1% 3.6% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Count) 10.7% 53.5% 31.4% 4.4% 3. Competition between Fixed and Mobile Broadband Service 130. In this section, we provide an assessment of competition between fixed and mobile broadband services. We first describe the distribution of fixed and mobile Internet usage, including trends in how consumers access the Internet. We then describe differences in service attributes, including plan characteristics, that could lead consumers to subscribe to both fixed and mobile broadband or to substitute one service for the other. Finally, we discuss technological and strategic developments that likely affect competition between fixed and mobile broadband services. 131. Technological innovation and increased deployment in both the mobile wireless and fixed broadband services markets have broadened consumers choices of how to access the Internet. In the mobile wireless market, for example, the availability of average and median nationwide download speeds in excess of 25 Mbps by the end of 2019 have meant that in parts of the United States, consumers could rely on a mobile connection for a variety of data-intensive applications, including high quality video, that previously required fixed broadband connectivity.382 Moreover, innovative business plans that use unlicensed spectrum have led to entry into the mobile wireless market by traditionally fixed 382 See supra Fig. II.A.29. For instance, streaming high definition (HD) video generally requires a minimum download speed in the 5-8 Mbps range. See FCC, Broadband Speed Guide, https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/broadband-speed-guide (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). See also 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8990, para. 11. 94 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 broadband service providers.383 Nevertheless, many households continue to subscribe to both fixed and mobile broadband service,384 suggesting that these separate services offer benefits that are either complementary or independent of each other.385 132. Distribution of fixed and mobile broadband subscribers. Based on 2019 ACS estimates, of the estimated 122.8 million households in the United States, an estimated 106.4 million households paid for an Internet service subscription.386 Approximately 95.8 million households paid for a cellular data plan for a smartphone or other mobile device; 15 million of these cellular data households, which represents 14% of all households with paid Internet subscriptions, relied on a mobile data plan as their only means of access.387 In comparison, 86.9 million households subscribed to home fixed broadband Internet service in 2019; 9.1 million of these fixed broadband households, which represents roughly 9% of households with paid Internet subscriptions, relied on fixed broadband as their only means of access.388 As Figure II.B.32 shows, the mobile-only percentage has increased somewhat from roughly 13% in 2016 whereas the fixed-only percentage declined from roughly 14% in 2016. The figure indicates that the relatively steeper decline in the fixed-only percentage compared to the relatively flat mobile-only percentage contributed to an overall decline in the percentage of households that paid for a mobile or a fixed subscription, but not for both. 383 See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 23-25; FSF Comments at 7-8. See also 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8991, para. 12 (stating that  fixed broadband and mobile wireless broadband services are not functional substitutes in all cases ). 384 See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Explore Data, https://data.census.gov/mdat/#/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020) (overlap between households subscribing to both fixed and mobile broadband service can be assessed using the  HISPEED and  BROADBND variables, as discussed below). 385 See, e.g., INCOMPAS Comments at 5-6; NTCA Comments at 1-3; Common Cause/NHMC Reply Comments at 3-4. 386 The ACS asks participants who indicate that they gain access to the Internet at their  house, apartment, or mobile home by  paying a cell phone company or Internet service provider whether they,  or a member of [their] household have access to the Internet using a  broadband (high speed) Internet service such as cable, fiber optic, or DSL service installed in [the] household,  cellular data plan for a smartphone or other mobile device, or other means, including satellite or dial-up Internet. See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Why We Ask Questions About Computer and Internet Use, https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each- question/computer/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). Answers to this survey question do not necessarily correspond with the Commission s current definition of advanced telecommunications capability. We note that an additional 3 million households connected to the Internet without a paid subscription. See 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8987, para. 2 & n.2. 387 Estimates based on the ACS 1-Year Estimates  Public Use Microdata Sample for year 2019. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Explore Data, https://data.census.gov/mdat/#/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 388 See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Explore Data, https://data.census.gov/mdat/#/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 95 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.32 Percentage of Internet-Subscribing Households with Only One Type of Service Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2016-2019 ACS 1-Year Estimates  Public Use Microdata Sample. Note:  Households Subscribing to One Internet Service includes  Mobile Data Plan Only,  Fixed Broadband Only, as well as  Satellite Only, and  Other Only subscriptions. 133. Figure II.B.33 contrasts the number of households with mobile broadband, fixed broadband, or any kind of paid Internet subscription, to, respectively, households that pay for services other than mobile broadband, households that pay for services other than fixed broadband, or households that do not have Internet service. The figure indicates that growth in mobile data subscribership helps explain the overall decline in single subscription households. 96 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.B.33 Total Number and Percentage of Households Accessing the Internet by Technology389 2016 2017 2018 2019 Internet Subscribing Yes 81,016,923 87,137,750 92,022,014 95,803,806 Households with No 16,286,855 13,594,218 11,747,750 10,589,173 Mobile Data 83.3% 86.5% 88.7% 90.0% Internet Subscribing Yes 80,039,346 82,742,020 84,693,323 86,927,655 Households with Fixed No 17,264,432 17,989,948 19,076,441 19,465,324 Broadband 82.3% 82.1% 81.6% 81.7% Paid Internet Yes 97,303,778 100,731,968 103,769,764 106,392,979 Subscription Using Any No 17,988,722 15,941,035 14,468,294 13,392,836 Technology 84.4% 86.3% 87.8% 88.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2019 ACS 1-Year Estimates - Public Use Microdata Sample. 134. The increase in mobile-only households shown in Figure II.B.32 is consistent with findings from Pew Research. Pew reported that in 2019, 37% of Americans mostly use a smartphone when accessing the Internet, a share that has nearly doubled from 19% in 2013.390 Among the 27% of adults surveyed who indicated that they do not subscribe to home fixed broadband, 45% stated that a smartphone does everything they need.391 Of the 27% of survey participants who did not subscribe to home broadband in 2019, 17% were Americans who were smartphone-only Internet users and another 10% who did not use the Internet.392 The 17% smartphone-only Internet user figure represents a decline from 20% in 2018, which marks a reversal of a generally increasing trend since 2013, when 8% of Americans were smartphone-only Internet users.393 As Figure II.B.34 shows, the percentage of smartphone-only Internet users is higher among groups with lower levels of broadband adoption, including survey participants who were younger, black or Hispanic, or in lower income brackets.394 389 The first two categories,  Internet Subscribing Households with Mobile Data and  Internet Subscribing Households with Fixed Broadband consist of households that paid for an Internet service. The third category,  Paid Internet Subscription Using Any Technology, consists of either households who paid for one or more Internet subscriptions ( Yes ) or those who did not have Internet access ( No ). 390 Monica Anderson, Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2019 (June 13, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/. This increasing trend applies to all age groups surveyed by Pew, with younger age groups more likely to have said that they mostly use a smartphone when accessing the Internet than older groups. For example, in 2019, 58% of adults aged 18-29, 47% of those aged 30-49, 27% of those aged 50-64, and 15% of those aged 65 or older responded that they mostly use a smartphone when accessing the Internet. Id. 391 Monica Anderson, Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2019 (June 13, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/. Pew notes that this is an increase from 27% of adults who did not subscribe to home broadband in 2015. Id. 392 Monica Anderson, Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2019 (June 13, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/; Pew Research Center, Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet (June 12, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet- broadband/. 393 See Pew Mobile Fact Sheet (figure illustrating smartphone dependency over time). 394 Monica Anderson, Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2019 (June 13, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/. See also Pew Research Center, Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet (June 12, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact- (continued& .) 97 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 135. While the demographic trends reported in Figure II.B.34 suggest that some smartphone Internet users nevertheless view fixed and mobile broadband as complementary or independent, and only subscribe to mobile service out of budgetary considerations, additional Pew data suggest that many smartphone-only subscribers view mobile broadband as a substitute. Specifically, 6 in 10 non-fixed- broadband users say that they have never had fixed high-speed Internet service at home, and 80% say they would not be interested in having fixed broadband at home in the future.395 We also note that, based on ACS data, it is possible that substitution goes in both directions that is, not only might some Internet users view mobile broadband as a substitute for fixed broadband, but that fixed broadband may be viewed by some as a substitute for mobile broadband as well.396 Fig. II.B.34 Smartphone-Only Internet Users by Demographic, Income, and Geographic Group Source: Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2019, Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (June 13, 2019), replicated from figure entitled  17% of Americans are  smartphone only Internet users. 136. Service Attributes of Fixed and Mobile Broadband. A majority of Internet users subscribe to both fixed and mobile service. For instance, approximately 81% of the 95.8 million ACS- estimated mobile service subscribing households also subscribe to fixed broadband at home.397 This may be driven by differences in quality and other plan characteristics, as well as complementary aspects of fixed and mobile services. sheet/internet-broadband/ (tracking smartphone dependence over time among subgroups by age, race, gender, income, education, and community). 395 Monica Anderson, Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2019 (June 13, 2019), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/06/13/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2019/. 396 Specifically, of an estimated 106.3 million households with smartphones, ACS estimates that only 92.8 million households subscribe to a mobile data plan, with an estimated 7.4 million of the remaining households with a smartphone not paying for Internet access, and 5.6 million subscribing to home fixed broadband. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Explore Data, https://data.census.gov/mdat/#/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). Although some smartphone owners who indicated that they did not subscribe to a mobile data plan may have been temporary non-subscribers for instance, due to lack of income others may prefer to rely exclusively on Wi-Fi at home and elsewhere to access the Internet. 397 See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Explore Data, https://data.census.gov/mdat/#/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 98 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 137. Certain commenters have emphasized that fixed broadband (particularly fiber) delivers faster speeds and permits higher consumption before data caps set in at a lower Mbps price, whereas mobile broadband offers the convenience of Internet access outside the home.398 For example, in mid- 2020, many mobile wireless 4G LTE-based  unlimited plans stipulated that during times of network congestion, subscribers would be deprioritized if they consumed beyond a limit that was typically set to no greater than 100 GB.399 Most plans also capped the video streaming resolution to 480p.400 By comparison, many major fixed broadband providers either do not have a data cap or cap access at close to 1 terabyte (TB), typically charging $10 for additional 50 GB increments.401 138. Among mobile wireless service providers, prices for unlimited plans were typically set at $60 or more for the first line among nationwide facilities-based post-paid mobile wireless providers and $50 or more among nationwide facilities-based pre-paid providers, with a lower per-line cost for additional lines.402 By comparison, prices among terrestrial fixed wireless providers were more localized and varied substantially with the advertised speed.403 Whereas terrestrial fixed wireless prices typically apply to all devices at the connected premise (either through a physical connection or via Wi-Fi), mobile hotspots that allow access to devices other than those added to the mobile wireless subscription typically cost more, require a higher priced (premium) plan, or are limited in speed (e.g., to 3G).404 139. Speed tests also demonstrate that typical mobile broadband speeds are not yet comparable to fixed broadband speeds. In section II.A.5.d, we find that speed tests showed nationwide mean and median 4G LTE download speeds of, respectively, 36.3 Mbps and 26.2 Mbps in the second half of 2019.405 While such speeds are comparable to fixed broadband speeds in parts of the United States, they are well below advertised speeds available in many locations, including, for instance, fiber-connected homes, where advertised speeds can reach 1 Gbps.406 Higher speeds and greater data allowances lead many subscribers to offload their traffic to Wi-Fi connected fixed broadband networks.407 For instance, Cisco estimates that average North American Wi-Fi speeds were 56.8 Mbps, and projected to grow to 109.5 Mbps by 2023, whereas North American mobile speeds would increase from 27 Mbps to 58.4 398 See INCOMPAS Comments at 6; NTCA Comments at 3. 399 Matt Horne, The Best unlimited data plans in the US (October2020) (Oct. 1, 2020), https://www.androidauthority.com/best-unlimited-data-plans-700314/. 400 See Matt Horne, The Best unlimited data plans in the US (October2020) (Oct. 1, 2020), https://www.androidauthority.com/best-unlimited-data-plans-700314/. 401 Dave Schafer and Peter Holslin, Which Internet Service Providers Have Data Caps? (Cara Haynes ed., Sept. 2, 2020), https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/which-internet-service-providers-have-data-caps. 402 See supra section II.A.4; see also Matt Horne, The Best unlimited data plans in the US (Nov. 2, 2020), https://www.androidauthority.com/best-unlimited-data-plans-700314/. 403 We note that advertised speed has also become a factor in mobile wireless pricing, with some service providers charging more for 5G speeds. See Matt Horne, The Best unlimited data plans in the US (Nov. 2, 2020), https://www.androidauthority.com/best-unlimited-data-plans-700314/. 404 Matt Horne, The Best unlimited data plans in the US (Nov. 2, 2020), https://www.androidauthority.com/best- unlimited-data-plans-700314/. 405 See supra section II.A.5. 406 For instance, FSF noted that 23% of Americans can access gigabit service and over 67% can access 500 Mbps services as of the third quarter of 2019. FSF Comments at 9. See also Julia Tanberk, The State of Broadband in America, Q3 2019 (Oct. 23, 2019), https://broadbandnow.com/research/q3-broadband-report-2019. 407 See NTCA Comments at 3; FSF Comments at 10; USTelecom Comments, Attach. at 34 (showing percent share of U.S. IP Traffic over Wi-Fi). 99 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Mbps during the same time period.408 By 2022, 59% of mobile data traffic is projected to be offloaded to Wi-Fi,409 as additional spectrum is made available for unlicensed use and with projected increases in mobile data consumption.410 140. Technological and Strategic Developments. Recent technological advancements and entry from non-traditional providers of mobile broadband are likely to further bolster competition between fixed and mobile broadband services. Two such developments are the transition to 5G and entry by traditional providers of fixed broadband into the mobile broadband market. 141. The Commission has previously found that mobile wireless providers continue to improve their networks, notably through the deployment of 5G technology, which may have performance characteristics similar to fixed services in certain environments.411 As 5G networks become more widely available and consumers transition to 5G-capable devices, mobile connections are expected to become faster and more reliable.412 Existing mobile broadband service providers have already begun to deploy 5G networks throughout the United States.413 Moreover, the Commission has taken a number of actions to spur the development and deployment of 5G networks.414 142. In addition, major cable providers and other firms which have not previously provided mobile broadband have begun to compete with mobile broadband providers using hybrid-MVNO strategies.415 While such competitors continue to hold a relatively small market share, some have seen their subscribership increase. For instance, Comcast has increased its number of mobile wireless broadband subscribers from 1.2 million at the end of 2018 to 2.1 million by the end of 2019, and Charter has increased its number from 134,000 at the end of 2018 to 1.1 million in 2019.416 By bundling their 408 Cisco, Cisco Annual Internet Report (2018 2023) at 17, Table 7, 18, Table 8 (Mar. 9, 2020), https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/executive-perspectives/annual-internet-report/white-paper-c11- 741490.html. 409 Cisco Systems, Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2017-2022 at 17 (Feb. 2019), https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.mediapost.com/uploads/CiscoForecast.pdf. 410 See, e.g., Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band; Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 GHz, ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3852, 3853, para. 2 (2020) (6 GHz Report and Order and FNPRM). 411 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8990, para. 11. 412 See, e.g., GSMA Global System for Mobile Communications Association, The 5G Guide: A Reference For Operators at 29 (Apr. 2019), https://www.gsma.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/The-5G- Guide_GSMA_2019_04_29_compressed.pdf. 413 See Stephen Schenck, Every 5G City and Region for Every Major Carrier in the US (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint) (July 16, 2020), https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/03/05/verizon-att-sprint-tmobile-5g-cities/; see also Sarah Barry James & Taimoor Tariq, As 5G goes nationwide, US carriers capex, spectrum plans come into focus (Mar. 5, 2020), S&P Global Market Intelligence, https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news- insights/latest-news-headlines/as-5g-goes-nationwide-us-carriers-capex-spectrum-plans-come-into-focus-57403396; Press Release, AT&T, AT&T Continues to Build 5G on the Nation s Best Wireless Network (July, 23, 2020) https://about.att.com/newsroom/2020/5g_announcements.html; Press Release, Verizon Wireless, Verizon 5G Ultra Wideband service available in more cities (Oct. 14, 2020) https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-5g-ultra- wideband-service-available-more-cities. As a condition of its merger with Sprint, T-Mobile has committed to provide 5G coverage to 99% of the population within six years, including serving 90% of the rural population with download speeds of at least 50 Mbps. See T- Mobile-Sprint Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 10801-28, Appx. G. 414 See infra section V.A. 415 See supra section II.A. 416 See FSF Comments at 7-8. See also Press Release, Comcast, Comcast Reports 4th Quarter and Full Year 2018 Results (Jan, 23, 2019), https://www.cmcsa.com/news-releases/news-release-details/comcast-reports-4th-quarter- (continued& .) 100 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 mobile broadband services with their fixed broadband and other offerings, non-traditional competitors can provide their customers with plan options that traditional facilities-based mobile wireless providers do not offer to many of their customers.417 At the same time, because certain cable MVNOs have only offered mobile broadband to existing residential broadband subscribers to date, their effect on nationwide mobile broadband competition has been limited.418 C. Voice Telephone Services 143. For decades, the public switched telephone network (PSTN) was the only means of real- time, two-way voice communications. However, due to technological advancements, such as mobile voice telephony and IP-based voice services, there now exists a multitude of other voice service options for consumers. We focus on voice services interconnected with the PSTN in our reporting, in light of the continued ubiquitous availability and use of the PSTN and interconnected services, but acknowledge that there are many other types of offerings, including apps running solely on data networks that provide similar functionality entirely outside the PSTN and nearly indistinguishable to providers and the Commission from other network data traffic.419 Many of these apps combine the benefits of voice, video, and text communications into one data-based service.420 144. Modern interconnected voice services can be divided between fixed and mobile voice services. Fixed can further divided into traditional switched access connections and interconnected Voice over IP. VoIP is voice carried simply as data over an Internet Protocol network, and can be a voice service that is bundled with the underlying broadband connection or offered independent of the necessary data service (over-the-top, or OTT). Approximately 78% of the traditional switched access voice connections are provided through ILECs; conversely non-ILEC providers deliver about 82% of all VoIP subscriptions.421 145. Fixed Voice. As of December 2019, there were 1,311 providers of fixed residential voice services.422 Of these, the five largest providers in alphabetical order are: AT&T, CenturyLink, Charter, and-full-year-2018-results (for 1.2 million figure); Comcast Corporation, 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 4 (filed Jan. 30, 2020) (Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K), https://www.cmcsa.com/static-files/b5555e74-b063-4638-9503- 07ebd5c1d021 (for 2.1 million figure); Press Release, Charter Communications, Charter Announces Fourth Quarter 2018 Results (Jan. 31, 2019) https://ir.charter.com/news-releases/news-release-details/charter-announces-fourth- quarter-2018-results (for 134,000 figure); Press Release, Charter Communications, Spectrum Mobile Milestone: 1.1M Subscriber Lines and Counting (Mar. 9, 2020) https://corporate.charter.com/newsroom/spectrum-mobile- mileston-1.1m-subscriber-lines-and-counting (for 1.1 million figure). 417 For example, Comcast offers mobile wireless services using MVNO rights over Verizon s wireless network and its existing network of in-home and outdoor Wi-Fi hotspots. Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 4. We note that AT&T and Verizon mobile customers are also able to purchase fixed/mobile broadband service bundles where available in AT&T s and Verizon s fixed broadband footprints. AT&T 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 2; Verizon 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 3. 418 Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 4. 419 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12668, para. 203. 420 Id. 421 Based on FCC Form 477 data (Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report), the totals and percentages that are reported in this section are preliminary only, are subject to corrections as appropriate by the service provider, and the final data will be published in due course by the agency. See, e.g., FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Voice Telephone Services: Status as of December 31, 2018 (Mar. 6, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/voice-telephone-services-report. 422 Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at Table 2. 101 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Comcast, and Verizon. These five providers together account for approximately 68% of residential fixed voice connections.423 146. Retail voice subscriptions are provided through two fixed technologies: Traditional switched access and interconnected VoIP subscriptions. Our most recent data from the December 2019 FCC Form 477 shows that there are 38 million end-user switched access lines, including 15.5 million residential lines.424 In addition, there are close to 70 million interconnected VoIP subscriptions, including 36 million residential subscriptions.425 Of these combined 108 million fixed retail voice telephone service subscriptions, 48% were residential connections, and 52% were business connections.426 147. The relative growth trends between fixed switched access and interconnected VoIP services are illustrative. The number of fixed retail switched-access lines declined over the past three years at a compound annual rate of 13%, while interconnected VoIP subscriptions increased at a compound annual growth rate of 3%.427 The number of fixed switched access providers also decreased, with 967 providers reporting fixed end-user switched access lines in December 2019, down from 992 in December 2018.428 There were 1,457 providers of interconnected VoIP services in December 2019, up from 1,321 a year earlier.429 As of December 2019, residential fixed voice connections were about 30% switched access and 70% interconnected VoIP, with residential switched access connections comprising only 14.4% of all fixed retail voice connections.430 148. Mobile Voice. As of December 2019, FCC Form 477 data indicate that there were 356 million mobile voice subscriptions in the United States, representing an increase in mobile voice subscriptions at a compound annual growth rate of 2% over the previous three years.431 The number of households that eschew fixed subscriptions altogether in favor of relying solely on mobile services has been increasing. Approximately 59.2% of all households were mobile-only in late 2019, with adults in lower age-groups more likely to live in mobile-only households.432 In the 25-29 age group, over 80% of adults lived in mobile-only households; 78.3% of those aged 30-34 lived in mobile-only households; 70.9% of those aged 35-44 lived in mobile-only households; 55.6% of those aged 45-64 lived in mobile- 423 Staff calculations based on FCC Form 477 data. 424 Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at Fig. 2. 425 Id. 426 Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at 2. 427 Id. 428 Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at Table 2. 429 Id. 430 Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at Fig. 2. 431 Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at 2. We note that the number of mobile subscriptions is larger than the population of the United States, in part because many consumers use more than one mobile device with an assigned telephone number. See also Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 10-133, Fifteenth Report, 26 FCC Rcd 9664, 9759, para. 159 (2011). 432 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, January-June 2019, at 1-2 (2020). 102 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 only households; and 30.9% of those 65 and older lived in mobile-only households.433 About 1% of households had neither mobile nor fixed voice subscriptions, as of late 2019.434 149. Over-the-Top VoIP. Fixed VoIP providers distinguish OTT VoIP, where the consumer uses an independent data service over a broadband connection, from all other types of interconnected VoIP.435 The December 2019 FCC Form 477 data show 12.9 million OTT VoIP subscriptions and far more non-OTT VoIP, numbering 56.2 million subscriptions.436 Mobile VoIP presents a more complicated picture, given the plethora of communications apps in smartphone app ecosystems. Data on how customers use these apps for voice communication are not reported on FCC Form 477, as many of them do not permit users to make or receive calls connecting to numbers on the PSTN, and they therefore are not classified as interconnected VoIP.437 The dynamic nature of this subsector makes it difficult to quantify the number of users, though consumers benefit from the ever evolving choices available to meet their voice communication needs. D. The Video Marketplace 1. Overview of the Video Programming Marketplace 150. In the United States, consumers can access video programming content from multiple sources, only some of which are licensed or regulated by the Commission. Some video providers, like broadcast television stations, have been in the marketplace for over 70 years,438 whereas other providers, like online video providers, have more recently entered the market. The video marketplace continues to be dominated by the three categories of participants that have defined the market for the past decade: multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), online video distributors (OVDs), and broadcast television stations. While the three primary categories of market participants remain constant, the past two years have seen a number of changes in terms of competition among these participants, changes in consumer viewing habits, and the continued expansion of video programming options. 151. MVPDs use wireline or satellite technologies to deliver video programming to consumers. MVPDs sell channel packages, which typically include linear channels from cable networks and retransmitted broadcast television stations, as well as video-on-demand (VOD) content.439 Traditional MVPDs include cable providers like Comcast and Charter, telephone company providers like Verizon Fios and AT&T U-verse, two direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers DISH and DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) as well as numerous smaller cable and telephone company MVPDs. Continuing a downward trend that began in 2013, MVPDs shed 6.4 million video subscribers between 2018 and 2019, 433 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2017, at 2 (2018). 434 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, January-June 2019, at 3 (2020). 435 Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at 1. 436 See Preliminary December 2019 Voice Telephone Services Report at Fig. 3. Non-OTT interconnected VoIP service is delivered to the end-user customer s premises over a high-capacity connection by the same entity (or affiliated entity) that provides the interconnected VoIP service. OTT interconnected voice service is offered only as a stand-alone voice service while a non-OTT interconnected voice service can be offered either as a stand-alone voice service or bundled with Internet access service. 437 47 C.F.R. § 9.3. Examples of these services are apps such as Skype, Facebook Messenger, Facetime, and WhatsApp. 438 Commercial television began in the late 1940s. See Mitchell Stephens, History of Television, https://stephens.hosting.nyu.edu/History%20of%20Television%20page.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 439 Linear channels offer specific video programs at a specific time of day in a manner akin to broadcast television. VOD programs are stored electronically by the provider and can be viewed by the consumer at any time, i.e., on demand. 103 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 ending 2019 with 83.4 million video subscribers. As many MVPDs also provide Internet, voice, and mobile wireless services, MVPDs continue to compete by offering discounted services to consumers who purchase video services as part of a bundle that includes some combination of other service offerings. 152. OVDs deliver video content to consumers via the Internet and have continued to proliferate and grow in the past two years. Using a variety of business models, including advertising- supported video offerings; a subscription model for access to an entire video library; and a transactional approach where consumers pay to view a movie or television episode on a per-program basis, OVDs continue to offer consumers a range of options. In addition to these models, virtual multichannel video programming distributors (vMVPDs), which deliver packages of streaming linear channels to subscribers similar to those offered by traditional MVPDs, continue to carve a foothold in the marketplace and to attract consumers away from traditional MVPDs. While OVDs often provide access to content from third-party producers, some OVDs continue to increase the amount of original and owned content they provide as a means of differentiating themselves from competitors. Subscription based OVDs and vMVPD subscriptions have risen in recent years, appearing to capture attention from consumers at the expense of traditional MVPDs. OVDs use the Internet to deliver video content to consumers.440 OVDs include Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, YouTube TV, Disney+, AT&T TV Now,441 and Sling TV, as well as numerous other providers tending to focus on small or niche audiences. 153. Broadcast television stations offer linear video programming channels over the air to households that receive this programming using a television set connected to an antenna. Although many broadcast television stations are affiliated with commercial broadcast networks (e.g. ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC), participants in this category also include independent commercial stations442 and noncommercial educational stations. Programming aired on broadcast television stations includes local programming produced by stations, network programming, and syndicated programming. Broadcasters continue to seek to expand their video programming offerings by adding multi-cast streams, exploring new technologies, and offering content streaming via the Internet. Stations derive their revenue from the sale of advertisements during the programming and from fees paid by MVPDs for the carriage of the station s signal. Advertising revenue accounts for approximately two-thirds of revenue earned by all stations, with retransmission consent revenue accounting for the remaining one-third of revenue. While advertising revenue has remained relatively flat in recent years, retransmission consent revenue has grown substantially as the fees charged by broadcast stations to MVPDs have increased. 2. Multichannel Video Programming Distributors a. Providers and Subscribers 154. At the end of 2019, seven MVPDs each had over one million video subscribers. These include four cable companies (Comcast, Charter, Cox, and Altice), DISH (a DBS MVPD), Verizon Fios (a telephone company MVPD), and DIRECTV (a combined DBS and telephone company MVPD).443 440 For purposes of this section, we define OVD as  an entity that distributes video programming (1) by means of the Internet or other Internet Protocol (IP)-based transmission path; (2) not as a component of an MVPD subscription or other managed video service; and (3) not solely to customers of a broadband Internet access service owned or operated by the entity or its affiliates. Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 16-247, Eighteenth Report, 32 FCC Rcd 568, 570 & n.4 (MB 2017) (18th Video Competition Report). 441 AT&T s DIRECTV NOW was rebranded as AT&T TV Now in the Summer of 2019. Press Release, AT&T, DIRECTV NOW Rebrands Under AT&T TV Family (July 30, 2019), https://about.att.com/newsroom/2019/directv_now_rebrands_under_att_tv.html. 442 Major independent stations include, for example, WGN-TV in Chicago, KCAL-TV in Los Angeles, and WHDH- TV in Boston. 443 See S&P Global, Top Cable MSOs (last accessed Oct 27, 2020) (Top Cable MSOs); Ian Olgeirson, Tony Lenoir & Erica Pabst, Multichannel Trends: Multichannel subs tank in 2019 amid shifting operator focus, viewing (continued& .) 104 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Twelve cable MVPDs and two telephone company MVPDs each had between 100,000 and 1 million video subscribers.444 In addition, many small cable and telephone company MVPDs serve significantly smaller numbers of customers.445 155. Cable MVPDs generally serve non-overlapping franchise areas and, as a result, most consumers have access to only one cable MVPD, and cable MVPDs do not generally compete directly with one another for the same subscriber.446 DIRECTV and DISH have national footprints and almost all consumers have access to both DBS MVPDs.447 Telephone company MVPDs rarely compete with one another for the same subscribers; however, they almost always overbuild areas already served by at least one cable company.448 As such, most consumers have access to one cable MVPD and two DBS MVPDs, and some consumers additionally have access to a telephone company MVPD. 156. MVPD subscribership has been declining since 2013.449 Figure II.D.1 shows that collectively, MVPDs lost about 6.4 million video subscribers between 2018 and 2019. Cable MVPDs lost 1.8 million subscribers; DBS MVPDs lost 3.7 million subscribers; and telephone company MVPDs lost 785,000 subscribers. Fig. II.D.1 MVPD Video Subscribers 2018 2019 Net Change Percentage Change Cable 50,483,224 48,646,056 -1,837,168 -3.6% DBS 29,127,000 25,379,487 -3,747,513 -12.9% Telephone Company 10,223,618 9,439,003 -784,615 -7.7% 89,833,842 83,464,546 -6,369,296 -7.1% Source: S&P Global, Multichannel Industry Benchmarks (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020). 157. Figure II.D.2 shows the relative shares of MVPD subscribers for cable, DBS, and telephone companies. While the total number of MVPD subscribers declined from 89.8 million in 2018, to 83.5 million in 2019, cable s relative share increased, the share for DBS fell, and the share for telephone company MVPDs changed little. priorities, S&P Global (Mar. 10, 2020) (Multichannel Subs Tank). We do not provide URLs for S&P Global throughout this section because it is a subscription service that cannot be publicly accessed. 444 The twelve cable MVPDs were Mediacom, Wide Open West, Cable One, Atlantic Broadband, RCN, Midcontinent Communications, Armstrong Utilities, Service Electric Cable TV, Blue Ridge Cable Technologies, WaveDivision Holdings, TDS, and Buckeye Broadband. Top Cable MSOs. The telephone company MVPDs were Cincinnati Bell and Frontier Communications. Multichannel Subs Tank. 445 Top Cable MSOs. 446 Where cable overbuilders exist (for example, RCN) consumers have access to more than one cable MVPD. The available data, however, do not permit us to calculate how many homes have access to two cable MVPDs. 447 We recognize that physical features (e.g., tall buildings, terrain, and trees) prevent some housing units from receiving DBS signals. 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12597 & n.133. 448 S&P Global, Cable TV Investor, at 12-14 (Jan. 2020 Monthly Report) (Jan. 2020 Cable Investor). 449 S&P Global, U.S. Multichannel Industry Benchmarks (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020) (Multichannel Bechmarks). 105 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.D.2 Percentage of MVPD Subscribers Year Cable DBS Telephone 2018 56.2 32.4 11.4 2019 58.3 30.4 11.3 Source: S&P Global, U.S. Multichannel Industry Benchmarks (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020). 158. Figure II.D.3 shows the number of subscribers at the end of 2019 for the eight largest MVPDs, which account for approximately 96% of all MVPD subscribers. Figure II.D.3 Largest MVPDs 2019 Subscribers Comcast 21,641,000 AT&T450 19,473,000 Charter 16,320,000 Dish 12,032,000 Verizon 4,346,000 Cox 3,529,000 Altice 3,255,000 Mediacom 747,000 Source: S&P Global, Multichannel Operator Peer Analysis (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020). 159. According to S&P Global, many of today s legacy MVPDs experience  paper-thin margins amid ever-increasing programming costs. 451 ACA maintains that small and rural cable operators are especially challenged as they tend to pay higher rates for programming, relative to larger MVPDs.452 Some MVPDs have discontinued selling their MVPD service to new customers.453 These MVPDs include Google Fiber, WideOpenWest, CenturyLink, and twenty smaller MVPDs.454 b. Channel Packages and Bundling 160. MVPDs typically offer a variety of channel packages at different prices. For example, in mid-2020, DISH offered four packages with channel counts ranging from 190 to more than 290, priced 450 AT&T subscribers include DIRECTV and U-verse. AT&T 2019 Annual Report at 20. 451 Jan. 2020 Cable Investor at 15. 452 ACA Connects Comments at 7-9. 453 ATVA Comments at 5-6. See also John Fingas, Google Fiber stops offering traditional TV service to new customers, Engadget (Feb. 4, 2020), https://www.engadget.com/2020-02-04-google-fiber-drops-conventional- tv.html. 454 See S&P Global, Cable TV Investor at 4-5 and 10-11 (Feb. 2020 Monthly Report) (Feb. 2020 Cable Investor); Phillip Dampier, CenturyLink ends Prism TV Service Expansion, Stop The Cap! (Apr. 10, 2018), https://stopthecap.com/2018/04/10/centurylink-ends-prism-tv-service-expansion/; S&P Global, Cable TV Investor at 7-8 (Mar. 2020 Monthly Report) (Mar. 2020 Cable Investor). 106 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 from $59.99 to $94.99 per month.455 Similarly, Verizon offered three packages with channel counts ranging from 125 to more than 425, priced from $50.00 to $90.00 per month.456 Although no two channel packages are exactly alike, there is substantial overlap in the packages offered by competing MVPDs. Traditional MVPDs tend to offer all of the major cable and broadcast networks, similar premium channels, and little in the way of exclusive content.457 Because of their programming similarities, households typically subscribe to only one MVPD. As such, MVPDs may view competition for their channel packages as winner-take-all an MVPD either wins the household or loses out to a rival s channel package. 161. MVPDs also generally offer VOD content and TV Everywhere services, which allows access to some channels over the Internet and to VOD programs both inside and outside the home.458 The number of programs and channels offered on TV Everywhere varies widely among providers. For example, in early 2020, S&P Global determined that DIRECTV offered 10,625 TV Everywhere movie titles, whereas Charter offered 1,995.459 Some MVPDs also offer their own online channel packages (e.g., Sling TV and AT&T TV Now) separate from their MVPD service. More recently, Verizon, Cincinnati Bell, and WideOpenWest began bundling online channel packages from others (e.g., YouTube TV, FuboTV, and Philo) with their Internet service offerings.460 These online channel packages are examined more fully in our discussion of OVDs below. 162. MVPDs offer discounted rates to consumers who purchase video services as part of a bundle that includes some combination of video, Internet, voice, and mobile wireless services.461 According to S&P Global, wireline MVPDs  have adopted a wide array of bundle options to keep the video segment relevant. 462 At the end of 2019, only approximately 10% of video subscribers from the largest cable MVPDs were standalone, approximately 40% of video subscribers purchased two services, and approximately 50% purchased at least three services.463 Some evidence indicates that the strategy of bundling services has a positive effect on customer retention.464 455 DISH, Satellite TV Packages, Compare Packages and Prices, https://www.dish.com/programming/packages/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 456 Verizon, Verizon Fios TV Packages and Plans, More than Digital Cable TV, https://www.verizon.com/home/fiostv/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 457 The NFL Sunday Ticket, offered exclusively by DIRECTV, is perhaps the most well-known exception to this observation. See Todd Spangler, DirecTV Should Retain NFL Sunday Ticket exclusively, AT&T CEO Says, Variety (Apr. 24, 2019), https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/att-directv-nfl-sunday-ticket-exclusivity-1203196461/. 458 TV Everywhere uses an authentication process to ensure that users subscribe to an MVPD. Outside the home refers to any location where a subscriber has access to the Internet. Some MVPDs offer fewer channels outside the home than inside the home. Charter, for example, offers all channels in the home, but fewer channels outside the home. Charter Spectrum, Stream TV App  TV Shows, Live TV, & Movies, https://www.spectrum.com/cable- tv/spectrum-tv-app.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 459 Mar. 2020 Cable Investor at 12-14. 460 See Jan. 2020 Cable Investor at 14-15; Feb. 2020 Cable Investor at 4-5. 461 Michelle McLean, Cheap Cable & Internet Packages, TV Bundle Deals, Money Saving Pro, https://www.moneysavingpro.com/internet-providers/tv-bundles/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); LowerMyBills, The Best TV and Internet Bundles in 2020, https://www.lowermybills.com/personal-finance/save-money/the-best-tv-and- internet-bundles-in-2020/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 462 Kamran Asaf, Pricing & Packaging, Comcast bundle strategy relies on providing maximum options, S&P Global (Mar. 30, 2020). 463 S&P Global, U.S. cable double-and triple-play subscribers, Q4 19 (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020). 464 See, e.g., Jeffrey Prince and Shane Greenstein, Does Service Bundling Reduce Churn?, 23 J. of Economics & Management Strategy, 839-75 (2014) (finding that bundling reduces subscriber churn); Jeffrey Prince, The Dynamic (continued& .) 107 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 c. Pricing 163. The prices displayed to consumers on MVPD websites, in mailings, or in television advertisements typically target new subscribers, and are often for a limited time, with prices increasing once the promotional period ends.465 For example, in 2020, DIRECTV offered new subscribers price discounts for 12 months with a 24-month agreement,466 while Comcast offered new subscribers their Signature Double Play bundle of TV and Internet for $99 per month for the first year, and $119 a month for the second year with a two-year agreement.467 164. With traditional MVPDs, the introductory prices are often below the prices paid by long- term subscribers whose initial contracts have expired. In addition to the advertised prices, MVPDs explain that the monthly bill may include additional broadcast fees, regional sports fees, and equipment rental fees. For example, in 2020, the Comcast Signature Double Play bundle of TV and Internet included equipment, installation, taxes and fees, Broadcast TV Fee (up to $14.95 per month), Regional Sports Fee (up to $8.75 per month) and other applicable extra charges, which were subject to change during and after the introductory term.468 Any fees over-and-above prominently displayed advertised prices are typically included in the advertisements and listed on a subscriber s monthly billing statement.469 165. Subscriptions to traditional MVPD channel packages generally include the use of set-top boxes. Some MVPDs include one set-top box with the subscription and monthly rental fees for additional set-top boxes, which vary in price depending on the HD and DVR features. Some MVPDs have integrated access to a few streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, and Amazon Video Prime into their set-top boxes, which gives MVPD subscribers the ability to access these streaming services without having to purchase additional streaming equipment.470 The largest MVPDs also provide application software that can be downloaded to PCs, smart phones, smart TVs and streaming devices (e.g., Roku, Amazon Fire, Google Chromecast, and Apple TV) allowing subscribers to stream MVPD programming to additional TVs and other devices, without the need for additional set-top boxes.471 Effects of Triple Play Bundling in Telecommunications, Time Warner Cable, Research Program on Digital Communications (Winter 2012), https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f911/191f666a1353aad808f3a44a7c8a603718f8.pdf. 465 This is a practice that is common in subscription and other repeat-purchase markets, in which firms exercise market power over consumers who face switching costs, while also seeking to attract existing customers of rival firms. Consumer switching costs could include transaction costs, learning costs, or contractual costs. See, e.g., Paul Klemperer, Markets with consumer switching costs, 102 The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 375-394 (1987); Curtis R. Taylor, Supplier surfing: Competition and consumer behavior in subscription markets, 34 RAND Journal of Economics, 223-246 (2003). 466 DIRECTV, DIRECTV Official Site, https://www.directv.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 467 Comcast, Digital Cable TV Service  XFINITY, https://www.xfinity.com/learn/digital-cable-tv (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 468 Comcast, Offer Details, https://www.xfinity.com/learn/offers/details?offerId=1776000348 (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 469 For example, Comcast s website offers TV and Internet for $89.99 per month. Right below the price, however, it says  Pricing and Other Info . When clicked a box opens that provides additional details including information about equipment fees, broadcast fees, and regional sports fees. Comcast, Internet, TV, Phone, Smart Home and Security  Xfinity, https://www.xfinity.com (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 470 Mar. 2020 Cable Investor at 4-7. 471 For example, Charter offers the Spectrum TV App. Charter, How to Download the Spectrum TV App  Phone, PC, & Streaming Devices | Spectrum, https://www.spectrum.com/app (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 108 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 166. S&P Global maintains that traditional MVPD video service has become less affordable over the past 20 years.472 Specifically, inflation adjusted average monthly MVPD revenue per subscriber increased from $37.85 per month to $65.29 per month (approximately 73%) between 1999 and 2019.473 Meanwhile, inflation adjusted average annual household income increased from $54,737 to $60,539 over the 20-year interval (approximately 11%).474 However, at the same time, DVR service, VOD service, and additional channels have been added over this time period, so that service quality has changed as well.475 d. Video Revenue 167. Video Revenue. Video revenues for the largest MVPDs are shown in Figure II.D.4. According to S&P Global, video revenue from cable, DBS, and telephone company MVPDs has fallen from a peak of $116.4 billion in 2016, to $109.0 billion in 2018, and $105.0 billion in 2019.476 Although the bulk of MVPD video revenue comes from subscriptions, MVPDs also earn revenue by selling advertising. S&P Global reports that cable MVPDs earned net local advertising revenue of $4.5 billion in 2018 and $4.2 billion in 2019.477 Fig. II.D.4 MVPD Video Revenue (in millions) 2018 2019 Percentage Change AT&T478 $33,357 $32,110 -3.7% Comcast $22,455 $22,270 -0.8% Charter $17,348 $17,607 1.5% DISH479 $13,621 $12,808 -6.0% Source: AT&T 2019 Annual Report at 20; Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K; Charter 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 32; DISH 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 81. e. Content Ownership 168. Some traditional MVPDs have ownership interests in cable, broadcast, and regional sports networks that allow them to vertically integrate their ownership of a distribution network with ownership of video programming. For example, Comcast owns a dozen cable channels, including the NBC Sports Network, USA, E!, Syfy, MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo, Oxygen, and the Golf Channel; regional sports networks in Baltimore/Washington, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Portland (Oregon), Sacramento, and San Francisco; the NBC and Telemundo broadcast networks; 11 NBC-affiliated broadcast stations, 30 Telemundo-affiliated broadcast stations; and Universal Pictures.480 AT&T owns 472 Feb. 2020 Cable Investor at 5-7. 473 Id. at 5. S&P Global asserts that average monthly MVPD revenue per subscriber is a good proxy for the average monthly MVPD bill. MVPDs include cable, DBS, and telephone company MVPDs. Id. 474 Calculations are derived from data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Id. 475 Id. at 5-6. 476 Tony Lenoir, US multichannel video revenues reel from deep sub erosion in 10-year outlook, S&P Global (Dec. 13, 2019). 477 Multichannel Bechmarks. 478 Video revenue for AT&T includes revenue from AT&T TV Now and other streaming video services. 479 Video revenue for DISH includes revenue from Sling TV. Satellite TV 2019 revenues totaled $34 billion, a decrease from $35.5 billion in 2018. SIA Comments at 5, Appx. B; SIA Ex Parte, Attach. For total satellite TV revenues from 2013 through 2017, see 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12673, Fig F-1. 480 Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 6-8. 109 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 WarnerMedia, which consists of Turner, Home Box Office, Warner Bros., and regional sports networks.481 169. Common ownership of entities that deliver and entities that supply video programming may have implications for competition and programming diversity in the MVPD market. Thus, Congress enacted various provisions related to vertical integration between cable operators and programming networks (e.g., program access, program carriage, channel occupancy limit).482 The FCC has reviewed vertical mergers between MVPDs and owners of video content.483 In its reviews of vertical mergers, the FCC seeks to identify and assess the potential harms and benefits that might arise. The FCC s Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA) recently commented on the analysis of vertical mergers in response to the DOJ/FTC draft vertical merger guidelines.484 The 2020 Vertical Merger Guidelines were released on June 30, 2020.485 f. Commercial Availability of Equipment Used to Access MVPD Programming and Services 170. Consistent with section 629 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 486 and in response to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office, the Commission recently committed to gather data, solicit comments, and analyze issues relevant to whether there is a need for further regulations to ensure the commercial availability of devices to access MVPD programming.487 481 AT&T 2019 Annual Report at 22-24. 482 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 533, 536, 548. In 1992, many of the most popular cable programming networks were owned by cable operators. Congress was concerned that cable operators had the ability and incentive to thwart the competitive development of additional programming networks by refusing to carry unaffiliated networks or by insisting on an ownership stake in return for carriage. See id. § 536. Congress was also concerned that cable operators had the ability and incentive to thwart competition in the video distribution market by withholding their most popular programming networks from rival MVPDs. See id. § 548. 483 See, e.g., Applications of Charter Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., and Advance/Newhouse Partnership For Consent to Assign or Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, MB Docket No. 15-149, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 6327 (2016); Applications of AT&T Inc. and DIRECTV for Consent to Assign or Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, MB Docket No. 14-90, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 9131 (2015); Applications of Comcast Corporation, General Electric Company and NBC Universal, Inc. For Consent to Assign Licenses and Transfer Control of Licensees, MB Docket No. 10-56, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 4238 (2011); Applications of General Motors Corporation, Hughes Electronics Corporation and The News Corporation LTD, MB Docket No. 03-124, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 473 (2004); Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214 Authorizations by Time Warner Inc., and America Online, Inc., et al., CS Docket No. 00-30, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 6547 (2001). 484 Letter from Giulia McHenry, Chief, Office of Economics and Analytics, FCC, to Joseph J. Simons, Chairman, Ian R. Conner, Director, Bureau of Competition, and Andrew Sweeting, Director, Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission (Mar. 2, 2020), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/798-draft-vertical-merger- guidelines/vertical_merger_guidelines_fcc_to_ftc.pdf. 485 See Vertical Merger Guidelines, U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (June 30, 2020). 486 This provision requires the Commission to  adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability to consumers of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor. 47 U.S.C. § 549(a). 487 In 2016, the Commission proposed regulations for navigation devices (i.e., set-top boxes) that consumers use to access MVPD video services. Expanding Consumers Video Navigation Choices; Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices, MB Docket No. 16-42 and CS Docket No. 97-80, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking & (continued& .) 110 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Accordingly, the 2020 Public Notice sought data and comment to  help the Commission analyze how the ongoing evolution in the video programming market affects competition in the . . . market for set-top boxes and devices, including how it affects the extent to which consumer choice for devices to access MVPD content remains a relevant aspect of the competitive environment. 488 As detailed below, our review of relevant comments and other available information revealed: A decline in consumer rental of set-top-boxes; increased usage of apps to watch MVPD programming on devices other than set-top- boxes; and increased availability of video programming services that resemble traditional MVPD products but do not require use of a set-top-box. 171. The Commission received several filings relevant to this issue,489 each of which suggest that, due to increased competition, subscribers now rent fewer devices from their MVPDs than previously. NCTA notes that section 629 directed the Commission to  ensure that consumers have the option to purchase set-top boxes capable of accessing multichannel video programming from entities not affiliated with their MVPD.490 NCTA contends that  Congress s primary objective was to give consumers one new option: To buy from retail stores a device that could take the place of the device they otherwise rented from their incumbent cable operator. 491 NCTA maintains that all of the nation s largest MVPDs now support apps that can be used to watch MVPD programming without using an MVPD leased set-top box.492 According to NCTA, in 2019,  only 47 percent of all TV sets were connected to an MVPD leased set-top box, the lowest figure ever in the era of all-digital cable television. 493 NCTA also notes that consumers now have access to video streaming services that resemble traditional MVPD services, but do not require use of a set-top box.494 Accordingly, NCTA notes that  [f]ueled by the rise of cord-cutting, the shift to online video services, and the availability of traditional cable services through apps that run on third party devices and smart TVs, the major manufacturers of these video devices  including Roku, Apple, Google, and Amazon  now have tens of millions of active users. 495 172. FSF notes that section 629 requires the FCC to sunset its navigation device rules when: (1) the market for MVPDs is fully competitive; (2) the market for converter boxes, and interactive equipment used for MVPDs services is fully competitive; and (3) elimination of the regulations would promote competition and the public interest.496 FSF argues that traditional MVPDs are subject to effective competition from OVDs, including vMVPDs, device choice continues to expand, and existing Memorandum Opinion and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 1544 (2016). In 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the Commission s proposed regulations did not sufficiently analyze  the extent to which Internet-based providers affect consumer choice for video programming and what that change means for the importance of consumer choice for devices in the context of the Act. U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-17-785, FCC Should Conduct Additional Analysis to Evaluate Need for Set-Top Box Regulation, at 22 (2017) (2017 GAO Report). Following the 2017 GAO Report, the Commission indicated that it would use future Communications Marketplace Reports to gather data, solicit comments, and perform analysis on issues relevant to whether there is a need for further regulations to ensure the commercial availability of devices to access MVPD programming. Letter from Michelle Carey, Chief, Media Bureau, FCC to Mark Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office (Sept. 21, 2017). 488 See 2020 Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 1580. 489 See generally NCTA Comments; FSF Comments; AELP/OMI Comments. 490 NCTA Comments at 21. 491 Id. 492 Id. at 21-22. 493 Id. at 22. 494 Id. at 23. 495 NCTA Nov. 6 Ex Parte at 2. 496 FSF Comments at 24 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 549(e)). 111 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 regulations are  unnecessary, one-sided [and] result in higher prices for consumers. 497 Accordingly, FSF maintains, the triggering conditions for section 629 s sunset requirement have been met.498 AELP/OMI argues that they  would have allowed viewers to subscribe and watch programs through applications that would reach the set-top boxes of their not their providers  choice while also reducing unnecessary set- top box fees, but also noting that they do  not necessarily agree with the specifics of the rule. 499 173. Marketplace data support NCTA s assertions that MVPD subscribers are increasingly able to use applications that reach the devices of their choice and that set-top box rentals are declining. Specifically, S&P Global shows that the number of set-top boxes used by MVPD subscribers peaked in 2016 at 258 million units and declined to 222 million units in 2019.500 Although some of the decline has been attributed to the reduction in the number of MVPD subscribers, some has been attributed to the growing usage of MVPD apps.501 When section 629 was adopted, MVPD subscribers seeking to view their MVPD service on multiple TVs often rented a set-top box for each TV.502 Today, MVPD subscribers can use apps to distribute MVPD service to additional TVs. 174. For example, Comcast s Xfinity TV Partner Program is expanding the range of devices that can access the Xfinity TV service and Stream app,503 and Charter s Spectrum TV app gives subscribers the ability to access their MVPD service on a range of devices.504 NCTA states that  [a]ll of the nation s largest MVPDs support apps that can be used to watch their content on hundreds of millions of consumer-owned devices, such as smart TVs; tablets; streaming sticks and devices such as Apple TV, Roku, Google Chromecast, and Amazon Fire; smartphones; game consoles; and personal computers. 505 Further, NCTA asserts that almost all TV households have at least one of these devices, the average TV household has twelve of them, and consumers used more than 36.5 million such devices to watch MVPD programming without a leased set-top box in 2018 a 35% increase from the previous year.506 In addition, the decline in the use of set-top boxes has resulted from the growth of vMVPDs which provide channel packages and VOD programming similar to those offered by traditional MVPDs, but deliver that content to consumers exclusively via the Internet and usually do not require use of any leased equipment. At the end of 2019, as shown in Figure II.D.12 below, 9.3 million households subscribed to vMVPDs. Although the data indicate that an increasing number of MVPD subscribers have the ability to use apps to view MVPD programming, whether MVPD subscribers still need a set-top box to receive their MVPD 497 Id. at 24-25. 498 Id. at 25. 499 AELP/OMI Comments at 9. 500 Ian Olgeirson & Neil Barbour, Cable, telco and DBS set-tops dwindle in US installed forecast, S&P Global (July 16, 2019) (Set-Tops Dwindle). 501 Id. 502 It was not until 2007 (11 years after section 629 was enacted) that consumers began using the Internet to stream video programming. Netflix began streaming video on demand in 2007 and PlayStation Vue and Sling TV began offering TV Channel Packages in 2015. NCTA notes that in 1996,  most consumers considered their incumbent cable operator to be their sole option for multichannel video services and set-top box equipment. NCTA Comments at 21. 503 Comcast, Xfinity TV Partner Program, https://developer.comcast.com/tv-partner (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 504 Charter, Stream TV App  TV Shows, Live TV, & Movies, https://www.spectrum.com/cable-tv/spectrum-tv-app (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 505 NCTA Comments at 21. NCTA specifically lists Comcast, AT&T/DIRECTV, Charter, DISH, Cox, Altice, Verizon, Mediacom, and Frontier. Id. at 21 & n.62. 506 Id. at 21-22 (citing Kagan Market Intelligence, US Ownership of Smart TVs, SMPs, Smart Speaker Devices Continues to Climb (Jan. 17, 2020); Kagan Market Intelligence, US Connected Video Device Projections through 2022 (Nov. 2018); D+R International Ltd., 2018 Annual Report, Voluntary Agreement for Ongoing Improvement to the Energy Efficiency of Set-Top Boxes at 20-22 (Aug. 13, 2019)). 112 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 programming appears to depend on the MVPD.507 S&P Global claims, for example, that cable operators prefer to maintain at least one set-top box in the home, and offer application software to stream MVPD programming to additional televisions and other devices. 508 175. COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on MVPDs. S&P Global argues that the decline in traditional MVPD subscribers did not significantly accelerate in the first half of 2020.509 Collectively, MVPDs lost 2.1 million video subscribers in the first quarter of 2020 and another 2.2 million in the second quarter for a six month loss of 4.3 million video subscribers.510 According to S&P Global, losses in the first six months of 2020 reflect both the impact of the economic downturn and the longer-term consumer shift to streaming services.511 3. Online Video Distributors 176. As noted above, an OVD is an entity that distributes video programming to consumers over the Internet, not as a component of an MVPD subscription, and not solely to customers of an ISP owned or operated by the entity or its affiliates.512 OVD content typically is available to U.S. consumers on a nationwide basis, although in some cases (e.g., OVDs that offer cable and broadcast channels) geographic availability of OVD content can be limited.513 a. OVD Service Offerings 177. The OVD marketplace contains many participants, employing a variety of business models and strategies. We discuss four types of service provided by OVDs: Advertising-based Video On Demand (AVOD); Subscription Video On Demand (SVOD); Transactional Video On Demand (TVOD); and vMVPD.514 178. AVOD. These providers allow consumers to access video programming online free of charge.515 AVODs generate revenue by including advertisements with their content.516 Some AVOD providers are owned by large media or technology companies. For example, Google s YouTube offers a wide variety of content, including user-created videos, professionally produced video content, music 507 Set-Tops Dwindle. 508 Id. 509 Ian Olgeirson, Tony Lenoir and Erica Pabst, Traditional multichannel drop nears 2.2 million, virtual subs rebound in Q2, S&P Global (Aug. 14, 2020) (Traditional Multichannel Drop). 510 S&P Global, US multichannel video market share trends (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020) (Multichannel Video Market Share Trends). 511 Traditional Multichannel Drop. 512 Although online video includes both professional and amateur content, our focus is on content similar to the programming offered by cable and broadcast networks. 513 For example, geographic availability may depend on contractual arrangements with cable networks, broadcast stations, and other content owners. 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12609, para. 86. Availability may also require building, or contracting with, content distribution networks (CDNs) to enhance the speed and quality of video content delivered to consumers. Id. 514 The information in this section is current as of June 2020. We note that OVD offerings and prices continue to change. 515 See Seth Shafer, Economics of Internet: State of US online video: Ad-supported video, S&P Global (Nov. 7, 2019) (Shafer Ad Supported Video); Imagen, What are SVOD, TVOD, AVOD?, https://imagen.io/resources/what- are-svod-tvod-avod/ (last visited June 12, 2020); Uscreen, SVOD, AVOD, TVOD - How to Pick a Monetization Model for Your VOD, https://www.uscreen.tv/video-business-school/svod-tvod-avod-monetization-models/ (last visited June 12, 2020). 516 Uscreen, SVOD, AVOD, TVOD - How to Pick a Monetization Model for Your VOD, https://www.uscreen.tv/video-business-school/svod-tvod-avod-monetization-models/ (last visited June 12, 2020). 113 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 videos, and clips from TV shows and movies.517 Several AVOD services provide access to movies and TV shows, including NBCUniversal s Vudu Movies On Us,518 Amazon s IMDb TV,519 Fox s Tubi,520 and Crackle, which is a joint venture between Sony and Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment.521 ViacomCBS s ad-supported Pluto TV service provides multi-device access to more than 250 linear channels of content, including movies, TV shows, news, and sports, as well as thousands of on-demand movies.522 In addition, broadcast networks have branded AVOD products, including NBC News Now, CBSN, and CBS Sports HQ, which feature live news programming and news video clips.523 Launched in July 2020, NBC s Peacock Free provides access to live and on-demand programming, including some original content.524 179. SVOD. SVOD providers charge consumers a recurring subscription fee for access to the provider s video content.525 While it is not possible to list all providers in this report, significant SVODs include Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, both of which provide access to large libraries of video content such as television shows, movies, documentaries, and original content.526 These services are similarly priced. Netflix costs from $8.99 to $15.99 per month,527 while consumers can subscribe to Amazon Prime Video as a standalone service for $8.99 per month or as part to an Amazon Prime membership, which 517 YouTube, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/ (last visited June 12, 2020); Shafer Ad Supported Video. 518 Vudu, Movies On Us, https://www.vudu.com/moviesonus (last visited June 12, 2020). NBCUniversal acquired Vudu from Walmart in April 2020. Dade Hayes, NBCUniversal s Fandango Acquiring Vudu From Walmart, Deadline (Apr. 20, 2020), https://deadline.com/2020/04/nbcuniversal-fandango-acquiring-vudu-walmart-comcast- streaming-1202912755/. 519 IMDB, IMDB TV, https://www.imdb.com/tv/ (last visited June 12, 2020). 520 Tubi TV, tubi, https://tubitv.com/home (last visited June 12, 2020). 521 See Sarah Perez, Sony s streaming service Crackle sells majority stake to Chicken Soup for the Soul, TechCrunch (Mar. 29, 2019), https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/29/sonys-streaming-service-crackle-sells-to-chicken-soup-for-the- soul/; Janko Roettgers, Sony Sells Stake in Crackle, Launches Joint Venture With Chicken Soup for the Soul, Variety (Mar. 28, 2019), https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/sony-crackle-sale-joint-venture-1203174804/. 522 Pluto TV, Drop In. It s Free., https://pluto.tv/welcome (last visited June 12, 2020); Pluto TV, Channel Lineup, https://pluto.tv/live-tv/americas-test-kitchen (last visited June 12, 2020). 523 NBC, NBC News Now, https://www.nbcnews.com/now (last visited June 12, 2020); CBS, CBSN, https://www.cbsnews.com/live/ (last visited June 12, 2020); CBS, CBS Sports HQ, https://www.cbssports.com/cbs- sports-hq/ (last visited June 12, 2020). 524 See Blair Marnell, What is Peacock?, Digital Trends (Oct. 25, 2020), https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/what-is-peacock/ (What is Peacock?); Rick Marshall, Peacock: Everything we know about NBCUniversal s streaming video service, yahoo!finance (Sept. 21, 2020), https://finance.yahoo.com/news/everything-know-peacock-nbcuniversal-streaming-234935742.html (Peacock: Everything We Know). 525 Imagen, What are SVOD, TVOD, AVOD?, https://imagen.io/resources/what-are-svod-tvod-avod/ (last visited June 12, 2020); Uscreen, SVOD, AVOD, TVOD - How to Pick a Monetization Model for Your VOD, https://www.uscreen.tv/video-business-school/svod-tvod-avod-monetization-models/ (last visited June 12, 2020). 526 Netflix, What is Netflix?, https://help.netflix.com/en/node/412 (last visited June 12, 2020); Melody Hahm, Eye- popping chart shows how much original content Netflix is creating, Yahoo! Finance (Dec. 17, 2019), https://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-original-content-disney-and-apple-plus-230418533.html; Amazon, Prime Video, https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/offers/ (last visited June 12, 2020). 527 Prices vary according to how many simultaneous users are permitted and the picture quality of streamed content. Netflix, Choose the plan that s right for you, https://netflix.com/signup/planform (last visited June 12, 2020); Netflix, Netflix Streaming Plans, https://help.netflix.com/en/node/24926 (last visited June 12 2020). 114 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 costs $12.99 per month or $119 per year.528 Amazon Prime Video also provides access to some live events, including Thursday night NFL games, as part of its membership.529 180. Disney controls three SVOD providers: Hulu, ESPN+, and Disney+. Like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, Hulu provides access to a library of movies, television shows and other video content, including original programming.530 A Hulu subscription costs $5.99 per month with commercials or $11.99 per month without commercials.531 ESPN+ provides access to live sporting events and sports- related programing for $4.99 per month.532 Disney+, which launched in November 2019, provides shows and movies from Disney, content Disney acquired from 20th Century Fox in March 2019, and original programming for $6.99 per month.533 181. Other major media companies operate SVODs as well. NBCUniversal s Peacock Premium, which costs $5 per month with commercials or $10 per month without commercials, includes approximately twice as many hours of programming as the free version and streams content in 4K.534 CBS All Access provides access to a library of CBS shows and original content, as well as live channels such as local CBS stations, CBSN, CBS Sports HQ, and ET Live.535 Subscribers pay $5.99 per month for the ad-supported CBS All Access service, and $9.99 monthly for a commercial-free plan.536 528 Amazon, Amazon Prime Price Change, https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=202213110 (last visited June 12, 2020); Amazon, What is Prime Video? - Amazon Prime Insider, https://www.amazon.com/primeinsider/video/prime-video-qa.html (last visited June 12, 2020); Amazon, About the Amazon Prime Membership Fee, https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201910200 (last visited June 12, 2020). 529 Amazon, Prime Video, https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/offers/ (last visited June 12, 2020); Amazon, Live Events Help: Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=19343854011 (last visited June 12, 2020); Amazon, About the Amazon Prime Membership Fee, https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201910200 (last visited June 12, 2020). 530 Previously, Hulu was a joint venture owned 30% each by Disney, 20th Century Fox, and Comcast, and 10% by AT&T. Laura Bradley, How Disney Gained Full Control of Hulu and What That Means, Vanity Fair (May 14, 2019), https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/05/disney-full-control-hulu-comcast-nbcuniversal-deal. Several recent transactions altered the ownership and control of Hulu, and in March 2019, Disney gained majority control of Hulu as a result of Disney s acquisition of 20th Century Fox. Id. Press Release, The Walt Disney Company, Disney s Acquisition of 21st Century Fox Will Bring an Unprecedented Collection of Content and Talent to Consumers Around the World (Mar. 19, 2019), https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disneys-acquisition-of-21st- century-fox-will-bring-an-unprecedented-collection-of-content-and-talent-to-consumers-around-the-world/ (Disney s Acquisition of 21st Century Fox). In April 2019, AT&T sold its minority interest in Hulu back to the joint venture. Press Release, AT&T, Hulu Buys AT&T s Minority Stake in Joint Venture (Apr. 15, 2019), https://about.att.com/story/2019/hulu_buys_att_minority_stake_in_joint_venture.html. Finally, in May 2019, Comcast ceded full operational control of Hulu to Disney, with Disney committing to purchase Comcast s minority stake in Hulu in the future. Edmund Lee, Disney to Buy Comcast s Hulu Stake and Take Full Control of Streaming Service, New York Times (May 14, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/business/media/disney-hulu- comcast.html. 531 Hulu, Watch Thousands of TV Shows and Movies on Hulu, http://hulu.com/content (last visited June 12, 2020). 532 ESPN+, ESPN+ Programming, http://dtcimedia.disney.com/espn-plus/programming (last visited June 12, 2020); ESPN+, Stream Your Favorite Sports and ESPN+ Originals, https://plus.espn.com/sign-up-bundle (last visited June 12, 2020). 533 Disney+, hulu Disney+ ESPN+, https://www.disneyplus.com/ (last visited June 12, 2020); Mike Sorrentino, Joan E. Solsman, Disney Plus: Everything to know about the streaming service amid coronavirus lockdown, CNET (May 6, 2020), https://www.cnet.com/news/disney-plus-everything-to-know-early-release-dates-prices-shows-movies- coronavirus/; Disney s Acquisition of 21st Century Fox. 534 See What is Peacock?; Peacock: Everything We Know. 535 CBS, CBS All Access, https://www.cbs.com/all-access/ (last visited June 12, 2020). 536 Ben Moore, CBS All Access Review, PC Mag (Feb. 27, 2020), https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/cbs-all-access. 115 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 WarnerMedia, a subsidiary of AT&T, operates HBO Now, offering original content from HBO, including series, documentaries, and specials, and movies,537 as well as HBO Max, which includes 10,000 hours of content, such as HBO Max originals, HBO programming, shows like Friends and The Big Bang Theory, and movies from Studio Ghibli.538 Both HBO services cost $14.99 per month.539 182. In addition, certain technology companies operate SVOD services. For example, in November 2019, Apple launched Apple TV+, which the company touted as  the first all-original video subscription service. 540 Consumers can subscribe to Apple TV+ for $4.99 per month.541 Google s YouTube Premium provides ad-free access to YouTube, YouTube Music (YouTube s music streaming service), and some original content for $11.99 per month.542 183. Certain SVODs focus on niche content. For example, BritBox provides access to British television shows from ITV and the BBC for $6.99 per month or $69.99 per year.543 DC Universe starts at $7.99 per month and provides access to TV shows and movies based on DC Comics.544 In addition, SVODs from many sports leagues and organizations, such as the NBA, NHL, and WWE, provide online access to live and archived events and programs.545 184. TVOD. Unlike the subscription models that offer access to a catalog of programs for a set monthly price, TVOD providers allow consumers to purchase specific video content (movies, television programs, or live events) on a transactional or per-program basis.546 Electronic-sell-through transactions provide consumers with permanent access to video content, while download-to-rent 537 HBO, How to Watch HBO Max, https://www.hbo.com/hbo-news/hbo-max-hbo-go-hbo-now-difference (last visited June 12, 2020). 538 HBO, How to Watch HBO Max, https://www.hbo.com/hbo-news/hbo-max-hbo-go-hbo-now-difference (last visited June 12, 2020); see also Kevin Webb, HBO Max is WarnerMedia's ambitious attempt to take on Netflix, and it's now available to stream  here's how to sign up, Business Insider (July 31, 2020), https://www.businessinsider.com/hbo-max-streaming-service (WarnerMedia's Ambitious Attempt). 539 HBO Now | Help Center, How much does HBO NOW cost?, https://help.hbonow.com/Answer/Detail/13 (last visited June 12, 2020); see also WarnerMedia's Ambitious Attempt. 540 Press Release, Apple, Apple TV+ launches November 1, featuring originals from the world s greatest storytellers (Sept. 10, 2019), https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apple-tv-launches-november-1-featuring-originals- from-the-worlds-greatest-storytellers/. 541 Apple, Apple TV+, https://www.apple.com/apple-tv-plus/ (last visited June 12, 2020). 542 YouTube, YouTube Premium, https://www.youtube.com/premium (last visited June 12, 2020); YouTube Using YouTube Premium benefits, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6308116 (last visited June 12, 2020); YouTube, Watch YouTube Originals, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6358146 (last visited June 12, 2020). YouTube Premium subscribers also can download videos to watch offline and play videos on a mobile device while using other apps or when the screen is off. YouTube, Using YouTube Premium benefits, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6308116 (last visited June 12, 2020). 543 BritBox, Welcome to BritBox, https://www.britbox.com/us/ (last visited June 12, 2020). 544 Jordan Minor, DC Universe Review, PC Mag (Mar. 20, 2020), https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/dc-universe; Brett White, Everything You Need to Know about DC Universe, Decider (Feb. 27, 2019), https://decider.com/2019/02/27/what-is-dc-universe/. 545 See, e.g. NBA, Watch the NBA On Demand, https://www.nba.com/watch/pricing (last visited June 12, 2020); NHL, Watch live games online with NHL GameCenter LIVE, https://www.nhl.com/news/watch-live-games-online- with-nhl-gamecenter-live/c-500925 (last visited June 12, 2020); WWE, WWE Network, https://www.wwe.com/wwenetwork?gclsrc=aw.ds&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIpNKEztXl6QIVA4nICh35lwsREAAYA SAAEgKYlfD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds (last visited June 12, 2020). 546 Imagen, What are SVOD, TVOD, AVOD?, https://imagen.io/resources/what-are-svod-tvod-avod/ (last visited June 12, 2020); Uscreen, SVOD, AVOD, TVOD - How to Pick a Monetization Model for Your VOD, https://www.uscreen.tv/video-business-school/svod-tvod-avod-monetization-models/ (last visited June 12, 2020). 116 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 transactions give consumers access to video content for a limited period of time.547 Examples include Amazon s Video Store,548 Apple s iTunes Store,549 and Google Play.550 185. vMVPD. Like traditional MVPDs, vMVPDs offer consumers access to a package of streaming linear channels.551 While MVPDs make use of cable, fiber, or satellite infrastructure to deliver their pay television products, like other OVD services, vMVPDs deliver content to consumers via the Internet.552 In 2015, these services launched in select metropolitan markets with comparatively limited access to local broadcast networks, sports, and news.553 Today, however, vMVPD services often include local broadcast channels and a wide variety of cable networks, and tend to be marketed to consumers who wish to  cut the cord and no longer subscribe to a traditional MVPD service.554 In general, vMVPDs are available to consumers on a wide variety of devices.555 186. vMVPD pricing tends to vary depending on many factors, including the number and type of channels, and the availability of local broadcast stations. Some vMVPDs provide fewer channels for a lower cost. For example, Philo subscribers pay $20 per month for close to 60 channels, but the service does not include sports or broadcast channels.556 DISH s Sling TV offers two channel packages, one with approximately 30 channels and one with approximately 50 channels, which cost $30 per month 547 Imagen, What are SVOD, TVOD, AVOD?, https://imagen.io/resources/what-are-svod-tvod-avod/ (last visited June 12, 2020). 548Amazon, Prime Video: Store, https://www.amazon.com/b/?_encoding=UTF8&filterId=OFFER_FILTER%3DTVOD&node=2858778011&ref=ins ider_ar_video_pvqa (last visited June 12, 2020). 549 Apple, Buy movies and TV shows from the Apple TV app, https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203375 (last visited June 12, 2020). 550 Google Play Help, Watch Google Play movies & TV shows, https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2851683?co=GENIE.Platform%3DiOS&hl=en (last visited June 12, 2020). 551 See, e.g., Susan Engleson, When Linear TV and Digital Collide: The Rise of the Virtual MVPD, Comscore (Aug. 14, 2018), https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Blog/When-Linear-TV-and-Digital-Collide-The-Rise-of-the-Virtual- MVPD. 552 See, e.g., id. 553 See Seth Shafer, Economics of Internet: State of US online video: virtual multichannel, S&P Global (Oct. 22, 2019) (Shafer Virtual Multichannel). Sony s PlayStation Vue launched in March 2015 and was one of the first vMVPDs, but the service ceased operations in January 2020. Sarah Perez, Why Sony s PlayStation Vue Failed, TechCrunch (Jan. 30, 2020), https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/30/why-sonys-playstation-vue-failed/. 554 See, e.g., Brad Adgate, Virtual MVPD Subscriber Growth Is Slowing, Forbes (Dec. 9, 2019), https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2019/12/09/virtual-mvpd-subscriber-growth-is-slowing/#6f65a8bb7016 ( virtual MVPDs . . . have been marketed as replacement cable/satellite systems ); Sling TV, The best of cable, for less, https://www.sling.com/value/cable-tv-alternatives (last visited June 12, 2020) ( Between the low monthly cost, versatile lineup options and wide variety of supported streaming devices, it s no wonder that Sling is often called the best alternative to cable ); Mindy Woodall, Philo Streaming Review 2020, Reviews.org (Dec. 11, 2019), https://www.reviews.org/tv-service/philo-live-tv-streaming/ ( Most [vMVPDs] offer a bunch of different channels and add-ons to try to mimic your cable TV provider so you can cut the cord and stream live channels ) (Philo Streaming Review). 555 See Shafer Virtual Multichannel. 556 See Philo Streaming Review; Philo, Live and On Demand TV, https://try.philo.com/ (last visited June 12, 2020). Users can add premium channels from Epix and Starz at additional cost. Philo, Live and On Demand TV, https://try.philo.com/ (last visited June 12, 2020). 117 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 individually or $45 per month for both.557 These packages include some news and sports content, but local broadcast availability is limited to NBC and Fox stations in select markets.558 187. More expansive vMVPD offerings include Hulu + Live TV, which combines access to Hulu s SVOD library with more than 65 live and on-demand TV channels for $54.99 per month.559 The service includes news and sports content, and local broadcast stations and regional sports networks are available in select markets.560 For $64.99 per month, YouTube TV offers consumers access to more than 85 channels, including sports and news programming,561 and asserts that it provides  complete local network coverage in over 98% of U.S. TV households. 562 AT&T TV Now offers subscription-based channel packages ranging from 45 to 125 channels, priced from $55 to $135 per month.563 In March 2020, AT&T launched AT&T TV, which offers channel packages ranging in price from $49.99 per month to $64.99 per month, not including regional sports fees.564 Both services continue to add local stations, but availability varies by market.565 Fubo TV offers three plans Family (99 channels for $59.99 per month), Ultra (168 channels for $84.99 per month) and Latino (29 channels for $29.99 per month)566 and also offers local CBS, Fox, and NBC stations in many markets.567 In recent years, many vMVPD providers have added more channels (including broadcast channels, news, and sports) and functionality to 557 Sling TV, Personalize your channel lineup, https://www.sling.com/service (last visited June 12, 2020). 558 Sling TV, Personalize your channel lineup, https://www.sling.com/service (last visited June 12, 2020); Sling TV, Can I get local channels on Sling TV?, https://help.sling.com/en/support/solutions/articles/46000000093-can-i-get- local-channels-on-sling-tv- (last visited June 12, 2020). For additional cost, subscribers can add focused channel packages (e.g., sports, news, kids, comedy), some premium networks (e.g., Showtime, Starz), Spanish-language channels, international programming, and world sports. Sling TV, Customize Your Channel Lineup With Sling Extras, https://www.sling.com/service/extras (last visited June 12, 2020). 559 Hulu, Watch Thousands of TV Shows and Movies on Hulu, http://hulu.com/content (last visited June 12, 2020). Subscribers also receive 50 hours of cloud DVR storage. Hulu, Watch Thousands of TV Shows and Movies on Hulu, http://hulu.com/content (last visited June 12, 2020). 560 Austin Meadows, Hulu Live TV channel list 2020: What channels are on Hulu + Live TV?, Soda (Mar. 14, 2020), https://www.soda.com/video/hulu-channels-list/. 561 YouTube, YouTube TV, https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/ (last visited July 10, 2020). YouTube TV subscribers also can record programming with unlimited storage space. Id. 562 YouTube, YouTube TV, https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/ (last visited July 10, 2020). 563 AT&T, Get More TV Freedom, https://www.atttvnow.com/ (last visited June 12, 2020). VOD content, premium channels, and Spanish-language and international add-ons are also available. Id. 564 Press Release, AT&T, AT&T TV Launches Nationwide Starting Today (Mar. 2, 2020), https://about.att.com/story/2020/att_tv.html; AT&T, Get AT&T TV and enjoy a year of HBO® included, https://www.att.com/tv/ (last visited June 12, 2020). AT&T TV customers also can access more than 40,000 on- demand titles. Id. Like a traditional cable or satellite MVPD, AT&T TV s price is good for 12 months with a two- year initial agreement, and customers are required to use equipment provided by the company. Id.; see also Michael Timmermann, AT&T TV vs. AT&T TV Now: What s the Difference?, Clark (Apr. 6, 2020), https://clark.com/streaming-tv/att-tv-att-tv-now-comparison/. 565 See Dennis Restauro, AT&T TV NOW Review, Channels, and Cost, Grounded Reason (Jan. 3, 2020), https://www.groundedreason.com/att-tv-now-review-channels-and-cost/; Jess Barnes, AT&T TV NOW and AT&T TV Add More Locals, Cord Cutters News (Mar. 27, 2020), https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/att-tv-now-and-att-tv- add-more-locals/. 566 Fubo TV, Welcome, https://www.fubo.tv/welcome (last visited July 10, 2020). Plans also provide 500 hours of Cloud DVR and the ability to watch on multiple screens simultaneously. Id. 567 John-Michael Bond, Here s how to see which local channels you ll get with FuboTV, The Daily Dot (Feb. 25, 2020), https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/fubotv-local-channels/. 118 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 their offerings and increased their prices.568 As a result, many vMVPD offerings available today look quite a bit like more traditional pay TV offerings.569 188. Bundles and Combinations. Sometimes OVDs are offered in bundles or in combination with other services. For example, consumers can bundle all three Disney OVD products Hulu, ESPN+, and Disney+ for $12.99 per month.570 AT&T TV subscribers get a free year of HBO Max, and a discount is available to customers who bundle AT&T TV with Internet access service from AT&T.571 Amazon Prime members also can add on-demand or live streaming content from providers like HBO, SHOWTIME, STARZ, CBS, PBS, and Major League Baseball for an additional $4.99 to $14.99 per month.572 Amazon s Twitch, a platform for live video streaming, includes a  Watch Parties feature that allows streamers with subscriptions to Prime Video to watch movies together as part of a social online experience.573 b. Original Content and Content Ownership 189. As the OVD marketplace has evolved, providers have begun to include original content.574 Recently, Apple stated that it would spend over $6 billion on original content for its rollout of Apple TV+,575 and while estimates vary, they tend to show that OVD spending on original content is increasing generally. Figure II.D.5 shows original content spending for select OVDs576 We also note that while Amazon s 2019 production of 70 first-run original titles and 314 hours of original content represented slight decreases from the previous year, Netflix produced 2,701 hours and 657 new titles in 2019, up 78% and 70%, respectively, from 2018.577 As of the middle of 2020, Disney+ listed more than 568 See Shafer Virtual Multichannel ( expanded availability, content and functionality has come with a price, with most virtual multichannel services significantly bumping up prices in 2018 and 2019 ); Ben Munson, An updated timeline of price hikes at YouTube TV and other vMVPDs, Fierce Video (July 1, 2020), https://www.fiercevideo.com/video/updated-timeline-price-hikes-at-youtube-tv-and-other-vmvpds (detailing vMVPD price increases since 2018, many of which occurred when services added channels to their lineups). 569 See Shafer Virtual Multichannel. 570 Disney+, hulu Disney+ ESPN+, https://www.disneyplus.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). This bundle provides ad-supported access to Hulu s on-demand library and does not include Hulu + Live TV. Id. 571 AT&T, Get AT&T TV and enjoy a year of HBO® included, https://www.att.com/tv/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 572 Amazon, What is Prime Video? - Amazon Prime Insider, https://www.amazon.com/primeinsider/video/prime- video-qa.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); see also David Katzmaier, Amazon Prime Video Channels: Everything you need to know, CNET (May 23, 2019), https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-prime-video-channels-everything- you-need-to-know/. 573 See Joseph Yaden, What Is Twitch, DigitalTrends (Oct. 25, 2020), https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/what- is-twitch/; Twitch, Watch Parties, https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/watch-parties?language=en_US (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 574 See, e.g., 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12606-07, paras. 78-79. 575 Mike Murphy, Apple TV+ spending more than $6 billion on new shows, plans to launch before Disney+: report, MarketWatch (Aug. 19, 2019), https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-tv-spending-more-than-6-billion-on-new- shows-plans-to-launch-before-disney-report-2019-08-19. 576 Figures for 2020 and certain months in 2019 are projections. 577 Joseph O Halloran, Netflix overwhelms Amazon in original programming in 2019, Rapid TV News (Mar. 18, 2020), https://www.rapidtvnews.com/2020031858218/netflix-overwhelms-amazon-in-original-programming-in- 2019.html#axzz6O9Ase0rx (citing Omdia Original Online Production Report  2020). 119 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 50 original movies and shows,578 and Apple TV+ had 30 original shows and films, with more in development and a commitment to add new content each month.579 Fig. II.D.5 Original Content Spending, Select OVD Providers ($ millions) Percentage Percentage Provider 2018 2019 2020 Change Change Amazon 734.0 1,253.0 70.7% 1,783.0 41.3% Apple --- 115.5 --- 438.4 279.6% Disney+ --- 63.0 --- 426.0 576.2% Netflix 2,090.9 2,812.2 34.5% 3,568.1 26.9% Source: S&P Global, Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, Disney+, Netflix estimated streaming programming costs (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020). 190. Additionally, spending by Amazon and Netflix on original content as a percentage of overall content spending generally has been increasing. Figure II.D.6 shows that Amazon s spending on original content has increased from approximately 6% of overall content spending in 2014 to a projected 24% in 2020. Similarly, Netflix spent approximately 7% on original content in 2014, but was projected to spend 29% in 2020. Fig. II.D.6 Comparison of Spending on Original and Acquired Content, Amazon and Netflix ($ millions, Percentage of Overall Content Spending) Provider and 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Content Type Amazon $52 $131 $320 $492 $734 $1,253 $1,783 Original Content (5.7%) (9.0%) (13.9%) (13.4%) (14.5%) (19.5%) (23.7%) 854 1,330 1,978 3,186 4,312 5,177 5,755 Acquired Content (94.3%) (91.0%) (86.1%) (86.6%) (85.5%) (80.5%) (76.3%) Netflix $180.2 $428.9 $842.3 $1,449.1 $2,090.9 $2,812.2 $3,568.1 Original Content (6.8%) (12.6%) (17.6%) (23.4%) (27.8%) (27.4%) (28.9%) 2,476.1 2,976.5 3,946.2 4,748.8 5,441.2 7,449.3 8,773.0 Acquired Content (93.2%) (87.4%) (82.4%) (76.6%) (72.2%) (72.6%) (71.1%) Source: S&P Global, Amazon Prime, Netflix estimated streaming programming costs (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020). 191. As larger media companies like Disney, NBCUniversal, and WarnerMedia Disney launch their own OVD services, they are working to assemble substantial libraries of programming to offer to consumers.580 Increasingly, large content owners are electing to use their own OVD services, instead of third-party platforms, to make their content available online. For example, in advance of the Disney+ launch, Disney announced that it would pull all Disney and Pixar movie titles from Netflix, and that 578 Disney+, All Disney+ Originals, https://disneyplusoriginals.disney.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 579 Benjamin Mayo, Apple TV+ Guide: Here are all the Apple TV shows and movies available now, 9 to 5 Mac Oct. 23, 2020), https://9to5mac.com/2020/05/29/apple-tv-plus-tv-shows-movies-guide/. 580 Lesley Goldberg,  The Office' to Leave Netflix in 2020, Stream Exclusively on NBCUniversal's Forthcoming Service, The Hollywood Reporter (June 25, 2019), https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/office-leave- netflix-2020-stream-exclusively-nbcuniversals-forthcoming-service-1220954 ( The Office' to Leave Netflix). 120 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Disney+ would be the home for all Disney movies going forward.581 After the company s acquisition of 21st Century Fox (later rebranded 21st Century), Disney-owned Hulu became the exclusive streaming home of FX network content.582 The Office, which is owned by NBCUniversal s TV studio, currently streams on Netflix, but will stream exclusively on Peacock beginning in 2021.583 The agreement by which NBCUniversal and Comcast gave Disney full control of Hulu allows both Hulu and Peacock to offer NBC programming, but gives NBCUniversal the right to pull programming off of Hulu in 2022.584 Some popular shows owned by Warner Brother s Television including Friends (which was pulled from Netflix at the beginning of 2020) and The Big Bang Theory will now stream on WarnerMedia s HBO Max exclusively.585 192. This trend is not universal, however. For example, shows co-produced by Universal Television (an NBCUniversal subsidiary) and Wolf Entertainment, including Law and Order: SVU, several seasons of Law and Order and Law and Order: Criminal Intent, as well as Chicago Fire, Chicago P.D., and Chicago Med, will stream on NBCUniversal s OVD offering Peacock, but that deal is not exclusive, allowing those series to stream on other platforms as well.586 At least two shows produced by Warner Bros. Television The George Lopez Show (which was broadcast on ABC) and Two and a Half Men (which was broadcast on CBS) will stream on Peacock, not HBO Max.587 c. OVD Usage, Subscribers, and Revenue 193. AVOD. Figure II.D.7 shows widespread usage of AVOD services among U.S. consumers. 84% of respondents to the Kagan Consumer Insights Spring 2019 Survey indicated that they or someone in their household used one or more free websites or services to watch online video.588 Among individual websites and services, YouTube, Facebook, and broadcast network websites were the most popular.589 581 Michelle Castillo, Disney will pull its movies from Netflix and start its own streaming services, CNBC (Aug. 9, 2017), https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/disney-will-pull-its-movies-from-netflix-and-start-its-own-streaming- services.html. 582 See Julia Alexander, Disney is using FX to ensure people don t forget about Hulu, The Verge (Nov. 17, 2019), https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/7/20954171/disney-hulu-fox-fx-series-movies-searchlight-streaming-wars- netflix-hbo; Adam B. Vary, Disney Drops Fox Name, Will Rebrand as 20th Century Studios, Searchlight Pictures, Variety (Jan. 17, 2020), https://variety.com/2020/film/news/disney-dropping-fox-20th-century-studios-1203470349/. 583 See Joan E. Solsman, NBC's Peacock: Everything about NBCUniversal's semi-free streaming app, CNET (Oct. 23, 2020), https://www.cnet.com/news/nbc-peacock-streaming-prices-devices-us-launch-dates-shows-movies- originals/, (Peacock: Everything About);  The Office to Leave Netflix. 584 Peacock: Everything About. 585 Andrea Francese, This is the Real Reason 'The Big Bang Theory' Isn't Streaming on Netflix in the United States and Probably Never Will, Showbiz Cheat Sheet (Jan. 6, 2020), https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/this-is- the-real-reason-the-big-bang-theory-isnt-streaming-on-netflix-in-the-united-states-and-probably-never-will.html/. 586 Jennifer Maas,  Two and a Half Men to Stream Exclusively on NBCUniversal s Peacock, Instead of HBO Max, The Wrap (Jan. 16, 2020), https://www.thewrap.com/two-and-a-half-men-peacock-streaming-nbcuniversal-not-hbo- max/. 587 Id. 588 See Shafer Ad Supported Video; S&P Global, Estimated US instream and outstream video ad revenues, 2014- 2023 (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020) (Estimated Instream and Outstream Revenues). The survey of 2,511 respondents was conducted in March 2019. See Shafer Ad Supported Video. 589 See id.; Estimated Instream and Outstream Revenues. 121 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.D.7 U.S. AVOD Usage, Kagan Consumer Insights Spring 2019 Survey Percentage of Respondents AVOD Service That Reported Using Service YouTube 71% Facebook 46% Network TV Websites 27% The Roku Channel 13% Crackle 10% IGTV (Instagram) 8% Pluto TV 8% Vudu Movies On Us 8% Snapchat Discover 7% Tubi TV 6% Crunchyroll 5% Source: Seth Shafer, Economics of Internet: State of US online video: Ad-supported video, S&P Global at 6 (Nov. 7, 2019) (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020). 194. Revenue for AVOD providers continues to increase. Figure II.D.8 shows AVOD revenue figures for instream advertisements (advertisements shown within video content) and outstream advertisements (advertisements not connected to a content video stream, e.g. video ads in social media feeds/streams, and pause, menu, and lock screens).590 Fig. II.D.8 U.S. AVOD Video Advertising Revenue ($ millions) Percentage Percentage 2018 2019 2020 Change Change Instream Advertisements $12,573 $14,312 13.8% $15,660 9.4% Outstream Advertisements $2,865 $3,851 34.4% $4,731 22.9% Total $15,438 $18,163 17.7% $20,391 12.3% Source: Seth Shafer, Economics of Internet: State of US online video: Ad-supported video, S&P Global at 3 (Nov. 7, 2019); S&P Global, Estimated US instream and outstream video ad revenues, 2014-2023. 195. SVOD. Figure II.D.9 shows that SVOD subscribership is increasing. In addition, it is common for households to subscribe to more than one SVOD service. 19% of the respondents to the Kagan Consumer Insights Fall 2019 Survey indicated that they subscribed to two SVODs, and 37% indicated that they subscribed to three or more.591 According to a September 2018 S&P Global survey, 21% of U.S. consumers use two SVOD services, and 29% use three or more subscription OTT services.592 These numbers increase for younger consumers. Among U.S. consumers aged 38 to 52, 22% use two SVOD services, and 33% use three or more SVOD services.593 These figures are 25% and 42%, 590 See Shafer Ad Supported Video; Estimated Instream and Outstream Revenues. 591 Seth Shafer, Economics of Internet: State of US online video: Subscription video on demand, S&P Global (Oct. 31, 2019) (Shafer Subscription Video). 592 Ali Choukeir and Seth Shafer, State of US OTT, S&P Global (Apr. 25, 2019). 593 Id. 122 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 respectively, for consumers aged 18 to 37.594 Online video subscription revenue is also increasing. This revenue was $16.11 billion in 2019, an increase of 17.3% from $13.73 billion in 2018.595 Projected revenue for 2020 is $18.55 billion, an increase of 15.1% from the previous year.596 Fig. II.D.9 U.S. SVOD Subscribers Q4 2018 Q4 2019 Percentage Change Subscribers (millions) 164.0 219.8. 34.1% Source: S&P Global, Q4'19 top US video provider rankings (Apr. 23, 2020) (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020). 196. TVOD. Figure II.D.10 indicates that online rental of video content by U.S. consumers is increasing slightly, resulting in slight revenue growth for TVOD providers.597 Fig. II.D.10 U.S. Online Rental of Video Content Percentage Percentage 2018 2019 2020 Change Change Rentals (millions) 346.3 353.2 2.0% 358.1 1.4% Revenue ($ millions) $1,682.1 $1,717.5 2.1% $1,743.3 1.5% Source: S&P Global, US Online Video Projections (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020). 197. Figure II.D.11 indicates that since 2018, online sale of movie titles by U.S. consumers have increased slightly, while online sale of TV television titles decreased, resulting in modest revenue growth for OVD providers.598 594 Id. 595 See Shafer Subscription Video; S&P Global, US Online Video Projections (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020) (Online Video Projections). 596 See Shafer Subscription Video; Online Video Projections. 597 Id. 598 Id. 123 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.D.11 U.S. Online Sale of Video Content Percentage Percentage 2018 2019 2020 Change Change Movie Title Purchases (millions) 109.6 117.7 7.4% 124.1 5.4% Movie Title Revenue ($ millions) $1,507.3 $1,619.4 7.4% $1,710.1 5.6% TV Title Purchases (millions) 325.2 308.9 -5.0% 301.2 -2.5% TV Title Revenue ($ millions) $682.9 $650.7 -4.7% $636.3 -2.2% Total Revenue ($ millions) $2,190.2 $2,270.1 3.6% $2,346.4 3.4% Source: S&P Global, US Online Video Projections (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020). 198. vMVPD. Figure II.D.12 shows that both subscriber numbers and revenues for vMVPD providers have been increasing. Fig. II.D.12 U.S. vMVPD Subscribers and Revenue Percentage Percentage 2018 2019 2020 Change Change Subscriber Households (millions) 7.1 9.3 31.0% 10.8 16.1% Revenue ($ billions) 2.78 4.64 66.9% 6.01 29.5% Source: Seth Shafer, Economics of Internet: State of US online video: virtual multichannel, S&P Global at 4 (Oct. 22, 2019). 199. Finally, we provide subscriber numbers for select SVOD and vMVPD providers. With some exceptions, Figure II.D.13 indicates that individual OVDs have seen subscribership increases between 2018 and 2019. 124 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.D.13 Total Subscribers, Select SVOD and vMVPD Providers (millions)599 Percentage OVD Q4 2018 Q4 2019 Change Amazon * 63.1 71.6 13.5% Netflix 58.5 61.0 4.3% Hulu * 22.8 30.4 33.3% Disney+ * --- 25.2 --- HBO * # 6.5 10.4 60.0% ESPN+ * 1.4 6.6 371.4% Starz * # 3.6 5.6 55.6% Showtime * # 4.0 5.2 30.0% CBS All Access * 4.0 5.0 25.0% Hulu Live TV 1.7 3.2 88.2% Sling TV 2.4 2.6 8.3% YouTube TV * 0.8 2.0 150.0% Source: S&P Global, Top US video subscription services, ranked by Q4 19 subscribers (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020). 200. COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on OVDs. MoffettNathanson reports a strong first half in 2020 for the top SVOD services, but notes that growth of these services is moderating as penetration approaches 75% of U.S. households.600 According to S&P Global, vMVPDs collectively gained 856,000 subscribers in the second quarter of 2020, after losing 125,000 in the first quarter, for a six-month gain of 731,000 subscribers.601 S&P Global attributes the growth in vMVPD subscriptions largely to AT&T's efforts to transition customers to AT&T TV.602 4. Broadcast Television Stations 201. Broadcast television stations offer linear video programming channels over the air to households. In addition, households may also receive broadcast television station programming channels from MVPDs and, in some cases, OVDs. Many commercial broadcast stations air programming produced by the station itself, typically local news, sports, and events, in addition to programming acquired from affiliated broadcast networks or syndicators.603 Commercial broadcast television stations generate revenue from two main sources: Advertising sales and payments negotiated with MVPDs and OVDs for the right to retransmit broadcast station signals. 599 Figures for providers marked with a * are estimates. Figures for premium networks marked with a # include all OTT sources and exclude traditional multichannel units. Figures for Hulu include subscribers who have access through a Hulu + Live TV subscription. See S&P Global, Top US video subscription services, ranked by Q4 19 subscribers (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020). 600 Jason Aycock, MoffettNathanson sees growth maturing for streaming VOD platforms, Seeking Alpha (Oct. 14, 2020), https://seekingalpha.com/news/3622188-moffettnathanson-sees-growth-maturing-for-streaming-vod- platforms. 601 Multichannel Video Market Share Trends. 602 Traditional Multichannel Drop. 603 See, e.g., Nexstar Media Group, Inc., SEC Form 10-K at 5 (filed Mar. 13, 2020) (Nexstar 2019 SEC Form 10-K). 125 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 a. Station Licensing and Ownership 202. The Commission licenses broadcast television stations consistent with the Communications Act.604 Licenses were formerly granted pursuant to comparative hearings among interested applicants.605 Today, the Commission awards broadcast television licenses by auction, although the Commission has not auctioned a license for a new full-power commercial television station since 2011.606 Figure II.D.14 shows that the number of licensed broadcast television stations has remained stable in recent years. Fig. II.D.14 Number of Licensed Broadcast Television Stations 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Commercial UHF607 1,031 1,031 1,033 1,011 1,013 1,001 Commercial VHF 359 356 350 364 370 371 Non-Commercial 395 395 394 390 378 387 Total Stations 1,785 1,782 1,777 1,765 1,761 1,759 Source: FCC, Broadcast Totals as of Mar. 31, 2015; Mar. 31, 2016; Mar. 31, 2017; Mar. 31, 2018; Mar.31, 2019; and Mar. 31, 2020.608 203. Whereas Figure II.D.14 shows the number of television stations in the United States, each viewer can only access the stations in his or her market. Figure II.D.15 is a scatterplot of the number of stations per market by market size (measured in TV households), where each point represents a market.609 The data show that the number of television stations available increases with market size. While the median market has seven stations, because the population is concentrated in the largest markets, most TV households have access to at least 13 stations. In addition, many television broadcast stations use digital transmission technologies to offer multiple programming streams (digital multicast channels) to 604 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. See also 47 CFR §§ 73.601-73.699, 73.1001-73.4280. In this section, we focus on full- power broadcast television stations. In addition to these stations, the Commission licenses Class A and low-power television stations, as well as television translator and satellite stations which are used to increase the geographic reach of the associated main station. 605 KPMG, History of Broadcast License Application Process at 4 (Nov. 2000), https://transition.fcc.gov/opportunity/meb_study/broadcast_lic_study_pt1.pdf. 606 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12613, para. 90. 607 Very high frequency (VHF) stations operate on channels 2-13, while ultra-high frequency (UHF) stations operate on channels 14-51. 608 Press Release, FCC, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2015 (Apr. 9, 2015), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-332923A1.pdf; Press Release, FCC, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2016 (Apr. 6, 2016), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-338754A1.pdf; Press Release, FCC, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2017 (Apr. 11, 2017), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC- 344256A1.pdf; Press Release, FCC, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2018 (Apr. 9, 2018), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-350110A1.pdf; Press Release, FCC, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2019 (Apr. 2, 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-356801A1.pdf; Press Release, FCC, Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2020 (Apr. 6, 2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC- 363515A1.pdf. 609 Fig. II.D.15 defines broadcast television markets using Nielsen s designated market area (DMA) definitions. Each DMA is a group of counties that form an exclusive geographic area in which the home market television stations capture a dominance of total hours viewed. There are 210 DMAs, covering the entire continental United States, Hawaii, and parts of Alaska. The DMA boundaries and DMA data are owned solely and exclusively by Nielsen. Nielsen, DMA Regions, https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/intl-campaigns/dma-maps/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 126 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 viewers.610 This suggests that the number of stations shown in Figure II.D.15 is a lower bound for the number of broadcast channels available in each market. Fig. II.D.15 Television Stations by Market Size 30 25 20 15 10 5 Number of Television Stations Televisionof Number 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Television Households (millions) Source: FCC, Licensing and Management System; BIA, Media Access Pro; Nielsen, DMA Universe Estimates 2019-2020 (Sept. 2019). 204. Most television stations are owned by companies that own multiple stations, called station groups.611 Figure II.D.16 shows information about the twelve largest station groups in the United States by share of TV households reached. These station groups each reach more than 20% of TV households. The table lists the number of stations owned by each group and the number of markets in which the station group owns at least one station. The share of TV households reached by the station group is the total number of TV households living in markets where the station group owns at least one station divided by the total number of TV households in the United States. 610 See, e.g., Nexstar 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 9-12. 611 About 85% of stations are part of station groups. S&P Global, Top TV Station Owners (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020). 127 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.D.16 Largest Broadcast Television Station Groups by TV Households Reached612 Share of TV Station Group Stations Markets Households Reached ION 71 61 69.5% Nexstar 162 116 62.1% Univision 40 25 45.5% Fox 30 18 39.2% TEGNA 62 51 39.0% ViacomCBS 28 17 38.4% Sinclair 115 84 38.3% Comcast 27 20 37.5% E.W. Scripps 48 41 31.4% WRNN-TV Associates 11 9 25.3% Gray 126 92 24.0% Disney 8 8 22.7% Source: S&P Global, Top TV Station Owners (last accessed Oct 27, 2020); Nielsen, DMA Universe Estimates 2019-2020 (Sept. 2019). b. Distribution and Delivery 205. Broadcast television stations reach viewers by broadcasting signals directly over the air to homes, as well as through carriage agreements with MVPDs and OVDs, which retransmit the signals of stations to households subscribing to their services.613 The over-the-air reach of a broadcast television station is determined largely by the height of the transmission tower and the power of the transmitter.614 Buildings, hills, and other objects, however, may interfere with over-the-air signals.615 206. MVPDs offering service within a DMA typically carry the local broadcast television stations assigned to the DMA, and each MVPD rebroadcasts the stations signals to all its subscribers in the DMA.616 This is because broadcast stations typically hold exclusive rights to broadcast network programming in a DMA.617 Thus, unlike cable networks that are available nationwide, most broadcast television stations signals are retransmitted by MVPDs only within the station s assigned DMA.618 612 Fig. II.D.16 shows stations, markets, and TV households reached as of October 27, 2020. On September 24, 2020, E.W. Scripps announced its intention to purchase ION Media. Press Release, E.W. Scripps, Scripps Creates National Television Networks Business with the Acquisition of ION Media, (Sept. 24, 2020), https://scripps.com/press-releases/scripps-creates-national-television-networks-business-with-acquisition-of-ion- media/. ION submitted applications for transfer of control to the Commission on October 13, 2020. See FCC File Nos. BTCCDT-20201013AAO, ABV, ACH. As of October 27, 2020, the transaction had not yet been consented. 613 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12614, para. 96. 614 Id. at 12614, para. 94 & n.260. 615 Id. at 12614, para. 94. 616 Id. 617 Id. 618 Id. 128 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Rebroadcast of television stations signals by online vMVPDs follows a similar pattern subscribers located in a DMA receive signals of local broadcast television stations from the same DMA.619 207. When a broadcast station negotiates with MVPDs and OVDs for carriage of its programming, it is in the business of content distribution similar to a cable network.620 When a broadcast station delivers programming over the air, it is in the business of content delivery similar to facilities-based MVPDs.621 c. Programming and Content Ownership 208. Programming. Broadcast television stations air network programming, programming produced by the station, and syndicated programming.622 Network programming is provided by broadcast television networks to stations through affiliation agreements. In an affiliation agreement, the station receives network programming and, in exchange, the network receives affiliation fees and the right to sell some portion of the advertising time during the programming.623 The major broadcast television networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC) generally offer entertainment, news, and live sports programming.624 In addition, major Spanish language networks (Telemundo and Univision) now reach most U.S. TV households and offer entertainment, news, and sports programming primarily aimed at Hispanic viewers.625 209. Smaller networks, including networks that air exclusively on digital multicast channels, often offer niche programming, aimed at a particular demographic group or focusing on specific subject matter. For example, Bounce offers programming primarily aimed at African-American viewers, MeTV airs classic television series, Dabl is a lifestyle network, Comet airs science fiction programming, and Justice Network airs true crime programming.626 Much of the programming aired on smaller networks is syndicated programming, but some smaller networks also air original programming.627 210. In addition to network programming, many stations also produce local news programming. A joint study by the Radio Television Digital News Association and Hofstra University 619 Id. 620 Id. at 12614, para. 96. 621 Id. at 12614, para. 96. Although we discuss the wider business of television broadcasting, we focus on competition in the market for the delivery of video programming. We therefore consider most closely the role played by the over-the-air broadcast service. 622 See, e.g., Nexstar 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 5; Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc, SEC Form 10-K at 5 (filed Mar. 2, 2020) (Sinclair 2019 SEC Form 10-K). 623 See, e.g., Nexstar 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 14. 624 See, e.g., Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K; Fox Corporation, SEC Form 10-K, at 2 (filed Aug. 9, 2019) (Fox SEC Form 10-K); ViacomCBS, SEC Form 10-K, at I-2 (filed Feb. 20, 2020) (ViacomCBS 2019 SEC Form 10-K). 625 See Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 7; Univision, Univision Network, https://corporate.univision.com/blog/portfolio/properties/univision/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). Both Univision and Telemundo affiliated broadcast stations reach about 60% of U.S. TV households. S&P Global, TV Stations by Market and Affiliation (last accessed Oct. 27, 2020). 626 The E.W. Scripps Company, SEC Form 10-K, at 10 (filed Feb. 28, 2020) (E.W. Scripps 2019 SEC Form 10-K); Weigel Broadcasting, National Networks, https://www.weigelbroadcasting.com/national/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); ViacomCBS 2019 SEC Form 10-K at I-5; Sinclair 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 12; TEGNA Inc., SEC Form 10- K, at 5 (filed Mar. 2, 2020) (TEGNA 2019 SEC Form 10-K). 627 Marc Berman, No longer just for reruns, diginets grab the eye of major advertisers, Campaign (Nov. 8, 2016), https://www.campaignlive.com/article/no-longer-just-reruns-diginets-grab-eye-major-advertisers/1414937. 129 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 found that about 42% of stations produced local newscasts.628 These stations produced newscasts that aired on their own stations and on other stations. In total, about 63% of stations aired a local newscast, and stations airing local news aired about six hours of local news per weekday.629 Some large station groups have also established news bureaus in Washington, DC. These news bureaus provide national news coverage and interviews with members of Congress to local broadcast stations owned by the associated station group.630 211. In addition to providing broadcast network and local news programming, broadcast television stations negotiate with national program distributors and syndicators to be exclusive providers of first-run and rerun content in their DMAs.631 Syndicated programming agreements are structured in a similar way to network affiliation agreements the station obtains the rights to syndicated programming in exchange for advertising time, fees, or both.632 Syndicated programming often represents a long-term financial commitment; stations usually purchase syndicated programming several years in advance and sometimes must make multi-year commitments.633 212. Ownership of Content. In addition to owning broadcast stations and other properties, Disney, ViacomCBS, Fox, Comcast, and Univision each own interest in at least one broadcast network (ABC, CBS and the CW, Fox, NBC and Telemundo, and Univision, respectively).634 Further, Disney, Comcast, and ViacomCBS each own large television production studios.635 These studios produce programming that is licensed to broadcast networks.636 Univision also owns a television studio which produces video content for its network.637 Owning video content allows its owner to generate revenue from fees to license the content internationally or domestically. In addition, several other broadcast groups also produce and own programming. Sinclair Broadcasting Group and Gray Television produce 628 The study reports that 706 TV stations originated local news out of 1,685 operating, non-satellite television stations. Bob Papper, A Shocking Development: A Small Increase in Local TV Newsrooms ... and a Record Amount of Local News, RTDNA/Hofstra University at 1, 6 (2019), https://www.rtdna.org/uploads/files/2019%20RTDNA- Hofstra%20Survey%20TV%20News%20Numbers.pdf (2019 RTDNA/Hofstra Study). 629 The study reports that 1,069 TV stations aired local news out of 1,685 operating, non-satellite television stations. See 2019 RTDNA/Hofstra Study at 1, 3, 6. 630 Sinclair 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 13; Nexstar 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 6; E.W. Scripps SEC Form 10-K at 4. 631 Nexstar 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 15; Gray Television, Inc., SEC Form 10-K at 12 (filed Feb. 27, 2020) (Gray 2019 SEC Form 10-K). 632 Nexstar 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 13; Gray 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 11. 633 Sinclair 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 34-35. 634 The Walt Disney Company, SEC Form 10-K, at 4 (filed Nov. 20, 2019) (Disney SEC Form 10-K); ViacomCBS 2019 SEC Form 10-K at I-2, I-3; Fox 10-K at 8; Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 7; Univision, Univision Network, https://corporate.univision.com/portfolio/properties/univision/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 635 Disney SEC Form 10-K at 4; Comcast 2019 SEC Form 10-K at 7; ViacomCBS 2019 SEC Form 10-K at I-3. Fox owned its own television production studios, Twentieth Century Fox Television and Fox 21 Television Studios, until it sold the studios to Disney in 2019. See also Georg Szalai, Paul Bond, Disney Closes $71.3 Billion Fox Deal, Creating Global Content Powerhouse, The Hollywood Reporter (Mar. 19, 2019), https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-closes-fox-deal-creating-global-content-powerhouse-1174498. 636 Studios may license shows to either the associated broadcast network or other broadcast networks. Emily VanDerWerff, Brooklyn Nine-Nine and Last Man Standing were saved from cancellation for the same reason, Vox (May 15, 2018), https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/5/15/17352724/brooklyn-nine-nine-last-man-standing- cancellation-revival-saved. 637 Univision owns W Studios, which is a production studio that develops primetime series for U.S. Hispanic audiences. Univision, W Studios, https://corporate.univision.com/portfolio/properties/w-studios/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 130 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 weekly national political programs which air on their stations.638 TEGNA produces a daily news and entertainment program which airs on its stations.639 d. Broadcast Television Revenue 213. Advertising Revenue. Broadcast television stations air advertising spots during breaks in programming. A station sells all the advertising spots aired during programming produced by the station itself and some of the advertising spots aired during network and syndicated programming.640 A broadcast television station also earns advertising revenue from any banner or video ads placed on its website.641 214. The price of an advertising spot is generally determined by the size and demographic composition of the program s audience.642 High demand for television advertising in a market (e.g., due to many advertisers competing for available time or the absence of alternative advertising media) raises the price of an advertising spot.643 Demand for television ads is also higher during election years (generally even-numbered years), when national, state, and local political campaigns purchase ads,644 and during the second and fourth quarters of the year due to consumer spending patterns.645 Conversely, a weak local or national economy reduces demand for advertising and ad prices fall.646 215. Both local and national businesses buy advertising spots from broadcast television stations. Advertising spots are sold to local advertisers directly through a station s local sales staff while national advertisers generally work with national advertising sales representative firms to buy advertising time.647 Figure II.D.17 shows annual gross revenues for broadcast stations for the period 2016-2019. Total advertising revenue was about $21.9 billion in 2019. Local advertising revenue makes up the largest share of advertising revenue. Specifically, local news programs produced by the station generate a large share of local ad revenue.648 Advertising revenue has remained relatively flat over the past five years, but its share of total gross revenue has fallen from more than 75% in 2015 to about 65% in 2019. 638 Sinclair Broadcasting Group produces Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson and America this week with Eric Bolling. Sinclair SEC Form 10-K at 12. Gray Television produces Full Court Press with Greta Van Susteren. Gray News, Gray Television Launches Syndicated Weekend Political Show with Greta Van Susteren (Sept. 4, 2019), https://graytv.gcs-web.com/static-files/9375070f-3b71-48e6-a567-fedac4024f58. 639 TEGNA produces Daily Blast LIVE. TEGNA, TEGNA Announces Host Lineup, Fall Premiere Date for  Daily Blast LIVE (July 20, 2017), https://www.tegna.com/tegna-announces-host-lineup-fall-premiere-date-for-daily- blast-live/. 640 See, e.g., Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 13; TEGNA SEC Form 10-K at 3. 641 See, e.g., Gray SEC Form 10-K at 39. 642 See, e.g., Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 13; Gray SEC Form 10-K at 4; TEGNA SEC Form 10-K at 3; Sinclair SEC Form 10-K at 23. 643 See, e.g., Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 13; Gray SEC Form 10-K at 4; Sinclair SEC Form 10-K at 23. 644 See, e.g., Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 14; Gray SEC Form 10-K at 10; TEGNA SEC Form 10-K at 3; Sinclair SEC Form 10-K at 6. 645 See, e.g., Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 14; Gray SEC Form 10-K at 10, 14; TEGNA SEC Form 10-K at 19; Sinclair SEC Form 10-K at 56. 646 See, e.g., id. at 34; Gray SEC Form 10-K at 20; TEGNA SEC Form 10-K at 15; Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 32. 647 See, e.g., id. at 13, 14; TEGNA SEC Form 10-K at 3. 648 See, e.g., Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 6; Gray SEC Form 10-K at 4; Sinclair SEC Form 10-K at 13. 131 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.D.17 Broadcast Television Station Industry Gross Revenue Trends (millions) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Advertising $20,888 $22,855 $21,302 $23,516 $21,890 Local $12,071 $12,028 $12,173 $12,124 $12,342 National $6,211 $6,055 $5,934 $5,839 $5,921 Political $717 $2,654 $866 $3,037 $960 Online $1,890 $2,117 $2,329 $2,515 $2,666 Retransmission Consent $6,423 $7,979 $9,374 $10,570 $11,715 Total $27,312 $30,834 $30,676 $34,086 $33,605 Source: S&P Global, U.S. TV station industry total revenue projections, 2009-2024 (June 2019). 216. Retransmission Consent Revenue. Many broadcast television stations generate revenue by granting MVPDs and OVDs the right to carry their signals. Pursuant to section 325 of the Act, MVPDs may not retransmit a broadcast television station s signal without the station s express permission.649 If a station elects retransmission consent, the station and MVPD negotiate a carriage agreement, which often includes monetary or other types of compensation for the television station.650 Monetary compensation is often based on the number of MVPD subscribers in the carriage agreement.651 If a carriage agreement cannot be negotiated, the MVPD must stop retransmitting the station s broadcast signal and viewers lose access to the station through the MVPD, in what is known as a blackout. Figure II.D.17 also shows retransmission consent revenue over the period 2015-2019. Retransmission consent revenue continued to grow, although its growth rate had declined from nearly 25% from 2016 to 2017 to about 10% from 2018 to 2019. 217. COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Broadcast Television Stations. Advertising revenue fell in both the first and second quarters of 2020 compared to the first and second quarters of 2019.652 For a group of four prominent television broadcasters (Sinclair Broadcasting Group, Nexstar Media Group, Gray Television, and E.W. Scripps Company), advertising revenue declines, excluding political advertising revenue, ranged from 1.0% to 8.1% in the first quarter and from 16.5% to 36.0% in the second quarter.653 Executives from these companies, however, reported improvements in advertising revenue each month of the second quarter.654 Retransmission consent revenues have not been meaningfully affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although traditional MVPD subscribers declined during the first half of 2020, it is unclear whether this decline can be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. Even with subscriber declines, retransmission consent revenue earned by major station groups increased in both the first and second quarters of 2020 by nearly 20% compared to the first and second quarters of 2019.655 649 47 U.S.C. § 325(b). Every three years, commercial television stations must elect either the right to grant consent for the MVPDs in the DMA to retransmit the station s signal or the right to receive mandatory carriage by those MVPDs. Id. § 325(b)(3)(B); 47 CFR §§ 76.56(b), 76.64. 650 2018 Communications Marketplace Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 12615-16, para. 100. 651 See, e.g., Nexstar SEC Form 10-K at 14. 652 See Atif Zubair, Broadcast ad revenues to slide further post Q1 mid-single digit ad pullback, S&P Global (June 4, 2020) (Broadcast TV 2020 Q1 Results); Atif Zubair, Broadcasters see improvement in core ad revenue after double-digit dip in Q2, S&P Global (Aug. 26, 2020) (Broadcast TV 2020 Q2 Results). 653 Advertising revenue declines are based on same station results. See Broadcast TV 2020 Q1 Results, Broadcast TV 2020 Q2 Results. 654 See Broadcast TV 2020 Q2 Results. 655 Atif Zubair, TV station retrans growth keeps double-digit momentum in Q2, S&P Global (Aug. 19, 2020). 132 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 5. Competition in Video 218. We now discuss various aspects of competition among MVPDs, OVDs, and broadcast television stations. In doing so, we present data on household subscription to, and use of, multiple video services, as well as total subscription figures for the top video services. We also examine competition in advertising by presenting advertising revenue estimates by sector. 219. Time, Location, and Device Flexibility. As noted above, many consumers value the ability to watch video programming at any time and in any place. In response to consumer preferences, MVPDs, which traditionally offered linear video programming channels to view on a television set in the home, today also offer VOD content and DVR services as discussed above. In addition, many MVPDs offer TV Everywhere which allows subscribers to watch programming on devices other than a television set anywhere that has an internet connection. Among OVDs, vMVPDs also offer linear programming channels with some VOD programming and DVR capabilities, while AVOD, SVOD, and TVOD services are built around VOD programming. OVDs also offer location and device flexibility, as noted above, as OVDs are available via an internet connection and many are available on multiple devices. Broadcast stations offer linear video programming channels over the air and therefore cannot provide flexibility in viewing time, location, or device. However, consumers who view these stations through an MVPD or OVD may have additional flexibility. 220. Programming Content. MVPDs often hold significant content assets, and both OVDs and broadcast television stations have sought to own more content. Because MVPDs usually make their networks available to other MVPDs and vMVPDs, exclusive content is typically not a point of competition between MVPDs or between MVPDs and vMVPDs, as previously noted. MVPDs and vMVPDs, however, differentiate their services from other OVDs and broadcast television stations by offering a full complement of live sports programming.656 While other OVDs offer live sports programming, these services offer a limited variety of sports and a limited number of games.657 Broadcast television stations offer a variety of sports through network programming, but many games are aired only on national cable networks and regional sports networks. 221. To draw customers to their services, OVDs such as Netflix, Amazon, HBO Max, and Disney+ offer exclusive programming content both new TV shows and movies and already released video content on their services.658 As programming content owners, like Disney, Comcast, and AT&T, develop their own online video services, they have pulled back popular video programming content licensed to competitive OVDs to offer it exclusively on their own services.659 In addition, many OVDs develop exclusive original programming. In 2019, as shown in Figure II.D.5 above, Netflix spent an estimated $2.8 billion on original content, while Amazon and Apple spent $1.3 billion and $116 million, respectively. 656 MVPDs and vMVPDs offer national broadcast and cable networks as well as regional sports networks which air live sports programming. 657 For example, Amazon continues to expand live sports programming on its service, but it is not expected to gain exclusive streaming rights to all live sports in the near term. See Audrey Schomer, Amazon will be streaming the Yankees for Prime Members, Business Insider (Mar. 5, 2020), https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-expands- sports-streaming-ambitions-2020-3. In addition, sports league-specific OVDs offer only one sport, and games are often blacked out in the teams home markets. See NBA, Watch the NBA On-Demand, https://www.nba.com/watch/pricing (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); MLB, MLB.TV, https://www.mlb.com/live-stream- games/subscribe?affiliateId=MLBTVREDIRECT (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); NHL, NHL.TV, https://www.nhl.com/subscribe#features (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 658 Allegra Frank, Alissa Wilkinson, Emily VanDerWerff, and Alex Abad-Santos, The best and worst of the biggest streaming services, Vox (July 24, 2020), https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/5/29/21263715/hbo-max-netflix-hulu- disney-plus-amazon-apple-cbs-all-access-streaming-service-guide. 659 Tali Arbel, AT&T pulls  Friends from Netflix for its streaming service, AP News (July 9, 2019), https://apnews.com/557110226d10440c905f9563e70c4bc2. 133 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 222. Pricing and Contracts. As discussed above, MVPD subscriptions are declining. Many subscribers who cancel their MVPD subscriptions cite rising prices as a cause.660 In contrast, vMVPDs market themselves as a cheaper alternative to a traditional MVPD subscription.661 SVOD services are even less expensive, with some SVOD services also offering a lower priced service tier which includes ads.662 223. OVDs further distinguish themselves from MVPDs by prominently advertising their full subscription prices. In contrast, the service prices advertised by MVPDs typically do not include additional fees or equipment rental costs. 663 Beginning in December 2020, however, MVPDs will be subject to section 1004 of the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019, which requires them to disclose the total monthly cost to subscribers before sign-up and to clarify promotional discounts and when they expire.664 OVDs also offer flexible cancellation and free product trials.665 Many MVPDs, on the other hand, offer service under long-term contracts, and consumers often pay a fee to terminate the contract before its end date.666 Finally, initiating or terminating service from an OVD, which can be done online, is easier than initiating or terminating service from an MVPD, which may require a visit to the home by a service technician.667 224. Consumer Access. Consumer access to video providers depends on the geographic market and type of service. As noted above, most households have access to at least one cable provider and two DBS providers, and some also have access to a telephone company MVPD. To obtain service from an OVD, a consumer must have internet access. With respect to over-the-air television, the number of available stations depends both on the number of stations allocated to the consumer s DMA and the consumer s ability to receive a useable over-the-air signal from the station.668 225. Video Subscription and Use Data. In 2019, about 75% of TV households (about 90 million households) subscribed to a multichannel television service (MVPD or vMVPD service), while 660 James K. Willcox, Cord Cutting Continues, Fueled By High Cable Pricing, Consumer Reports Survey Finds, Consumer Reports (Sept. 17, 2019), https://www.consumerreports.org/telecom-services/cord-cutting-continues- high-cable-pricing/. 661 Sling, Stop paying too much for TV, https://www.sling.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); YouTubeTV, Cut the Cord and Save $500/year*, https://tv.youtube.com/learn/switch/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 662 The top five SVOD services in the United States by subscribership are Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, and HBO Max. See supra Fig. II.D.13. Among these, a premium subscription to Netflix costs the most at $15.99 per month while Hulu offers the least expensive service at $5.99 per month with commercials. Allegra Frank, Alissa Wilkinson, Emily VanDerWerff, and Alex Abad-Santos, The best and worst of the biggest streaming services, Vox (July 24, 2020), https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/5/29/21263715/hbo-max-netflix-hulu-disney-plus-amazon- apple-cbs-all-access-streaming-service-guide. 663 These additional charges are, however, generally included in the fine print of the advertisement. See, e.g., Comcast, Pricing and Other Info, https://www.xfinity.com/learn/offers/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 664 Section 1004 of the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019, Pub. L. No. 116-94, 133 Stat. 3200 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 562) (2019). The Commission granted an extension of the effective date of the Television Viewer Protection Act truth-in-billing requirements until December 20, 2020. Implementation of Section 1004 of the Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019, MB Docket No. 20-61, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 3008 (MB 2020). 665 See, e.g., HBOMax, Where HBO Meets So Much More, https://www.hbomax.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020); YouTubeTV, Watch & DVR Live Sports, Shows, and News, https://tv.youtube.com/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 666 Clark, How to get out of a cable or internet contract without paying a penalty (May 13, 2019), https://clark.com/technology/get-out-cable-internet-contract-no-penalty/. 667 See, e.g., Xfinity, Comcast Xfinity TV Packages and Plans, https://www.cabletv.com/xfinity/cable-tv (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 668 FCC, DTV Reception Maps, https://www.fcc.gov/media/engineering/dtvmaps (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 134 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 about the same share (74%) subscribed to SVOD service.669 Further, about 54% of TV households (about 65 million households) subscribed to both an MVPD or vMVPD and an SVOD service.670 That leaves approximately 21% of TV households (about 25 million households) that subscribed to an MVPD or vMVPD service but not an SVOD service and 20% of TV households (about 24 million households) that subscribed to an SVOD service but not an MVPD or vMVPD service.671 Further, consumers who subscribe to an SVOD service are likely to subscribe to multiple SVOD services. A 2019 survey, for example, found that 63% of respondents who subscribed to at least one prominent SVOD service, subscribed to multiple SVOD services.672 226. By comparison, Nielsen estimates that in 2018, 16 million households (about 13% of TV households) received broadcast station signals over the air using an antenna.673 Many over-the-air households also subscribe to OVD services. Nielsen estimates that about 60% of households that receive broadcast station signals over the air subscribe to an SVOD service, including 8% that also subscribe to a vMVPD service.674 227. Figure II.D.18 approximately summarizes the household subscription patterns described above.675 Each circle represents the approximate size of the population segment subscribing to the listed service category. The overlapping areas represent population segments that subscribe to multiple service categories. 669 Estimates referencing the share of TV households come from Leichtman Research Group. Leichtman Research Group, 4Q 2019 Research Notes at 4 (2020), https://www.leichtmanresearch.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/01/LRG-Research-Notes-4Q-2019.pdf (LRG Research Notes). The number of households in parentheses is the product of Nielsen s estimate of total TV households and the TV household share estimates. Nielsen defines a TV household as a home that must have at least one operable TV/monitor with the ability to deliver video via traditional means of antennae, cable set-top-box or satellite receiver and/or with a broadband connection. Nielsen, Nielsen Estimates 120.6 Million TV Homes in the U.S. for the 2019-2020 TV Season (Aug. 27, 2019), https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2019/nielsen-estimates-120-6-million-tv-homes-in-the-u-s- for-the-2019-202-tv-season/. 670 LRG Research Notes at 4. 671 Id. 672 The survey asked whether respondents subscribed to Amazon, HBO Now, Hulu, and Netflix. See Brian Bacon, Which of the big four SVOD services do you use? S&P Global (Apr. 8, 2020). 673 Nielsen, How the Growth and Evolution of the Over-the-Air TV Home Fits into Today s Viewing Landscape (Jan. 31, 2019), https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2019/how-the-growth-and-evolution-of-the-over-the-air- tv-home-fits-into-media-landscape/ (Nielsen Report on OTA Homes). The percentage of TV households is based on Nielsen s estimate of TV households for the 2018-2019 TV season. Nielsen, Nielsen Estimates 119.9 Million TV Homes in the U.S. for the 2018-2019 TV Season (Sept. 7, 2018), https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/article/2018/nielsen-estimates-119-9-million-tv-homes-in-the-us-for-the- 2018-19-season/. 674 See Nielsen Report on OTA Homes. 675 We did not find reliable information on use of the over-the-air broadcast service by subscribers to an MVPD service. We expect the practice to be uncommon because local broadcast stations are generally available with MVPD service. However, if MVPDs do not carry all available multicast channels transmitted by broadcast stations or if disputes over retransmission consent payments cause broadcast station blackouts, households may both subscribe to an MVPD service and use the over-the-air broadcast service. 135 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.D.18 TV Households by Subscription to or Use of Video Programming Services MVPD or vMVPD Households Over the Air Broadcast Households SVOD Households Source: LRG Research Notes; Nielsen Report on OTA Homes. 228. Figure II.D.19 shows year-end subscribers for the period 2015-2019 for all video providers with at least 10 million subscribers at some point during this time period, including major MVPDs and OVDs.676 In 2019, Amazon and Netflix had approximately 70 and 60 million subscribers, respectively, giving each more than twice as many subscribers as the next most popular video provider, Hulu, which had about 30 million subscribers. Disney+, which entered the market in 2019, had over 25 million subscribers by the end of that year. MVPDs (Comcast, Charter, DIRECTV, and DISH) saw subscriber declines from 2015 to 2019, while OVDs (Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, and HBO) saw subscriber increases over the same period. 676 Amazon subscribers include all Prime members, including those who do not use video. HBO subscribers include all OVD sources and exclude MVPD subscriptions. 136 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.D.19 Video Subscribers 2015 - 2019 80 60 40 20 Subscribers (millions) 0 Q4'15 Q4'16 Q4'17 Q4 '18 Q4 '19 Amazon Netflix Hulu Disney+ Comcast Charter DIRECTV HBO DISH Network Source: S&P Global, Q4'19 top US video provider rankings (Apr. 23, 2020). 229. Similarly, Figure II.D.20 shows vMVPD subscribers over the period 2015-2019. Subscribers to Hulu Live TV, Sling TV, and YouTube TV increased over the full period, while subscribers to AT&T Now increased until 2018 and declined in 2019. In spite of gains since 2015, by 2019, the number of vMVPD subscriptions remained relatively small compared to the number of MVPD and SVOD subscribers. No vMVPD had more than 4 million subscribers in 2019. In total, in 2019, there were approximately 9 million vMVPD subscriptions. Fig. II.D.20 vMVPD Subscribers 2015 - 2019 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Subscribers (millions) 0.5 0 Q4'15 Q4'16 Q4'17 Q4 '18 Q4 '19 Hulu Live TV Sling TV YouTube TV AT&T TV NOW Source: S&P Global, Q4'19 top US video provider rankings (Apr. 23, 2020). 230. Figure II.D.21 aggregates the information in Figures II.D.19 and II.D.20 to show total video subscriptions by service type. As discussed in previous sections, MVPDs subscriptions have declined over the past five years while OVD (SVOD and vMVPD) subscriptions have risen. In the fourth quarter of 2019, there were 79 million MVPD subscriptions, 9 million vMVPD subscriptions, and 220 million SVOD subscriptions. 137 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.D.21 Video Subscriptions by Service Type 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 Subscribers Subscribers (millions) 0.0 Q4'15 Q4'16 Q4'17 Q4 '18 Q4 '19 Total MVPD Total vMVPD Total SVOD Source: S&P Global, Q4'19 top US video provider rankings (Apr. 23, 2020). 231. Advertising Revenue. Figure II.D.22 provides a breakdown of local advertising revenue by sector over the period 2010-2019.677 Over this time period, online local advertising revenue increased to more than five times its 2010 value, and its share of local advertising revenue rose to more than 50%.678 While local advertising revenue for most other sectors declined or remained flat, local advertising revenue earned by newspapers declined the largest amount, falling from $21.5 billion to $8.8 billion. Over the past two years, local advertising revenue earned by broadcast television stations and cable TV and telecommunications companies remained relatively flat at $12 billion and $6 billion, respectively. In contrast, online platforms earned nearly $10 billion more in local advertising revenue in 2019 than in 2018. 677 Local advertising refers to advertising sold to businesses with a physical presence in the local market, while national advertising refers to advertising sold to national brands. 678 Three companies, Facebook, Google, and Amazon earn almost 70% of online advertising revenue. See Greg Sterling, Almost 70% of digital ad spending going to Google, Facebook, Amazon, says analyst firm, Marketing Land (June 17, 2019), https://marketingland.com/almost-70-of-digital-ad-spending-going-to-google-facebook-amazon- says-analyst-firm-262565 (Online Ad Spending Analysis). Local advertising revenues earned by broadcast TV stations from online advertisements are counted in the Internet/Online category. Online advertising accounted for about 12% of all advertising (local and national) revenues for broadcast stations. See supra Fig. II.D.17. 138 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.D.22 Local Advertising Gross Revenue by Sector (2010 - 2019) $100,000 $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 Revenue Revenue (millions) $20,000 $10,000 $0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Internet/Online Broadcast TV Stations Radio Stations Newspapers Cable TV and Telco Regional Sports Networks Other Source: S&P Global, Local versus National Advertising Revenues, 2010-2019 (2020). 232. Figure II.D.23 provides a breakdown of national advertising revenue by sector over the period 2010-2019. By 2019, national advertising revenue earned by online platforms increased to nearly four times its 2010 value.679 National advertising revenues for broadcast television stations, broadcast networks, and cable networks were relatively flat over the same period. Between 2018 and 2019, national advertising earned by cable networks remained flat at $28 billion, while revenue earned by broadcast networks and broadcast television stations fell by about $1 and $2 billion, respectively, to $18.1 and $6.9 billion. Because national advertising revenue earned by broadcast television stations includes political advertising revenue, the decline in broadcast station revenue from 2018 to 2019 likely does not reflect a significant downward trend. National advertising revenue earned by broadcast stations was similar in 2010 and 2018 at slightly below $9 billion. 679 See Online Ad Spending Analysis. 139 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 Fig. II.D.23 National Advertising Gross Revenue by Sector (2010 - 2019) $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 Revenue Revenue (millions) $0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Internet/Online Cable Networks Broadcast Networks Broadcast TV Stations Barter Syndication Radio Stations DBS Newspapers Radio Networks Other Source: S&P Global, Local versus National Advertising Revenues, 2010-2019 (2020). 6. Report on Cable Industry Prices 233. In the context of the discussion of MVPDs in the video marketplace, we report on the average rates charged by cable operators for basic cable service and other cable programming, as well as cable equipment to access such programming,680 as required by section 623(k) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992 (Cable Act)681 and RAY BAUM s Act of 2018.682 Consistent with the statute, the Commission is required to compare the rates of operators subject to effective competition to the rates of operators not subject to effective competition under a statutorily defined standard (hereinafter referred to as  effective competition ).683 In 680 A  cable operator (or operator) refers to an entity that operates a wireline system and is a multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) that makes available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming. 47 U.S.C. § 522(5).  Service tier (or service) refers to a cable service for which a separate rate applies. 47 U.S.C. § 522(l7). With regard to the statutory provision for regulation of rates, operators must provide a separately available  basic cable service (or basic service) to which customers must subscribe before accessing any other tier of service. 47 U.S.C. § 543(b)(7)(A).  Other cable programming service means any video programming other than programming offered with the basic service or programming offered on a per channel or per program basis. Id. § 543(l)(2). 681 Section 623(k), adopted as section 3(k) of the Cable Act, Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 543(k). 682 See RAY BAUM S Act of 2018, Act, Pub. L. No. 115-141, 132 Stat. 1087 § 402(e) (amending 47 U.S.C. § 543(k)). 683 Commission findings of effective competition generally are made in reference to a cable community identified by a cable community unit identifier (CUID). The Commission assigns a unique CUID to each operator for each community the operator serves. As discussed in Appx. E, the Commission recently changed its process and presumption for determining effective competition. In 2015, the Commission adopted a rebuttable presumption that cable operators in all cable communities are subject to effective competition. See generally Amendment to the Commission s Rules Concerning Effective Competition, Implementation of Section 111 of the STELA Reauthorization Act, MB Docket No. 15-53, Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 6574 (2015) (Effective Competition in Cable Report and Order). As a result of this change, operators in nearly all communities became subject to effective competition. In addition, in October 2019, the Commission found, for the first time, that a cable operator was subject to effective competition from a local exchange carrier (LEC)-affiliated online video distributor (OVD) under the LEC effective competition test. See Petition for Determination of Effective Competition in 32 Massachusetts Communities and Kauai, HI (HI0011), MB Docket No. 18-283, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 10229 (2019), appeal pending in Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable v. (continued& .) 140 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 addition, section 110 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 requires the Commission to report on retransmission consent fees paid by cable systems to broadcast stations or groups.684 The following presents an overview of the Commission s findings as of January 1, 2020, and fulfills these statutory directives.685 234. Average price over all communities. Cable prices increased over the 12 months ending January 1, 2020, at a relatively high rate compared to the average annual increase over the past five years. The monthly price for cable subscribers who take only the basic service grew by 10.7%, to $34.79, over the year ending January 1, 2020. Over the five years ending January 1, 2020, basic prices rose by an average of 7.9% per year. Prices for expanded basic service increased by 7.1%, to $86.70, over the year ending January 1, 2020. This compares to an average increase of 4.7% annually over the last five years. To account for growth in the number of channels offered with cable services, we also report price per channel (service and equipment lease price divided by number of channels). Over the year ending January 1, 2020, price per channel for basic and expanded basic service grew by 8.8% and 7.0% to 55 cents and 39 cents per channel, respectively. Over the past five years, price per channel for expanded basic service declined on average by 0.1% annually. In comparison to cable prices, the rate of general inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index (all items) rose by 2.5% over the 12 months ending January 1, 2020, and at an average annual rate of 2.0% over the last five years.686 235. Average price in the communities with a finding of effective competition compared to average price in communities without a finding. On January 1, 2020, the average price of basic service was 37.8% higher in effective competition communities than in the noncompetitive communities. The average monthly price of basic service was $25.30 in noncompetitive communities and $34.88 in effective competition communities. For basic service, price per channel for the noncompetitive group was 24 cents on average. For the effective competition group, price per channel was 55 cents per channel on average. While the average price of expanded basic service was 3.5% lower in effective competition communities ($86.68) than in noncompetitive communities ($89.85), the average price per channel for expanded basic service was higher in effective competition communities (39 cents per channel) than in noncompetitive communities (31 cents per channel). These price differences likely reflect a complicated mix of factors, with operators providing different service offerings in response to competition and regulation. In noncompetitive communities, the local franchise authority may regulate the price of basic service. In addition, since the reversal of the effective competition presumption, the number of communities in the noncompetitive group has been significantly reduced in comparison to the effective competition group. More than 99% of cable communities are now subject to effective competition.687 FCC, No. 19-2282 (1st Cir.). Rates of an operator subject to effective competition are not subject to regulation by a local franchising authority (LFA). 47 U.S.C. § 543(a)(2); 47 CFR § 76.905(a). An LFA may elect to regulate the rate of basic service of an operator not subject to effective competition. Id. 684 See section 110 of the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR). See Pub. L. No. 113-200, 128 Stat. 2059 (2014) enacted December 4, 2014 (H.R. 5728, 113th Cong.). Specifically, STELAR instructs the Commission to include in its now-biennial Report on Cable Industry Prices  the aggregate average total amount paid by cable systems in compensation under section 325 [of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,] and to report such information  in a manner substantially similar to the way other comparable information is published in the report. 47 U.S.C. § 543(k)(2), as amended. 685 The Commission s complete Report on Cable Industry Prices, containing additional data, information, and findings, can be found in Appx. E. 686 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items in U.S. City Average (CPIAUCNS), https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCNS (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 687 See Appx. E, Fig. 1 for the number of cable communities subject to effective competition. 141 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-188 236. Broadcast retransmission consent compensation fees. From 2018 to 2019,688 total retransmission consent fees paid by cable systems to television broadcast stations increased, on average, by 11.2%. Annual fees paid per subscriber increased, on average, by 17.8%, rising from $109.70 to $129.27 over the same period. Average monthly retransmission consent fees per subscriber per broadcast station increased by 20.5%, increasing from $1.07 to $1.29 from 2018 to 2019. Over the period 2013- 2019, the compound average annual increase in fees per subscriber was 32.3%. 237. Comparison of DBS to cable programming services. Direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers, DIRECTV and DISH, offer multichannel video services similar to the services offered by cable operators. Accordingly, we compared DBS services to the most popular cable offering as part of the Report on Cable Industry Prices, though not explicitly required by the statute. We looked at the DBS services which appeared most comparable to expanded basic cable service: DIRECTV s Choice and DISH s America s Top 120 Plus (AT120+). 689 238. As of January 2020, the average monthly price for cable s expanded basic service was $86.70, less than the price of DIRECTV s Choice service ($123.52) and less than the price of DISH s AT120+ service ($90.44). 690 Each cable and DBS service offered a core package of national channels along with local broadcast channels and regional sports networks depending on service location.691 From 2019 to 2020, the average monthly price for cable s expanded basic service increased by $5.72, an annual increase of 7.1%. In comparison, Choice service increased by $6.75 (annual increase of 5.5%) and America s Top 120+ increased by $5.45 (annual increase of 7.3%). Cable s expanded basic service had an average price per channel of 39 cents. This is lower than the average price per channel for both Choice service (55 cents per channel) and AT120+ service (53 cents per channel). 239. DIRECTV s Choice service offered 225 channels and DISH s AT120+ service offered 171 channels, compared to 257 channels offered with cable s expanded basic service. Though generall